Trade embargo

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Ok yes , another one of my not very well thought out ideas , I do think I is useful to throw a stone into the think pond now and again

Ok , so the general idea is a player/corp/alliance can choose to trade embargo player/corp/alliance . This will work similar to the war dec system as a isk sink and to provide a genuine way to hurt other pliots without direct combat. The embargo will cost a certain amount a month the same as a wardec.

When you have been trade embargo is in full affect , you are unable to purchase from the player/corp/alliance in any way , contracts are the same . If a neut purchases and then attempts to trade/contract/sell to the player blacklisted player either both parties will receive a hefty sec status hit and the goods are classed as illegal , meaning high sec police will attack on site if scanned.

Now I understand this will require a lot of work , at the moment I don’t believe there is a way to track who manufactures a item , ( I did post this as a idea at a earlier date) , Also a system which tags who has been blacklisted and who hasn’t is another huge piece of work .

This would allow another form pvp to develop in eve , there can then possible additions to this system , for example trade unions/federations. Collections of people or corps/alliance that all embargo the same people and making logistics a real issue for those who are the target of this economic warfare.

anyways open to discussion to improve the idea or denounce it .

2

And what is the real purpose of it? To prevent the player to produce/sell/buy items? Is not going to create PvP cause in the moment someone gets an embargo, he will change char/corp to continue what is he doing. A lot of people use an Alt/Alt Corp to buy/sell/produce stuff, including my self.

Also, it will Hurt EvE in the long run, not help it cause you could easily exploit it so no one could buy/sell/produce anything at all.

3

Your alt corp and character will take sec hit and criminal timer per sale to the player/crop/alliance that has been blacklisted . Hence no loop hole .

If you don’t plan on selling to the blacklisted corp then of course no problems.

I don’t believe this will hurt eve , I believe it would provide an alternative option to all out warfare. Some corps/alliance don’t have the pvp skills to take on other entity’s , this provides them with this option.

4

But I do not have control to who I’m selling to. Also, I do not exit Station, then why I will care? The problem is not me, is the buyer. As you said, he will receive sec and criminal timer so if he/she exit the station, he/she will be blow up for no apparent reason. Also, he/she do not have control over who is he/she buying from.

On another point, you do not know who is my alt and at the same time, I do not know PH Alts. So how I suppose to attack them with this? Instead, they will have MORE control over the market, attacking the small sellers/producers cause they have more resources.

1 Like
5

ok ,so lets use goons as a example ,

A alliance places the embargo on goons , goons cannot buy direct from this alliance , A alt buys the goods instead , if he tries to trade or contract to goons he will receive a warning on the what will happen if he continues .

Now if the alt instead takes the goods to delve and put them on market and selects the option in the market window to allow embargo sales , once again a warning on what will happen if he continues and so on .

6

Well, then they will use a “Stupid” alt with no skills to trade/sell to goons and the main Transport Alt will be immune. Then Goons will Embarge every one of the sellers on Jita Market, except their own and disrupt Jita completely. And even if you change alt, you will lose profit cause the Skills you have in your main Alt Trader and probably will be Embarged soon…

7

Alts.

8

So here is a perfect opportunity to build a relationship with other nullsec entities , so goons wont buy from you , Fine , gog will gladly do so , or drf and so on .

To be clear , there is a substantial cost to an embargo , like a war dec .
If goons do this on everyone in jita , first of all the cost would be huge and second they would greatly reduce there market and prices would increase for their own members .

9

I’ll admit it’s an interesting idea, but I don’t think it’s compatible with EVE, and I don’t think it’d have the results you want. It seems you’re looking for a way a small indy corp can hurt a big alliance. That’s not what embargoes do. Embargoes are for forcing a smaller group to comply with the policies of a bigger group when outright warfare would be too expensive or politically inadvisable.

Assuming that’s the actual mechanic you want to bring into the game, you have to consider why it works. US embargoes NK. NK can only get stuff from China. Stuff they get from China is poorly made crap. In EVE, you can bypass all that because a) no large entities dominate the retail market, there are always alternative sellers, and b) even if they did, alternative sources for the products are exactly the same quality as the big producers. As a game mechanic, an embargo would be a UI complication rather than anything disruptive.

And then there are the actual technical issues involved that are fundamental to the operation of the game that would create loopholes that can’t be closed. Packaged items are fundamentally identical to each other. There is no way of tracking origin or ownership. They are not actually items yet until they are assembled, just a promise for an item that will be filled with an item when it’s assembled. That technical limitation is required for the databases to be functional at all, and it kinda makes the idea as presented dead in the water.

So yeah, an interesting idea, but not necessarily a good idea.

1 Like
10

see this is the kind of response I was looking for , cheers and understand

11

This has merit, in concept. Economic warfare is entirely valid, and it would be actually quite interesting to see.

This is exactly why it won’t work.

My market alt is in an NPC corp and virtually never undocks. Also… this is stupid. The market is literally an electronic trade hub - bypassing it is all but impossible. It makes much more sense that the SEC or whoever would simply block the transaction from happening, with no way around it, as per enforcing the paid embargo.

12

Not sure i get this.

I drop 1k real money into PLEX.
I sell PLEX on market.
I now have a shitton of ISK.
I can literally stop the game for a huge amount of people.

Correct?

13

Unless you happen to be their CEO, no, not really.

The idea here is that you can block people you have authority over from performing transactions with defined parties.

You don’t embargo them for all of Eve, just for your self/corp/alliance.

So if you had a 1 person alt corp, you’d be effectively blocking that 1 pilot from buying from whoever you embargo. If Mittens embargoed your 1 person corp, none of goons could buy from you. PL, NC., TEST (just to name big groups) would not be impacted at all by those scenarios.

Edit:
It’s moot regardless, as it’s infeasible to actually implement. The idea is cool though.

1 Like
14

Wait a moment, I think I understand it wrong. Didn’t you mean that buying from an Embarged player could lead to Konkordoken? I’m still confuse with the phrase I have put in bold

If the Embargo only affects one side, instead of making the Items Illegal, just make the transaction impossible. And if multibuy, then purchases from the next one.

But, again, this could lead to disrupting the whole market cause now you can control who can sell stuff to whom and viceversa. All will depend on the amount of ISK the Embargo will cost and the number of Alts people want to invest.

15

Bummer. Too bad i misunderstood it. Thank you!

16

Oh I love this idea. But not the implementation.

Anyway, few years ago I was playing one web text and turn based strategy where embargo was implemented.

In this game it worked this way.

To be able to vote for embargo the country (player) had to fullfill certain criteria such as certain prestige (a value determining player progress) and certain number of citizens etc. - transfered to eve this criterion would be “alliance with X corporations or X members”.

There there was voting window. Country could vote for or against embargo of country with lower prestige. - transfered to eve, you can vote for embargo only for/against alliance with lower number of corporations/members.

Then, when you voted on embargo against someone you had to find 1 other guys who voted. Then the embargo got into effect.

The embargo in this game was just flat out market tax about 5 or 10% not sure now again up to discussion - translated in eve, this would be extra tax when buying items from market/contract for each member of the alliance.

But, there was a way to counter embargo and counter-counter embargo. There was a voting system. First of all, affected country couldn’t vote for self (obviously). Each country that fulfilled the prerequisities for embargo gained embargo votes per time (this doesn’t translate into eve well though) then the original first vote had streanght of 2 and any additional vote had strenght of 1. So the basic embargo had strenght of 3 (original voter+one more player) and this required 3 counter-votes, so 3 other players had to vote against to counter it. Then the embargo was canceled. If more players voted for embargo, the equal number of players+1 had to vote against etc. etc.

This was working very well and it was a way how to defend as a pacifist country against war countries. However in this game multiboxing (playing more than 1 country or 2 if player paid money to developers) was prohibited and banned. And eve is game of alts, neutrals in npc corp doing every dirty work corporations/alliances needs anyway so I am not sure if this is even feasible and won’t just be avoided easily anyway.

Anyway, this is how it worked in another game, this concept would need several changes to make it work in eve - if you like it, we can try work out how to “port it”.

17

As presented, as I understood it, embargo would be between 2 entities, same as a wardec. It would prevent trade between the two. Similar to 3rd party interference in a wardec yielding a suspect flag, a 3rd party bypassing the embargo would get a sec hit and items flagged illegal. Current mechanics for item legality are: Contraband items have a 50% chance to get detected at stargates by customs officers, and the faction police (not concord) attack.

18

Wait…

You want a system where those in your own alliance get penalties for buying items from the enemy?

What would be the point of this beyond giving even more power to huge alliances, and the epic hilarity of spies getting in to blacklist people just to watch their ‘allies’ explode?

19

Game of alts renders the suggestion pointless.

20

I guess I was hoping we could have some sort of system of punishing alliances in more economic ways . I know people will say that there are ways of doing that already , for example when mittens decided to gank ice miners to drive the price .

But I am more interested in a actual mechanic to achieve a economic style of warfare , we already have fleet on fleet action to destroy assets , we already have mining and hauler ganks to stop enemy’s creating more assets . I want a way to make it harder for enemy’s to purchase assets.

Just a idea