Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Indeed.

The issue to me is one of clarity in the NAP and of expectation for the game.

As most of us 'back stabbers' have been saying, we wouldn't sign up for these ultrarestrictive NAPs in the first place (perhaps short of pure role playing vassalage or some such...), so its difficult to really understand the point of them.

But they do get put in place apparently, so people will have hard feelings about them when they don't work as planned.

My personal perspective on the matter is really no matter what the NAP stipulates if the breaker can outright win the game by breaking the NAP (in the case of VPs usually) then more power to them, and less power to you for not recognizing the fact that everyone should be trying to actually win, other wise just play against AIs.

Or, if the player may not be able to win immediately, but if they can essentially (or completely) remove you from the game with one deft stroke, more power to them. I find it unreasonable to think that outside of team games you should ever think that you have a safe border with someone, of course you may take that gamble and commit all your forces elsewhere, but if you leave yourself so open to them they are kinda fools for not removing you. Of course they have to realize how open you are...

This is why you actually have to use diplomacy, not just these relatively artificial and often pointlessly restrictive NAP agreements.

In my dom2 MP I never had issues keeping NAPs though, its not as though I tried to use them to set people up to be back stabbed, but I also understood that no matter what the initial agreement was there was room for it to be negotiated, and short of breaking a NAP to poach a couple of border territories (which is pointless, but it happens) as long as the breaker gave the breakee some sort of warning and chance to counter offer the terms I really saw it as a positive to being able to conduct meaningful diplomacy.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

"NAPs are breakable" simply describes real life. In real life, people still form alliances.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Of course, but whats the point of the deal? Sure I can talk to someone and suggest it'd be better for both of us to expand against indies than fight each other, or join together to attack a 3rd party, but if it's fine to break a deal at any time, why actually put terms on it?
More specifically, what's the point in the usual NAP with 3 turns of warning? If there are not even any diplomatic consequences, since that's the point of this game variant, why would I ever give 3 turns of warning instead of a surprise attack?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Easy. To legitimise the initial deal beyond a mere "ok don't attack me I won't attack you", which makes the deal more attractive and believable to both sides at the time of signing.

And "fine to break a deal at any time" is relative. There are diplomatic consequences. If a former ally of mine tells me he's breaking the NAP 3 and gives me the three turns, I say "jolly good old sport", or something similar, have a ring-ding fight, and if something changes and we decide later we may want peace, we can do so because prior diplomacy has left this door open.

If someone has unceremoniously blindsided me, ok too, but I am less likely to be open to any deals later on.

And apparently people keep lists here...

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I'm thinking that you run the risk of turning players away from certain games by how you define the NAP restrictions up front. Maybe that's the point? But I don't know if you want to create this kind of schism amongst the smallish community.

I think you're better served by reminding everyone that they need to take particular care in the individual NAPs they set up during the game. I see this as a federal vs. state issue, where the host is the fed and the players are the states, and personally, I'm not that interested in having my rights dictated unnecessarily to me :)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

All of which is why I actually like the current set up, where NAPs are respected but not guaranteed. You can't rely 100% on your deal, so it's best if you do some diplomacy and try to make sure no one's upset enough to break a deal (or even give notice on a NAP), but there's a high threshold for doing so. People remember and it's likely to be publicized.

To me, that's better than either a "all agreements must be kept to the letter or you'll be AI'd" game or a "Diplomacy, backstabbing encouraged" game.

We can debate about exactly where the balance lies now, or about just how many wild accusations are justified by any breach of a deal, but that's OK.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I couldn't agree more

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I think the "people keeping lists" thing is quite sick... I mean, as Dedas cleverly said, this is a game and every match is a close universe itself. I think it would be a very bad point to reach, the one you start becoming paranoic and writing down on a piece of paper all the people you can't trust for the game, and looking around with possessed eyes ^_^ And if so, ppl could start keeping the list of the blind men who would not break a NAP no matter what, to make "alliances" with them and prepare a bad trick behind their back the whole match ^^

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Hell, During the one MP game I took part in, I was practically backstabbed (indirectly, as there was some confusion) in a manner that ultimately led to me being knocked out of the game (I'd been reduced to my capital, a few mages, pretender and under siege). At that point I went AI, but at least I had managed to weaken my opponent enough that ultimately the person who had been the most helpful to me won the game. And he wasn't even my official ally.

There was some pretty intense plotting going on at times even while there were all kinds of supposed alliances going on. That part of the game was actually great fun. :D

I don't hold any grudges from that game and I'd play with them again any day, aside from the one person who went AI at the first setback when it was nowhere near crippling.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

On the other hand, while every game is a closed universe unto itself, I'd still not expect to betray some in several games and then have them treat me as a completely blank slate. People don't work that way.

I think lists go to far, especially since there is often debate about whether a certain action was actually a violation. It would just lead to flame wars about being put on the list.
I think posting about people breaking deals is good, that's part of the disincentive to do so. Probably best to keep the ranting down to a minimal level, though. The accused can also give their side of the story...

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I believe there was a game some time back where it wasn't revealed what nation everyone played until after the game was over. I think that was a great way to separate your forum person from your game person.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

LLama, "many players" infers a majority. Might be better to restate it as "some players" to be more general.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Yes, but that game also forbids diplomacy of any kind. So I do not see your point here.

Also, most people here are mature enough to separate forum person from game person. If you are untrustworthy in game, you will be dealt with game consequences, like no deal with you or even not playing with you. There are however no forum consequences, your questions will still be answered and help will still be provided. Where is your example of people mixing forum person and game person?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I'm curious as to how inviolable treaties could be enforced? How could the host or admin or whoever know what actually happened between 2 players?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

It is not inviolable in any sense in most games, unlike some people would like you to believe. The only consequences are that people will trust you less, and are less inclined to enter treaties with you, in this game or in other games. It is not really a big deal.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

But if it's only that there is no difference between games with inviolable treaties and those without.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

But that is not what the no break NAP under any circumstances crowd is saying. One or two of them even want a list of people that break NAPs on the forum. Please read the whole thread before answering.

As for the game I said it was a long time ago. Apparently I don't remember the details, but that doesn't matter. My point is still valid: you should try to separate your forum person from your game person. An "anonymous" game is one way to do that.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I was trying to ensure I was being fair to the inviolable-NAPs group, who I felt I was in danger of offending. I'll consider a mild rewording.

So long as it's only within that game, I definitely agree. If people try to slur the name of that player more widely, I think that's most distasteful*. Particularly if it's a game where NAPs are not considered inviolable, reputation should be local to that game. That encourages role-playing. I'd love to play a sneaky weasel Moloch one game, and an honourable dragon the next, with no-one distrusting my dragon any the less because of my moloch's naughty behaviour.

* - I am assuming that the NAP breaker was not aware he was doing anything wrong, which is, I think, almost always the case, since few people here are immature enough to deliberately break rules.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I fail to see how "no break NAP under any circumstances crowd" is trying to mix forum and game person. Did they ask for banning a user from forum when he or she regularly "backstab" in game? Never responding to that person's thread? Or doing other nasty stuff to his or her forum reputation?

If they merely say this is what this guy did in this game and how he should not be trusted IN GAME, I believe it is perfectly clear seperation of forum and game person. I do not see a problem with list either as long as the list only consists of facts, like how someone breached NAP and what's his or her excuse for it. After all, one's game person reputation is not connected to his forum behavior, much less real life reputation. But it is invaluable when someone needs to make a IN GAME decision about diplomacy.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Because there is no way to tell whether you are currently playing the sneaky weasel Moloch or the honorable dragon in the current game. For all I know, you could be playing the sneaky weasel dragon all the time.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Sigh...

And this is why if you USE diplomacy even when you break a NAP these issues are not as severe as people want to make them.

Sure if someone just breaks the NAP and sends you 'PWNED u n00b!@!!' then of course you're going to not bother taking them seriously in another game.

If they actually give you a reasonable reason for their actions (even as much as an apology, not that it matters...) you are probably going to understand their position, even if you disagree with it.

As I've been saying, it seems as though the 'honorable' crowd is both incredibly lazy and touchy when it comes to diplomacy, and guess what... that sword cuts both ways as well.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Yes, and if not for consequences in other games, no one will stick to NAPs. The whole point of "backstabbing" is trying to knock someone out of the game, otherwise you gain nothing but a vengeful enemy.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Well, from the reading here I do not see how the "honorable" crowd is expecting NAPs to be invioable (the lazy part). They just want the facts out and consequences in.

It is the "consequences" that bothers the "backstab" crowd. They want "backstab" with no "consequences". It appears that they hate anyone who even remotely suggest "consequences". I frankly do not understand this, isn't "consequences" taught from elementary school?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I would not break NAPs, and all the top players I know do not break NAPs. And the fact that they don't break NAPs I believe is an important part of their strategy.

Many people view NAPs as an out of character agreement, just like trading items or gems. I am one of those. There is not much roleplaying in most of the games I have played. And the NAP breakers I have spotted do not roleplay.

As a player who does not break NAPs, I believe I can play more strategically, as I have to be careful who I make NAPs with. By making NAPs with a player who does not break NAPs, my back is protected to the extent of the NAP. I would not make NAPs with a NAP breaker, as that would put me at a severe disadvantage, as I don't break NAPs.

In my experience, NAP breakers are very few. If you consider only players who have played more than 5 MP games on these boards, the list is even fewer.

For me, the scheming and plotting comes before the NAPs are signed. You fake strength, cajole, threaten, bribe others to sign the NAP. My diplomatic energy is spent there, not on trying to convince others why breaking that NAP is justified.

And I love these threads, I visit them from time to time, especially when I'm offered a NAP by someone whom I have never played against before :p

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

From the "intrigue" point of view, shouldn't breaking NAPs deliberately and sending "'PWNED u n00b!@!!" be more skillful than those with "reasonable" reasons? If you subscribe to "lively diplomacy" and not "lazy" diplomacy, shouldn't the first action more commendable? It is deliberately and masterfully excuted instead of being forced, isn't it?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Sorry you lost me, I don't understand a thing you said.

As I've said, I don't think I'd agree to too many NAPs where breaking them would be an issue, since I wouldn't accept these inviolate type NAPs in the first place. But my point is that even if I wound up in a NAP I felt I *had* to break (and again, this would not be done lightly, and only if it essentially allowed me to win basically immediately) I would provide my rational for doing so. It would not just be 'sucks to be you' and 'GG'.

Of course breaking NAPs has consequences, no one has disputed this, but as far as I am concerned there's a reasonable way to break a NAP and an unreasonable way.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

May I guess that reasonable or unreasonable is from your point of view? If so, why shouldn't others have a different opinion from their point of view? In the end, the only thing for sure is that you broke NAPs in a certain way. So let's just present the facts, and let everyone make up his or her own mind, OK?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Which is what I've been saying all along isn't it?

If you don't make it clear up front in whatever you agree to then be prepared for whatever nonsense will follow.

I don't know what 'facts' you're talking about anyway.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I don't know, this is what you were saying right? It's Ok to break a NAP if it leads to outright win (and by defination, no recourse in the same game), but it is not OK to remember that in another game. Ok, what happened to the "consequences" thing when the only "consequence" is not OK?

Also many of you stated disgust for a NAP breaker list idea. Well, if what I said was what you were saying all along, why do you object to a venue that people can list past NAP breaches so others can read the facts and make up their minds?

As for the facts, I personally think it is simple. When and how you break a NAP (like in this case, NAP is signed until a certain turn but he likes to terminate it early, anyone dispute that?) and why (he cannot let the other party just win). I wonder how else do you define facts in this case?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

You can not have a public list of NAP breakers because whether a NAP is broken or not is subject to oppossing interpretations. Such a list would be bad for the community because of the abuse and conflict that it would generate. You can of course tell someone you play with privately what you think of the other players in your game.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I believe the skillful way to handle it is to claim that you were informed by a 3rd party that they were going to break the NAP and sneak attack you, so you just did it first. Impossible to disprove, egg on everyone's face, entertaining all around. ;)

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Ahh you misunderstand. You can hold the grudge, but taking action against that player in an already running game is what I would find offensive, obviously you may change your opinion of them, and react accordingly. Point is, you're in 2 games with this player, and in the 2nd you start ripping him for breaking the NAP in the 1st game. Not relevant to me as a player in that 2nd game, and not a reason to change my approach to that 2nd game. Assume you had NAPs with him in both games, would you assume they were both void if one were broken?

I am not against a NAP breaker list other than for the fact that it will only lead to arguments and grief. Keep one for yourself though if you want to.

I don't define facts as anything other than what you stated. I just don't think his breaking of the NAP is as horrible as you do, for the reasons he gave, and for the FACT that it wasn't a complete back stab (essentially changed the terms to NAP+3).

Again he is going to suffer the consequences of the action (if he actually took it) and everyone would hopefully just move on after making whatever personal decision they want to.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Of course it's relevant if I have first hand experience that someone does not follow agreements when it suits him. Strategy will have to reflect the devaluation of the NAP. What that would mean exactly would depend on the exact circumstances of the game.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Your contention that its bad for the community is not supported by evidence. Ebay's seller rating is essentially the same thing - and last I checked they had a market capitalization rating in the billions of dollars. Seems to work for them.

Personally, I *don't* think facts should be given. No opinions nothing.

There should just be a list, maintained alphebetically, soemthing like this:

Violators name : Game : Reported By.

Grumpy FruitBat SnowWhite
Grumpy Pimpin' Caravaggio
Grumpy Veritas Joe DiMaggio
Heliotrop Standardds Grumpy
SunTzu KingMaker X the unknown.

No opinion, no verification. No arguments, no flames.
IF you wanted to get fancy, you could do the same thing for people that get caught cheating or using exploits.

Norbert KingMaker Hacking game files GlointheDark.
SlickWilly Veritas Bogus Violation JoeDimaggio

etc.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

You are fighting the windmills, Chris. I don't think ANY of those who breake the NAP really care about being posted. Scoregraphs is your best ingame friend, not the list of untrustworthy players.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

But if you are to separate in game person from forum person that list should only contain pretender names, because that is what you are playing - in game. Anything else mixes this world with the different game worlds. And the point to not do that is so that you should be allowed to play several in game persons in several games with the consequences in one game staying put in that game. Everything else is meta gaming.

If you want a list of NAP breakers forum names posted on the forum you are logically mixing the game worlds with the forum world. The result of this is that one game will leak into another.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I don't think this is right. Because in real life, no-one enforces diplomacy. And yet most nations, most of the time, stick roughly to the alliances they've made. Certainly in real life alliances and treaties have some value.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Value of alliance is mutual interests, or some levers one can push on another.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

A thought has occured to me while following this interesting thread.

This thread was initiated on the main forum because the potential NAP breaker knew it was wrong to break the NAP, and was looking for permission/validation to justify his actions.

My 5 cents.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Excuse me chris, your idea of how this "NAP breakers" list (which i personally abhor in first place) should work seem crazy to me. A list where the only one who posts is judge and jury? no right to even say "but i thought he was plotting against me because this or that" or "we were in a machiavellian politics match"? I find all this quite tyrannical and Big-Brother style :o

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I agree with llama. In WWI and WWII (not to think about the medieval ages) almost everybody betrayed everybody else and switched alliances. Still we have today the EU and treaties of peace between nations all over the globe, even after everybody proved to be "unreliable" or "NAP breakers" lol. So seems real politics and diplomacy are on this side - one can play the bastard on a game, and be a nice person in real life, in the forum and in the future matches. I mean, we pretend to be blood-thirsty molochs... XD

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I actually almost never keep track on whos who in games. The nation matters more alltough sometimes its good to know if your bordering experienced players;). If I have to pm to my neighbour (in game messaging is slow) then I look it up on the first post.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Judging from the poll results, the "schism" is already there. As I see it, the problem is that some people are convinced that there is a "consensus", and react with outrage when their illusions are shattered.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Definitely, but I think you're exaggerating the effects. We're not making a life choice here; simply because you use inviolate NAPS in one game doesn't mean you're next game can't be a free for all political fray :) It's no different from choosing a map, era or mod for the game. Some players won't play simply because they're not in the mood for that particular choice at the time, others will join because it's exactly what they're looking for. Either way, it's basic courtesy to inform them beforehand so they can decide for themselves. I'm more than willing to believe that the average player is capable of distinguishing between a game where NAPS are expected to be inviolate and one in which they aren't, and modify their behaviour accordingly.
It's also why I think a NAP list is unnecessary. To me, if the players have already agreed NAPS should be inviolate in the game and someone breaks that then they are cheating, and should be treat accordingly (kicked from the game). Like I said though, without specifying at the start of the game that diplomacy was going to be fixed then it's unfair to suddenly decide they apply mid-way through the game.

And to go back to a bit:
That's the point. The idea is that you try and work out from current behaviour what his strategy is and plan accordingly. Referring to an external list of past behaviour is the same as using spoilers though :P
It's back to what I said above. If the host had already stated no backstabbing then I'm pretty sure Llamabeast is capable of following that rule even if he has just played a treacherous hag in his previous game. If the host has decided he wants the politicking to make Machiavelli look naive then judging whether a player can be trusted or not is part of the strategy, and thinking a player is going to stick to the same strategy in every such game is probably a fatal mistake ...

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Every now and then someone who got burned by a broken NAP in some MP game either posts a thread where the intent is to list "known NAP-breakers" or asks the mods about posting such. This is not the first or second or third time it comes up in a discussion.

The reason such threads have been and will be quashed on sight is that they are nothing but useless flamebait. Broken NAPs are an issue within the specific game (as exemplified by llamabeasts post above with the moloch/dragon example) and discussion of specific NAPs and specific games belong in the appropriate threads. Taking those issues out of the game threads and bringing them out to the wider forum in an attempt to either "warn everyone else" or to just get even amounts to a vendetta against the targeted user and is against the forum rules.

If allowed, the only thing they would do is divide the community into mutually hostile groups and once you were seen to fall into one camp or the other, it would not be long before there would be flaming across group lines even in unrelated discussions. I've seen things like that happen on other forums, so it's useless to try to argue with me that it wouldn't happen here. At my most charitable, I'd consider it ignorant bleating.

So while discussion of NAPs and how binding they should be and when is okay on a general level (such as this thread), any attempted listings of NAP-breakers are not. That kind of trouble will be nipped in the bud, so any such lists people may wish to post they can do on their own web pages, which obviously are not subject to the Shrapnel Forum community rules.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Personally I think this whole discussion is hilarious. Ano's position that some how backstabbing someone IN A GAME is equivalent to real life back stabbing is ridiculous.

I mean, come on, are you going to make an alliance in RISK and then get all pissy because someone backed out on it?

Jazzepi

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

You also cannot have a public list of NAP breakers because the subject has come up a number of times before, and Shrapnel has passed judgement on it.

Gandalf Parker

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I respectfully disagree.

First, in this game, no one enforces diplomacy either. But people stick to diplomacy acts because breaking them will have consequences in other game. I would like to consider each war roughly equivilant to a dominions game. What you did in last war is surely rememebered in other wars.

No, you cannot compare whole history to a dominions game. Since you do not "backstab and win outrightly". You do not (as of yet) destroy all other countries so you "win" and they are all history and who cares who they think.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Yes, I agree. And in fact, you should avoid counterstriking, to show the other party that even if they that dont respect NAPs, you abide by your word

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

You miss the point Wing.. its target isn't the nap breakers - the intended audience are people wanting to know about the person they are going to enter an nap with.


Anyway - I own a couple of domains. If someone wants to develop the page, I don't mind hosting it.