Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

I talked to a couple newer players and a couple of the Vets and everyone seemed to agree that different players have different views of the word NAP.

I myself was very confused when I kept getting different responses from people regarding our agreements. I generally keep the wording very very similar when setting up deals (a few times I cut N pasted), and was suprised to see that I had actually formed very different deals.

Right now, there are two types of NAPs. I will use 3 turn as an example for both.

a) 3 Turn NAP: Both players agree that no offensive actions shall be intiated by either player. If either player wishes to do so, he must give 3 turn notice prior to attacking.

Example: Jotun and Van form a Non Agression Pact on turn 4. On turn 18 Jotun Declares War on Van. The Earliest he could possibly attack on turn 20 (issue orders on turn 19).

b) 3 Turn NAP: Both players agree that they shall not attack eachother for 3 turns. Any and all agreements end in 3 turns.

Example: Jotun and Van form a Non Agression Pact on turn 4. Van has not responded to any messangers. On turn 6 Jotun issues orders, and attacks on Turn 7.



I always assumed a NAP is option A. Option B is something totally different, and imho needs a seperate term. Option B is more like a ceasefire, or TCF (Temp Cease Fire). Personally I don't like the term, as it implies that there was hostilities, which most of the time isn't the case. If anyone else has a better term, by all means....

Imho this is a community issue, and since we are a fairly small one, it wouldn't be that hard to get everyone to participate in coming up with a solution that everyone sticks by.

The second issue is when can someone attack. Multiple people stated that different people interpret the same agreements differently.

Again, even though its a small world here, its a pretty tight one.

Using the example from option A, could Jotun attack on turn 20 or 21? The original statement states that 3 turns notice have to be given. That means 3 full turns. Turn 20 is the beginning of the 3rd turn. The second Jotun hits end, he will have competed the 3rd full turn.

Anyhow, what do you guys think? I don't think anyone wants to go over every word of every deal like a lawyer. IMHO it would be a much simpler world if we all looked at the same agreement and saw the same thing.

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

I realize that I totally botched explaining what I was getting at. Can anyone who participated in the conversation in IRC please jump. Maybe you guys can explain it better.

PS. Forgive the poll questions. I couldn't figure out how to word them.

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Because NAPs are not part of the real rules of Dominions, I think it would be silly (and fruitless) to try to define and enforce specific definitions.

If you want to be sure that your "3-turn NAP" is "type A", then instead of just asking for a 3-turn NAP, say what you mean. Say something like "will you agree that we will not attack each other without giving notice 3 turns prior to any offensive action?"

Then you can have the fun of defining "offensive action".

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

If all you ask for is a three turn non-agression pact, then you're only asking for three turns of non-aggression. If you want something more complicated, then you should spell it out clearly.

Yes, it would be hard, and it would end up being nothing more than just another case of somebody trying to create a set of universal house rules.

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Bingo thats my point. Not everyone defines it like that Graeme. Thats not the way it was explained to me either.

How many active forum memmbers would you say are around? Less than 30? The term NAP is ingrained in Dominions MP. Terms pop up in communities that were not in the game. My whole point is this: Right now, as it stands, different people have different definitions of the term.

If you call a dog a cat, it doesn't mean that its not a dog.

What I stated above was a suggestion to fix the problem. Honestly given the amount of people involved, I thought I could approach the issue the way I did.

My whole main point of this thread, was to get a baseline so everyone is on the same page of what the Term NAP means.

A or B, it doesn't really make a difference. The whole point was to get everyone on the same page, because from what I have seen, we aren't.

I posted the last portion attempting to kill 2 birds with one stone. A couple people mentioned that they saw it as a problem, so I threw it on here.

I guess the better way to have gone about this thread was to discuss the definition of NAP, as you guys are taking this off another direction that wasn't my intent. Yes, I know I can be specific and spell out exactly what I mean. Thats not my point. What I wrote was the end result of a discussion in IRC, taking a step back, if you weren't part of the discussion I can see how you took it the way you did. Like I said I was having trouble figuring out the best way to explain it.

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Gee - it's just like diplomacy. Think how many man-years are spent ironing out the details of treaties, alliances, trade agreements, etc, in the real world.

Graeme's essentially right : you can ask for a 5 turn NAP, a 10 turn NAP, etc, or you ask for a NAP with a 3 turn, 5 turn, whatever, notification when the NAP is ending.

If you just ask for a NAP with nothing else specified, it's simply signaling intent not to attack, but either party can say "NAP time is over" at will. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

You have to be explicit when asking for agreements between nations; if you are not, I think it's best to expect the lowest common denominator... as an example:

Jotun sends his in-game war declaration on turn 20, you recieve it turn 21, you quickly send bribes turn 21, he recieves them turn 22, he sends attack orders and owns your province by turn 23. 23-20=3... Sounds like three turns' notice, though obviously he is at the advantage. Too short a time? Extend it to 6 turns.

Thing is, breaking it down further would be cumbersome, considering you may have to make several NAP's during a game. I'll give you a little template if you like on what I've seen work:

Greetings from Tartarus:

We would like to assure the stability of our current borders by forming a Non-Aggression Pact between our nations, during which we do not attack the other without three turns' prior notice. Unless extended, this agreement will expire on Turn 30. We will send information on ordered attacks on provinces that may conflict with your attacks, and hope that you will do the same so we can avoid accidental conflict.

Hades

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

It's the only correct way to read the term "Three turn NAP" without making any assumptions about the meaning. If I run a 100 metre sprint, then it means that the entire race was 100 m, not that I ran an undetermined distance, then sprinted for the last 100 metres. If you want three turns of warning, then state that you want three turns of warning, and precisely what sort of warning you expect.

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Half the players break NAPs with no warning anyways... what does it matter?

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Turn issue: I think I figured out a better way to word it. IMHO this is an important issue for everyone to be on the same page, as the difference between the two is huge.

Situation: 3 Turn Notification required to take any hostile action. It is turn 20.

1) Player takes his first province on turn 22.
2) Player takes his first province on turn 23.

Situation: 8 Turn Notification required to take any hostile action. It is turn 23.

1) Player A takes his frist province on turn 30.
2) Player B takes his first province on turn 31.


Player A attacks on the 3rd turn.
Player B attacks after 3 complete turns have passed.

Mork, thanks for the template, but seeking help was not my aim. I am confortable forming agreements with my neighboors now that I know everyone views it a little differently.

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Heh. True enough - albeit one reason for this in long games can be that after 5 months, the player doesn't remember that they had a formal NAP. It'd be so #@*#ing nice if Illwinter would make such things a little easier to track.

Then of course, there's the players who you simply learn not to trust. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Yes, AgeofWonders2:SM had each player listed with either Unknown, War, Peace or Allied. AgeofWonders2:SM is another fantasy TurnBasedStrategy game. Allied players would spend a turn just to move into Peace... then next turn that player could move into war. Hopefully something like this will exist for DOM_3 except maybe two turns for each.

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Until a few days ago, that was the assumption I was operating under. Thats how it was explained to work.

This is a quote from our discussion last night, which is one of the reasons I felt the need to bring this up.

<archae> NAPs have traditionally been interpreted as a number of turns of warning
<archae> if you want to use some other sense, you shouldn't call it a NAP

I am not the only one who was operating under this assumption.

I felt the need to resolve the two schools of thought, as I thought it would lead to a much smoother diplomatic process with no one misinterprating anything. It just seems very very odd to me that there are two schools of thought. It just made sense to me to bring it up and try to get a community definition for the term. That and its nice to get a new thread going every couple days. I thought it would be a nice discussion thread as per the feedback I got, I wasn't the only one who thought this.

As Cain said, I don't break them intentionally. I was about to go to War with someone, when in IRC he brought up our NAP. I had totally forgotten I had one setup. I have had only once incident that a player went back on his agreements. Other then that one isolated incident, diplomacy is the real reason I am hooked to MP as bad as I am.

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Yeah an in game note pad would be great, diplomacy screen, anything to help track the deals you have in place would be most welcome. Nah had a good idea, he has been keeping a log of all agreements, and important events. Think I am going to start doing that.

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Out of curiosisty, I will investiagte the possibility that calling a dog a cat DOES in fact make it one.

Let us start from the assumption: all dogs are cats.
Then, by logical extension, all non-dogs are non-cats.
If assumption (A) is false, cats are not dogs. This is (B).
A bit of speculation then:
A cat and a dog are very similar: both are quadrupedal, mobile, fur-covered, mammals. Both have similar habits and both have been domesticated for many, many years.
Is it not possible that the only reason (B) appears true is that we believe it?
If (A) were the accepted norm, would it be true?
Based on theory, not fact, observing an object causes that object to be 'isolated' and cease to be a collection of prabablilities.
The question is whether belief also isolates prabability waves, without the object being observed.

(This is a fundamental part of quantum theory) The value of the observable A lies in the range B (*).
One possible reading of (*) is operational: "measurement of the observable A would yield (or will yield, or has yielded) a value in the set B ". On this view, projections represent statements about the possible results of measurements. Also, its possible to interpret (*) as a property ascription: "the system has a certain categorical property, which corresponds to the observable A having, independently of any measurement, a value in the set B".
in which the existance is indepentant of the observed, and which MIGHT allow belief modified existance.

So, maybe, depending on our interpretation of Quantum Probability, saying a dog is a cat, and BELIEVING it, causes the dog to be, or to have once been, or to possibly be, a cat.

Granted, I'm not exactly Feynman, so I might have gone a little overboard.

Valandil, in association with Schrodinger's Cat-Dog
Edit: Quote still not working

Re: Multi-Player Standard Community Terms
 

Depends. For one, even if dogs were cats, cats might still be cats. Because of that, you can't say that all non-dogs are non-cats.

If we presumed that the word "cat" would mean a dog, and only a dog, however... A cat would be canus canus, a member of a domesticated species with similarities to wolves. The name with which we call dogs doesn't chance the dogs themselves - the only attribute that would chance is our perception of them, and even in that case it probably wouldn't change besides the name we would call them.