NS Influence Change in TWP and all GCR's

[Westwind]

There are changes coming to NationStates, as was being discussed here:
 
http://www.westpacific.org/forums/index.php?/topic/503-major-ns-shakeup/
 
One of the changes that will only impact Game Created Regions such as The West Pacific, will be a change in how Influence is accumulated.  As it stands now, nations gain Influence through a formula that is kept secret.  There are a few things we know about it, like the fact that being a member of the World Assembly and gaining endorsements are the primary drivers of gaining Influence (but not the only means).  And it costs Delegates Influence to use some of their administrative capabilities.
 
I've always despised Influence, even though I understand why it was implimented. Max has insisted that Influence is not going away, so I've sought to understand it, and make use of it.  But I feel it's a poor implimentation that needs balance at the very least, and I support this coming change.  Since Influence was established, the active players of GCR's have had to contend with inactive old player nations that sit around endorsements, gaining Influence for years, becoming an impediment to the dynamics of active players.  And sometimes a threat to the regoinal community's Delegate.  Under the current circumstances, active players could choose and support a delegate that holds with certain policies, and those old inactive nations can decide they don't like it and override the active community, returning the entire region to a life of inactivity.
 
The coming change will place a cap on Influence.  The initial idea is to place a six month cap in place.  Each nation will only maintain six months worth of Influence, so those that spend years gathering Influence while they do nothing will no longer control the active life of a GCR.  I support activity, and this coming change will also support activity.
 
The thread on this can be found on the NS forums at:
 
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=258990

 

Influence in feeders and sinkers

This change would mean that any influence gained within feeder and sinker regions is capped at six months. Currently, when a nation gains influence within a region, so long as it remains within that region and doesn't spend it using regional controls, that influence will remain with it indefinitely. Influence gained over six months ago would therefore be "lost".

The intention of this change is to:

• Make influence in game-created regions more accurately reflect the recent state of the region.
• Increase the power of those that are currently engaged with the region relative to those that previously were but are no longer.
• Make changes of direction, including through coups, easier to implement.
• Ensure that communities can still be maintained within these regions

While this change could theoretically be applied to player-created regions too at some point in the future, that is not on the agenda at the moment - so please don't discuss it here.

The following aspects in particular need further discussion:

• The length of time that influence is retained - whether six months is an appropriate figure.

From the thread you can see that the six month figure is generally accepted, and I agree, although I'm willing to accept an alternative such as 9 or 12 months.

 

There are some sour grapes in that thread, almost exclusively from nations in TNP, where they like to maintain that huge pool of Influence to control their region from the sidelines. I don't agree, but respect TNP's policies for their own region.

 

It appears our friends in The Pacific have taken a step in preparation for this change by lowering their endorsement cap from 20 down to 10.  They will want to take this action to help preserve the dominance of the Delegate and appointed leadership.  I don't know that lowering the cap from 20 is neccesitated, as Influence is relative within a region, so I don't see alot of impact from bringing it down to ten.  But again, I respect and understand their policy and reasoning.

 

From my perspective of the Delegacy here in TWP, we have maintained a system of Guardians that provides a group of highly endorsed, high Influence nations that are prepared to protect the Delegacy.  Because we have this level of active protection, the Delegate can be a high influence Minnow, and be secure and successful. (Although, my experience from two feeder delegacies says, Vassal level Influence or higher is preferable for the Delegate)

 

I am considering what adjustments I should make in TWP in the endorsement cap, given the coming change.  I believe that as The Pacific has already shown (and is discussed on the NS thread) a lowering of endorsement caps can be expected across the GCR's in general.  The capping of Influence will reduce the relative Influence levels of older nations to newer nations, and will reward active nations over inactive nations.

 

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts, ideas, comments and input on this for TWP. At this point, I am considering the creation of a multi-tier endorsement cap.  Perhaps two or three endorsement levels.  I haven't considered numeric levels at all yet.  Just the general concept.

 

- A low endorsement cap for WA nations that have not endorsed the Delegate. (A Delegate endorses almost all WA's in the region, which helps each of them gain Influence.  When they fail to return the endorsement, it is an Influence drain upon the Delegate...the only nation in the region required to spend Influence)

 

- A higher endorsement cap for WA nations that are endorsing the Delegate

 

- Perhaps a third, higher cap, for nations that participate in regional activities (government, military, etc).  Activity should be encouraged, and perhaps this would be an additional incentive.  I want to support those that support TWP.

 

- The Guardians would continue to be cap exempt.  I would also consider adding non-Guardian cap exemptions for trusted active nations and those that have contributed to TWP through it's history.  This would also compensate for an otherwise lowered endorsement cap.

The floor is open for your thoughts.....

[punkdaddy]

Having given some thought to your tier cap system, West, I think it could be used for a number of things.

 

I like the low cap for people not endorsing the delegate. Not so easy to enforce because of how much you’d have to do to watch these folks. I still have high hopes for Regional Officers or the ‘goon squad’ as I called it that they could be the ones expending influence to enforce this, but overall I like the concept of the lowest tier.

 

At the next tier are those endorsing the delegate.

 

Then those participating in government.

 

Finally, I would say particular officers in government.

 

Given our current endo makeup, I’ll throw out some numbers.

 

Tier 1 (not endoing del) – Cap 20

Tier 2 (endoing the del) – Cap 50

Tier 3 (Government participant) – Cap 120

Tier 4 (Government Officer) – Cap 200

Tier 5 (Guardian) – Uncapped

 

Just my initial thoughts.

[Consular]

In my opinion that's a bit high.

 

Tier 1 (not endoing del) – Cap 25

Tier 2 (endoing the del) – Cap 50

Tier 3 (Government participant) – Cap 75

Tier 4 (Government Officer) – Cap 100

Tier 5 (Guardian) – Uncapped

[Darkesia]

Seeing as I have a history with a more harsh government style, you won't be surprised to find that I believe the cap for those not endorsing the delegate should be 1. If they are draining influence from the region, they should not be rewarded. A nation needs two endorsements to make WA proposals. If they want to live a quiet life of WA participation, they can pay the tax of their endorsement. Otherwise, I think Arch's tiers are pretty good.

Keep in mind this is going to link the forum community activity levels back into the in-game endorsement levels. It might take some fancy legislating and be a bit of a hard sell.

[Westwind]

I think the low cap would be easier to track than it sounds.  Not hard to establish a list of nations that aren't endorsing the Delegate.  Then just sort them by number of endorsements.  The enforcement may be more difficult initially for those with accumulated Influence.  ADMIN has indicated that the plan is to slowly transition to the new Influence cap, so old high Influence nations with lower endorsements won't lose their accumlated Influence all at once.  So the adjustment won't be abrupt, but rather phased in.

 

But lets take a look at some numbers....

 

Currently we have 449 WA nations.  147 of those have not endorsed the Delegate.

 

Eight nations have over 100 endorsements. 

Another 21 nations are between 50 and 100 endorsements.

 

All those nations have endorsed the Delegate.

 

In the 20 - 50 Endorsement range, there are 47 nations.  Three of those nations are not endorsing the Delegate (Greg Tucker, Ashkan, Nohn). Two of those have significant Influence.

 

So 144 nations that are not endorsing the Delegate are already below a proposed low cap of 20.

[Consular]

Have you telegrammed these three nations to see why they haven't endorsed you? 

[Westwind]

I haven't as it hasn't been an issue.  It may simply be an oversight, or lazy endorsing.  I don't mistrust any of them, nor consider them risks though. 

[TAO]

Like every change before this, it will take time to adjust.  However, EVERY system has its loopholes for exploitation.  And in the beginning of any system changes, some players make it over the learning curve (and are able to use these exploitation tools) long before others.  To prepare for this, the lower cap proposed by Archsium makes more sense at the start.  Once the fuller impact of the changes is understood, you could always relax limits.

 

Dark makes a good point, too.  If you aren't endorsing the Del, you don't need more than a couple of endos.  Maybe before the changes occur, you should contact those not endorsing you and deliver an ultimatum: endo, move, or be moved.  The ultimatum could be more nicely worded than that, of course, and express justifications for the policy.  If you do have to boot, you might as well do it before any potential limits are placed on your Del Influence.  There is always SlingShot to move the stubborn.

[punkdaddy]

I do want a bigger gap for those participating in the government than those endorsing the delegate to provide an incentive for people to participate in the government. I tweaked Arch's numbers a bit, with Dark's opinion in mind.

 

Tier 1 (not endoing del) – Cap 2

Tier 2 (endoing the del) – Cap 30

Tier 3 (Government participant) – Cap 75

Tier 4 (Government Officer) – Cap 100

Tier 5 (Guardian) – Uncapped

 

Tier 1 would be really tricky to enforce I think. But I do think it would be fun to enforce.

[Intelligent Holograms]

It seems clear that we are all working towards a 'tier system' of endorsements and that makes perfect sense considering the changes proposed and the possible effects they will have. Similarly to TAO, I believe that a lower cap should be enforced over the first month or so, so that those flouting the rules can have their spot at Friday Karaoke revoked. I also believe, however, that whatever system is first imposed will be imperfect in detection and application meaning that certain aspects will need changing over time so as to improve it. I can't say I'm too keen on Dark's views on WAs not endorsing the Delegate, but I am happy (save Tier one) with PD's Tiers as a starting point, to be relaxed over time as the dust settles.

[Westwind]

Some good points *nods*  Even with the low endorsement cap of The Pacific, they still have venerabilities that they need to be vigilant for.  As TAO points out, there are always ways to exploit the system.  And I would definately send out an advisory before changes go into effect.  And we can certainly adjust levels as we see the real effects play out.  Especially since the effects will be phased in.

 

 If you do have to boot, you might as well do it before any potential limits are placed on your Del Influence

 

 

Thinking about this, I expect the limits will effect the Guardians more than it will upon me as Delegate.  Six months of Influence means I should maintain the most Influence over others, as I have been Delegate most of that time.  But former Delegates with their Delegate accumlated Influence from years past will lose more in the change.  Might be a fair arguement for making the changes before the Influence cap goes into effect, so that if Slingshot is needed, we will use Influence that will be lost anyway.  Sedge and Ballo have indicated that Influence used will be taken from your oldest Influence first, before using newer Influence.  Which is an interesting insight, as I'd considered Influence to be an aggregate pool, rather than a linear accumulation from which it can be subtracted from points in time.

 

A bottom cap of two is reasonable given that's all you need in order to fully participate in the WA.  But will require more active monitoring, and reminding all WA's not to overendorse other nations. Perhaps then we establish a 'police force' that will report infractions.  Another way to participate in the region ingame.  Then again, perhaps matching the low cap to TP's ten would be fair and give a level of cross-GCR consistancy at that level.  And make it less of a burden in being careful not to overendorse.

 

Issues with the Governmnent participant level would include defining what participation is included, and enforcing removal or lowering of their endorsements when they go inactive, which will likely be frequent.  Lets say nation XYZ joins the Landstraad, becoming a government participant.  How long will that player be allowed to go without posting or voting before they are no longer considered a participant and should they face immediate ejection to reduce their endorsements, or should a process of warnings and opportunity for volunteer reduction occur ?  I can eject just before update, rather than banject, to spare Influence spending, and allowing them to return after update with their endorsements thus removed.  And if they are aware of the consequences ahead of time, then a process of warnings and volunteer reduction isn't neccessary.  We wouldn't want the time frame for active participation to be too long, because I don't want to waste Influence kicking a nation that's been inactive but accumulating Influence for two months.

 

Some Influence spending might be able to be spread around with the Regional Officer change as well, but since they seem determined to make that another Influence cost, I'm not likely to make use of that feature.

[Westwind]

*chuckles*

 

Six months of Influence means I should maintain the most Influence over others, as I have been Delegate most of that time. 

 

 

On the other hand, I'm the one that's been spending Influence, rather than the Guardians.  I lost two weeks worth of Influence banjecting Dragonstorm for example.

 

Update from the NS forum, it seems that the six month limit is pretty solid, but they are open to comments on how it should be initially implimented:  a more immediate implimentation, or a phased in implimentation.  I personally would rather it be immediate, rather than having to wait over time for the full effect.

[Sensorland]

Personally, this is a great idea. Also, with the Regional Officers change, I suppose you'll make the guardians Officers? And I guess the exempt non-guardian nations would NOT be officers?

 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

I love the idea, and fully support it. My idea for the endo cap is:

 

I figure for nations that haven't returned endorsements, you should make the endo cap at 50 or so.

 

For nations that returned endos, have the cap at around 100.

Finally, for TWP government and military nations,  you should have the cap at the current 120, give or take some.

[Westwind]

The implimentation of Regional Officers is still too unclear to make many assumptions about how to use that feature yet.  Seems most expectations are that there will be an Influence cost to appoint them, and I don't see how that would benefit me as Delegate of a GCR to waste Influence on RO's.  It's also undecided as to what powers a RO might be granted, and what the Influence cost to them might be.

 

These new features are being approached almost purely from a raider/defender dynamic point of view.  I support making the r/d game more dynamic, but it seems they are sidelining consideration of the non-r/d effects. 

[Sensorland]

Alright, makes sense. I see what you're talking about. I suppose in that case, that it'll be different (or not), but anyway, full support to the endo changes!

[simple country]

If I was the delegate I will just lower it to 90 endorsements for all except guardians

[Westwind]

*nods*  IMO, allowing that high an overall cap under the coming Influence cap would greatly increase the threat of a Delegacy coup.  Yet, I want a level of freedom of endorsement, so I propose the multi-tier solution.

 

If I wanted to be a threat to TWP, I'd park a WA nation just below the endo cap a sit there for six months to gain the maximum Influence possible. After six months, it would be costly for the Delegate to remove me, and if the Delegate becomes inattentive, I'd also have significant Influence built up to hold the Delegacy once I stole it.

[Mediobogdum]

As a relatively newcomer to NS and a Minnow to boot, I should still like to comment on subject matter.  One of the fun things to do when I first enrolled in NS was to play around with WA endorsements to get a few under my belt. This habit has now been greatly curbed but momentum has taken over slightly!  New-comers seem to automatically receive at least 6 endorsements from the TWP WA Delegate and assorted Guardians - I think I have the full complement and I have returned said same to all.  I should hate to be capped at less than 75 endorsements just because I have not been taking part in campaigns abroad. 

 

I am still learning the ropes in many areas but have been a faithful servant of TWP and have had lieutenants looking around at other regions.  I have come to the firm conclusion that none of those regions come up to the mark! 

 

The idea of some form of endorsement capping seems eminently sensible but I do not fully comprehend the methodology of using or losing influence just to maintain order in the ranks!  I do not see the necessity for a further layer of control with Regional Officers which will lead to just more bureaucracy.  Any TWP WA nation that does not endorse the encumbent Delegate and Guardians within a few weeks of becoming a TWP WA Member should be given an ultimatum - endorse or be ejected.  You can not be a member with the priviledges and not expect to pay homage!  For those longer-standing free-loaders, just give them a period of time to comply and if they do not, eject them.

 

I care very much about TWP and trust that matters are not made too harsh for those like myself.  My humble suggestions are:

 

To continue to be a TWP WA Member - endorse WA Delegate and all Guardians - makes a minimum of 7 endorsements.

 

Retain present endorsement cap at 120 for non-Guardian nations. 

 

Guardians - rotate all six on an annual basis ie, one 'off' every 2 months and replace from amongst the top TWP endorsed nations, which are considered by the present Guardians as being suitably qualified. Those Guardians who have been replaced will automatically have to reduce their endorsement level to no more than 120.

 

Do we have elections for Guardians - can we?

[Westwind]

You make a good point that while a low cap of two has some appeal and logic, it becomes impractical in the face of the combined endorsements provided by the Guardians.  In that accounting, any new WA nation is likely to get 4 - 7 endorsements quickly without effort. I also give some consideration that our Bill of Rights and Obligations recognizes the freedom of our nations to give or withold endorsements freely, while also recognizing the right of the Delegate to the use of the tools the game provides.  As we have continued these discussions, I lean more towards a low cap of 10 - 20 for WA nations that do not endorse the Delegate.

 

I also feel that active participation should not be classified as only government participation, as those that regularly contribute to the RMB are also worth recognizing.

 

The need to control Influence is related to the mechanics of Influence, as well the effect of being a GCR, and thus being Founderless.  A Founded UCR region does not need to worry about the Influence level of it's Delegate, as the Founder has access to Regional Controls without cost.  The Founder can banject every nation in the region if he/she wishes, at no Influence cost.  But a Delegate must spend Influence, and the more Influence a nation has, the more Influence the Delegate must spend to banject them.  A long-term coordinated plan of attack can defeat a GCR Delegate by forcing them to spend Influence until they are ineffectual, and thereby venerable to being ursurped.  A Delegate can attempt to accomdate this, by banjecting the low Influence endorsers of a high endorsement threat, but a high endorsement cap will allow multiple nations to accumulate significant Influence.  So all-in-all, the cap is a tool to prevent that situation from occuring in the first place.

 

As high Influence GCR nations lose the Influence they've accumulated over years in this change, it promotes opportunity for newer nations at their expense.  And reduces the available Influence to remove threats.

 

Regional Officers could be useful if it's not a burden in Influence cost.  For example, Guardians could be RO's with access to the Regional Controls so that they could banject any threats while I'm on vacation or sick.  The will likely be restrictions on their use though, such as a higher Influence cost to banject than there is for the Delegate.

 

On the subject of the Guardians, we don't have elections for them as they serve at the pleasure of the Delegate.  Elections would have to be restrictive to provide that they are active, trusted by the Delegate, have high Influence, and understand game mechanics and rules well enough to properly apply them as needed. Also consider that the Guardians are among the highest Influencial nations in the region.  Other high Influence nations are either inactive or uninterested in serving as Guardians.  A Guardian needs to have enough Influence to banject threats in place of the Delegate if needed.   There is potential for opportunity among the Guardians however, especially as the six month cap on Influence may allow newer, active nations a better opportunity to rise among the ranks of Influence more quickly.  And I think that's a good thing.

 

It would also be difficult to enforce replaced Guardians to drop below the endorsement cap.  If they don't want to, it will likely be too costly for the Delegate to eject them to enforce it.  Again, the higher a nation's Influence, the more costly to eject or ban them. 

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

The influence levels of the Guardians has always been a two-edged sword.  Luckily we're a trustworthy lot.

 

*Measures the gap between Westies shoulder blades.*

 

Actually am I the only Guardian who hasn't been Delegate?

[Darkesia]

It's not like we haven't offered, BBD.  More than once, in fact.  We can't be blamed if your infernal RL gets in the way of our plans for your world domination.

[Eli]

that's true :)

[Intelligent Holograms]

Sounds like a hint, BBD.

[Westwind]

I've made the same hint, yes.

[TAO]

You should go for it, BBD.