NationStates Jolt Archive

From the News page:
Regional Influence, Invasions, and Griefing

All nations now have a "Regional Influence" label displayed on their home pages. Regional Influence is how important a nation is considered in its region. Similarly, the new "Regional Power" label for regions describes how important a region is considered in the world at large.

Regional Influence isn't just a nice ranking: it's at the heart of a change to how UN Delegates get to wield power. It's quite a comprehensive change, so a special page has been created with all the detail. Read More! (http://www.nationstates.net/page=influence)
Enjoy. :)

Edit by Sirocco: we also have an IRC channel on the Espernet server if you wish to ask questions: #influence

Edit by [violet]: Some common questions are answered here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10754281&postcount=167).

I like the idea and it helps a lot but I sort of expected more, but this is fine.

An interesting way to approach it. I look forward to seeing how this changes things.

Oh so that's what it is. Nice stuff. I approve.

It will be interesting to see how this works out.

I imagine it'll take a lot of empirical evidence before we see the full implications of this.

OMGs


Theze changes are the shizzle! U'z Da B0m8!





In all seriousness. Great job. Interesting read about the "National Influance" thing. And i like the new way that was set up for the whole issue of Invasion vs. Griefing. It is very, well, ingenious. My hat goes off to the one (or many) who designed the new system for the enjoyment of the NationStates Community.

So it looks like in each nation they have power (ranks) I think it is handshaker>negotiator>instigator>superpower tell me if I missed any.

My influence is currently at Powerbroker. So ya did miss one.

and when you start there is minow

So it looks like in each nation they have power (ranks) I think it is handshaker>negotiator>instigator>superpower tell me if I missed any.

There are lower ranks as well. Vassal and minnow, for example.

HotRodia is a minnow, which I must admit I find terribly amusing.

ok
minnow > vassal > handshaker > negotiator > instigator > powerbroker > superpower

how's that?


P.S. I wish there was a way to see everyones ranking so you don't have to goto each page, hopefully they will put it in NSEconomy

Wait, mine is Eminence Grise. What the heck is that?

We need to figure out these levels, or easier find a list somewhere.

Ambassador should in there somewhere.

I think these levels should do more then help against region griefing.

I think these levels should do more then help against region griefing.

They will, I assure you. This will have a serious long-term impact on regional politics.

In the past, a nation's influence in the region would have been determined by things like communicating with other nations, nation age, postcount on the forums/offsite forums, position in regional government, etc.

Now, we have a more strictly game-based system for determining a nation's influence in the region. It really enhances the game itself and makes it more interesting, but this will I think have a negative impact on those of us who relied more on social skills to gain influence.

Just my two centavos.

At first glance, I hated these changes. But now I'm in love with them. I think these are really ingenious, and I applaud your effort.

Great job! I just hope time is as good to these changes as my perception is.

They will, I assure you. This will have a serious long-term impact on regional politics.

In the past, a nation's influence in the region would have been determined by things like communicating with other nations, nation age, postcount on the forums/offsite forums, position in regional government, etc.

Now, we have a more strictly game-based system for determining a nation's influence in the region. It really enhances the game itself and makes it more interesting, but this will I think have a negative impact on those of us who relied more on social skills to gain influence.

Just my two centavos.

On the other hand, it could just force those of us who rely on our social skills to use them in attaining very specific in-game goals. But it is still very limiting for us even then.

Wait, mine is Eminence Grise. What the heck is that?

It means you weild power when you don't have it. That's my rank too.

There are lower ranks as well. Vassal and minnow, for example.

HotRodia is a minnow, which I must admit I find terribly amusing.
I find it annoying that Sarzonia is a Vassal, but meh. This is an interesting change and I'm glad there is some substantive change in the whole invader/defender rule set.

There isn't any chance that a player's activity in the UN could play a role in regional or national influence, is there?

Some of us as nations, and as regions, have been successful with proposals in the UN; since votes tallies are known on a proposal that reaches the floor, it might still be something that could be factored in.

There isn't any chance that a player's activity in the UN could play a role in regional or national influence, is there?

Some of us as nations, and as regions, have been successful with proposals in the UN; since votes tallies are known on a proposal that reaches the floor, it might still be something that could be factored in.


I think endos count toward it, but I agree that resolutions should as well - even if they've been repealed.

Has a complete list of the levels been posted yet?

It seems that endorsements are the only factor.

Perhaps as this is updated things like population and world ranking on certain issues can be included.

#1 in the world today has the influence of a minnow.

Is there a chart of the different influence levels?

From checking the regions where I maintain nations, I can confirm the existence of Powerbroker, Eminence Grise, Duckspeaker, Truckler, Diplomat, Dealmaker, Ambassador, Contender, Minnow, Negotiator, and Handshaker influence ranks. It also appears that Powerbroker is a higher rank that Eminence Grise, since my 36-million-pop regional founder puppet has Powerbroker rank, while my 20-million-pop puppets in the same region have Eminence Grise status.

Maybe the Categories of Gov't Types, Freedoms, Economy, and Post Numbers' and Their Names (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392208) thread will be updated with the influence category information? :)

There's also a Superpower rank.

Influence is determined by two factors: how much time the nation has spent in this region, and how many UN endorsements it has had over that time.

Would any like-minded rules-lawyering nitpickers -- ie, folk whose ingenuity I admire -- care to comment on what effect, if any, this might have on 'you endorse me and I'll endorse you' TG barrages?

In regions where the delegate's UN vote is determined by member nations, is anyone contemplating a weighted voting system that takes into account each nation's 'influence' -- eg, an Eminence Grise's vote = one-and-a-half Minnows, or whatever?

Ooh, this is going to be so fascinating for social scientists, political theorists, statisticians, strategists, people with time on their hands and all us other nerds.

Nonono:

One nation = one endorsement.

Just even if you get the endorsements, you still might not have the influence to do much with them.

I think superpower is the highest, I think you can only get it if you have been in the region for awhile and have been the U.N. delegate for a while with a substantial amount of endorsements

Could a moderator or other please post the ranks, and which order they lay?

Unless I've missed something, I can't find anything official regarding them.

Ta.

I found one more level of influance: "Power" (not Power Broker or Super Power). The country with this level is "Hajoui" , a regional deligate with 5 endorsements

Ok.....

How do we get an estimate on how much influence it'll cost to eject/ban a person?

TAO is also labled "minnow" in TWP. :) I am still trying to get a handle on what these changes will do for those of us who currently find ourselves at the bottom of the region yet who have been in a region for months/years.

I guess it is time to return my UN to TWP and begin endo-swapping. {sigh}

Nice to see I'm labelled as "Eminence Grise". And my region, Europa, seems to be pretty "high" in the power ranking. Still, I keep wondering why for example our founder is labelled as "Minnow", since his influence is the greatest of them all. Something to work on?

All in all: thanks for the new feature(s) ! :)

Founders can do anything they like in their region, so the Influence label doesn't really apply to them. It reflects how easily they can be kicked, but that's it. And there's not even much point in that since they can rejoin without any hassle.

I am an Enforcer

Anyone else this?

If a Founder leaves their region, does Delegate Regional Control still get automatically activated for the duration of the Founder's absence?

So let's see what we have so far:

Minnow
Vassal
Contender
Dealmaker
Duckspeaker
Handshaker
Negotiator
Instigator
Enforcer
Eminence grise
Ambassador
Power
Powerbroker
Superpower

Keep this updated. What else?

Is that list supposed to be in order from least influence to most influence? By the way, I'm an Instigator.

Not in any order, since no one has figured it out yet. It's more or less confirmed that "minnow" is less powerful than "superpower" though. ^_^

I think superpower is the highest, I think you can only get it if you have been in the region for awhile and have been the U.N. delegate for a while with a substantial amount of endorsementsI'm "Superpower" at the moment but I've never even been in the UN so that can't be right. Now I have been in the region for 6 months already.

Another one is Hermit. I've only seen this on people in 1 nation regions.

Auxiliary and diplomat ^_^ so far, the way I see it, only delegates go up beyond minnow, well at least founders can still bar regional access from delegate :p

I just found another one - Truckler

What does that even mean!?

so does these rues apply to founders too, they're power will become less too?

Founders in effect don't "have" power (at least they don't need it). They can do whatever they wish without it costing them any influence.

Founders can do anything they like in their region, so the Influence label doesn't really apply to them. It reflects how easily they can be kicked, but that's it. And there's not even much point in that since they can rejoin without any hassle.

Read the thread :p

oh... thanks! ;)

If a Founder leaves their region, does Delegate Regional Control still get automatically activated for the duration of the Founder's absence?
That has not changed. Works exactly like it did before. I think the Founder actually has to re-enter Regional Control on return to lock the Delegate out again.

Duckspeaker was my idea :D

Edit:
Main Entry: truck·le
Pronunciation: 'tr&-k&l
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): truck·led; truck·ling /-k(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: from the lower position of the truckle bed
: to act in a subservient manner : SUBMIT
synonym see FAWN
- truck·ler /-k(&-)l&r/ noun

There's a rank called Envoy too...

This is all a very nice idea, but it is annoyying that the amount of power seems to be decided upon by UN membership and endorsements. I was UN Delegate in my region for well over 200 days but I have now left the UN because I dissagreed with some of the resolutions passed. I am also Prime Minister of the Methody Region (It was decided by a vote) so I would like to think that I have quite a bit of power. I have been in the same region for 2 years. What exactly is preventing me from getting a High Power Status?

I have been in the same region for 2 years. What exactly is preventing me from getting a High Power Status?Probably the fact that we haven't been tabulating Influence for two years.

My status is powerbroker, yet I have no endorsements. I think that a nation's regional influence is decided by using several very complicated factors.

I have been in the UN since 2003 and the UN delegate in my region for 562 days, and the regionial power is HIGH, but I am only a 'negotiator' and the founder, who is my boyfriend and so can't be UN as we share a computer, is only a 'Minnow' I was wondering WHAT you have to do to improve your standings? It says nothing that I can SEE in the news about it...does anyone know?


:D

So let's see what we have so far:

Minnow
Vassal
Contender
Dealmaker
Duckspeaker
Handshaker
Negotiator
Instigator
Enforcer
Eminence grise
Ambassador
Power
Powerbroker
Superpower

Keep this updated. What else?

Hegemony and Dominator should be added. They just keep coming.

I'm a bit annoyed because my region of 66 members has a low regional power. Maybe it's because we have no UN nations.

Ok, I just looked at OCR's profile page and regional page to compare to mine, as an example.

OCR------------------------------------------------Rondebosch
330 million----------------------------------------6.417 billion
UN Member---------------------------------------UN Delegate (currently 2 endorsements, delegate for 562 days)
Region: Democracy (9 nations, backwater)-----South Africa (11 nations, backwater)

Democracy is also a newish region (compared to South Africa, which was refounded about 2.5 years ago)

Yet OCR is a Powerbroker and I am only a Power?? What the hell???

Maybe Power is ranked higher than Powerbroker? (Maybe Powerbroker should be around Enforcer in the list?)

Why won't they just give us a list? Why?

Hegemony and Dominator should be added. They just keep coming.
I've seen someone with diplomat.

It does seem somewhat counterintuitive - England's regional power is 'very high' (we have 221 nations) but our delegate of the last three years (with 53 endorsements) is only a 'contender'.

I see that. Very weird.

BTW, I noticed that you're an "Envoy". That needs to be added to the list.

Until an admin posts a complete list, if you find new rankings then copy this list (and this explanatory sentence) and add your discoveries. I don't think there's much point trying to put it in power order as we really don't know at the moment.

Ambassador
Auxiliary
Contender
Dealmaker
Dominator
Duckspeaker
Eminence grise
Enforcer
Envoy
Handshaker
Hegemony
Instigator
Minnow
Negotiator
Power
Powerbroker
Superpower
Vassal

Ambassador
Auxiliary
Contender
Dealmaker
Dominator
Duckspeaker
Eminence grise
Enforcer
Envoy
Handshaker
Hegemony
Instigator
Minnow
Negotiator
Power
Powerbroker
Superpower
Vassal
Truckler

Until an admin posts a complete list, if you find new rankings then copy this list (and this explanatory sentence) and add your discoveries. I don't think there's much point trying to put it in power order as we really don't know at the moment.

Ambassador
Auxiliary
Contender
Dealmaker
Dominator
Duckspeaker
Eminence grise
Enforcer
Envoy
Handshaker
Hegemony
Instigator
Minnow
Negotiator
Power
Powerbroker
Superpower
Truckler
Vassal


(I just rearranged the last post because the list is now in alphabetical order (for those who haven't noticed).)

Edit: Fixed an accidental double post of the list.

Ok, I just looked at OCR's profile page and regional page to compare to mine, as an example.

OCR------------------------------------------------Rondebosch
330 million----------------------------------------6.417 billion
UN Member---------------------------------------UN Delegate (currently 2 endorsements, delegate for 562 days)
Region: Democracy (9 nations, backwater)-----South Africa (11 nations, backwater)

Democracy is also a newish region (compared to South Africa, which was refounded about 2.5 years ago)

Yet OCR is a Powerbroker and I am only a Power?? What the hell???

Maybe Power is ranked higher than Powerbroker? (Maybe Powerbroker should be around Enforcer in the list?)

Why won't they just give us a list? Why?



Maybe we are not meant to know the hierarchy of the regional influence ratings, as this may add to the invasion/defence element of NationStates.

Maybe we are not meant to know the hierarchy of the regional influence ratings, as this may add to the invasion/defence element of NationStates.

Perhaps - although around here I think they prefer sadism to secrecy - but then there would really be no point in listing a nation's ranking if you don't know its meaning. Instead, you would just need to know if you could eject someone using the regional controls, and the system that is implemented calculates this and tells you whether it is possible on a nation-by-nation basis.

So it looks like in each nation they have power (ranks) I think it is handshaker>negotiator>instigator>superpower tell me if I missed any.
My nations have dominator, instigator, auxilliary, ambassador and hermit, and I found someone with minnow. But I don't know what order those are supposed to go in. Which is supposed to be higher the ambassador or the dominator? Or or the instigator. I'm guessing that auxilliary and minnow don't have much influence. Is that correct?

Founders can do anything they like in their region, so the Influence label doesn't really apply to them. It reflects how easily they can be kicked, but that's it. And there's not even much point in that since they can rejoin without any hassle.
founders can be kicked out of their regions?

Auxiliary and diplomat ^_^ so far, the way I see it, only delegates go up beyond minnow, well at least founders can still bar regional access from delegate :p
not true. None of my nations Un delegates. But they have instigator and dominator and ambassador and auxilliary. I think if your region has no delegates, the length of time in the region is probably the main determining factor.

Ambassador
Auxiliary
Contender
Dealmaker
Diplomat
Dominator
Duckspeaker
Eminence grise
Enforcer
Envoy
Handshaker
Hegemony
Hermit
Instigator
Minnow
Negotiator
Power
Powerbroker
Superpower
Truckler
Vassal


Has anyone noticed that the feeder regions have a really high rating, while everyone else has "low". Cant this ranking be based on the single region, instead of comparing against other regions?

These influence ranking need to be worked upon slightly.

founders can be kicked out of their regions?Of course. It's always been possible, it's just not horribly effective as they can always unban themselves.

They will, I assure you. This will have a serious long-term impact on regional politics.

In the past, a nation's influence in the region would have been determined by things like communicating with other nations, nation age, postcount on the forums/offsite forums, position in regional government, etc.

Now, we have a more strictly game-based system for determining a nation's influence in the region. It really enhances the game itself and makes it more interesting, but this will I think have a negative impact on those of us who relied more on social skills to gain influence.

Just my two centavos.

Hmmm... That's almost exactly the opposite of how I read it. As I understand it, it's mostly based on endorsements, which, in my experience, are all about popularity (aka "social skills").

Anyways, hopefully it willl only influance the "invasion game" and not seep into the RP game.

These influence ranking need to be worked upon slightly.
So work on 'em. We don't mind. 'Course, we like 'em just the way they are, so we won't be changing them.

Anyways, hopefully it willl only influance the "invasion game" and not seep into the RP game.
There is only one game, Daistallia. There are different aspects to it, and we've built in ways to avoid or ignore the parts you don't like. If people don't use the provided tools (passwords, founders, etc.) to avoid the parts they want to avoid, that's not something we are going to get worked up over. Please recognize that and adapt to it.

It's confusing. My UN nation is a minnow, and so is my nation that's stayed in the same region for 2 months. Sagit hasn't been in the game as long, and it's a vassel, and another nation, newer than Sagit and prone to region-hopping, is a truckler.

My head hurts! :)

I'm a bit annoyed because my region of 66 members has a low regional power. Maybe it's because we have no UN nations.

And that's the other thing that seems very unfair to me. Can someone tell me why being a UN member and the number of endorsements were decided on as being fair measures of influance?

Region Power, listed on the page underneath Founder, appears to have as much to do with UN endorsements the Delegate has than actual region size. Is there more regional power in regions where the Delegate and Founder are the same nations? There also seems to be a relation not so much in the size of the region but the number of UN members in a region. It’s hard to say because of so much conflicting data, when you look at the world. Let’s look at this list of regions and compare.


Sweden: 73 nations, dead founder, delegate endorsed by 15, UN states 25 (Regional Power: Low)

Ireland: 57 nations, dead founder, delegate endorsed by 27, UN states 34 (Low)

Bigtopia: 19 nations, active founder, no delegate, UN states 7 (Low)

Apolyton: 24 nations, dead founder, delegate endorsed by 2, UN states 4 (Low)

The New Meritocracy: 87 nations, active founder, no delegate, UN states 0 (Low)


North America: 129 nations, active founder, delegate endorsed by 26, UN states 49 (Moderate)

Farkistan: 40 nations, active founder, delegate endorsed by 16, UN states 18 (Moderate)

Equilism: 185 nations, active founder, delegate endorsed by 45, UN states 67 (Moderate)

Suomi: 70 nations, dead founder, delegate endorsed by 13, UN states 21 (Moderate)


Portugal: 115 nations, dead founder, delegate endorsed by 24, UN states 49 (High)

Axis of Absurdity: 63 nations, founder/delegate endorsed by 19, UN states 35 (High)

Wysteria: 293 nations, active founder, delegate endorsed by 54, UN states 94 (High)

Canada: 288 nations, pre-founder, delegate endorsed by 78, UN states 123 (Very High)

There is only one game, Daistallia. There are different aspects to it, and we've built in ways to avoid or ignore the parts you don't like. If people don't use the provided tools (passwords, founders, etc.) to avoid the parts they want to avoid, that's not something we are going to get worked up over. Please recognize that and adapt to it.

Yeah, I realise that - that's why I said it in quotes. It just seems a rather unfair way of determining influance. But that influance seems aimed at invading, part of the game that I never really understood or participated in, so it gets ignored and all is OK. :)

And that's the other thing that seems very unfair to me. Can someone tell me why being a UN member and the number of endorsements were decided on as being fair measures of influance?
The way I see it, it's because the influence measures are to help with rules for invasions. Invasions require UN endorsements.

The way I see it, it's because the influence measures are to help with rules for invasions. Invasions require UN endorsements.

lol You know, I never thought of that. :D

As I said, I never really understood or did the "invasion game". Now it makes sense. Still don't like it, but at least it makes sense. :)

I've seen regions with the following regional powers and number of nations (minimum-maximum):

backwater (1-27)
low (10-104)
moderate (40-185)
high (63-295)
very high (288-2237)
extremely high (1218-5712)

A region with 104 nations could be low, moderate, or high.

Would a delegate use up more influence ejecting more powerful nations?

And if so, could you then tell which categories are more powerful by ejecting nations of different categories and seing which ejections used up the most influence?

I was told by a Mod this morning not to troll, because I raised the idea that it was wrong to have Delegate powers at all in the Pacifics. I created a separate thread for it because I felt that I did not want hijack this thread on so specific a matter, regarding the new rules, and had my thread locked. You can be assured that this will be the very last time I bother posting in the NS Forum ever again, since I don't want to risk opening up my region to invasion over the an interpretation of a moderator on something I post here, and thereby lose my region's founder. It wouldn't be fair to the other players in my region to do so.

The Bruce

I was told by a Mod this morning not to troll, because I raised the idea that it was wrong to have Delegate powers at all in the Pacifics.

No, you were told by a mod this morning [afternoon here] not to troll because you claimed the moderators 'were ruining the feeder regions to feed their egos.' There's plenty of ways to make your point without insulting people, you just didn't pick one of them.

No, you were told by a mod this morning [afternoon here] not to troll because you claimed the moderators 'were ruining the feeder regions to feed their egos.' There's plenty of ways to make your point without insulting people, you just didn't pick one of them.

The egos I was referring to were those of the people ejecting nations for the sole crime of not endorsing them as UN nations. I was actually pleading with the Mods to reconsider the existence of Delegates having full regional powers in the feeder regions.

The egos I was referring to were those of the people ejecting nations for the sole crime of not endorsing them as UN nations. I was actually pleading with the Mods to reconsider the existence of Delegates having full regional powers in the feeder regions.

Ah...The way it's worded makes it look like you ment the moderators' egos...If that wasn't your intention, ignore the warning for trolling and carry on, citizen.

This is asking a significant amount, but could the 'Barry have the list put up in News? Or a telegram to other members?

Otherwise I really like the new thang. Helps with figuring out your power and the like. I have no complaints on the programming.

Oh, and could you describe (in a sentance or so would be fine) how you become a SuperPower etc, etc.

Your influence ranking shows how much power you hold within the region. Your influence is based on how long you've been in a region and how many UN endorsements you have.

one thing i dont understand (maybe a mod could help me on this)

Delegates and Founders can use Region Control to password-protect their region, and have that password automatically displayed on the region page to all residents. (It remains hidden from outsiders.) It costs less Influence to apply a password that is visible to residents than to apply one that will remain hidden.

why is it now that long term natives are not able to even know the password to their own region? I think that overall these changes are very good but this bit in particular is confusing.

Surely natives should have the right to know the password for the region incase they wish to leave and then return (advertising, diplomatic regions, etc) but now if i wish to do one of these things i must do it knowing i cant return to the region. This seems too far a swing in favour of invaders+griefers and away from players that have no interest in that aspect of the game, especially when you consider that in under 24hrs in a region you can gain enough "influence" to do this. In regions not interested in invasions at all 24hrs simply isnt enough time to mount a proper defence against people trying to spoil your region.

But like i said, maybe i'm missing something here.

one thing i dont understand (maybe a mod could help me on this)



why is it now that long term natives are not able to even know the password to their own region? I think that overall these changes are very good but this bit in particular is confusing.

Surely natives should have the right to know the password for the region incase they wish to leave and then return (advertising, diplomatic regions, etc) but now if i wish to do one of these things i must do it knowing i cant return to the region. This seems too far a swing in favour of invaders+griefers and away from players that have no interest in that aspect of the game, especially when you consider that in under 24hrs in a region you can gain enough "influence" to do this. In regions not interested in invasions at all 24hrs simply isnt enough time to mount a proper defence against people trying to spoil your region.

But like i said, maybe i'm missing something here.


Long-term (native, under the old rules) have always been able to apply a password and not distribute it. If you want to learn it, you can always ask the delegate or ask other members of your region, who may know.

Long-term (native, under the old rules) have always been able to apply a password and not distribute it. If you want to learn it, you can always ask the delegate or ask other members of your region, who may know.

sorry my last post wasnt very clear as to my point.

I was talking specifically about someone invading a region and putting a password on without handing it out to long term members of the region. This can only be counter productive surely to getting new players interested in the game as it forces them to stay in the larger more built up regions (rejected realms and the feeders) and inhibits them from being able to start up regions with friends as they'll only be ruined by someone invading and pwd protecting the region.

not really, if you want to set up a small region with friends, you can always password protect it to make sure no invaders can gain access to it.

Not to mention that a founder pretty handily defeats and invasion. Generally, invasion and defense refers to founderless regions which a newly created region has very little chance of being.

So I guess here is the one question I have. Suppose an invasion manages to take over a small region. If they manage to hold the region long enough to be able to password protect the region, once doing so, can they just keep that password on and slowly gain influence until they've ejected everyone in the entire region, destroying it?

I'm a bit annoyed because my region of 66 members has a low regional power. Maybe it's because we have no UN nations.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with amount of UN nations. Regions like Belgium and Nederland with about the same amount of members (50 à 70) also have low regional power.

I do not like this system as it does not really have to do with how much effort we really put into our regions.

I do not like this system as it does not really have to do with how much effort we really put into our regions.

And how could one design a system that measures that?

With the advanced technology of the Modcave, the mods can measure anything. Check out Kat's sig if you don't believe me. She sees us when we're sleeping, she knows when we're awake, she knows if we've been bad or good ...

With the advanced technology of the Modcave, the mods can measure anything. Check out Kat's sig if you don't believe me. She sees us when we're sleeping, she knows when we're awake, she knows if we've been bad or good ...

Yeah, but they spend so much time being the bastard moderators from hell that they don't have any leftover time to enter all that info for 100k nations into the game.

EDIT: Or too lazy, because that would be quite unbastardly of them to put that much effort into something so tedious so that the rankings are "fair"

So I guess here is the one question I have. Suppose an invasion manages to take over a small region. If they manage to hold the region long enough to be able to password protect the region, once doing so, can they just keep that password on and slowly gain influence until they've ejected everyone in the entire region, destroying it?

this is the point i've been trying to make. It takes less than 24hrs to get enough influence to password protect a region and then the natives are essentially screwed if they dont have enough nations already in the region to mount a defense.

this is the point i've been trying to make. It takes less than 24hrs to get enough influence to password protect a region and then the natives are essentially screwed if they dont have enough nations already in the region to mount a defense.

How do you know it takes less than 24 hours?

My nation just went from instigator to deal maker. And the region went from low to backwater so I'm assuming that dealmaker is a higher ranking than instigator and backwater is higher than low. But I could be wrong.

I'm pretty sure backwater is lower than low... but of course, there is no way I can know that for certain...

Backwater has virtually no influence. Single-nation regions with no UN membership have a Hermit and a Backwater rating. Can't get much lower than that.

There won't be an official posting about which ranks are higher than which others. We've never done that for any of the rankings in the game. But I'm sure players will work it out, and a list will find its way onto the wiki before too long.

']There won't be an official posting about which ranks are higher than which others. We've never done that for any of the rankings in the game. But I'm sure players will work it out, and a list will find its way onto the wiki before too long.
There's a ranking of the Civil Rights/Economy/Political Freedoms rankings, though. The thread was linked to earlier in this thread. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392208 It's just not stickied, and very old.

I'm thinking Backwater is the lowest for a region, seeing as that's what mine has, and mine is a one-nation, zero-UN member hole where the most recent happening was 176 days ago.

There's a ranking of the Civil Rights/Economy/Political Freedoms rankings, though. The thread was linked to earlier in this thread. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392208 It's just not stickied, and very old.

if you look at the post date its before euroslavia became a mod, so technically its still not an "offical post" ;)

So I guess here is the one question I have. Suppose an invasion manages to take over a small region. If they manage to hold the region long enough to be able to password protect the region, once doing so, can they just keep that password on and slowly gain influence until they've ejected everyone in the entire region, destroying it?

Yes. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=pacific_northwest) If you can get away with it, region griefing is now legal.

Yes. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=pacific_northwest) If you can get away with it, griefing is now legal.
I do not like this new system and people are already taking advantage of it.

I'm thinking Backwater is the lowest for a region, seeing as that's what mine has, and mine is a one-nation, zero-UN member hole where the most recent happening was 176 days ago.

The United Nations Organizations is a "Backwater" ... and as the sole member, my organization is considered a "Hermit". Probably due to very limited activity.

And how could one design a system that measures that?

Good point.

Bonuses could be awarded based on activity on the regional message board ... nations coming and leaving ... number of UN resolutions and/or daily issues.

Backwater has virtually no influence. Single-nation regions with no UN membership have a Hermit and a Backwater rating. Can't get much lower than that.

OK, but if a single-nation moved as a Hermit to another region, would that improve or harm that region's rating?

What if many of these regions / nations joined???

Good point.

Bonuses could be awarded based on activity on the regional message board ... nations coming and leaving ... number of UN resolutions and/or daily issues.

Still wouldn't fairly give the right numbers, not to mention that means invaders could start chatting about absolutely meaningless things just to boost their post count so that they get more influence. Daily issues means that those who are brand new to the game get a considerable edge over the average long-standing veteran (especially in regions that aren't paying careful attention to the news). With abstains not being an option, you can't fairly count UNR's being voted on and counting the number UNR's that go through while you're in the region isn't different from time spent in the region (more or less). UNR's passed or UNR's vote FOR or anything along that line skews the stats on UN Voting (and also give gameplayers a reason to skew roleplayers' largest built-in roleplay system). And at the end of the day, it still doesn't entirely represent one's work.

Aberdeen has a Prime Minister, a President, 4 Ministers, 2 MPs, a handful of ambassadors and various deputies and such. They all have given devotion to various aspects of our regional government. Of them, the #1 poster on the RMB is my Minister of Immigration. His predecessor didn't post nearly as much on the RMB but got many more people into the region.

So, my current Minister of Immigration would get more influence in the region even though he didn't earn it than my previous minister of Immigration. Since you can't specify which is minister of immigration as people flood in, you can't indicate who was the one that successfully recruited all these people.

Nope, system is still severely flawed for such purposes

OK, but if a single-nation moved as a Hermit to another region, would that improve or harm that region's rating?

What if many of these regions / nations joined???

Your rating is different for each region. A superpower in The Pacific would still be a Minnow in Lazurus and a Hermit of "Corner of 3rd and 5th"

I suspect that one loses Hermit as soon as someone joins them, but I don't know this for sure.

Damn. I like the new system. Bling bling

I think that there might be factors about the size of the region that determine what the rankings for each individual nation would be.

For instance, somebody in a "backwater" region would start out as a "hermit." I think it is safe to say that moving to a region with backwater status would produce such a result. It is a very metaphorical process in my view.

So, let's say that a region with a low count of total nations will follow a completely different hierarchy than a region with a higher nation count, and the nations residing in that region will also follow a different hierarchy.

Backwater->???
Low->Medium->High

So, in terms of hierarchies, what other factors are involved?

Judging from what I have read in this thread so far, it seems that the amount of time a nation spends in the region, UN Nations, endorsements, and activity levels all play a role.

Think realistically now. Can a change in the number of UN nations in a region affect one individual nation in a region? I feel that the answer to this is an individual change cannot take place unless that nation receives or rejects UN status, and gains or loses endorsements in the process. But, whatever change in total number of UN Nations may move a region up or down in its hierarchy's classes. It may change a region from low to medium, or medium to low power. A region of low status cannot go from low to backwater unless the total number of overall nations changes. A change in the number of UN nations only changes a ratio of UN Nations to Total Nations.

I think that only by first figuring out what factors affect the region as a whole and what factors affect individual nations can we figure out where each one goes. Personally, I think this is more complex than just a straight line of ranking.

So let's see what we have so far:

Minnow
Vassal
Contender
Dealmaker
Duckspeaker
Handshaker
Negotiator
Instigator
Enforcer
Eminence grise
Ambassador
Power
Powerbroker
Superpower

Keep this updated. What else?

Wow I've been in my region for 2 years and I'm only a Duckspeaker...WOW, suxors!

[Edit] Forget it...

I believe I have a question that hasn't been addressed yet.

Does this system allow for dual citizenship? By this I mean, my nation, along with many others, hop between one region and at least one other. Many of us feel native to both regions.

My question addresses whether the system remembers how much time a nation spends in any given region and each day they are in the region it adds to a previous total. The system may remember the total and a nation can add influence to a previous total when the nation was in the region months ago. Alternatively, it may just erase any accumulated regional influence the moment you leave a region and don't return within a specified time.

If a nation stays in one region for a week, then moves to another region for another week, if it returns to the original region does it still have the influence it gained when it was first there?

TAO is guessing that regional influence may have something to do with the collective/composite rating of the individual nations in the region. If a region has 100 nations (for example) and 80 are minnows, the region has a low rating. If the 100 member region has several higher rated individuals, the region rating is higher. In this offset fashion, a smaller region could, in theory, have a higher rating than a larger region.

Son of TAO explains to this daddy that the new Influence rating of a nation is similar to the manna points gained and used in games like Diablo ... higher level activities require more manna. TAO assumes this makes sense to younger players.

If a nation stays in one region for a week, then moves to another region for another week, if it returns to the original region does it still have the influence it gained when it was first there?
http://www.nationstates.net/pages/influence.html
"Nation D is a long-time regional resident. She leaves the region for a few days, then returns. D will have slightly less Influence in this region than when she departed. (She will also have accumulated a small amount of Influence in the region she temporarily visited.)"

Can't give you numbers, but that example should be instructive.

So it erodes slowly over time. Ok.

Thanks!

Here's one for you. Evil Plague Bears is in a region of 8 nations (The Minority: regional power: low)
Active founder (Instigator)
Has delegate (Superpower)
2 of the remaining nations are in the UN, but all 6 of the remaining nations (in the UN or not) are Eminence Grise.
No one has moved in for literally months, so we are all fairly stable.

This is just bizarre. Seems like a lot of power for a small region, I would think it would be a backwater with a lot of minnows.

Seems like a lot of power for a small region, I would think it would be a backwater with a lot of minnows.
Yeah, that's interesting, isn't it.

I've seen regions with the following regional powers and number of nations (minimum-maximum):

backwater (1-27)
low (10-104)
moderate (40-185)
high (63-295)
very high (288-2237)
extremely high (1218-5712)

A region with 104 nations could be low, moderate, or high.

Check out my region "universylvania". It has moderate regional power but only 8 nations.

they are probably still tweaking the settings. My region went from middle to low last night, and tonight went from low to high.

no new nations joined, so i'm guessing must be settings /standards changing.

"Regional Power" labels have jumped around a little since the introduction (not completely intentionally). Sorry about that.

so whats changed now with the regional rankings.
My region - Aberdeen - was low yesterday with 103 nations. But today it has gone up to High without changing in nation numbers

I'm thinking Backwater is the lowest for a region, seeing as that's what mine has, and mine is a one-nation, zero-UN member hole where the most recent happening was 176 days ago.
It looks like most regions have backwater as their ranking.

Your rating is different for each region. A superpower in The Pacific would still be a Minnow in Lazurus and a Hermit of "Corner of 3rd and 5th"

I suspect that one loses Hermit as soon as someone joins them, but I don't know this for sure.
Hmmm. I think I will test that. BRB

Hmmm. I think I will test that. BRB
Nothing yet. I think it takes like 24 hours to have any effect. I just put a puppet in one of my single nation regions to see if it changes the hermit status.

Check out my region "universylvania". It has moderate regional power but only 8 nations.

Yeah, the region I'm in is moderate now, still with 16 members. Someone have an example of less than 10 with low?

backwater (1-27)
low (10-104)
moderate (8-185)
high (63-295)
very high (288-2237)
extremely high (1218-5712)

I think that there might be factors about the size of the region that determine what the rankings for each individual nation would be.

For instance, somebody in a "backwater" region would start out as a "hermit." I think it is safe to say that moving to a region with backwater status would produce such a result. It is a very metaphorical process in my view.

So, let's say that a region with a low count of total nations will follow a completely different hierarchy than a region with a higher nation count, and the nations residing in that region will also follow a different hierarchy.

Backwater->???
Low->Medium->High

So, in terms of hierarchies, what other factors are involved?

Judging from what I have read in this thread so far, it seems that the amount of time a nation spends in the region, UN Nations, endorsements, and activity levels all play a role.

Think realistically now. Can a change in the number of UN nations in a region affect one individual nation in a region? I feel that the answer to this is an individual change cannot take place unless that nation receives or rejects UN status, and gains or loses endorsements in the process. But, whatever change in total number of UN Nations may move a region up or down in its hierarchy's classes. It may change a region from low to medium, or medium to low power. A region of low status cannot go from low to backwater unless the total number of overall nations changes. A change in the number of UN nations only changes a ratio of UN Nations to Total Nations.

I think that only by first figuring out what factors affect the region as a whole and what factors affect individual nations can we figure out where each one goes. Personally, I think this is more complex than just a straight line of ranking.
That's not what happened with the san gabriel valley. It started off as low but the next day it was backwater. There was no change in the number of nations and there is no UN member. There was never a UN member present.
But there are 14 nations. I'm wondering if issue rankings has anything to do with it? Cause the day it went backwater was the same day as the corruption rankings.

TAO is guessing that regional influence may have something to do with the collective/composite rating of the individual nations in the region. If a region has 100 nations (for example) and 80 are minnows, the region has a low rating. If the 100 member region has several higher rated individuals, the region rating is higher. In this offset fashion, a smaller region could, in theory, have a higher rating than a larger region.

Son of TAO explains to this daddy that the new Influence rating of a nation is similar to the manna points gained and used in games like Diablo ... higher level activities require more manna. TAO assumes this makes sense to younger players.
Most of the nations in SGV are dealmakers with one ambassador and 2 auxilliaries. but the region is still a backwater. Conversely, both nation in The Pacific Ocean are dominators, but the region itself is still a backwater.

Most of the nations in SGV are dealmakers with one ambassador and 2 auxilliaries. but the region is still a backwater. Conversely, both nation in The Pacific Ocean are dominators, but the region itself is still a backwater.
I think it changes every day. Cause now they're both back to low.

']From the News page:

Enjoy. :)

Edit by Sirocco: we also have an IRC channel on the Espernet server if you wish to ask questions: #influence
BoooOOO!!! This sucks! It's a terrible idea!

Has anyone found out the order for the regional influence?

If not then there should be a fairly simple, though painful, test.
Just get a delegate to eject, but not ban, nations one at a time.
Since this should erode their influence, they can check on it after each ejection. Unfortuneatly in order to find the entire sequence someone would have to reduce themselves down to Minnow.

I dislike the regional influence. I think another player should start one of those online petitions. (Sadly, you have to give away your name and stuff so I do not want to do it myself.)

Don't be so resistant to change. This will shake things up and change some strategies but I think it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Well very nice and all, but I have the same regional influence as some invader in my region, doesn't make sense does it?

Well very nice and all, but I have the same regional influence as some invader in my region, doesn't make sense does it?

Yes, it does. How long have they been in the region? How many endorsements do they have? How many do you have?

There is no reason why simply having been in a region longer should guarantee you the most influence.

They will, I assure you. This will have a serious long-term impact on regional politics.

In the past, a nation's influence in the region would have been determined by things like communicating with other nations, nation age, postcount on the forums/offsite forums, position in regional government, etc.

Now, we have a more strictly game-based system for determining a nation's influence in the region. It really enhances the game itself and makes it more interesting, but this will I think have a negative impact on those of us who relied more on social skills to gain influence.

Just my two centavos.
This won't actually have any impact on your true level of influence within a region, it will only determine how much you can use delegate powers.

how do you get onto that chatroom thing?

how do you get onto that chatroom thing?
good question

This won't actually have any impact on your true level of influence within a region, it will only determine how much you can use delegate powers.

1. It also means that a delegate (invader or otherwise) can eject a nation with low influence at very little cost to himself or herself. And it means that in order to make a nation more secure in a region you need to have UN membership and a decent endorsement count.

2. Perception starts to determine reality. People see that a nation is a minnow on its nation page, and they think of it as a minnow, treat it as a minnow. In essence, the nation becomes a minnow.

Note: Personally I'm not too worried about my own position. I'm in a region with an active Founder and Delegate with decent endorsements, and I know he isn't going to eject me. But this will change things in a negative way for a lot of people.

Maybe some credit should be given to those nations that post on the regional board often. Endorsements are a very one sided. There are nations not in the UN that are more influential than UN delegates in their region. There is no way of registering that under the present system.

2. Perception starts to determine reality. People see that a nation is a minnow on its nation page, and they think of it as a minnow, treat it as a minnow. In essence, the nation becomes a minnow.



I'm not too worried about that. I noticed that several of the Big Shots in my region are also minnows, probably because they aren't UN Delegates, and it's a large region.

But, I'll admit, if I have to be a small fish, I'd rather be a pirhana (sic). :)

duckspeaker-someone who indorses everyone

hermit-single nation in region

emine greise-few indorsements

minnow-no endorsements

So how can one become a highly influential member of the region without being a UN rep. I mean I've been in my region since I joined the game and I'm only a Duckspeaker so...

duckspeaker-someone who indorses everyone

hermit-single nation in region

emine greise-few indorsements

minnow-no endorsements

I don't think that's an accurate description. In my region, there are minnows with endorsements (although the 24 hr bit may not have passed yet), and people with a few endorsements that are not emine greise, while there is at least one emine greise with many endorsements.

Plus, one of my NS was alone in a region (before it moved). It was my UN nation, and it was emine greise (rather than hermit, and despite having no endorsements).

So how can one become a highly influential member of the region without being a UN rep. I mean I've been in my region since I joined the game and I'm only a Duckspeaker so...

I don't think you can basically and that's what I dislike. I would be worried about my position since I'm in a Pacific, but Loop is a fair guy and I don't think he'd do anything like Blackadder did.

Yeah, the region I'm in is moderate now, still with 16 members. Someone have an example of less than 10 with low?
My region has my main nation along with 6 puppets(7 nations total, for those who can't count ;)), and the regional power is low. All of the nations have been there for years, and ALL of them have "Eminence Grise" for their regional influence, even the founder(Kasaru) and the lone UN member(Bushica). Interesting what an endorsement-less environment seems to do to nation's influence levels...

1. It also means that a delegate (invader or otherwise) can eject a nation with low influence at very little cost to himself or herself. And it means that in order to make a nation more secure in a region you need to have UN membership and a decent endorsement count.
Well maybe. But really, this is going to cause bad publicity for that person, in the few places where it might happen.

2. Perception starts to determine reality. People see that a nation is a minnow on its nation page, and they think of it as a minnow, treat it as a minnow. In essence, the nation becomes a minnow.
Maybe if the nation was completely inactive, no one knew or cared about them, Etc. But if those things are the case then the nation probably is a "minnow".

So how can one become a highly influential member of the region without being a UN rep. I mean I've been in my region since I joined the game and I'm only a Duckspeaker so...

well for a start they've only been gaining influence for about a month or so, that means it doesnt matter if before then you were in a region or not.

I'm not sure exactly how you gain it but it definatly is possible to get high influence without being a UN member, one of my other nations is "superpower" within a region and is not in the UN.

A few people seem to have the misconception that you can compare the Regional Influence of nations in different regions. You can't:
The "Regional Influence" label reflects how much Influence a nation has compared to others in its region only. A nation with few endorsements and a short residency in a small region may have a higher Regional Influence rank than one with many endorsements and a long residence in a large region.
That is, it's easier to be a big fish in a small pond.

Maybe some credit should be given to those nations that post on the regional board often. Endorsements are a very one sided. There are nations not in the UN that are more influential than UN delegates in their region. There is no way of registering that under the present system.
TAO believes this idea has great merit. Award/Reward those who use the Game's RMB instead of/as much as the offsite forums. IF ... the purpose of these changes is to draw players back to the Game itself, this is one sure way to do it. It encourages ACTIVE participation.

Such a system would really encourage participation by those who detest the UN or who are already UN active in another region by giving their puppet a chance for some recognition.

Award/Reward those who use the Game's RMB instead of/as much as the offsite forums.
There's participation and there's spam. Do we really want a system that gives high-speed spammers more influence than law-abiding citizens?

It's a fine idea, apart from that fatal flaw.

Point taken ... but the delegate can "correct" the behavior of those who spam for the sake of spam for influence. ;)

Yeah, the region I'm in is moderate now, still with 16 members. Someone have an example of less than 10 with low?

backwater (1-27)
low (10-104)
moderate (8-185)
high (63-295)
very high (288-2237)
extremely high (1218-5712)
Bristle has a low with 6 nations

Yeah, the region I'm in is moderate now, still with 16 members. Someone have an example of less than 10 with low?

backwater (1-27)
low (10-104)
moderate (8-185)
high (63-295)
very high (288-2237)
extremely high (1218-5712)

I'm in "International Democratic Union", we have 66 members and a "very high" regional power level.

Although I don't think region size is really what determines this.

Point taken ... but the delegate can "correct" the behavior of those who spam for the sake of spam for influence. ;)
You're assuming an active delegate. Imagine an invader in a region without a delegate, and half a dozen nations in vacation mode. Invader spends a couple hours typing "spam" [Lodge Message], and nobody is logged in to notice or complain.. Next update, he's King-a-da-World, and he ejects all those long-timers. Griefing returns via a loophole in the rules.

Sorry, we considered it, but no.

Thanks for that scenario, Fris. TAO had only considered the feeders. And poor Kandarin would be up to his pits in pooey and spam.

You're assuming an active delegate. Imagine an invader in a region without a delegate, and half a dozen nations in vacation mode. Invader spends a couple hours typing "spam" [Lodge Message], and nobody is logged in to notice or complain.. Next update, he's King-a-da-World, and he ejects all those long-timers. Griefing returns via a loophole in the rules.

Sorry, we considered it, but no.

hey fris, your a mod, you wanta tell us how they calculate the rankings?

hey fris, your a mod, you wanta tell us how they calculate the rankings?

They put a bunch of numbers in a "hat" and they pick it out.

I think another player should start one of those online petitions.You mean like the one to stop AOL's plan that was signed by such luminaries as Saddam Hussein, Mickey Mouse, Satan, Quick-Draw McGraw, and Balzac the Mighty? The cliche is correct: online petitions aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. Nobody pays attention to them.


hey fris, your a mod, you wanta tell us how they calculate the rankings?Nope.

Here are answers to a few questions I've seen raised in various places:

Q. Shouldn't Influence take into account a nation's population?
A. If it did, the game would be dominated by its oldest nations. These nations would make extremely powerful invaders, and have a permanent advantage over newer players. We don't think this would be fair.

Q. Shouldn't Influence take into account military or economic strength?
A. One of the quirks of NationStates is that it does not reward you for subscribing to a particular ideology. You can certainly argue that highly militaristic nations would, in real life, be harder to handle than others. But if we built this into the game, all players would have a strong incentive to make their nations militaristic, at the expense of those who didn't. We still want to allow players to make all kinds of nations, not just capitalist ones with strong militaries.

Also, of course, we are talking about the sytem that determines how hard it is to "eject" a nation from its region. It's a bit weird to argue about what is "realistic."

Q. Shouldn't Influence take into account how many times I log in, or post on the RMB, or send telegrams, or some other measure of my activity?
A. The game can't measure whether you're posting interesting, thoughtful contributions to your RMB or just garbage. It would be dangerous to reward things like posts and logins, because some players would start doing those things just to get the reward.

Players may also wish to note that military strength, population, etc, have never determined how easily a nation can be ejected from its region in the past. So we are not introducing any change in that respect.

Q. Why should UN nations earn more Influence than non-UN nations?
A. Two reasons. First, a nation that has joined the UN and won some endorsements has demonstrated a certain level of involvement in the game and their region. Second, players are limited to a single UN nation, but can control many non-UN nations. So if non-UN nations earned Influence rapidly, then one player could control a formidable invasion army all by himself.

Q. Why have you abolished the concept of "natives"? Natives deserve to be treated differently to invaders.
A. We haven't abolished the concept so much as moved it from a moderator judgement to a part of the actual game. Previously, moderators were frequently called on to make subjective judgements about whether nations qualified as "natives" or not. Yet there isn't any logical point at which a nation suddenly becomes "native"; rather, it gets steadily more native the longer it's there, and the more support it has from other residents. This is what the Influence system recognizes. Natives are still protected, only now without needing to call on the moderators for help.

Q. The Delegate in Region X is ejecting dozens of nations--doesn't this prove that the system isn't working?
A. No. What we're seeing so far is a few Delegates who have been in power for some time spending some (or most) of their Influence in order to perform ejections. These Delegates can hardly be considered "invaders," after controlling their regions for so long. And they have weakened themselves by performing purges, meaning that they are less able to repress rebellions in the future.

We are not trying to stamp out political ejections, or prevent Delegates from being dictators. Such things will continue to be part of the game, and as always, players have two ways of dealing with it:
(a) Work to get the Delegate unelected and replaced with somebody else
(b) Move to a better region

Q. My region has a Founder and doesn't like these changes.
A. If your region has a Founder, it's largely unaffected by them. A Founder can still undo anything a Delegate does, even deny the Delegate access to Region Control.

Q. Why is my tiny, non-UN nation in Region X a "Superpower", but my big UN nation in Region Y a "Minnow"?
A. Because Region X contains fewer influential nations than Region Y. Your non-UN nation is thus a more important part of Region X than your big nation is of Region Y.

Q. My nation has been a resident of this region for two years. Why don't I have bucketloads of Influence?
A. Because the system is new, and nations only started building Influence a month or two ago. Sorry about that, but we can't tell how long nations were in their regions before then, or how many endorsements they had.

Q. I had a nation deleted for breaking an "Invasion Griefing" rule, but now those rules have been abolished. Can I have my nation back?
A. No. We don't retroactively punish players for breaking rules that didn't previously exist, and we don't pardon players who broke rules that have now been removed. Players must abide by whatever rules were in place at the time.

Thanks for clearing some of that up [violet].

Guess no hat ;).

Axis of Absurdity: 63 nations, founder/delegate endorsed by 19, UN states 35 (High)

May have found some threshholds in this - since the Axis of Absurdity moved to Very High either by adding a nation or having an extra four nations endorse the delegate. Either that, or there was some tweaking and I'm poking around in the dark - wouldn't be the first time.

']Q. Why have you abolished the concept of "natives"? Natives deserve to be treated differently to invaders.
A. We haven't abolished the concept so much as moved it from a moderator judgement to a part of the actual game. Previously, moderators were frequently called on to make subjective judgements about whether nations qualified as "natives" or not. Yet there isn't any logical point at which a nation suddenly becomes "native"; rather, it gets steadily more native the longer it's there, and the more support it has from other residents. This is what the Influence system recognizes.

The rule used to be that an invader delegate had to respect the rights of natives. This is now no longer the case as invaders simply build up Influence using 'time of presence' combined with the endorsements of their fellow invaders, and presto... they are now deemed 'native' as well. If you care to insit that the definition of 'native' still exists, then please recognize that the Influence system has severely redefined the meaning of the word 'native' in NS terms. The system is fully automated and hence uses no judgment whatsoever. Recall the whole 'when do invaders become native?' discussion? Do you recall what the former official answer was to that question?

']Natives are still protected, only now without needing to call on the moderators for help.

No, now without the ABILITY to call on moderators for help. Big difference.

Ballotonia

Recall the whole 'when do invaders become native?' discussion? Do you recall what the former official answer was to that question?"Never". One little problem:

InvaderA, who isn't a part of any big invader group, moves into RegionA and sits there for several months. He joins the UN, endo swaps and calls a couple buddies from school (InvadersB-D) to put him over the top. He kick-bans the old Delegate, a couple others and passwords the region.

He griefed the region! To the mods!

But wait... we can't see when he joined, we can only see when he joined relative to other natives. Who do we believe? He claims that he's a native and that he didn't like how things were running. He's not a member of any organization, he's just a guy who took over a region.

Is he an invader, or is he a ticked off native?

Well, that depends on if he intended to grief the region when he moved in. And how are we supposed to divine his original intent?

The griefing rules worked great with clear-cut griefing (emptying a region) and with known invader groups (especially when they had themed flags). The rest was little more than shaking up a Magic 8-Ball. The game didn't record every regional movement (and there's no way we could -- we run out of disk space as it is), so there's no way to tell beyond any doubt how long a nation has been in a region.

And, again, we're still stuck with trying to figure out if someone was patiently waiting to appear like a native, or if they were simply a native who got pissed off. To say nothing of trying to figure out if the guy who moved in 2 days ago is a "true" native, or an invader/defender in disguise.

If my little invader above had 10 native endos, and used 3 non-native endos to push himself over the Delegate (who had, say, 12 native endos), he's still a "native" Delegate by the old rules: most of his support is native. The old rules were largely unworkable, and made it almost impossible to tell if a questionable invasion really was. And that's not even dealing with everybody's favorite Q&A:

Q: I'm an invader. How many natives can I kick out before it's griefing?
A: Well... it might be 10%, it might be 40%. Let's just go with "I'll know it when I see it."

Now, ejections are limited by Influence. You want to kick that ancient former Delegate who's been here forever? Good luck. Oh, and by the way, you only have enough Influence to kick him; you don't have enough to ban him. Oh, and if you do kick him, you won't have enough Influence left to put a hidden password up.

Things are chaotic now, because nobody has more than a month's worth of influence. As time goes on, and influence acrues, it'll become more difficult for invaders to run rough shod over regions. And since UN nations grow in influence faster than non-UN nations, simply planting a stealth, non-UN puppet won't be that effective. Indeed, it won't be effective at all. The native UN members will see their lead increase over invaders. When the invader shows his true colors, he'll be limited in what he can do.

With this information in mind, I'm sure defenders can figure out how to adjust their tactics.

backwater (1-27)
low (10-104)
moderate (8-185)
high (63-295)
very high (288-2237)
extremely high (1218-5712)

Looks OK. The region 'The Syndicate' fits in that. 24 Nations, Moderate.

Dunno if it's been posted yet but one of my nations is a hermit
I kinda like that:p

Has anyone noticed that the feeder regions have a really high rating, while everyone else has "low". Cant this ranking be based on the single region, instead of comparing against other regions?

My region; the International Democratic Union is not a feeder region, and our regional power is "very high".

I've seen regions with the following regional powers and number of nations (minimum-maximum):

backwater (1-27)
low (10-104)
moderate (40-185)
high (63-295)
very high (288-2237)
extremely high (1218-5712)

A region with 104 nations could be low, moderate, or high.

not true!

My region had a "low" rating with 7 nations

Given that nation influence is dependent on how many endorsements you've had for how long (relative to other nations in your region), I suspect regional influence may have something to do with the number of endorsements given with that region. Whether this is summed over time or instantaneous is unclear, but if it's the former it's a good idea to check the theory now before the system has been in place too long.

Ok, I started a new puppet yesterday to test this stuff.
Dwerb the Migrant. It was a minnow so I am guessing that Minnow is the lowest. Then I moved him to the Indus River Valley to see what happens. I did this yesterday. The lone resident of Indus, Kot-Diji, is still a hermit. However dwerb is now Handshaker so I guess from Minnow you become a Handshaker.

My region has my main nation along with 6 puppets(7 nations total, for those who can't count ;)), and the regional power is low. All of the nations have been there for years, and ALL of them have "Eminence Grise" for their regional influence, even the founder(Kasaru) and the lone UN member(Bushica). Interesting what an endorsement-less environment seems to do to nation's influence levels...
the pacific ocean, indus river valley both have only two nations but are ranked as low.

"Never". One little problem: [...]

Exactly. Note the context of my comment, I'm responding to [violet] stating: "We haven't abolished the concept so much as moved it from a moderator judgement to a part of the actual game."
I'm merely arguing that isn't really true. If there is any definition left called 'native', it only vaguely resembles what it used to mean.

The griefing rules worked great with clear-cut griefing (emptying a region) and with known invader groups (especially when they had themed flags). The rest was little more than shaking up a Magic 8-Ball.

I recall arguing against Neut's (remember ol' Neut?) "intent" rulings fiercely, presicely because of the reasoning you put forth now. If only a mod would've been willing to admit to this when the old rules were back in place, but back then it was strongly denied. Mods were deemed to be omnipotent ;). Now it seems opening up about the shortcomings of the old rulings is a good way to increase acceptance of the new way of doing things... Frankly, I'm not convinced about the wisdom of procedure B when the basic argument in favor is 'we defended and used procedure A before and let me confess now how much that really sucked'.

Now, ejections are limited by Influence. You want to kick that ancient former Delegate who's been here forever? Good luck. Oh, and by the way, you only have enough Influence to kick him; you don't have enough to ban him. Oh, and if you do kick him, you won't have enough Influence left to put a hidden password up.

Why bother to kick that delegate, if ones own forces already outnumber the (formerly called 'native') side? All one needs is that secret password in place -> game over.
Surely you have noticed invaders tend to attack those regions they know they can beat handily? If they were interested in the battle itself, warzones wouldn't have been such a faillure.

Things are chaotic now, because nobody has more than a month's worth of influence. As time goes on, and influence acrues, it'll become more difficult for invaders to run rough shod over regions. And since UN nations grow in influence faster than non-UN nations, simply planting a stealth, non-UN puppet won't be that effective. Indeed, it won't be effective at all. The native UN members will see their lead increase over invaders. When the invader shows his true colors, he'll be limited in what he can do.

An invader lead can plant a *UN* nation in advance. That's what they've already been doing for a long time, so they can gather endorsements from 'sleepy' natives, or try to pretend to be a native with good intentions only to call in their friends and hoist their real home region's flag a few months later. In the 'new' situation this means that same infiltrator will have gathered Influence as well, and will then be legally allowed to go apeshit on the region.

With this information in mind, I'm sure defenders can figure out how to adjust their tactics.

Defender's ability to do anything is severely curtailed. Once the invaders have taken over with a sufficiently-high-Influence infiltrator nation, what else is there to do but sit back and watch the carnage ensue?

Anyway, we'll see what happens. Maybe the invaders won't even bother to jump through this hoop to guarantee their victories, and the entire invasion/defense game (what's left of it, that is) will go belly-up. Time will tell.

Ballotonia

Is 'Regional Power' just a fun stat, or will it have some greater meaning later on?

As a somewhat notorious invader under a different name I'd like to compliment everyone involved. The idea is superb. Whether or not the implementation lives up to that potential remains to be seen, but that this all was thought of in the first place is very comforting as to that regard. And no doubt it can and will be tweaked.

One idea that occurs to me, and I'm just throwing this out there, is wouldn't it be cool if Influence was somewhat transferable via endorsement? That is, endorsements from those with high Influence meant more to a nation's Influence than endorsements without. Sort of like PageRank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagerank) for nations. Perhaps this is integrated already, but I couldn't find any reference.

In any event, great ideas folks. I might actually come somewhat out of inactivity for this.

Will some of the Moderators or someone high up on the food chain please post about the ranking because it is getting really confusing and I would like to know how my nation stands up against the rest of my cohorts in the region. This would be very muchly appreciated!

:mp5: :sniper:

The Creation Asylum has nine member nations. Eight of us are Eminence Grise, including both UN members. The last is a Dealmaker. Our regional power is recorded as low. I'm the founder, and the guy trying to get my friends from that game site to join here.

Hope that helps you guys with the stat-collecting.

I find it annoying that Sarzonia is a Vassal, but meh. This is an interesting change and I'm glad there is some substantive change in the whole invader/defender rule set.

Yeah, the Regional Founder's a Vassal as well.

I'm guessing there is some part of the title-choosing formula based on UN Membership; I appear to be a Handshaker, go figure.

']There won't be an official posting about which ranks are higher than which others. We've never done that for any of the rankings in the game. But I'm sure players will work it out, and a list will find its way onto the wiki before too long.
Of course, with the other rankings it was kind of obvious from the names. I foresee long argments about whether 'vassal' is higher or lower than 'truckler'. *does more investigation*

Safalra's Suggested Ranking Order

England is a large region which is also very stable, making it a good place to try to deduce the order of rankings. This is a complete list of the number of endorsements and associated titles for nations in England. Numbers in brackets refer to the number of nations with that endorsement count and that title.

0 Minnow (*2)
1 Minnow (*4)
2 Minnow (*5)
3 Minnow (*6)
4 Minnow (*11)
5 Minnow (*5)
6 Minnow (*7)
7 Minnow (*4)
8 Minnow (*7)
9 Minnow (*4)
10 Minnow (*8)
11 Minnow
11 Vassal
12 Vassal (*2)
13 Vassal (*3)
14 Vassal (*4)
14 Truckler
15 Truckler
17 Vassal (*2)
17 Truckler (*2)
18 Truckler (*3)
20 Handshaker
21 Truckler
23 Handshaker
29 Vassal
31 Envoy
31 Diplomat
33 Diplomat (*2)
41 Ambassador
54 Contender

Although there are a few nations out of place, there is a very clear order here:

Minnow
Vassal
Truckler
Handshaker
Envoy
Diplomat
Ambassador
Contender

Safalra's Suggested Ranking Order (version 2)
(Edit: Yes, I know it doesn't contain all the known titles. It's almost certainly complete as far as Handshaker.)

Based on complete surveys of England and The YoungWorld:

Minnow
Vassal
Truckler
Handshaker
Envoy
Diplomat
Ambassador
Auxiliary
Contender
Enforcer

(Auxiliary and Ambassador were very close, and could be the other way round.)

I'm listed as a truckler

In my region I also have found

Duckspeaker
Instigator

I'm only truckler I have found so far. And only saw 1 instigator.. A few duckspeares ton of minnows and no vassles found so far in my region.

Safalra's Suggested Ranking Order (version 2)

Based on complete surveys of England and The YoungWorld:

Minnow
Vassal
Truckler
Handshaker
Envoy
Diplomat
Ambassador
Auxiliary
Contender
Enforcer

(Auxiliary and Ambassador were very close, and could be the other way round.)


I notice that you are missing some b/c there are some nations in my region who have something different. Like powerbroker.

I notice that you are missing some b/c there are some nations in my region who have something different. Like powerbroker.
I've only gone through two large regions. Small regions aren't much use as too few of the categories appear in each to know where to fit new categories into the list.

Thats a good question.

My influence seems to have been increasing over the past few days. I have gone to Ambassador, then Auxiliary, and now Negotiator. This leads me to believe that Negotiator is the next level after Auxiliary.

Ok, I started a new puppet yesterday to test this stuff.
Dwerb the Migrant. It was a minnow so I am guessing that Minnow is the lowest. Then I moved him to the Indus River Valley to see what happens. I did this yesterday. The lone resident of Indus, Kot-Diji, is still a hermit. However dwerb is now Handshaker so I guess from Minnow you become a Handshaker.
I believe Hermit is the lowest (though rare, only seen 1 personally). The default beginning level is minnow.

I believe Hermit is the lowest (though rare, only seen 1 personally). The default beginning level is minnow.
I believe hermit is reserved for nations in regions all by themselves.

I have read all the material on the subject and I'm still confused. How is Regional Power determined and what are it's effects on game play?

It really only has a major effect on Raiding and Defending, as to how it works, we are still trying to determine that.
You can see its effects in the Pacific though where the Delegate ejected over 1200 nations. His power level is now "Minnow" which, if I understand this right, means he has lost the ability to eject people now by flagrantly abusing his power.
(The higher power level someone has the more damaging it is to eject them.)

Given that there is no baseline definition of the scale...and perhaps not even constant scale elements from day to day...there is no real value in "Regional Influence" ranking, aside from hurting the brains of people who try to figure it out. And I admit the value of hurting some people's brains.

I recall arguing against Neut's (remember ol' Neut?)Indeed I do. From before he was a Mod, even.

If only a mod would've been willing to admit to this when the old rules were back in place, but back then it was strongly denied.It was more a matter of, at the time, we had no other options than to try and devine intent. There were no code-changes in the works, and our options were A) Ignore it or B) Try to figure intent. Also, at that time, most griefings were region-clearing, not ejecting fine-line stuff we've had lately.

Frankly, I'm not convinced about the wisdom of procedure B when the basic argument in favor is 'we defended and used procedure A before and let me confess now how much that really sucked'.This isn't the case at all. If it had to be distilled to a plithy one-liner, I'd opt for "It was the best we could do with what we had; this is better all around."

Why bother to kick that delegate, if ones own forces already outnumber the (formerly called 'native') side?...because that's been SOP for every single invasion I've ever seen since I became a Game Mod? Because seizing the Delegacy doesn't magically eliminate the former-delegate's endo-count, thus making him a major threat? Because the shift of one or two votes could but the former delegate back in charge?

An invader lead can plant a *UN* nation in advance.And everybody with more endos than him is still advancing faster than he is. Furthermore, that's an invader who can't do anything else anywhere else because he's tied up in a region where he's falling behind. Long-term "stealth" invasions are a losing game now. Blitzkriegs aren't much easier as a brand new delegate won't have much power at all.

So, yes. Regions with one or two non-UN members who log on once every two weeks are highly vulnerable. Then again, they always were.

Defender's ability to do anything is severely curtailed. Once the invaders have taken over with a sufficiently-high-Influence infiltrator nation, what else is there to do but sit back and watch the carnage ensue?Well, shit, then. Let's just scrap the whole thing and go back to the plan that I wanted: All delegates in all regions permanently have regional controls removed.

Anyway, we'll see what happens. Maybe the invaders won't even bother to jump through this hoop to guarantee their victories, and the entire invasion/defense game (what's left of it, that is) will go belly-up. Time will tell.I've been hearing this song for years now. You'll forgive me if I don't dance anymore.

Safalra's Influence Theories (version 3)
Thanks to everyone in this thread that has helped.

National influence rankings
Based on complete surveys of England and The YoungWorld:

Hermit (see note below)
Minnow
Vassal
Truckler
Handshaker
Envoy
Diplomat
Ambassador
Auxiliary
Contender
Enforcer

(Auxiliary and Ambassador were very close, and could be the other way round.)

The title of non-UN members seem to be dependent on the size of their region. Nations in regions by themselves have the ranking 'Hermit' (regardless of whether they are in the UN). Nations in regions with two members, neither of whom are in the UN, have the ranking 'Dominator'. There is presumably a scaling factor involved, and I'll investiagte more tomorrow.

Thanks, TMGH.

We've been discussing the new rules in several off-site forums and while you guys are restricting what information you'll give us (I can imagine why), the arguments you've been making in this thread have helped a lot with hashing out why the changes were made and how to deal with them.

We're all a bit unsure what to make of the changes as of yet, particularly because even the fairly stable regions don't have much in the way of influence because the system has only been collecting the data for about a month. However, I, and some of the others I talk to, are starting to see where this is going and how we can work within those rules. Thank you for the information you've given us.

Safalra's Influence Theories (version 3)
Thanks to everyone in this thread that has helped.

National influence rankings
Based on complete surveys of England and The YoungWorld:

Hermit (see note below)
Minnow
Vassal
Truckler
Handshaker
Envoy
Diplomat
Ambassador
Auxiliary
Contender
Enforcer

(Auxiliary and Ambassador were very close, and could be the other way round.)

The title of non-UN members seem to be dependent on the size of their region. Nations in regions by themselves have the ranking 'Hermit' (regardless of whether they are in the UN). Nations in regions with two members, neither of whom are in the UN, have the ranking 'Dominator'. There is presumably a scaling factor involved, and I'll investiagte more tomorrow.

Everything I've been able to collect seems to agree with your statements.

Eminence Grise, Power, Superpower?

Eminence Grise, Power, Superpower?

I don't know where those sit, personally. I know that I'm a powerbroker, but I'm also the founder of my region. In small regions it seems like the delegate is mostly a contender.

National influence rankings


Hermit
Minnow
Vassal
Truckler
Handshaker
Envoy
Instigator<
Diplomat
Ambassador
Auxiliary
Contender
Enforcer
Eminence Grise<
Powerbroker<
Superpower<

I put <'s by the new ones.

Nations in regions by themselves have the ranking 'Hermit' (regardless of whether they are in the UN).http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/Blues20Clues.gif
A clue! A clue!


We're all a bit unsure what to make of the changes as of yet, particularly because even the fairly stable regions don't have much in the way of influence because the system has only been collecting the data for about a month.Yes. This was a reality we couldn't alter. I've been in TPOT for over a year, but there's nothing in the regiondata or nationdata to prove that. This means a bit of chaos in every region until some time goes on, but things will shake out. There's some regions that got screwed by timing (ie: invader takes over right before changes went live), and there will be some growing pains as people get used to this, but I think condemning it as the Doom Of All (or of invasions, or of natives, or what-have-you) is extremely premature. It hasn't even been live for a week. There's still some bugs and oddities getting worked out (I'm assuming that's why regional influence went wonky yesterday), but I think this will turn out nicely.

And, as I've mentioned in other threads, players can always opt out of the invasion game by having a Founder and disabling Delegate controls. If we wanted to utterly screw players, we'd remove Founders.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/Blues20Clues.gif
A clue! A clue!

OH GOD that's funny!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/Blues20Clues.gif
A clue! A clue!


Yes. This was a reality we couldn't alter. I've been in TPOT for over a year, but there's nothing in the regiondata or nationdata to prove that. This means a bit of chaos in every region until some time goes on, but things will shake out. There's some regions that got screwed by timing (ie: invader takes over right before changes went live), and there will be some growing pains as people get used to this, but I think condemning it as the Doom Of All (or of invasions, or of natives, or what-have-you) is extremely premature. It hasn't even been live for a week. There's still some bugs and oddities getting worked out (I'm assuming that's why regional influence went wonky yesterday), but I think this will turn out nicely.

And, as I've mentioned in other threads, players can always opt out of the invasion game by having a Founder and disabling Delegate controls. If we wanted to utterly screw players, we'd remove Founders.

Yeah, actually, we got a little screwed by the timing because we spent much of that time in turmoil due to invasion, but I know that if it wasn't us it would be some other region. From what I can gather, even without the influence we would have if the data had been collected since the start of the game, there are methods we can use to deal with invasion.

Before I shout, "the sky is falling," I think I need a little more evidence than an acorn on the head.

EDIT: And for the record, those of us with a ton of nieces and nephews (me), are quite upset with you for getting that dog's voice stuck in our head. I always hated that show because the songs and voices are stick with you so well. I know that's the intent but people look at you like you're crazy when you're singing Blue's Clues at the DMV.

No, I think i sort of get Regional Influence, I'm confused about Rgional Power.

...because that's been SOP for every single invasion I've ever seen since I became a Game Mod?

That's not saying much. Mods tend to get involved precisely because there are (illegal) ejections...

Because seizing the Delegacy doesn't magically eliminate the former-delegate's endo-count, thus making him a major threat? Because the shift of one or two votes could but the former delegate back in charge?

Kicking out that former delegate's endorsers is easier to do. And as long as the region remains controlled (passworded), a shift of a few votes will be quite unlikely. You seem to presume here that former behaviour will be used in this new situation. Adapting is very easy. For invaders, at least.

And everybody with more endos than him is still advancing faster than he is. Furthermore, that's an invader who can't do anything else anywhere else because he's tied up in a region where he's falling behind. Long-term "stealth" invasions are a losing game now. Blitzkriegs aren't much easier as a brand new delegate won't have much power at all.

There's really no need for an invader lead to have a higher Influence ranking than the sitting delegate. Reaching the ability to password is all it takes. After that the region is doomed, if the invaders want it to be.

So, yes. Regions with one or two non-UN members who log on once every two weeks are highly vulnerable. Then again, they always were.

If vulnerability would be limited to just those cases, I'd have no problem with it. Considering that above you don't count in invader behaviour to be even remotely intelligent, I'm keeping open the possibility the math will work out a tad more advantageous for them than the way you describe it now.

Well, shit, then. Let's just scrap the whole thing and go back to the plan that I wanted: All delegates in all regions permanently have regional controls removed.

Golly, just the plan I suggested a long time ago :)

I've been hearing this song for years now. You'll forgive me if I don't dance anymore.

Death of NS, news at 11 :D

Ballotonia

If hermits are only in single nation regions, there must be a bug. Cause when I moved dwerb the transient into Indus River Valley, a region that had only one nation, the next day Dwerb's ranking had changed but Kot-Diji's was still hermit.

And I didn't see dealmaker in those rankings you guy's made.

That's not saying much. Mods tend to get involved precisely because there are (illegal) ejections...Nah. I've seen legal ones both as a mod and as a player. I was in Atlantic when it was invaded by the Den, and the first thing they did was kick our Delegate.

Kicking out that former delegate's endorsers is easier to do.Depends on how (forgive the term) incestuous the region is. In many smallish regions, the difference between Delegate and his supporters is minimal, thus making the supporters almost as difficult to kick. And this assumes that the invader is working just with outside support.

And as long as the region remains controlled (passworded), a shift of a few votes will be quite unlikely.Players, natives, can still shift UN status. Or, this is where defender intelligence comes in. Infiltration and all that fun stuff. What happened to the cloak and dagger? Where's Jack Flack when you need him?

You seem to presume here that former behaviour will be used in this new situation. Adapting is very easy. For invaders, at least.True, but people are also creatures of habit.

Reaching the ability to password is all it takes.Yes. And we haven't published what that takes, or what affects it.

After that the region is doomed, if the invaders want it to be.Hyperbole.

I'm keeping open the possibility the math will work out a tad more advantageous for them than the way you describe it now.From where I'm sitting, looking at actual numbers and code, as well as historic activity, and basic human psychology, I'm pretty hopeful for the system.

Certainly hopeful enough not to condemn the whole thing as the Death Of NationStates And The Crowning Of Invaders As Supreme after less than a week.

Golly, just the plan I suggested a long time agoSpeaking of killing the invasion game... I'm sure you remember the near-violent responce that idea received.

Don't be so resistant to change. This will shake things up and change some strategies but I think it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
This change has seemed to make the game more vunerable to invaders and ruthless UN Delegates instead of preventing such. I have heard the storys and if anyone starts an offsite petition, I will ensure you I will be one of the 1st to sign it.

I have heard the storys and if anyone starts an offsite petition, I will ensure you I will be one of the 1st to sign it.I've heard plenty of stories and seen precious little evidence.

And again with the online petition? If you want to waste your time by "signing" one, be my guest, just don't think it'll actually change a damn thing.

For those of us not living in game controlled region, but without founders, the changes do have a benefit.

The Federal Commonwealth Society is in the middle of a refounding now. We were resigned to waiting for 2 to 3 months, probably longer, for the old region to empty naturally because our delegate was worried about the griefing rules so didn't want to eject anyone.

The changes mean he can now eject as many inactives as the game will allow him to without any worries, and the actual refound will be acomplished much quicker, safer and easier than under the old system.

I know this is small comfort to those living in the feeders (I took all my puppets out of them on the first day), but for player created regions without founders, and worried about invaders, it is a big improvement.

For those of us not living in game controlled region, but without founders, the changes do have a benefit.

The Federal Commonwealth Society is in the middle of a refounding now. We were resigned to waiting for 2 to 3 months, probably longer, for the old region to empty naturally because our delegate was worried about the griefing rules so didn't want to eject anyone.

The changes mean he can now eject as many inactives as the game will allow him to without any worries, and the actual refound will be acomplished much quicker, safer and easier than under the old system.

I know this is small comfort to those living in the feeders (I took all my puppets out of them on the first day), but for player created regions without founders, and worried about invaders, it is a big improvement.
When you refound a region you tend to lose members though.

When you refound a region you tend to lose members though.
Yep. Wanna bet they're mostly sleepers, spies, and leftover puppets? I'd trade those for a founder any day.

Northern Sushi, we get that you're pissed about this, but your responses are irrational and frequently irrelevant. You're not happy. Consider it noted. Now how about laying off for a while unless you have something relevant to say.

Oi...

I've just managed to get control back over my home region of three years, two weeks and two days from some invaders who popped in just before the Influences started, and already I'm seeing problems...

For one, my influence dropped from 'Powerbroker' to just 'Power' and now I cannot password the region, hidden or otherwise. I'm also loathe to kick the three original invaders, as it says that doing so will 'consume a small amount of your influence' and I need all I can get. Kicking out the grunts is no problem, as that doesn't consume influence, but...

I don't know, something just seems incorrect about not being able to stem the flow of the invaders' reinforcements despite having been there... well, "the entire time" as it were.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/Blues20Clues.gif
A clue! A clue!
By jove, I think I've got it: Hermit isn't the least powerful, but the most powerful - a nation with the ranking 'hermit' has all the influence in its region. As this can only happen in regions with only one nation, the title doesn't need to sound powerful.

(Is that blue dog some American thing?)

Depends on how (forgive the term) incestuous the region is. In many smallish regions, the difference between Delegate and his supporters is minimal, thus making the supporters almost as difficult to kick. And this assumes that the invader is working just with outside support.

In an 'incestuous' region an infiltrating invader will have a bunch of native endorsements too, and will hence have gathered even more Influence by the time the invaders are ready to strike. Keep in mind, what matters is whether they can password the place, not whether they can kickban the former delegate immediately.

Players, natives, can still shift UN status. Or, this is where defender intelligence comes in. Infiltration and all that fun stuff. What happened to the cloak and dagger? Where's Jack Flack when you need him?

Defender intelligence has long been aimed at undermining invaders long-term. It's not efficient to waste an undercover agent just to save one region from being invaded at one particular moment.

Also, Defender activity isn't even remotely what it used to be. Have you seen the ADN forum lately? Counting on Defenders' presence to 'balance' the system seems like a flawed concept to me. It leads to the realization that invaders are only allowed to roam around and destroy freely just because defenders are there (and are expected to) stop the invaders from doing harm. Under those conditions defenders might be even less motivated than now to continue doing what they've been doing before.

From where I'm sitting, looking at actual numbers and code, as well as historic activity, and basic human psychology, I'm pretty hopeful for the system.

Certainly hopeful enough not to condemn the whole thing as the Death Of NationStates And The Crowning Of Invaders As Supreme after less than a week.

Invaders were already in the advantage as far as capturing a region goes. That they nontheless failed so often shows they are far from supreme. There was always one constant though: invasions were temporary. Invaders were expected to move on eventually, and the rules reflected this. In the new system there's nothing to get them to move on, so I expect them to focus more than before on trying to keep a region indefinitely. We'll see.

Speaking of killing the invasion game... I'm sure you remember the near-violent responce that idea received.

In the forum where we discussed this, the (old-skool) invader rep. agreed with it actually. The opposing voice came from a feeder delegate who didn't like the idea of having to use politics instead of the convenience of a ban-button to remain in charge of a feeder region.

And, yes, I think the more hardcore invaders would oppose that fiercely. For them it's no fun if they can't abuse their victims, they just wanna do as much damage as possible.

Ballotonia

OK, I understand the whole process of invading and whatnot, but have a couple questions (Iknow, a liitle off topic). What exactly does invading accomplish? You get a region and all, but why not just make one? And could someone just give a two sentence explanation of griefing. Is it just invading?

On another forum, they came up with the idea that some of the rankings are based upon the old (pre-jolt) rankings you would recieve for number of posts, just an idea.

OK, I understand the whole process of invading and whatnot, but have a couple questions (Iknow, a liitle off topic). What exactly does invading accomplish? You get a region and all, but why not just make one? And could someone just give a two sentence explanation of griefing. Is it just invading?

On another forum, they came up with the idea that some of the rankings are based upon the old (pre-jolt) rankings you would recieve for number of posts, just an idea.

Invading accomplishes nothing, they get a sense of satisfaction at taking over over people's regions and you get a sense of power and excitement. Invader's have their own regions but take over other people's and normally they then move on to another region.

Depends whether you want the old or the new rules?

Influence by number of posts would mean that spammers would have a lot of influence. Computers cannot judge how clever or interesting your post is.

This change has seemed to make the game more vunerable to invaders and ruthless UN Delegates instead of preventing such. I have heard the storys and if anyone starts an offsite petition, I will ensure you I will be one of the 1st to sign it.
Speaking for myself. This being the third day of the new feature. I think they did a pretty good job with it.
It's pretty neat.

Though, I'm still not sure about that hermits only being single regions stuff. Cause this is the second day that one of my single nation regions has actually had 2 nations in it. And the original resident is still a hermit but the new guy has moved form minnow to handshaker, and now he's an auxilliary. But the original inhabitant is still a hermit.

Speaking for myself. This being the third day of the new feature. I think they did a pretty good job with it.
It's pretty neat.

Though, I'm still not sure about that hermits only being single regions stuff. Cause this is the second day that one of my single nation regions has actually had 2 nations in it. And the original resident is still a hermit but the new guy has moved form minnow to handshaker, and now he's an auxilliary. But the original inhabitant is still a hermit.
That also seems to show me that non UN members can also advance quickly in rank.

By jove, I think I've got it: Hermit isn't the least powerful, but the most powerful - a nation with the ranking 'hermit' has all the influence in its region. As this can only happen in regions with only one nation, the title doesn't need to sound powerful.

(Is that blue dog some American thing?)
You've never heard of Blue's Clues?

It's not just in regions with only one nation.

Look up the Indus River Valley. Kot Diji is a hermit. But Dwerb is an auxilliary.
Hmmm. Maybe that does kind of prove your point about hermit being the most powerful rank in the region. Kot-Diji is the founder of the region and has been there for months, whereas Dwerb is brand new, and Kot is much bigger than Dwerb population wise.

You've never heard of Blue's Clues?
Nope.

It's not just in regions with only one nation.

Look up the Indus River Valley. Kot Diji is a hermit. But Dwerb is an auxilliary.
Hmmm. Maybe that does kind of prove your point about hermit being the most powerful rank in the region. Kot-Diji is the founder of the region and has been there for months, whereas Dwerb is brand new, and Kot is much bigger than Dwerb population wise.
I'm doing some research at the moment (I'll report the results in a few hours time). To be a hermit you need somewhere over 50% of the total influence of the region (50% equates to dominator).

Some thoughts about Regional Influence:

It's kind of strange, but I don't think regional (this is the overall region) influence depends on the number of nations in a region; my region (Holy Land) only has 23 nations but we're Moderate and not Low.

There are several possibilities of bases upon which influence could be founded:

1)Activity of Delegate in the UN
2)Number of Endorsements the Delegate has
3)Activity of Endorsers in the UN
4)Number of Endorsements over all UN members

If all of these are a factor, it might be that a region in which all UN nations endorse each other - and they all vote in the UN - might be one of the most powerful regions out there.

I know that one guy in my region - Im a native - endorsed all the other UN nations in the region the other day and our power went from Low to Moderate.

Just a thought.

Here’s a run-down of the 6 nations in the region of Forest:

UN delegate: none
UN members: 2
Founder: Devdan (dead and forgotten)
Regional power: low

Nations:

Hope in Nature – 697 million, been around for months – regional influence: power

Errinundera – 2.8 billion, recently re-joined UN for first time since resurrection, no endorsements, been here for months, regional influence: power

Carboni – 749 million, Errinundera puppet, both nations joined region just after Carboni created (and Errinundera resurrected), regional influence: power

Karock – 26 million, arrived 11 days ago, UN member, no endorsements, regional influence: instigator

Amaga Forest – 68 million, been here most of that time, regional influence: instigator

Blood Tearz – 86 million, again seems to have spent a large portion of their short life in the region, regional influence: eminence grise

That’s 3 rated as “power”.

Not much happens in our region. It’s somewhere quiet for my nations to rest their weary bones.

It seems to me that the main purpose of the new process is to protect “natives”, rather than rate nations.

For what its worth, hermits are not people who are vulnerable. Rather, they are characterised by their immovability. That makes them strong.

Finally, could the frequency a nation logs on and responds to issues be a factor?

Errinundera']Finally, could the frequency a nation logs on and responds to issues be a factor?
No - a moderator answered that earlier in this thread.

Safalra's Guide To Influence

When a nation moves to a region, it has no influence within that region. Nations accrue influence in a region by remaining in the region, and by receiving endorsements from the region's members. Being a member of the UN has no effect unless the nation gains endorsements, and the influence of the nations endorsing has no effect either.

At each UN update the each nation's influence is increased by a constant factor (to represent its remaining in the region) and a factor proportionate to the number of UN endorsements it has. The precise equivalence between these two factors (for example, whether having n endorsements is equivalent to remaining in a region for n days) is unclear.

The regional power is equal to the sum of the national influence of all its members (updated each UN update), and is displayed as a ranking on a scale ranging from 'Backwater' to 'Extremely High'.

The national influence ranking (ranging from 'Minnow' to 'Hermit') is determined by the ratio of national influence to total regional influence and the previous UN update. If the nation joined the region since the last UN update it has no power. If the region was created since the last UN update all its member have ranking 'Hermit' until the next UN update.

The (incomplete) ordering of national influence rankings is as follows:

Hermit
Dominator
Superpower
Power
Powerbroker
Eminence Grise
Enforcer
Dealmaker
Instigator
Contender
Negotiator
Auxiliary
Ambassador
Diplomat
Envoy
Handshaker
Truckler
Vassal
Minnow

The ordering can be deduced by looking at regions where all nations have identical influence (mainly regions without UN memebrs where the membership hasn't changed since the influence system was introduced):

1 Hermit (00000000000000000000000000)
2 Dominator (000000000000000000000000)
3 Superpower (000000000 GrandIslamicAlliance)
4 Power (00000000000000000000000000000)
5 Power (Abudabi)
6 Powerbroker (00 Nirvana 00)
7 Eminence Grise (A Home for Those About to Rock)
8 Eminence Grise (Abcede)
9 Eminence Grise (Anti Nerd Alliance)
10 Eminence Grise (Acheron)
11 Enforcer (Conservicstan)
12 Dealmaker (Alrindor)
13 Instigator (Ashtan)
14 Instigator (Lost Caribbean Islands)
15 Contender (Poke World)
16 Contender (Civics Class Sandbox)
17 Contender (EOTLOUD)
18 Negotiator (Sheep Protectors)
19 Negotiator (Chemistry)
20 Negotiator (Major IMPACT)
21
22 Ambassador (The NSPD)
23 Ambassador (Terra 13)
24
25 Ambassador (The Cheese Alliance)
26 Diplomat (Pantheon)
27
28
29
30
31 Envoy (ECU)

The also allows us to derive bounds on the share of total regional influence that leads to each title.

Does anyone know if being the regional founder has any effect on influence? I'm the regional founder and I have no endorsements(population only 8 million, 3 days old) and already my influence is Superpower. Though most of the other nations in my reagion are Powers, it may just be that small regions have a bigger distribution of power.(To each nation, that is.)

It's a good idea to stop region crashing etc, but I don't quite understand it.
Where it's been said earlier in this thread that Ambassador comes before Handshaker: I am the regional founder, haven't left my region since I founded it over 14 months ago (not that I'm counting), am online every day without fail, and I am the only one that ever actually does anything - be it post in regional HQ or go recruiting. And yet, I am a Handshaker whilst every other nation in the region - with the exception of the new arrivals - are Ambassadors.

I'm confused.
:confused:

It's a good idea to stop region crashing etc, but I don't quite understand it.
Where it's been said earlier in this thread that Ambassador comes before Handshaker: I am the regional founder, haven't left my region since I founded it over 14 months ago (not that I'm counting), am online every day without fail, and I am the only one that ever actually does anything - be it post in regional HQ or go recruiting. And yet, I am a Handshaker whilst every other nation in the region - with the exception of the new arrivals - are Ambassadors.

I'm confused.
:confused:

This ties into the concept that actions you have taken before the system was put into effect do not factor into your influence. Everyone started at the same level when this system was introduced. It will eventually sort itself out.

Does anyone know if being the regional founder has any effect on influence?
It doesn't. (At least not according to my extensive research today.)

I'm the regional founder and I have no endorsements(population only 8 million, 3 days old) and already my influence is Superpower. Though most of the other nations in my reagion are Powers, it may just be that small regions have a bigger distribution of power.(To each nation, that is.)
Being a small region, each nation has a higher proportion of the influence within the region. See my long post above for more information (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10764060&postcount=229).

I've read a helluva lot on this now, and Safrala's list seems perfect to me, except he still hasn't got Hegemony or Dusckspeaker on it. If it helps, hegemony means "The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others." and Dusckspeaker is from Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's been suggested that a Duckspeaker is someone that is, well, an endorsement whore, for want of a better word.

I think this addition will work out brilliantly. I appluad Safrala for his superb work and list forming. Well done!

I've read a helluva lot on this now, and Safrala's list seems perfect to me, except he still hasn't got Hegemony or Dusckspeaker on it. If it helps, hegemony means "The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others." and Dusckspeaker is from Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's been suggested that a Duckspeaker is someone that is, well, an endorsement whore, for want of a better word.

I think this addition will work out brilliantly. I appluad Safrala for his superb work and list forming. Well done!
Thanks. I'm using another trick (using the region XML feed) to work out where the missing positions fit.

Edit: I'll fix the list if you spell my name correctly. :-)

Could someone point me to a region with a Hegemony in it?

Also, while I've found regions with Duckspeakers in, all I've been able to deduce is that it's between Truckler and Diplomat. Can anyone point me to a region with all three of Duckspeakers, Envoys and Handshakers (preferrably with a few of each).

I'd like to read the entire thread, but I'm pressed for time. Just wondering, has an official list been published with all of the rankings and their relative power? If not, have the admins/mods given any official reasons why they haven't yet told us, besides that it's a secret? I'm not asking for theories, but an actual reason. Thanks.

Safalra's Guide To Influence

When a nation moves to a region, it has no influence within that region. Nations accrue influence in a region by remaining in the region, and by receiving endorsements from the region's members. Being a member of the UN has no effect unless the nation gains endorsements, and the influence of the nations endorsing has no effect either.

At each UN update the each nation's influence is increased by a constant factor (to represent its remaining in the region) and a factor proportionate to the number of UN endorsements it has. The precise equivalence between these two factors (for example, whether having n endorsements is equivalent to remaining in a region for n days) is unclear.

The regional power is equal to the sum of the national influence of all its members (updated each UN update), and is displayed as a ranking on a scale ranging from 'Backwater' to 'Extremely High'.

The national influence ranking (ranging from 'Minnow' to 'Hermit') is determined by the ratio of national influence to total regional influence and the previous UN update. If the nation joined the region since the last UN update it has no power. If the region was created since the last UN update all its member have ranking 'Hermit' until the next UN update.

The (incomplete) ordering of national influence rankings is as follows:

Hermit
Dominator
Superpower
Power
Powerbroker
Eminence Grise
Enforcer
Dealmaker
Instigator
Contender
Negotiator
Auxiliary
Ambassador
Diplomat
Envoy
Handshaker
Truckler
Vassal
Minnow

The ordering can be deduced by looking at regions where all nations have identical influence (mainly regions without UN memebrs where the membership hasn't changed since the influence system was introduced):

1 Hermit (00000000000000000000000000)
2 Dominator (000000000000000000000000)
3 Superpower (000000000 GrandIslamicAlliance)
4 Power (00000000000000000000000000000)
5 Power (Abudabi)
6 Powerbroker (00 Nirvana 00)
7 Eminence Grise (A Home for Those About to Rock)
8 Eminence Grise (Abcede)
9 Eminence Grise (Anti Nerd Alliance)
10 Eminence Grise (Acheron)
11 Enforcer (Conservicstan)
12 Dealmaker (Alrindor)
13 Instigator (Ashtan)
14 Instigator (Lost Caribbean Islands)
15 Contender (Poke World)
16 Contender (Civics Class Sandbox)
17 Contender (EOTLOUD)
18 Negotiator (Sheep Protectors)
19 Negotiator (Chemistry)
20 Negotiator (Major IMPACT)
21
22 Ambassador (The NSPD)
23 Ambassador (Terra 13)
24
25 Ambassador (The Cheese Alliance)
26 Diplomat (Pantheon)
27
28
29
30
31 Envoy (ECU)

The also allows us to derive bounds on the share of total regional influence that leads to each title.

I feel like I'm watching a Super Solver show as you deduce.

Anyways, I like the new system, although I'd like it a little more if it had taken into account time before this update. However, I realize that is impossible...

Could someone point me to a region with a Hegemony in it?

Also, while I've found regions with Duckspeakers in, all I've been able to deduce is that it's between Truckler and Diplomat. Can anyone point me to a region with all three of Duckspeakers, Envoys and Handshakers (preferrably with a few of each).

The region of Diablo

My founder nation of Rinamentia is a Hegemony, for the time being anyway.

have the admins/mods given any official reasons why they haven't yet told us, besides that it's a secret?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10746692#post10746692

I'm enjoying the "Influence Cost Estimate" tool

key: cost to eject and ban/cost to eject only

a minnow or a vassal would cost small/tiny

a truckler would cost a small/small

a hand shaker costs small/very small, which means they probably are worth less than a truckler

an envoy costs moderate/small

an instigator(myself) costs half/significant

an ambassador costs moderate/small

an auxillary would cost significant/moderate

I dont have any contenders or enforcers in my region

an Eminence Grise would cost large/half

no power broker or super powers in my region

so what i think it should look like(props to previous chart listings)

Hermit
Minnow
Vassal
Handshaker-
Truckler+
Envoy
Diplomat-
Ambassador-
Auxiliary-
Instigator+
Contender
Enforcer
Eminence Grise
Powerbroker
Superpower
(+ = went up in rankings, - = went down)

Oh, that's a cute logic.

Difference being that this is the first list of 'titles' that has a direct effect on gameplay. What UN category you are has no bearing on if a handful of punks can raid your region, boot everybody out, and lock it down, while a very large majority of regional natives can't muster enough influence to stem the flow of invading reinforcements.

I don't like it.

What UN category ou are has no bearing on if a handful of punks can raid your region, boot everybody out, and lock it down, while a very large majority of regional natives can't muster enough influence to stem the flow of invading reinforcements.Good thing the system doesn't work like that, hey?

TMGH, your statement is funny, because that's what happened.

Three invaders were able to lock down our region and kick out our delegate in a single move. Over the three days it took us to regain control, they kicked out at least seven more members.

We've re-established control of the delegacy, yet somehow, with fourteen people on our side, and my having never actually left this region since its founding three years ago, we still do not have enough influence to password the region again.

How has this not favored the invaders?

In an 'incestuous' region an infiltrating invader will have a bunch of native endorsements too,We're using different definitions. I was more referencing a tight-knit region, typically where the members know each other outside of the game, and therefore wouldn't be especially likely to mass-endorse an invader.

You're describing... um... an orgy-esque region? Perhaps 'promiscuous' would be better. However, we find ourselves in a very similar situation as before: some regions are easier to invade than others. The new system also means that the time investment on invaders is considerably higher. New regions are vulnerable, old regions less so. It's just hard coded this time.

Defender intelligence has long been aimed at undermining invaders long-term. It's not efficient to waste an undercover agent just to save one region from being invaded at one particular moment.Hm. Battle vs. War mentality; fair enough. From the illegal invasions I've broken up, I've noticed some things about the password. Obviously, it wouldn't be proper for me to discuss, but passwords aren't necessarily proof against "liberation".

Also, Defender activity isn't even remotely what it used to be. Have you seen the ADN forum lately?Can't say that I have.

Counting on Defenders' presence to 'balance' the system seems like a flawed concept to me.We're not doing that, as such. We're counting on residents who don't like being invaded taking steps to prevent or rectify the situation. These new rules also allow for refounding, which means any region, with sufficient planning, can refound rather quickly, as opposed to waiting for lifeless residents to time out.

In the new system there's nothing to get them to move on, so I expect them to focus more than before on trying to keep a region indefinitely.I don't see why you think this. There is still no incentive to stay indefinately. It's not like we're sending them a check for every month they can hold a region.

In the forum where we discussed this, the (old-skool) invader rep. agreed with it actually.Heh... it was good to see him again, for what it's worth. Still, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't he been out of the invasion game for quite some time? Indeed, he's the Founder of his region, so Delegates losing control wouldn't affect him in the slightest.

and my having never actually left this region since its founding three years ago

as has been said already the system has only been gathering "influence" for the last month or so, it doesnt matter if you've been in a region two months or two years, you'll still only have it from the start of the system.

Three invaders were able to lock down our region and kick out our delegate in a single move. Over the three days it took us to regain control, they kicked out at least seven more members.Weren't you in the region where the invaders took control before the influence code went live? Weren't you told that this was a fluke of timing and therefore not representative of how the system was designed to work and will work in the future? They passworded without using influence because the game wasn't charging influence to set passwords. You're complaining about a system that wasn't fully in place, and blaming it for not stopping something from happening.

That's like asking why the United Nations didn't prevent WWII.

If the invaders sacked my region before the influence code went active, they must have done it a matter of hours beforehand, possibly less.

Since nobody was around at the time of the event, except the invaders themselves, I happen to believe that they knocked us out after the code became active.

I happen to believe that they knocked us out after the code became active.
Fantastic work! With this kind of incontrovertible evidence I do not understand how the moderator team can ignore your whining.

Fact is until the influence system has been in place for 3-5 months it will not work properly, after that it will be an excellent system. If you are too shortsighted to see that this system benefits NS hugely in the long run then that is just too bad for you.

Safalra's Guide To Influence

When a nation moves to a region, it has no influence within that region. Nations accrue influence in a region by remaining in the region, and by receiving endorsements from the region's members. Being a member of the UN has no effect unless the nation gains endorsements, and the influence of the nations endorsing has no effect either.

At each UN update the each nation's influence is increased by a constant factor (to represent its remaining in the region) and a factor proportionate to the number of UN endorsements it has. The precise equivalence between these two factors (for example, whether having n endorsements is equivalent to remaining in a region for n days) is unclear.

The regional power is equal to the sum of the national influence of all its members (updated each UN update), and is displayed as a ranking on a scale ranging from 'Backwater' to 'Extremely High'.

The national influence ranking (ranging from 'Minnow' to 'Hermit') is determined by the ratio of national influence to total regional influence and the previous UN update. If the nation joined the region since the last UN update it has no power. If the region was created since the last UN update all its member have ranking 'Hermit' until the next UN update.

The (incomplete) ordering of national influence rankings is as follows:

Hermit
Dominator
Superpower
Power
Powerbroker
Eminence Grise
Enforcer
Dealmaker
Instigator
Contender
Negotiator
Auxiliary
Ambassador
Diplomat
Envoy
Handshaker
Truckler
Vassal
Minnow

The ordering can be deduced by looking at regions where all nations have identical influence (mainly regions without UN memebrs where the membership hasn't changed since the influence system was introduced):

1 Hermit (00000000000000000000000000)
2 Dominator (000000000000000000000000)
3 Superpower (000000000 GrandIslamicAlliance)
4 Power (00000000000000000000000000000)
5 Power (Abudabi)
6 Powerbroker (00 Nirvana 00)
7 Eminence Grise (A Home for Those About to Rock)
8 Eminence Grise (Abcede)
9 Eminence Grise (Anti Nerd Alliance)
10 Eminence Grise (Acheron)
11 Enforcer (Conservicstan)
12 Dealmaker (Alrindor)
13 Instigator (Ashtan)
14 Instigator (Lost Caribbean Islands)
15 Contender (Poke World)
16 Contender (Civics Class Sandbox)
17 Contender (EOTLOUD)
18 Negotiator (Sheep Protectors)
19 Negotiator (Chemistry)
20 Negotiator (Major IMPACT)
21
22 Ambassador (The NSPD)
23 Ambassador (Terra 13)
24
25 Ambassador (The Cheese Alliance)
26 Diplomat (Pantheon)
27
28
29
30
31 Envoy (ECU)

The also allows us to derive bounds on the share of total regional influence that leads to each title.
I found a new one: Hegemony. Again Indus River ValleyRegion, nation= Kot-Diji