allilee Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Didn't know if there was a way to do this already or if it has already been discussed but: Whether an alliance has the function to embargo another alliance, meaning that all the members from each alliance are therefore automatically embargoed from each other? Like it would be in real life with countries? So if t$ embargoed Mensa, then no members from either t$ or Mensa could trade with the members if the other alliance. Thoughts...? I HAVE CREATED A NEW THREAD IN THE GAME SUGGESTIONS AREA Edited January 18, 2017 by allilee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Discussed before but I still like the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 It would probably add more weight to what is a pretty useless feature atm. Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Yeah, Sheepy doesn't want to do it even though people like it. But he can change the war system mid-war when everyone says no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seabasstion Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Yeah, Sheepy doesn't want to do it even though people like it. But he can change the war system mid-war when everyone says no. well yeah he kind of can considering this is his product. he can direct it the best way he sees fit. with that said i like the idea though (: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 18, 2017 Administrators Share Posted January 18, 2017 I personally don't like the idea, as I believe it consolidates too much power in the hands of two few. Embargoes should be made at the national level. What you want to do can already easily be achieved - an alliance just has to instruct its members to all embargo a particular nation or alliance. In the real world, alliances of nations often do this - but regularly you'll get nations who violate the embargoes because they can profit from them. That situation is basically being replicated here - and that's a good thing. It creates conflict when someone else from your alliance is violating the intended embargo for personal profit. What do you do with them? Kick them out of the alliance? Fine them? Etc. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printer635 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) I personally don't like the idea, as I believe it consolidates too much power in the hands of two few. Embargoes should be made at the national level. What you want to do can already easily be achieved - an alliance just has to instruct its members to all embargo a particular nation or alliance. In the real world, alliances of nations often do this - but regularly you'll get nations who violate the embargoes because they can profit from them. That situation is basically being replicated here - and that's a good thing. It creates conflict when someone else from your alliance is violating the intended embargo for personal profit. What do you do with them? Kick them out of the alliance? Fine them? Etc. I'm not bothered by this feature either way. But could you not implement it so that the alliance leaders can set the embargo for all their members but any member that doesn't want the embargo can just remove it? Edited January 18, 2017 by Printer635 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I personally don't like the idea, as I believe it consolidates too much power in the hands of two few. Embargoes should be made at the national level. What you want to do can already easily be achieved - an alliance just has to instruct its members to all embargo a particular nation or alliance. In the real world, alliances of nations often do this - but regularly you'll get nations who violate the embargoes because they can profit from them. That situation is basically being replicated here - and that's a good thing. It creates conflict when someone else from your alliance is violating the intended embargo for personal profit. What do you do with them? Kick them out of the alliance? Fine them? Etc. Too few* You should honestly just do this, majority of players want it and it's suggested a lot of times. You personally don't like it, but let's remember that you personally don't play the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allilee Posted January 18, 2017 Author Share Posted January 18, 2017 I personally don't like the idea, as I believe it consolidates too much power in the hands of two few. Embargoes should be made at the national level. What you want to do can already easily be achieved - an alliance just has to instruct its members to all embargo a particular nation or alliance. In the real world, alliances of nations often do this - but regularly you'll get nations who violate the embargoes because they can profit from them. That situation is basically being replicated here - and that's a good thing. It creates conflict when someone else from your alliance is violating the intended embargo for personal profit. What do you do with them? Kick them out of the alliance? Fine them? Etc. I think it's worth trying People like the idea, and are always saying that new stuff should be added to keep the game interesting It would also add another level of politics to the game as well Think it's worth a try Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 18, 2017 Administrators Share Posted January 18, 2017 Players want it because they are too lazy to push their players to enact the embargoes themselves, and the ones championing it are the ones who would have the power to use it. The players that participate here on the forums are not representative of all players - we tend to have a disproportionate number of alliance leaders and government members, who obviously would like to use such an ability because it makes their lives easier. But I do not believe that it effectively adds anything to gameplay, other than giving lazy people in power more power. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Players want it because they are too lazy to push their players to enact the embargoes themselves, and the ones championing it are the ones who would have the power to use it. The players that participate here on the forums are not representative of all players - we tend to have a disproportionate number of alliance leaders and government members, who obviously would like to use such an ability because it makes their lives easier. But I do not believe that it effectively adds anything to gameplay, other than giving lazy people in power more power. Again, you don't play the game. You don't realize how much power this would bring and hope much more important it would make the feature. This would finally give Embargos purpose. It's not going to be hugely game-changing like a spy or war update mid-war like you've done. You piss off so much of your playerbase this way you don't believe. This is something a shut ton of members want but you yet again, refuse a good idea, simply because someone who doesn't play, dictates to the players what would be useful. I'd rather try it and see, there's no harm to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Players want it because they are too lazy to push their players to enact the embargoes themselves We tried to back in EoS and it didn't work. Messaging people every turn and denying them aid still didn't make them do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allilee Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 Players want it because they are too lazy to push their players to enact the embargoes themselves, and the ones championing it are the ones who would have the power to use it. The players that participate here on the forums are not representative of all players - we tend to have a disproportionate number of alliance leaders and government members, who obviously would like to use such an ability because it makes their lives easier. But I do not believe that it effectively adds anything to gameplay, other than giving lazy people in power more power. Im just an alliance member - no gov status or leader whatever I would like to see the update as it makes things easier and would make an embargo more 'worth it' - it would add more politics to the game where there is the possibility that in wars, some alliances may become so stretched that they have to accept peace etc, bringing more tactics as well etc. I also think it adds a greater effect to the embargo tool 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 22, 2017 Administrators Share Posted January 22, 2017 We tried to back in EoS and it didn't work. Messaging people every turn and denying them aid still didn't make them do it. I think that just makes you ineffective leaders, and if it was my alliance, I would've kicked out alliance members who did not respect alliance-wide embargoes. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 I think that just makes you ineffective leaders, and if it was my alliance, I would've kicked out alliance members who did not respect alliance-wide embargoes. The long-term value of members outweighed the short-term political message to an opposing alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allilee Posted January 22, 2017 Author Share Posted January 22, 2017 It may also change market prices as well - creating more turbulence there Bit like with oil prices in real life, went really high, then fell, then rose again etc If alliances could do embargoes for all alliance members then it would effect their own members as well So people aren't just going to go mad and do loads of embargoes as it effects them as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 A prime example of anotger time Sheepy ignores his playerbase for himself while not playing the game. (And before you say this is a handful of people, this has been suggested at least 5-6 times by different people with a lot of people agreeing, it's a popular idea.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatkitteh Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I think that just makes you ineffective leaders, and if it was my alliance, I would've kicked out alliance members who did not respect alliance-wide embargoes. No wonder New Parasol Order keeps winning Players want it because they are too lazy to push their players to enact the embargoes themselves, and the ones championing it are the ones who would have the power to use it. The players that participate here on the forums are not representative of all players - we tend to have a disproportionate number of alliance leaders and government members, who obviously would like to use such an ability because it makes their lives easier. But I do not believe that it effectively adds anything to gameplay, other than giving lazy people in power more power. It doesnt, but people want it and you should add it for that. Im a member, Roquentin abuses me and stuffq, and its a good idea considering the tediousness and impracticality of individually PMing people and then tracking every.single.nation. of a 120 member alliance to see they embargoed the right guy, then again waving the swagger stick to warn them again/check if they were on to do so/individually enter and ban each person. 1 Quote :sheepy: :sheepy: Greatkitteh was here.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiki Mod Dr Rush Posted January 23, 2017 Wiki Mod Share Posted January 23, 2017 The long-term value of members outweighed the short-term political message to an opposing alliance. The short-term value of tax farms is outweighed by the long-term liability of someone who can't follow simple instructions. A prime example of anotger time Sheepy ignores his playerbase for himself while not playing the game. (And before you say this is a handful of people, this has been suggested at least 5-6 times by different people with a lot of people agreeing, it's a popular idea.) Argumentum ad populum No wonder New Parasol Order keeps winning It doesnt, but people want it and you should add it for that. Im a member, Roquentin abuses me and stuffq, and its a good idea considering the tediousness and impracticality of individually PMing people and then tracking every.single.nation. of a 120 member alliance to see they embargoed the right guy, then again waving the swagger stick to warn them again/check if they were on to do so/individually enter and ban each person. So out of 120 people you can't find someone to write a couple simple spreadsheets, rip you. Git gud scrubs. I actually agree with Sheepy here, this idea is dumb & based in laziness. You want a mechanic that removes skill & coordination to replace it with a button click. Moreover a button click that takes away from the gameplay options of an individual. Why not have him code a way to let leaders build their members cities or declare their assigned targets. They are the same concept & that concept is baaaaaad. But at least those ideas effect a meaningful mechanic, the embargo module was a waste of time in the first place, wasting further time on it is stupid. Quote 23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves 23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous 23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed 23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves 23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love 6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be !@#$ing stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) Continuously attacking Sheepy instead of rationally explaining why your suggestion is better than the current situation is not likely to change his mind - nor should it. And saying we should try it out and see how it goes also is a slippery slope. Once it's live in-game, the consequences of those actions are permanent, and there should always be consideration of all possible outcomes, good and bad, of those changes. The reason for this suggestion box is to give Sheepy a player's perspective on what would make the game better. My opinion is that giving an alliance the option to embargo another alliance would be immensely helpful. However, we also don't need to individually message our members due to alliance announcements, and there have been tools made specifically to help speed up the embargo process for our members, so it's not like it would save alliance leaders that much time. All it would accomplish is the ability to ensure your members do not trade with another alliance, and as Sheepy said In the real world, alliances of nations often do this - but regularly you'll get nations who violate the embargoes because they can profit from them. That situation is basically being replicated here - and that's a good thing. It creates conflict when someone else from your alliance is violating the intended embargo for personal profit. What do you do with them? Kick them out of the alliance? Fine them? Etc. The long-term value of members outweighed the short-term political message to an opposing alliance. I think it depends on the situation. Are you selling uranium to the enemy so they can nuke you/your alliance mates/your coalition partners? What about buying alum for the cheapest price so you can rebuy planes? Or are you just buying/selling credits? I prefer it the way it is now. Let me decide who I can trade with, and let me suffer the consequences of those actions. Free trade FTW. Edited January 23, 2017 by Samwise 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 The short-term value of tax farms is outweighed by the long-term liability of someone who can't follow simple instructions. We were fairly sure that we would be going to war with the alliance we were attempting to embargo. They would act as a shield. (As for the "tax farm," I'm fairly sure we had a 0% tax rate at the time that I kept changing to 1% without Casey's approval, but whatever) I think it depends on the situation. Are you selling uranium to the enemy so they can nuke you/your alliance mates/your coalition partners? What about buying alum for the cheapest price so you can rebuy planes? Or are you just buying/selling credits? I prefer it the way it is now. Let me decide who I can trade with, and let me suffer the consequences of those actions. Free trade FTW. Then let the alliance decide. If the alliance leaders decide to do something dumb, let them do it. Nobody is forcing the members to be part of the alliance. If your alliance leader starts taking money from the bank to fund his 52nd city while the median city count is 5, then you can find a new alliance. If your alliance starts putting draconian restrictions, then you can find a new one. Argumentum ad populum That's great and all, but you attempted to disprove this quote (And before you say this is a handful of people, this has been suggested at least 5-6 times by different people with a lot of people agreeing, it's a popular idea.) With this Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.