How does Influence Work?

And Lo, a thread appears!

TAO has proposed a formula:

TAO:

OK, I left something out.  Try this on for thought.

I = 1/N (1 + E/WA)^t

Example, Region Pouchy has 3600 nations with 500 WAs.  Wombat Warriors has been in the region for 20 days and has 280 endos. 

Using the formula, after the 20 days, WW is a VASSAL.  This is pretty close to what really happened with me in TWP.

Click to expand...

Myself, I believe that there is a daily accumulation of influence like so:

I += C + E

That there is a value RI = Sum(all nations of region, I)

And that the displayed influence titles are some f( I / RI )

Please expand all these silly letters. "N"? "E"? "WA"? "C?"

Since we're throwing out formulae, I still have this one in mind:

I += A + E*B

Where E = endorsements received, A and B are constant factors.

I agree on RI and I/RI.

Edit: A week ago I proposed just such a think-tank on Jolt. If anyone responds I'll direct them here.

I remember trying to work this out when they introduced it and I think it may be more complicated than that.

Known factors:

Number of Endorsements
Time Spent in region
Number of nations in region (higher numbers spread influence out further, a region with one nation sits right at the top of the hierachy, thats why it takes so long to become a Vassal in a feeder)

But I also think that it depends on whether you are a UN or not, non-UNs gain influence but nowhere near as fast as UNs (but is this only down to a lack of endorsements)

Another thing is, I think it depends on WHO is endorsing you. For example, if there are two new nations, both with a single Endorsement. One of them is being endorsed by a nation with 150 endos and the other is being endorsed by a nation with 5, I think nation 1 will accumalate more influence. This may rely on them endorsing the nation back.

I also think you gain influence not only from the number on people endorsing you but also from the number of people you are endorsing. However, I am not sure about this one as if you are endorsing them then you are giving them influence and therefore spreading out the influence more, so logic would suggest otherwise.

By the looks of discussions on Jolt, the moderators seem happy that noone has really figured it out yet and that suggests it is more complex than the equations you are offering.

On top of this, to truly understand it we'd have to work out the exact formula and then also work out the amount of influence that it costs to ban or eject certain people in order to truly work out the effects of influence in TNP.

Number of nations in region (higher numbers spread influence out further, a region with one nation sits right at the top of the hierachy, thats why it takes so long to become a Vassal in a feeder)

Click to expand...

The unresolved question is still whether this affects the actual number of invisible "points", or only how many points are required for a particular label.

This question may seem superficial, but in the following situation will actually matter (which I might have described before):

-------------------------

Premise:

Nation A is a long-time influential delegate. Nation B is an invader.

Nation A leaves the region for an update, forfeiting endorsements but not influence. Nation B invades the region and quickly assumes the delegacy (but is poor in influence).

Now nation A has far more influence, but nation B's influence is growing much faster.

--------------------------------

Action:

Introduce a thousand puppet nations to the region, who do not need to be WA members.

--------------------------------

Effect if actual influence growth is affected by number of nations:

A and B accumulate influence more slowly. It will take a lot longer for B to surpass A in influence.

Effect if only labels are affected:

A and B continue to accumulate influence at the same rate, even though they might both be degraded to Minnows.

---------------------------------

As it is now, the "regional power" shows that the size of a region does affect the total influence accumulated, so there is no "fixed" amount distributed among all the nations. That is why I believe the second hypothesis is correct.

Please blame my crappy connection for this triple post, not me.

---

In the equations in the first post:

I = Influence
WA = number of WA nations in region
E = endorsements of nation
C = a constant
t = time
N = a constant

Actually, TAO used "N" as the Number of nations in the region ... since that is a known factor and one that does have an effect on Influence.

It would be great if we could gather 100 nations together (at least 10 of them WA) and create a region for experimentation. Are there 9 other players willing to commit their WA to such a thing? If ten of us could each create/move 10 puppets into such a place, it might provide some answers.

10 WAs is a very steep price in these days... especially given that the experiment could take more than a month to yield useful numbers.

Just one more incentive to get rid of these pesky pretenders as soon as possible. I want to do some science instead of trench warfare.

Ermarian:

10 WAs is a very steep price in these days... especially given that the experiment could take more than a month to yield useful numbers.

Just one more incentive to get rid of these pesky pretenders as soon as possible. I want to do some science instead of trench warfare.

Click to expand...

I hear ya!

But we should keep up the trench warfare until we really determine an infallible way to cornhole L&C with is own you-know-what.

I thought you said you knew already?

I was just reiterating something. I was being redundant.

You could start new natons and let them grow in the test region this could help in determing how time in region affects influence. No need to move WA nations in. Let the population grow to around 500 million to 1 billion, the current unpleasantness should be over by then.

Already did that one. The smaller the region, the faster influence grows for nations in that region, modified by the total number of nations in that region.

Hence, what I tried to explain to Gates one time is that he doesn't need to take a feeder region to control the WA. I have a tiny little region with about 30 nations in it. That region is listed as having as much 'regional' influence as TNP or any of the feeders. The UN Delegate's vote of that region has as much influence as the Delegate of TNP or any feeder. In fact, hundreds of tiny population regions (small number of nations) have delegates whose WA votes have the same or even more punch than a feeder delegate.

IOW, if you or any one of you puppets created several regions whose regional influence is something in the order of 'Moderate' or the like, it would only take about 5 of such regions working in concert (to have the delegates vote alike) to has as much WA influence as a feeder.

So, given the 15 or so regions that I have founded under 15 different puppets *and* if I could get Delegates for those regions to vote as I say, I could have more effect on WA issue votes than Gatesville ever dreamed of having with control of one paltry feeder region, or all the feeders combined. ;D

So, if the new paradigm is to control the WA (which is a totally bogus paradigm that no one really gives a tit about and has no real affect or meaning to those who do not ascribe to that paradigm) Gates totally missed the boat and will look foolish in the not to long term. ;D

IOW, if one plays to control the outcome of WA votes and resolutions, the real power is in controlling a key number of user created regions that have regional influence of at least the 'moderate' range. Controlling feeders is meaningless in that department because a handful of 'moderate' range user regions is worth more than all the feeders combined (unless you can convince everyone in a feeder to vote the way you want, which, of course, you can't because most people in feeders don't give a crap about WA votes and resolutions).

Hence, Gates has been barking up the wrong tree with his scheme to dominate all of the feeders. Of course, if you don't believe this or fathom it, you can test it for yourselves. I have, and it appears to work so far. In fact, I was thinking of introducing some totally whacky yet legitimate WA resolutions to prove it.

So, if we all decided to play the WA control game, Gatesville would be knocked into a cocked hat. For all I really care, Gates can control the WA and dictate WA resolutions and it doesn't matter a tinker's dam. It's just so funny to me because he is wasting his time in that task under his present course.

Of course this really means the invader/defender game is reinvigorated. I've been waiting to drop this one for a long time. Now that I have enough people as UN delegates of my created regions (puppets founders are a wonderful thing, eh?) I can now force through some really screw-ball WA resolutions as they are brought up. Don't believe it? Just watch what happens over a couple of months. The WA will be anarchy.

Just to present a 'teaser' - why do you think 'regional influence' is listed in WFE's? Man, oh, man, the mods and codemonkeys must think everyone is a bunch of dimschitz for so few people to have figured this out. Welcome to the Userite Universe.

A quick check on the regions I have puppets shows them to have a high level of influence with 15 of fewer WA members leads me to belive you.
Also I didn't know Gatesvillers wore hats shaped like penises. Is that what you meant by a cocked hat?

The UN Delegate's vote of that region has as much influence as the Delegate of TNP or any feeder. In fact, hundreds of tiny population regions (small number of nations) have delegates whose WA votes have the same or even more punch than a feeder delegate.

Click to expand...

Skeptical.

1.) How do you know the regional influence label doesn't just cap out far below what TNP actually has? If you need 1000 "points" in total for the region to get "Extremely High", then TNP could have 100,000 "points" and still only be Extremely High because you can't get better than that. Other labels are quite inflationary too, calling a few hundred millions in population "huge" and capping out at 1 Billion with "massive".

2.) As the moderators have pointed out, a "Dominator" in a small region has far less actual influence than a "Vassal" in a feeder...

3.) This is straight from the FAQ. "Regular WA member nations each get one vote. Regional Delegates, however, get an additional vote for every WA member in their region who endorses them. This can makes Delegates from large regions quite powerful."

Your WA vote "packs a punch" of 1. Unless you are the delegate, in which case it packs a punch based only on your endorsement count. Influence has nothing to do with voting on resolutions, and "controlling the WA" pretty much means resolutions.

I agree.

You seem to have confused WA voting with influence. Influence has no effect outside the region a nation has that influence in, it certainly does not effect the WA vote.

I have a tiny little region with about 30 nations in it. That region is listed as having as much 'regional' influence as TNP or any of the feeders.

Click to expand...

If you can find a region of thirty nations that has extremely high influence then be my guest.

Of course this really means the invader/defender game is reinvigorated. I've been waiting to drop this one for a long time. Now that I have enough people as UN delegates of my created regions (puppets founders are a wonderful thing, eh?) I can now force through some really screw-ball WA resolutions as they are brought up. Don't believe it? Just watch what happens over a couple of months. The WA will be anarchy.

Click to expand...

This won't happen.

You also confused me with the raider/defender bit, how renaming the UN the WA does anything is beyond me.

I think there is an indirect connection. If I understand correctly, regional Influence is based on total endorsements in the region. If you have a 30 nation region with an Extremely High Influence (I don't know if that's possible, I'm just using it as an example), then it likely has a very high percentage of nations in the WA and actively endorsing each other, and presumably endorsing the Delegate. That Delegate would have more WA votes than one in a region with Low Influence, simply because he has more endos.

I think Romanoffia is correct that a large number of small regions would have more control over the WA than one or two large regions, if they voted in unity. That COULD give raiders an incentive to take over multiple regions (if they cared about WA votes).

I've done some interesting experiments with a number of user created regions to test the theory. And yes, there are a number of user regions that have extremely high influence on par and above TNP. If I were diabolical and had the absolute cooperation of about 200 nations, and get the cooperation of a number of user regions and their delegates, I could literally dictate to the WA. I could even pass a resolution granting farm equipment civil liberties.

Under those conditions if properly established by distributive effort, controlling feeder regions would be waste of time, energy and resources. As it is now, small founderless regions with vigilant Delegates are unassailable because the influence rating of those delegates means they can, from small regions, repel invasions of hundreds of nations. Such a delegate could eject all day long, non-stop forever and not even get dented. ;D

And yes, there are a number of user regions that have extremely high influence on par and above TNP.

Click to expand...

Refer to my post above. Unless there is a label that is demonstrably "higher" than the label "Extremely High", there is no way you can tell how a user region compares to TNP. Just as you can't say a "Massive" nation is bigger than another "Massive" nation without knowing their exact population.

If I were diabolical and had the absolute cooperation of about 200 nations, and get the cooperation of a number of user regions and their delegates, I could literally dictate to the WA. I could even pass a resolution granting farm equipment civil liberties.

Click to expand...

If all of the nations who obey you absolutely are in the WA, then the maximum number of votes for passing resolutions is almost twice the number of nations (one less), and the maximum number of votes for bringing proposals to vote is a third of the nations.

Why?

Every delegate gets one vote on affirming proposals. To be a delegate, you need a region with three WA nations, two of whom endorse the other. So your 200 nations could be divided in 66 regions with delegates, which is how many delegate votes you get - a third.

On the other hand, if all of these nations are in one region, endorsing their delegate, and voting as you want, then you get 199 normal votes, 1 delegate vote and 199 extra delegate votes for the endorsements. 399.

You're wasting your time Erm.

Haor Chall:

You're wasting your time Erm.

Click to expand...

Because I figured it out with some help from the proper friends who designed it all.


Irony: I know, you don't: I laugh.


And for years no one listens, but they will.

Roman, quite frankly, I could not give a shit what you think.

Haor Chall:

Roman, quite frankly, I could not give a shit what you think.

Click to expand...

Take a purgative if you don't give a shit. You'll feel better.

Roman, is your goal in life to make a few people completely beside themselves?

Eluvatar:

Roman, is your goal in life to make a few people completely beside themselves?

Click to expand...

Hey, gotta knock the flies off the crap pile every once in a while or people get too complacent.