Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Yep, indeed, thank God not a single guy with bad reputation is smart enough to change his account name.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

This is a very interesting discussion! I'd like to add my two cents :)

After reading the whole thread, I've noticed a number of people on the 'no breaking NAP' side seem to be angry. Read their posts again. I see a lot of serious and emotive language being used, and an overarching implication that anybody who breaks NAP's in game is an inherently bad person in real life.

I don't see this anger from the 'break NAP ok' side.

I'd rather not get angry over a game, it seems to defeat the purpose, and is definitely negative for me as a person. Such a waste of energy!

An early contributor to this thread stated that 'no breaking NAP's' was this community's standard. The following discussion proves this to clearly not be the case! :) The community seems to hold a range of views on the topic, so in the absence of a clear view "backstab possible" must logically be the default stance on this topic.

The suggestion to specify whether NAP's are 100% binding before the start of the game seems very sensible and should end the debate. "Backstab possible" can be the default, "backstab not possible" can be specified before the game is started.

I believe it is incumbent upon people wanting NAPs to be binding to start their own games with this rule (which btw would be a much more effective solution than trying to get unbreakable NAPs coded into the game!)

Any further debate represents a desire by the 'no break' side to impose their will on the entire gaming community. You may be in the moral right, who knows, but don't waste your time guys, it's never going to happen! :)

The 'break ok' side have raised no concerns with people starting 'no break' games, so the solution is clear. (I reckon)


P.S. I wouldn't break an NAP unless the game was about to be lost (reputation is important!), but I feel the default should be 'break NAP ok', so I have sympathies for both sides!

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Re: getting unbreakable NAPs getting coded into the game

Or into the DOM playing population's heads!

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Couldn't agree more.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

The issue is pretty simple really. People are free to break agreements and people are free to let others know when that happens. There's no need for any special "NAPs are 100% binding" rules. How would that be enforced anyway? By whom?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Yes, they'll be seen as gullible fools who'll happily let you build up enough force to crush their empire utterly without raising a finger to stop you :p

Depends on the game and the players and whether they can read the relative strength charts. A lot of it is bluffing, politic and social skills though. Whether you stick to agreements or break them with glee isn't as important as how you make it appear. A good player who regularly backstabs and manages to last well into the game will be careful to spin it in such a way that they appear strong enough to do what they like. A bad player needs to be careful to avoid diplomatic isolation or having their opponents believe they are desperate for more territory (and thus probably weaker than themselves)
The same applies to the opposite approach. A good player will convince their opponents that the reason they have long standing alliances is because nobody else dare attack them. Again, if they're not careful it may look like they are seeking stronger allies because they are incapable of fending for themselves.
Reputation across games should never be relied on. A good player will use any pre-conceived notions of how they play against you - switching from one style of play to the other can be useful to gull regular opponents into believing you are stronger than you actually are, or conversely trick them into attacking early because you appear weak.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

The position will be different, not necessarily better. I'm not saying I think NAPs should be binding in the sense that they would be enforced in any way, the point is that one should not complain if breaking your word affects how others value it in the future.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I'm in the 'no break' side. I haven't advocated for getting naps enforced in the game; probably cause I haven't thought of it.

There are a whole bunch of things I WOULD like to see.
It would be cool, if you could walk across an 'allies' lands.
It would be cool if you could detach units and send them to an ally.
It would be cool if you could trade spell research (but only on individual spells, levels are too huge).

As for anger, well thats a whole can of worms right there.

I would say that its probably because a "no break" napper has been stabbed in the back once, twice, or possibly *every* game they have played by a *ho hum I'm bored* napper.

The "no break" napper puts a lot of time and energy into one of these games, hoping to get a good ally, or at least a reliable neutral. And then is usually snuck attacked. Even if the attack does not succeed, it leaves such a taste in ones mouth, he really doesn't want to play the game.

People that are "hohum" nappers have written about how much fun it is looking for the right opportunity to backstab. Great. Fun for you. Not at *ALL* fun for a lot of us.

Look, "hohum" nappers have a tactical advantage in the game - but I think they should at least be willing to meet the "no break" nappers half way. Just say up front in the game I'm a hohum napper.

I would say the anger is compounded because efforts to compile a list of either "ho hum" nappers or "no break" nappers have been disallowed (aka threads frozen).

As for "Any further debate represents a desire by the 'no break' side to impose their will on the entire gaming community." I find that really offensive. Enough so I wrote this lengthy post. Last I heard, God only gave the commandments once; - the purpose of these boards is discussion of ideas. Me offering *my opinion* for whatever reason - is just as valid as you posting yours.

I don't want Nap or No Nap games - I just want to know what standards OTHER people are playing under.

Your lofty "hohum" nappers don't have any anger is .. condescending - what do "ho-hum" nappers have to be angry about?
And why do they flame threads where their breaking a nap is documented?

As for setting up games "hohum" or "nobreak" nap - its too difficult to set up games as it is - dealing with naps or no naps is just way too much headache.

Sorry that there *were* some emotive words in there. I've actually never been backstabbed by someone with whom I have a Nap

But seriously, what is wrong with a sticky thread where handles are registered something like

1: will break a nap in a heartbeat.
3: Will break a nap in duress
4: Will break a nap to prevent game loss
5: Won't break a Nap


So then all that would be necessary would be to rate -

SnowWhite 4
Gurmpy - 5
GlointheDark 1

Or declare it at the beginning of the game. I'm gloin in the dark, I'm a hohum napper and I'd like lanka please.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

It all boils down to how well you hammer out the terms of the NAP upfront. Personally I would never agree to a nonbreakable NAP, so its really not an issue for me, but I sense that alot of this debate isn't about what a NAP is, but how people interpret the unbreakableness of underdefined NAPs. The example is you simply ask for a 'NAP' with some neighbor and never really specify anything, or the specifications are somewhat nebulous (and 'NAP to turn 60' is nebulous in my opinion, not that I'd agree to it anyway, but whatever).

Protect yourself as much as you can upfront to avoid these 'misunderstandings', and if you feel you were taken advantage of feel free to hold the grudge, no one can stop you from doing so anyway.

You have to be in diplomatic contact with your NAP partners constantly anyway (well you should be...) otherwise play team games with no NAPs and you don't have to worry about it.

Of course collusion will always be an issue in any MP arena, but I don't get the feeling its a huge issue in this community.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

There is nothing wrong to break a NAP, it is human nature and human nature is dark by nature. :doh:

Besides, unless specified in game setup, there are no punishment for breaking a NAP. :)

Now if you break a NAP, others will note it and play with you (or not) accordingly. This information is also useful for anyone who may considering playing with you (or not). :eek:

So this "I broke NAP for a thousand reasons and I believe I am right so you do not tell others about me or you are angry and sissy" attitude from "NAP is for losers to stick to" camp is quite disturbing to me. I see whole lot of justifying in breaking NAP, but for what? You do what you want to do, but a thousand excuses still do not make you as trustworthy (in the game anyway).

Without trust, there is no point in NAP whatsoever. You showed your excuses, you even convinced yourself, now let's move on. No you cannot change other's perception of you by finding even convincing excuses.