Sanctions!

Printable View

11-10-2008, 23:29
Mr President

Sanctions!

I started to put this in the december thread, but i felt it needed it's own seeing i'm seeking opinions..

Another thing that MAY be implemented next set (depending on public opinion) will be another new declaration called "Sanctions". Any nation who has enough members to operate properly will be able to use this feature..

How this works is, let's say WLF is being very wild and another nation or even the community is not happy. Instead of having to go to war, a nation or some nations may impose sanctions. What this does is not allow any WLF states to attack any states from a nation that imposed the sanction against them. So if USA imposes sanctions against WLF, no WLF state can attack a USA state.. Unless they declare war and that will override it all. Yes every nation in the game could impose these sanctions and literally prevent WLF from making any grabs.. But chances of all nations doing this are slim.. But, if it did happen, the WLF would either have to go to war, or pretty much work things out to get the sanctions removed.

Now the flip side to this, to keep it from being abused, the nation that declares the sanctions can NOT attack any sanctioned nation state.. So with the example from above, a USA state wouldn't be able to hit a WLF state either.. Which makes less grabs.. So this tool would need to be used wisely..

Basically all this is, is another tool to help bring a new era to the game and make it a little more fun by having more options other then warring..

Opinions on this please......
11-10-2008, 23:37
pron

It's interesting, but I can see it being abused by netting nations. All they'd have to do is sanction every nation in the game and then expand/build their way to net. Any way to make it so it's percentage based? Like, 20% less on grabs if sanctioned?
11-10-2008, 23:42
Mr President

possible on the % idea..

We could also make it so there is a limit on how many sanctions a nation could have.. Like 3-5.. that way a nation can't totally be shut down.
and make it so you can only declare 3-5 sanctions.. So you can't put them on every nation in the game.

There will always be loop holes in no matter what we do.. but this idea is a basic idea and i'm looking to improve it by suggestions from you all :-)

I would have put this in the suggestion sections, but i wanted everyone's full attention on this so we can figure this out as quickly as possible..
11-10-2008, 23:49
northbabylon

and make it so you have to keep it on a certain amount of days. So nation can't turn it on and off whenever they log off.
11-11-2008, 00:48
Xavior

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbabylon

and make it so you have to keep it on a certain amount of days. So nation can't turn it on and off whenever they log off.

And there must be a time delay before going into effect.
11-11-2008, 01:00
-Z-

Indeed.... this seems like a good idea!

and with the time limit/minimum, and the possibly % idea, it really limits abuses.

I think I approve of this Idea.

say it must be imposed for a minimum of 24 hours, and depending on how it works for the 1st set we could change it to no grabs, or a % on land lost.

With the % i could see abuse tho...

Like ex:

Nation A) Declares sanctions on nation B)

Now any states attacking the nations A and B get 40% (for ex) less land than they would from a normal SA.

this could be abused:

there is a friend in Nation A of a nation B state.

These guys could just trade GB massively, and actually turn it to an advantage.

So maybe the No grabs allowed would be better.

As for the time limits, or Min... We could work it all out after the 1st set,

I like experiments.

Z
11-11-2008, 03:06
Divine Intervention

i would have thought something along the lines of not allowing them to use goods on PM being better idea???
11-11-2008, 06:35

First off let me say that if this is going to be implemented, wait until January since there is already going to be 2 new features added for december.

Secondly, I really see this being abused, moreso than what you intend its use for. If the nation count was limited to 3-5 then all that is needed is a sanction on the 5 largest nations and that will reduce the attackers by over half. Andy and Prons ideas would help reduce the abuse, but I see it doing more harm than good. :(
11-11-2008, 10:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divine Intervention

i would have thought something along the lines of not allowing them to use goods on PM being better idea???

PM was one of the ideas, but it isn't balanced in how it would assist all strats in game play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Shadow

First off let me say that if this is going to be implemented, wait until January since there is already going to be 2 new features added for december.

Secondly, I really see this being abused, moreso than what you intend its use for. If the nation count was limited to 3-5 then all that is needed is a sanction on the 5 largest nations and that will reduce the attackers by over half. Andy and Prons ideas would help reduce the abuse, but I see it doing more harm than good. :(

It was already mentioned that abuses could happen. I could sit here and pick apart every idea introduced into the game. If someone was acting up with sanctions, it would give nations reason to war that nation. This sanction runs both ways, so it isn't in the nations best interests to cut off that many players from someone the sanctioning nation can grab either.
11-11-2008, 12:12
Mr President

in just about every feature of this game there is a way to abuse it. this idea not only brings a whole new aspect to the game it also adds another war reason :-)

the release date is not set in stone. it could be next set or jan set or it could even be pushed back till a new version comes out.. i'll know more as i test it more. i also like the idea of the % when grabbing. i plan on trying to set that up and test it some to see which way is better. but overall i love this idea and think it will make the gameplay more entertaining..
11-11-2008, 13:25
MAGGIO

i thought it would be more of a PM thing too.

Here is one that concerns me. And this can happen and does.

Nation A owns 70-80% of the top then. Nation B has 10-20% of the top then, so they saction nation A so that the players ahead of them cannot land farm them down into the top 20.
11-11-2008, 13:49

PM sanctions would only benefit Indy and Farmer nations only. Casher would be left out by not being able to sanction anyone effectively, but yet be sanctioned by everyone.

Nation A declares war on Nation B to retal sanctions imposed.

I don't really like the % idea. It needs to be no grabs between nations to work correctly, otherwise it will become a benefit between nations and not a sanction.
11-11-2008, 14:00
-Z-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tnova

PM sanctions would only benefit Indy and Farmer nations only. Casher would be left out by not being able to sanction anyone effectively, but yet be sanctioned by everyone.

Nation A declares war on Nation B to retal sanctions imposed.

I don't really like the % idea. It needs to be no grabs between nations to work correctly, otherwise it will become a benefit between nations and not a sanction.

Thats what I was trying to say.

If you get 4 GB on your from a nation with sanctions against u, its 20% or 50% or some% better than without.

anyone that fully understands GB, and how its acctually good to be grabbed in many cases, will see this.

Z
11-11-2008, 14:03
Fangz

a good use for this would be netting nations with lots of players in top 20-top 50. if two nations start warring who have players in top 10-top20, you could sanction both to prevent your states losing tons of land to states who are stonewalling.

i can see how it could/would be abused, but it adds a new element to the game which should make it more fun. i say add it to the game, let the community take care of abusers, and work out the kinks over time.

i don't like the name sanctions, but i can't think of anything better.
11-11-2008, 14:04
-Z-

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGGIO

i thought it would be more of a PM thing too.

Here is one that concerns me. And this can happen and does.

Nation A owns 70-80% of the top then. Nation B has 10-20% of the top then, so they saction nation A so that the players ahead of them cannot land farm them down into the top 20.

some sort of PM sanctions would be good.... and it is also what came to my mind 1st.

but like the other men stated.... its not balanced...

Unless...

all National Banks use $ to Buy units. (indy nations less, but still some)

what if we found a way to balance the Indy NA/Bank isssue,

and Used sanctions on the NA?

meh, i dunno

Z
11-11-2008, 16:52
Mr President

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fangz

a good use for this would be netting nations with lots of players in top 20-top 50. if two nations start warring who have players in top 10-top20, you could sanction both to prevent your states losing tons of land to states who are stonewalling.

i can see how it could/would be abused, but it adds a new element to the game which should make it more fun. i say add it to the game, let the community take care of abusers, and work out the kinks over time.

i don't like the name sanctions, but i can't think of anything better.

I have thought about this all day and i think making it so you can't attack is the best way to go. When we get into the % then we have to tie it all in with the GB and well it's a ton of work.. Making it so it can't attack is easy and i already have it done that way lol..

I don't think the abuse is going to be as bad as you think. it's not like you declare sanctions on someone and nobody knows it. I have it set up the same way as when you declare Retaliation or War.. It will show up in the exterior news, interior news and also it notifies each member of each nation. And if someone is declaring sanctions against another nation for no reason, then i'm sure it will be handled the way it needs to be. (ie war)

Basically sanctions will be used for those nations who want to help a friend or ally in some ways other then warring. Now you can publicly show your distaste of the conflict and do something other then warring..

If nations with top states try to use it to protect there top states, then they risk the chance of getting warred and losing all there states..

Just to be clear, a war declaration over rides sanctions..

04:39:25-2008/11/11 America [USA]has declared Sanctions on World Liberation Front[WLF]
11-11-2008, 21:32
Cape

Simple, said nation just declares war on everyone and continues to grab happily:) until they decide to suicide on the top states of the sanctioning nations near the end of set ;) problems solved I'm sure
11-11-2008, 23:19
-Z-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cape

Simple, said nation just declares war on everyone and continues to grab happily:) until they decide to suicide on the top states of the sanctioning nations near the end of set ;) problems solved I'm sure

but then the entire game would do war attacks on that nation, im sure they would not last that long.

Z
11-12-2008, 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tnova

PM sanctions would only benefit Indy and Farmer nations only. Casher would be left out by not being able to sanction anyone effectively, but yet be sanctioned by everyone.

Nation A declares war on Nation B to retal sanctions imposed.

I don't really like the % idea. It needs to be no grabs between nations to work correctly, otherwise it will become a benefit between nations and not a sanction.

what if nation A has the top spot by miles and has 6 members. Nation B has the other top 9 states, is lagging behind, with no hope of catching the top state but has 15 members. Nation B imposes the sanction giving them a huge chance to catch the top guy.

your pretty much encouraging smaller nations to have to join bigger ones, or get annoyed with not being able to hold the top spot like they deserve and suicide the bigger nation.

i think thats to much of a step backwards from what weve been trying to achieve recently just to add another reason to war.
11-12-2008, 13:36
piraco

thats a fine idea! but a world embargo on a nation early, would create a major damage to that nation, too big to keep this game even.
11-12-2008, 15:45
MAGGIO

my official oppinion if it even counts...lol: what would it hurt to try? So yes to embargos!
11-12-2008, 19:24
kingmyth

I think instead of just letting you declare sanctions there should be some type of payment. I was thinking about it and came up with a monetary type thing where the nation would pay a percentage of the money in their bank to keep the sanctions in place or you could have a percentage of the NA to keep the sanctions in effect

Also to balance this thing out you could add a spy op where you could bribe officials into letting your state hit sanctioned states but only for 1 or 2 attacks.
11-12-2008, 20:45
pron

I like some of these ideas. I would like to say two things

1. I think we should try it on a seperate test server? Then people can work out the kinks w/o sacrificing a set to something that may or may not work.

2. I see your point about % of a grab and GB problems. I see how that can be abused by two friendly nations, but isn't that another reason to war said two nations? I know whenever I see GB trading it makes me want to send a few AR's on the people :)
11-13-2008, 04:17
::LD::GrimReapr

Nope, Sir I dont like it.
Some of us have no desire to war and now we are gonna try and implement something that almost encourages war.

NO THANKS.
11-13-2008, 09:10
Mr President

Quote:

Originally Posted by ::LD::GrimReapr

Nope, Sir I dont like it.
Some of us have no desire to war and now we are gonna try and implement something that almost encourages war.

NO THANKS.

grim this doesnt encourage war it actually helps those who dont want to war. now instead of warring u can impose sanctions against a nation as a way to prevent war..

some nations may war to get out of them while others may change attitudes or policies.

i could impose sanctions against your nation to try and force you to end a war with an ally. or to help prevent a war with an ally.

this idea was designed for nations who want other options other then warring..

but yes it can go both ways... all depends on how sanctions are handled by those who issue them.
11-13-2008, 10:27
::LD::GrimReapr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr President

Unless they declare war and that will override it all. Yes every nation in the game could impose these sanctions and literally prevent WLF from making any grabs.. But chances of all nations doing this are slim.. But, if it did happen, the WLF would either have to go to war, or pretty much work things out to get the sanctions removed.

It states right there as you can see if they declare WAR it overrides sanctions so how will this help prevent war?:wall::chair:
11-13-2008, 15:02
MarineRecon

i dont like the idea...if u wanna net like GRIM they wouldnt be to smart to use sanctions really because then they cant grab that nations members which might be the good this...it would cause more wars which everybody already complains about...i say if anything put it in a different server but not the main one
11-13-2008, 17:33

I think this would be a great idea if there were thousands of players and hundreds of competitive nations, but right now there are only like 5 competitive nations and it would only cripple the others.
11-13-2008, 17:35
MarineRecon

yeah agree...would be better if we had i higher turnout like the old WoW numbers lol
11-14-2008, 13:40
Mr President

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Shadow

I think this would be a great idea if there were thousands of players and hundreds of competitive nations, but right now there are only like 5 competitive nations and it would only cripple the others.

Or perhaps if we made changes like these, we would gain more members. :P

There has been a new spin on this Sanctions idea. It will run through tech. Each nation would need to build it up to a min of 155% in order to declare sanctions. This new tech works just like all the others.. As land in your nation increases, it's harder to maintain. BUT also, as you declare sanctions it lowers your amount by a small % too. (once i figure it out i'll let you know)

This also gives a needed boost to the techer strat and will help make it so you can run that strat all set..

This will not be implemented next set. Something like this needs to be tested and tried.. (unless testing goes very well and in time)
11-14-2008, 13:51
MarineRecon

that sounds like a better idea
11-14-2008, 14:05

Yeah I agree....it sounds much better with tech support.
11-14-2008, 14:24
Mr President

Well i have it all done and have been messing around with it.. Works really well.. The only adjustment we will need to make on it is how much % will drop you when you declare sanctions against another nation.

Right now i have it so it drops 1 mil.. that seems to be a fitting number, but that is on a test server.. So we would need to get it in game to really fine tune that number. I'm sure it may have to be lower on the main game.

But with this being a tech thing, it will help all around. esp the techer strat which i know has been a little weak..

And also with having to spend money on tech to build it up and then also spend more money to rebuild it back up after you declare sanctions on ppl, that will help keep the abuse down a lot! Nobody is going to want to spend this much doe for kicks and giggles..
11-16-2008, 08:13
Cape

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr President

grim this doesnt encourage war it actually helps those who dont want to war. now instead of warring u can impose sanctions against a nation as a way to prevent war..

some nations may war to get out of them while others may change attitudes or policies.

i could impose sanctions against your nation to try and force you to end a war with an ally. or to help prevent a war with an ally.

this idea was designed for nations who want other options other then warring..

but yes it can go both ways... all depends on how sanctions are handled by those who issue them.

If any nation dared put sanctions on my nation I can guarantee you my voice will be to make sure they'll be warred. :thumbup:
11-19-2008, 04:48
Max Logan

Its all fun but - NO!

ok, they warred someone, ok, they`re so big and bad. if the community doesn`t like it, they should declare and kill of that nation. simply making them unable to grab is just way to much.

the idea is interesting and all, but it will again put the community in trance. its already very sleepy on taking actions, now it will slumber even more. all these problems should be taken care in game by action and not by some regulations you can`t defend against
11-19-2008, 04:53
Divine Intervention

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Logan

Its all fun but - NO!

ok, they warred someone, ok, they`re so big and bad. if the community doesn`t like it, they should declare and kill of that nation. simply making them unable to grab is just way to much.

the idea is interesting and all, but it will again put the community in trance. its already very sleepy on taking actions, now it will slumber even more. all these problems should be taken care in game by action and not by some regulations you can`t defend against

declaring war defends against sanctions :P
11-19-2008, 04:56
Max Logan

and gets them back next set and makes you war all nations one by one and so it repeats again and again, cuz no one wants to declare and want to net and all. slumbering coven
11-30-2008, 13:29
Fangz

there is nothing in the manual about this. probably should add a note in the tech section about sanctions.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:42.