alard

I'm new to the game. I appreciate all the experts here who have multi year game perspective and an in-depth understanding of what's at stake, and I support your efforts. Needless to say, I am aware of the extent of my ignorance on the game and subject at hand yet still would like to offer my opinion & to contribute my part. Change has a ring of progress and sounds good if the intent is to improve, but not all changes achieve the desired effect. Regarding Influence cap: I hope you frown on notion of this cap which is unfair, why hold anyone down and relegate them to obscurity? That's a solid prescription to discourage active participation. (I doubt this is the goal, but sounds like a result). Every player thrives on feeling important (having real weight) even if they're not a delegate etc. Instead of an influence cap, if only nations could voluntarily donate influence for administrative use by delegates, guardians, officers etc, rather than being arbitrarily denied their naturally accrued influence, the game will be more engaging, fair and fun. That said, I would encourage to levy the said cap against passive nations that don't endorse the delegate & guardians and are not WA & regional government members. Carrot and stick approach not just stick. Regarding Endorsement cap: I understand the tier system discussed earlier and support it. In my humble view: Tier 1 (If did not endo delegate) - Cap 2 Tier 2 (If endo del & all guardians & is WA member) - Cap 50 Tier 3 (If gov't participant) - Cap 100 Tier 4 (If gov't officer) - 150 Tier 5 (Guardian et al) - Uncapped Another concern, if one passively exceeds the cap are they banjected (against their will)? Doesn't this undermine the fabric & strength of the community? Thank you for your time, consideration and your efforts to truly improve the experience for all participants!