Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Thank you for that the gift, it will be appreciated and I will make sure to put some extra care in developing your lands and making sure that your formal people are happy.It was an honour fighting you.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Word of warning, Finalgenesis broke NAP3 by attacking without notice this turn. To say the least, I strongly suspect he had also targeted me in previous turns with Leprosy and Mind Hunt.

To be fair, I previously overcast his Mother Oak also while in NAP3 with him. Though, I did not consider that in violation of NAP myself. If he did he didn't voice it.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

How unfortunately, Samhain has broken the NAP 1 turn after we made them previously, via the direct target overwrite of our mother oak global. How that can be viewed as a non-aggressive action is far beyond me, and it is universally accepted in the community to be a breach if you insist to ignore common sense.

Btw, we've PMed your breach and oathbreaker status to everyone except for Agartha awhile ago when it happened.

To all, I've repeated this in pm already, Oathbreakers should not be accorded any consideration or fair dealings at all in the current and any future incarnations, for they have proven themselves undeserving of them. Do deal with them as you deal with oathbreaking scums.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Hey! Why is Agartha left off the PM list? Nobody likes Giant pale bloated one-eyed gys who wear nothing but a cape! Racist!

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

I think I trust samhain more than finalgenesis, but maybe I'm racist against tentacle mouthed monstrosities...

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Apologies Agarthans, we suspected you of allying with the treacherous fomorians.

And iRFNA, feel free to trust the fomorians, say themselves that they overwrote ryleh's mother oak during NAP, there, better believe it ;-).

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Me think though dost protest too much. I figured that overcasting your global would get your tentacles into a bunch. I did not and do not consider it a breach of NAP. As I did do a bit a research on the subject of NAP before first agreeing to one a couple of games ago, I already felt I had an idea of consensus on this particular matter when I ran across it this thread...

Inviolate NAP, First Draft

Note rule #2:

2. He has overcast my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No*

*Emphasis added.

Reading on in the thread...

Your opinion on the matter hardly seems "universal". Regardless, enough with the rule lawyering. There's no glory in debate, only in war. I'll drag you down with me to Tartarus, squid...er...thing!

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Finalgenesis is obviously of the lawful evil alignment. And being a chaotic evil masquerading as chaotic neutral, his ways are anathema to me! What about you?? Let us rise up against the tentacled tyrants!

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Ah yes, I would assume Ling is speaking of random overwrite when global slots are full, rather then target overwrite, in which case Ling is absolutely correct, would you perhaps provide the full context? Of course, there's always the rare lone rebels. I can just as easily pull up quotes that the majority consider target overwrite a breach.

But really, we agree that at this point rule lawyering is moot, let's begin (though we've never really stopped). I would remind everyone to keep in mind Fomorian's proven treachery however, and take heed in current and future incarnations.

We look forward to adding more royal fomorian bones to the ocean floor, could I perhaps entice you to send another dozen or so of them down for tea?... *sigh* I suppose it's my turn to fight on difficult non-native terrain.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

That is the full quote. I meant to supply the link above, but I broke it.

The thread number is 40476. Here is another attempt at the URL: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40476

I think it is pretty clear though that he was in agreement with the thread's author that overcasting another's global is not a violation of NAP. There is, I believe, some disagreement on that point later in the thread. But, the weight seemed to side with me.

That would make you the oathbraker, not me. That you pre-empted your violation with a PR campaign followed by treacherous tactics, anonymous spells, speaks to the fact that you knew you were in the wrong.

Actually, I blame myself, though, for making a treaty with such a vile creature to begin with. I certainly won't make the same mistake twice.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

...umad bros?

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Lol I took some time and actually read some of the thread and will just tell Shamhain that everyone that has some brains wouldn't consider that a proper thread. I am sorry to say but the thread's creator said two exremely contravesial statements.
First one being that Arcane nexus is violation of the NAP and then he says that if the other player is about to win for whatever reason that is not violation of the nap. I am sorry to say but Arcane Nexus is regarded Nap breaker exactly because of the opportunity that it gives to that player to win, and in no way harms other people. So the creator of that thread must have gotten something wrong since casting Arcane Nexus is almost equal to winning soon(say have 1 victory point remaining) and yet again he considers one of them violation of the nap and the other one not a violation of the nap. For me personally if you do something to harm the person you are in nap with that counts as agression. And destroying his economy is acressive act (since with that economy he buys troops) so in fact you are killing his future troops and thus being agressive against him. Overcasting a global is in my eyes definitely a break of the Nap since you destroy his economy on purpouse. Some people might argue that Casting a global when the global set is full is not violation of the nap sice it is not malicious that you wanted to take down your Nap partner's (lets call it) Global enchantment. So you had it coming the moment you overcast R'lyeh's Global if you ask me.

P.s There is another clear mistake in that persons vision of nap. He states that ANONYMOUS spells are not violation of the nap. While in fact they damage you and are malicious on purpouse.(thus being agression from his side). Tell me then Samhain if there were only two people left, having a nap.Let say you and another guy, and there comes an Anonymous spell at your capital. lets say rain of thoads, surely it wont be some of your mages casting it and thus your opponent,(with whom you have nap) had casted it. Do you see that as a non agression act?

So clearly the creator of the thread you cite was wrong and thus canno't be fully relied on, with his fake preception of what is and what isn't a violation of the nap. I am sorry but stating that some lie is the truth, because someone said it before doesn't make it the truth.:)

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

I could see in the same thread that many disagrees with the OP, but really, who cares what the minority says in the end?

Was the direct specific overwrite of our global an act of aggression and malicious intent? It most certainly is. Hence we'll purge your treacherous kind from this realm.

Honestly, the cost we estimate that you've wasted in your conflict with us has been staggering with nothing to show for (well unless you count me having to waste N gems rewrite and the handful of priest/items to be a gain...), I honestly thought we could maintain a faithful NAP to our mutual benefit rather then mutual waste... But so be it.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

I see your point, bbz. And, I also consent that I do not agree with all of the stipulations for NAP set by my cited thread's author, LoloMo. My purpose in pointing out that thread was that the rule of overcasting another's global is considered a violation of NAP is not universal. There was, as I pointed out, at least one veteran player who made a statement I interpreted to also agree with LoloMo's and myself on the matter. There were also many others who posted disagreements with some of the authors rules but, notably to me at least, not that one. To me, that seemed to indicate that this was acceptable.

Especially as my Mother Oak was cast the very turn after I agreed to NAP, if I thought it would violate, I would have just delayed my response to the PM until after the turn was run.

Consistent with my apparently less strict view of NAP, I did not confront R'lyeh on the subject of the anonymous spell attacks until after the second and even then only to ask if he had cast them. When he denied it, I let it drop. If he had admitted the attacks, I would not have accused him of breaking NAP only of violating my understanding of our agreement and offered him a chance to renegotiate or suffer the same. I still, however, would not have moved troops into his territories without the before agreed upon 3 turns notice.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Poor WTF Is A Clock??. He died as he lived: with his mind blown.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Personally I think that overcasting a global (since it isn't directed against any one player) is not a violation of a NAP (especially since by having a global, a player harms all other players by default by using up one of the five spaces... dispelling, which is specifically directed, would be an aggressive act since you are singling out that player simply to hurt them).

And with that I am out!

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Interesting, I guess it's not always common sense and completely universal.

I say it is universal because in all my past MP games whenever it came up it was considered a breach, I also asked in IRC back then and the 3 or so vets that was on all agree that targeted overwrite was a breach, but of course its a given that there could be some here and there that disagrees.

Iwarmonger, you say "isn't directed against any one player" is not a violation, I agree, however when I say a direct overwrite I mean specific directed overwrite: a) he specifically cast mother oak, while I already have it up, during a NAP. From what you're saying, it looks like you're agreeing actually. A random overwrite when slots are full is perfectly acceptable applying common sense, which is not the case here.

Regardless, my stance on NAP is simple, all acts of aggression are breach of non-aggression pact... lol

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

My take on this debate, since it seems that we all get to chime in :p

Casting a new global and overwriting one when there are 5 globals up shouldn't constitute a breach of a NAP. Casting a global that is already up, which will always overwrite a single individual's global, would be. Why?

Well, dispel seems to be pretty uniformly agreed to be a breach of a NAP. It targets an individual to their detriment. Overcasting a global (in this case, Samhaim's Mother Oak replacing Finalgensis') results in the same thing, but with added upside for the overcaster. It still targets one individual with whom you've presumably reached an agreement and can substantially hurt them, only this time you profit more directly from it. If someone that I have a NAP with overwrites my Well of Misery, for instance, I'll definitely consider it a breach and declare war. (Just as a heads up, everyone! ;) )

That said, considering that Samhaim says he didn't consider it a breach, it brings to mind something I read when I was first researching diplomacy for MP Dominions: if something isn't clear, spell it out when you agree on the NAP in the first place. Misunderstandings can happen, after all, and it's better to get all that out of the way at first. In any case, that's my piece. Considering this is a no-rules game newbie game, we should all take it as a 'live and learn' experience.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Passing FYI - Thought I'd pass on some of the 3+ years of experience I have on NAP's, for those interested.

Everyone will have a different view as to what constitutes a breach of NAP. But when you are about to do something that you think might breach a NAP (such as stealth preaching/stealth troop movement/over-writing currently existing globals), then it's pointless arguing or discussing what other players think (by digging up threads), as there's only one player's view that matters. And that's the player you have the NAP with. Nobody else's views matter one bit. (with regards that particular NAP. Other players views may effect future NAP's these players have, but that's for the future)

So unless you either get the ok for your actions in advance with your NAP partner ("Hi there, do you mind if I stealth troops into your land or not?"), or you clearly laid out some terms of the NAP when signing (and not just said "Do you want a NAP-3?"), then just about any action you take that impacts negatively on your NAP partner can be considered a breach (by some players). I've seen players claim NAP breaches over Scouts or building fort/temples on borders before now, which just shows some players will always take these things to the extreme. Edit - Just remembered ages ago one player claiming I breached an NPA with him just because I purchased a load of archers on his border, as doing that *obviously* meant I was going to invade him next turn?!? (so be aware that there are nutters out there)

So if you are a player who signs NAP's, then you either need to lay out a few general terms before signing on what might constitute a NAP breach. (1. No stealth preaching. 2. No targeted global over-writes. 3. Casting the following globals without asking. etc.). Or accept that some players will view any negative impact you have on them as a breach. But what you can't do is rely on any sort of "The general community consensus is that XYZ is/isn't a breach of NAP" as there just isn't a 'general community consensus' in existence. The closest you'll get to community agreement on this matter is with certain powerful/harmful globals, as most players agree they are an instant declaration of war on the world (rather than a breach of NAP). But even that view isn't universally accepted (although I would say it has a fairly large majority).


FWIW, if someone randomly overwrote my global by putting a new one up, then I wouldn't consider that a NAP breach (or an act of war). But if someone targeted my global specifically with an over-write, then that's an instant declaration of war for me. Since they targeted me with a spell that had quite a big negative impact on my empire and removed a valuable resource (since I wouldn't have put the global up if it wasn't valuable to me).

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Yea thats a good point NaivePhilosopher. It is a live and learn, and the understanding of the game for one of the players might be different than the understanding for another and that doesn't make the other person's view wrong or right. So we just have to see how would people react to our actions and try to learn from it:)

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

fully agree with cala, bbz, naive and Iwar.

Again, we declare Fomorians oath breaker forevermore, with the targeted casting of a mother oaks over our pre-existing mother oaks during NAP, a clear act of aggression.

case closed.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

Ok, so you have the moral high ground. Great! Now turn that moral high ground into a victory!

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

I'll certainly try

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 5: The Empire Strikes Back
 

I'm somehow still not dead and I took a province with a scout! Yay!

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

Looks like pythium is staling, if they're too small to matter anyway can please set them to AI?

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

Well, he may not hold much territory, but it's because he's set himself up for a last stand scenario. And he's reading this thread, right now!

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

I finally died! Hurrah!

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

Congrats!

I'm perpetually surprised at the continued existence of indie provs this far into the game. I see 4 still floating around, and I'm not even looking at most of the map. Although 2 are from events that happened quite awhile ago...

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

This is not easy to do as I have been having a great deal of fun in this game and am learning a lot in the process, but I'm afraid I need to bow out. My responsibilities at work have increased dramatically and I discovered that some projects on my house are more urgent than I had previously thought.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

A sub has been found, nttea. I have requested that iRFNA put the game on hold for a while to give our new player time to assess Fomoria's position and put together a strategy.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

Hello! I'm the sub :) this will be my first multiplayer experience but i spent alot of time learning the game, i hope i can make do without too many silly mistakes although im sure they are part of the newbie experience^_^ i got lots of time on my hands so as long as the technical stuff works out i will not need the game put on hold for long, but i didn't do everything i need to do yet! will start working on it right now.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

Ah Tis a shame Samhain, good luck and may we battle on another world.

And welcome nttea =)

Oh just a heads up, won't be able to reach my game computer til another 24 hrs. I see now the turn hosting is in 26 hrs, so expect a late turn from me (but no need to extend), nttea might need some extra time though.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

I'm putting the timer on hold for now, so that will you give nttea and you the time needed.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

Thanks everyone for such a great game. I'm sorry myself I have to leave in the middle of such a great war, Finalgenesis (and PavlovianCat!). But, I've never played any game that I've liked half as much as I do Dominions. I'll be back as soon as I get some things under control. So, I'm sure we'll get a chance for a rematch one day. And, I promise, I'll engage in no more NAPs until I fully understand, what are still to me, their idiosyncrasies.

Good luck and have fun!

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

there we go! i think i got everything worked out and the turn submitted, the only thing puzzling was that the mods from the start of thread, but viewing one of the battles required me to have something i got from 1.84 (endgame diversity stuff i think) i hope this won't be the cause of any problems :( one magic item cost two 5 air gems instead of 5 air gems and some other kind of gem which it was supposed to i think... anyway i submitted my turn i think i figured out the tactics my predecessor was using and i only altered it very slightly on a few points, i will be in the dom3 irc channel if anyone wants to discuss diplomacy. Or you can pm me it's ok too!

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

Done with my turn as well, Pythium is left last I checked.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

The shield of valor costing 2x5 air gems is a bug unique to the version of cbm we're using in this game, unfortunately. No one caught it before the game started

I'll restart the timer.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

Hello all, I will be travelling till Thursday the 16th of June, so I would like to ask for an extension until then. If the current turn is played before tomorrow morning I will be able to submit the next one. But I'd still need the extension for the next one. Thanks in advance.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

k, I'll take the timer off both games tomorrow

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

holy ****ing communion, ermor

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 6: A Game of Thrones
 

thanks I submitted this turn so you can play it out and then put the game on halt for the one after that for Newbswithlowselfesteem:)

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 7: A Feast for Crows
 

Why do wendigos get chill aura but only 50% cold resist? I'm pretty sure your wendigo got suicided by its chill aura...

Also, you bastard.
http://i.imgur.com/QX9IZ.jpg
Why'd it have to be him? :(

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 7: A Feast for Crows
 

looks like he let you down.

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 7: A Feast for Crows
 

ran around and deserted me

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 7: A Feast for Crows
 

To break up the meme, they have 100 cold resist, but I'm a dunce. I threw on Marble Armor which gives the stoneskin effect, and thus less cold resistance. :doh:

I also completely forgot to organize that army before I sent in a turn. So, I'm on a run for multiple devastating and silly mistakes. :D

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 7: A Feast for Crows
 

Has fomoria been staling?

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 7: A Feast for Crows
 

the date on Formoria's last turn in file is 2011-06-14

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 7: A Feast for Crows
 

doh, I'm surprised no one noticed their units standing still

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 7: A Feast for Crows
 

Their units are mostly locked behind walls, what do you expect them to do? Suicide charge? (I wouldn't mind that)

Re: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 7: A Feast for Crows
 

haha, guess that explains the stealthy stales, but I'm glad it probably hasn't been too damaging

Well, nttea last logged into the forums yesterday, I'll give him a bit to respond to a PM