Alliance Embargos

[Thalmor]

Embargos are kinda useless right now. They're only useful if a number of alliances get their entire membership to embargo another actor. However, for a handful of alliances to mobilize potentially hundreds of players is a pain. As such, I have a solution:

 

Give alliance government the option to force their members' nations to embargo another nation or alliance, with individual members having the option to cancel their own embargo.

 

Let's say alliance A has beef with alliance B. Maybe alliance B insulted their leader or a bunch of their members espionaged alliance A's members and killed a bunch of spies or something. Anyways, alliance A could get alliance C and alliance D together, and all 3 could use the above solution to get their combined 80 members to embargo all 20-ish members of alliance B. This would avoid a costly war that wouldn't be worth it, and alliance B wouldn't get away with their perceived trespass because having so many embargos would be somewhat damaging.

 

However, let's say some members of alliance D didn't like being forced to embargo all 20-ish members of alliance B. Maybe they have some friends in there. Those members of alliance D could just cancel their embargo very quickly and easily like they would do any embargo they themselves set.

 

What this does is make embargos more powerful while not stepping on the player's right to manage their nation. Of course, maybe a nation will be punished by their alliance by getting rid of their embargo, but that's IC stuff and this is an OOC suggestion.

 

The ability to embargo would be able to target not just alliances, but also individual nations. So if somebody decideds to nuclear rogue, then that somebody can be embargos by their victim alliance(s).

 

Just like the ability to withdraw from alliance banks, leaders can set what tier of membership (member, officer, heir, leader) can set alliance embargos.

[Kastor]

This has been brought up countless times and Alex refuses to do it.

[Edward I]

Embargos are kinda useless right now. They're only useful if a number of alliances get their entire membership to embargo another actor. However, for a handful of alliances to mobilize potentially hundreds of players is a pain. As such, I have a solution:

 

Give alliance government the option to force their members' nations to embargo another nation or alliance, with individual members having the option to cancel their own embargo.

 

1) How much of a pain is it really? Send out a mass message to your alliance telling everyone to embargo alliance X. Anyone who's too inactive to do it probably isn't trading in the first place and doesn't matter for the purposes of the embargo.

 

2) Why is it a problem that alliance leaders have to mobilize their membership to accomplish something? I think it's a good thing that active alliances are better able to throw their weight around than inactive ones are.

[Ekejen Luish]

I have a beef with all the coward alliances.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU

Edited March 15, 2017 by Golen IV

[fistofdoom]

have a check box in settings somewhere that says something like "allow my alliance to embargo for me"

 

this is to add on to this so its less intrusive if its not desired by the individual

[Khorne]

Although I get the gist of this suggestion, and wouldn't particularly mind something like this added assuming there's a checkbox of sorts enabling/disabling the option, as suggested by fistofdoom above, I still feel as if the point of this game should be to reward activity, and communication (and actually following what Gov tells them to do) between members of the alliance and their respective Government.

 

The game rewarding the active alliances, and rewarding alliances that have better communication is one thing this suggestion would step upon.

 

You can easily do this by sending out a mass PM (Already a game mechanic) and simply tell them to embargo another alliance. 

 

This wouldn't reward alliances that do have better levels of activity, and would just reward those that don't. Communication is vital and (mobilizing the nations in your alliance is very important) in this game, and while I agree that this would be a pain for some alliances to do, that's the entire point. If your members are active, and if your relations with members are strong enough to get them to do something you want, then it won't be a problem.

 

TL;DR: This rewards (in a way) inactive alliances, and lessens the importance of active alliances in regards to things such as embargos upon entire alliances.

 

Btw, previous thread and this.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Khorne

[Azaghul]

Although I get the gist of this suggestion, and wouldn't particularly mind something like this added assuming there's a checkbox of sorts enabling/disabling the option, as suggested by fistofdoom above, I still feel as if the point of this game should be to reward activity, and communication (and actually following what Gov tells them to do) between members of the alliance and their respective Government.

 

The game rewarding the active alliances, and rewarding alliances that have better communication is one thing this suggestion would step upon.

 

You can easily do this by sending out a mass PM (Already a game mechanic) and simply tell them to embargo another alliance. 

 

This wouldn't reward alliances that do have better levels of activity, and would just reward those that don't. Communication is vital and (mobilizing the nations in your alliance is very important) in this game, and while I agree that this would be a pain for some alliances to do, that's the entire point. If your members are active, and if your relations with members are strong enough to get them to do something you want, then it won't be a problem.

 

TL;DR: This rewards (in a way) inactive alliances, and lessens the importance of active alliances in regards to things such as embargos upon entire alliances.

 

Btw, previous thread and this.

The problem right now is that embargoes don't do very much.  It only makes a very marginal difference, if any at all, because most of the time there are other trade offers available that you can pick, and plenty of people left to accept your offers.  It's also generally a loss to yourself to embargo people because you are also limiting your options.

 

Even if an alliance has the activity levels to do it, it's not worth the effort right now.

 

And if people ever did start doing it on a regular basis, it would lead to unnecessarily long and unreadable embargoes lists.

 

If it were easier to do, we might see more of it and it might become a feature that has a minor but appreciable impact.  Getting enough alliance to embargo other alliances to have even a slight impact on an opponent's trading options would still take energy.  Right now it's pretty much useless.

 

have a check box in settings somewhere that says something like "allow my alliance to embargo for me"

 

this is to add on to this so its less intrusive if its not desired by the individual

If you don't like what your alliance is doing you can always leave the alliance.

[Kastor]

The problem right now is that embargoes don't do very much.  It only makes a very marginal difference, if any at all, because most of the time there are other trade offers available that you can pick, and plenty of people left to accept your offers.  It's also generally a loss to yourself to embargo people because you are also limiting your options.

Even if an alliance has the activity levels to do it, it's not worth the effort right now.

And if people ever did start doing it on a regular basis, it would lead to unnecessarily long and unreadable embargoes lists.

If it were easier to do, we might see more of it and it might become a feature that has a minor but appreciable impact.  Getting enough alliance to embargo other alliances to have even a slight impact on an opponent's trading options would still take energy.  Right now it's pretty much useless.

 

 

If you don't like what your alliance is doing you can always leave the alliance.

Agreed. Alex has admitted that this game is alliance oriented, so that's what majority of the features should be.

[Khorne]

The problem right now is that embargoes don't do very much.  It only makes a very marginal difference, if any at all, because most of the time there are other trade offers available that you can pick, and plenty of people left to accept your offers.  It's also generally a loss to yourself to embargo people because you are also limiting your options.

 

Even if an alliance has the activity levels to do it, it's not worth the effort right now.

 

And if people ever did start doing it on a regular basis, it would lead to unnecessarily long and unreadable embargoes lists.

 

If it were easier to do, we might see more of it and it might become a feature that has a minor but appreciable impact.  Getting enough alliance to embargo other alliances to have even a slight impact on an opponent's trading options would still take energy.  Right now it's pretty much useless.

 

As far as I can see, the main issue you've discussed is that the input (energy/co-ordination) required is far too much for the output (effect on an alliance's trading ability.)

 

My argument is that this would benefit those alliances with lesser activity levels.

 

At the end it's genuinely just a mass PM sent by an alliance leader, to the people in his alliance. (Or really just post an announcement.) Not more than a couple of clicks and a few lines telling them to do so. At the end those that don't want to won't, and those that are inactive won't be able to, thus not upsetting any balance of inactive nations being able to embargo (in a way) other alliances, and at the same time won't really take too much energy on your part.

 

With simple communication you can tell other alliance leaders to do the same. 

 

So really, it won't take too much time, though I agree that embargos of a nation on an alliance seldom reap (m)any benefits, but it also shouldn't take too much energy.

 

About the unreadable list issue, it's a matter of Ctrl+G(/F) to find a name to delete. I do see how it would be a problem for players that use their mobiles for PnW.

[Azaghul]

As far as I can see, the main issue you've discussed is that the input (energy/co-ordination) required is far too much for the output (effect on an alliance's trading ability.)

 

My argument is that this would benefit those alliances with lesser activity levels.

 

At the end it's genuinely just a mass PM sent by an alliance leader, to the people in his alliance. (Or really just post an announcement.) Not more than a couple of clicks and a few lines telling them to do so. At the end those that don't want to won't, and those that are inactive won't be able to, thus not upsetting any balance of inactive nations being able to embargo (in a way) other alliances, and at the same time won't really take too much energy on your part.

 

With simple communication you can tell other alliance leaders to do the same. 

 

So really, it won't take too much time, though I agree that embargos of a nation on an alliance seldom reap (m)any benefits, but it also shouldn't take too much energy.

 

About the unreadable list issue, it's a matter of Ctrl+G(/F) to find a name to delete. I do see how it would be a problem for players that use their mobiles for PnW.

Right now even alliances with high activity levels don't do it because it's not worth the effort.

 

Their organizational ability is much better spent elsewhere.

 

Anything that makes the game easier to play benefits less active players.  I don't think that's a good reason for Alex to not make things easier to do.  I don't think coordinating something on a nation level level like this is most people's idea of fun.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Azaghul

[Khorne]

Right now even alliances with high activity levels don't do it because it's not worth the effort.

 

Their organizational ability is much better spent elsewhere.¹

 

Anything that makes the game easier to play benefits less active players².  I don't think that's a good reason for Alex to not make things easier to do.  I don't think coordinating something on a nation level level like this is most people's idea of fun.³

 

 

1, 2 = Oh agreed upon.

 

3 = Sending out a PM / creating an announcement =/= hard work. 

 

I get that follow-ups might be required, but if the announcement covers most of what you would expect, then IDT there would be many problems. But hey, if the community wants it and Sheepy approves, then I don't really have a problem.

[Placentica]

As long it can be called a Global Level Sponsored Embargo.

[Kastor]

Please Alex.

[Aliyan]

Embargos are kinda useless right now. They're only useful if a number of alliances get their entire membership to embargo another actor. However, for a handful of alliances to mobilize potentially hundreds of players is a pain. As such, I have a solution:

 

Give alliance government the option to force their members' nations to embargo another nation or alliance, with individual members having the option to cancel their own embargo.

 

Let's say alliance A has beef with alliance B. Maybe alliance B insulted their leader or a bunch of their members espionaged alliance A's members and killed a bunch of spies or something. Anyways, alliance A could get alliance C and alliance D together, and all 3 could use the above solution to get their combined 80 members to embargo all 20-ish members of alliance B. This would avoid a costly war that wouldn't be worth it, and alliance B wouldn't get away with their perceived trespass because having so many embargos would be somewhat damaging.

 

However, let's say some members of alliance D didn't like being forced to embargo all 20-ish members of alliance B. Maybe they have some friends in there. Those members of alliance D could just cancel their embargo very quickly and easily like they would do any embargo they themselves set.

 

What this does is make embargos more powerful while not stepping on the player's right to manage their nation. Of course, maybe a nation will be punished by their alliance by getting rid of their embargo, but that's IC stuff and this is an OOC suggestion.

 

The ability to embargo would be able to target not just alliances, but also individual nations. So if somebody decideds to nuclear rogue, then that somebody can be embargos by their victim alliance(s).

 

Just like the ability to withdraw from alliance banks, leaders can set what tier of membership (member, officer, heir, leader) can set alliance embargos.

Agree =D 

[Marianna]

Nuh uh. No one should be able to control my nation's actions whether I can cancel it or not.

 

I am my nation's Empress. No one else.

 

Don't tread on my sovereignty.

 

You want me to embargo a person or alliance tell me why and ask nicely.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Marianna

[WISD0MTREE]

Nuh uh. No one should be able to control my nation's actions whether I can cancel it or not.

Your alliance taxes you. Join another alliance if they don't respect your sovereignty.