AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

To record ppl in games who breached NAP.
Although my time do not allow me to play that many multis like I did, I think there shall be one thread like this, and as I failed to find one, this thread is created. If there's one like this already please PM me and feel free to ask moderators remove this thread.

Parcelt as C'tis IN Llamabeast's Chinchilla - Claimed that "NO NAP's Signed". Keep attacking while negotiating, and the so said negotiation turned out to be some way to took your provinces while keep your armies at bay. Did this to All his neighbors - Confirmed.

Tibbs as Ulm IN Velusion's Sophistry - Attacked without agreed notification. Two of three nations in the coordinated attack canceled NAP in time, only this guy attacked without saying a word.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Grudges should not be carried from one game to the next, this thread only encourages that. If someone breaks a NAP it should go in the game thread.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

This is information that veterans of MP are already going to have, and act on. I don't see a problem with a thread about it.

It doesn't encourage grudges, a grudge will just lose you the game to the advantage of those not involved. It encourages proper caution towards repeat offenders.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I have it on good account that AreWeInsaneYet broke a NAP himself in the Chinchilla game.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I think this is a bad idea, in my observational experience.

First off, it won't end well, whatever your intentions are. A thread like this is tinder- not a bad thing, but add a couple sparks and it'll go up in flames. All it takes is one person having a bad day and responding carelessly, and someone responding rashly. And nobody playing containment.

I had a few other points, but I'm going to have to think on the wording a bit. And I'm not certain whether their worth going over if I'm as apathetic as I am.

I do recommend you formalize a treaty in the forum threads to a). prevent honest misunderstandings and forgetfulness, and b). hold up as evidence if you insist on running a blacklist, to resolve the eventual conflict of view.

I personally try to hold to secret alliances honestly and fairly, but I follow the trust but verify method for that. Whether by spies, or by enticements combined with minor reserves to make sure I'm not a quickly plucked fruit. If a treaty's not signed or not public, you're asking for trouble -honest or dihonest trouble. You won't always get it, but its a lot more likely.

A few games of Risk 2010 over at "Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow" eventually had me enjoying that sense of paranoia. Though not winning the game. I was still the n00b.

Anyways, I don't care either way if you come up with a blacklist, but I did want to warn you. I'm going to wander off to another thread now.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Hardly. The player base is huge, games take a long time, and you'll have to be neighbors to initiate any kind of NAP talk. Some names may reoccur again and stick, but I doubt that players remember people from past games that much. They'll probably remember the nations they played.

"Veterans" know that the rules of fair play do not apply in love and war. They know that they might get backstabbed at one point or the other if they are doing too good or fall back too much, and they don't have a problem with it. After all, this is just a game, we don't play for a jackpot.

I don't see the point of having one. You may make your own list and use it, but what's the use in making it public? There are always two sides of the same medal.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

AWIY, if you are going to do this at all do it in your own head. A strong principle of dominions diplomacy is that you have to see the player as separate from the nation, and carrying grudges/friendships from one game to another really isn't okay. Remember that many people roleplay their nations, so they may just be roleplaying as a dishonest backstabbing nation in one game, and an honest one in the next. To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

If someone betrays you in a game then by all means make a fuss about it in that thread - say "Ermor betrayed me! Kill him!", but saying "llamabeast is a bad person! Everyone should attack him in all games" completely ruins the role-playing spirit and is just not very nice. (incidentally this situation's never arisen!)

I have to say I think this thread is quite unpleasant and inflammatory, and players in question are likely to find it quite hurtful. I'm sure you meant well, but I think if we have this kind of thing in the forums it could really lower the tone of the community. Those who read the forums a lot will know that I am almost never critical, so I don't make these comments lightly.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

This is very worthwhile to read.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Im behind the llama on this.

I find this thread offencive.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I also find this thread offensive. However, I'm not going to lock it for the time being. The thing to remember here is that a particular game is distinct from a particular player, someone who was your staunch ally in one game may stab you in the back in the next one. Besides that, as long as there is not a set of commonly agreed-upon rules about notification of attack being mandatory in a given game, this sort of thread will come across as whining about nothing.

Further, this sort of thread is a prime breeding ground for vendettas, which are something that will absolutely not be tolerated. If you have a problem with somebody's in-game conduct, keep it to PM, email or the particular thread dedicated to that game. If you start making lists where you add up everyone who ever got the better of you in a game, even if it was through backstabbing, fine, but keep them to yourself. The moment you start airing vendetta lists on the public forum, YOU get on the moderators' watch list. If it spirals out of control, the proverbial ton of bricks is liable to fall mostly on the person seen as the instigator of any trouble.

Try to keep that in mind.

With the limited Dominions MP experience that I have (just 2 games of Dom2 long ago), I remember being backstabbed and doing some backstabbing myself and we all had a good laugh about it afterward.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I agree with Edi, Llamabeast and Methel. This is a game!!! We are dealing with diplomacy, war, and intrigue. Guess what?? That happens in real life?? Remember the Russo-German Pact in 1939??? And how it was broken in 1941???? Someone above mentioned that in one game a player may be roleplaying a nation as a disingenuous thug, and the next as a knight-hearted benevolent. I never carry a grudge from one game to another (although I can think of at least one person who may think I do...8^).....) I think threads like this tend to take away the intent of the game.......to have fun; and to encourage unintentional results......take the game too seriously.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

We have removed people from the forums for carrying vendettas too far into other threads. Im afraid that it will be up to each person to read about NAP complaints. A blacklist definetly does not fit the desired feel for Shrapnels forums.

On the OTHER hand...
people should realize that reputations DO follow you. I understand saying "how I play my god in THIS game is not how I play my god in the next game" but Im afraid that it just doesnt tend to hold true. The RPGers would like full creativity for each new god but the Strategists tend to keep score across games (and lists).

We have sometimes discussed ways to have completely anonymous games. So far we can achieve about a 90% anon if someone wants to set up such a game.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

> To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

Huh? I didn't know that.

I have never played a game of strategy and diplomacy in wich pacts are not expected to be broken.

I'm not very fond of NAP's as it seems people expect anyone who breaks them to be a bastard. I will unvariably attack an opponent when I assume my gains will be the greatest (including diplomatic ones).

There should be no unbreakable pacts, and if players use the term 'NAP' to mean 'a pact that makes you a bastard if you break it' I think the diplomatic traditions of this game has been broken somewhere http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

It is fun to betray, and it is fun to be betrayed. Frustrating, yes, but all the more fun when you strike back with righteous vengence! Or die trying to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It is also more fun to play when you might expect a backstab from one of your neighbours at any time.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I agree. Someone would be a fool to let another player betray them twice.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I do not think this a good idea. Even if NAPS were a holy right and a sin to break, having a thread to start the flame-wars and vendettas for them is a recipe for disaster.

I will not be checking or posting in this thread at all again.

Salute.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I think that the game has the reverse problem - people keep their agreements even when it's crazy, from an in-game standpoint, to do so.

They do so in order to avoid being regarded as treaty breakers, for the classic game theory reasons, as well as personal ethics. This has the effect of making everyone (including, I must say, myself) too honorable.

The other problem is that the game has no long-term message memory. If you have longterm diplomatic arrangements of some kind with someone, and they offer an NAP, and you ignore that but continue to coordinate strategically, they *invariably* think that you agreed to the NAP. But you can't call up the messages in question and demonstrate that you didn't actually agree to the NAP.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Evernight, a web based fantasy wargame that I used to play (evernightgame.com) has a good system for diplomacy. Everything I know about NAP's I learned from them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

They have a good message log, which would be very helpful in DOM3 MP for many reasons beyond keeping people honest. There's also a setup where you can rate other players on a scale for various things like honor, communication, skill, etc. and type up a blurb about your experiences with them for other players to read.

Could be useful here if it were implementable.

-Ubercat

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

The only use for this thread is to compile a list of whiners. I hope we don't see this sort of thing very often. Individual game threads are for reputation-bashing, and it should all be in-character.

Color me disgusted.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

What's the color of disgusted anyways? Brown?

I dislike this sort of thread as from a practical standpoint it's extremely unwieldy.

1. It doesn't really help anyone, because there's no way to verify if the entries are accurate.

2. People who are on the list can just make a new name if they really care.

3. People who don't deserve to be on the list have no method of appeal.

4. It's silly, it's a game you play to win. If you don't expect people to break treaties then you shouldn't be playing. I, personally, like to try to stay on the straight and narrow, but sometimes circumstances dictate otherwise.

Jazzepi

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I like peace treaties and stick to mine. But then, I avoid 'evil' nations,
always take a life domain, and won't touch blood magic. This probably says
something about me, and probably it is not good.

I have had a few treaties broken on me, usually because I have grown too strong,
and once because I was too weak. I do not think I have been often surprised.
The only time I am really bothered is when the player has been role-playing
before that, and all of a sudden breaks a treaty for purely 'play to win' reasons.

For example, Pythium betraying Ulm when their alliance against Ermor had just
started turning the undead tide. This was the first time I was betrayed, and
I still remember it. The real lesson from that game was 'Ulm sucks' though.

My personal view is - you do not have to make treaties and alliances. If you
choose to make them, you better stick by it. If you break them, I will not
attack you in the next game, but I sure as Hell will not make a treaty with you.
I will conduct diplomacy to prove that "you do not want to eat me, you want to
eat my brother", but that's it.

As for this thread, I like that people can talk about their views on treaties,
but I dislike the naming of offenders. Hard to clear a reputation once it is
besmirched, and I am only human. I happen to have two treaties with people
named in this thread, and all of sudden, I am worried.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I've brought up this topic and similar topics in the past yet requested a website be used instead to chart how players behave during a game.

Actions to be recorded of players:

1A) Treaties player has broken without warning:
1B) Treaties player has broken with proper warning:
*each treaty will have to be given a unique name for agreed reference

2A) Game Turn and remaining provinces when a player abandoned the game, thus scrounging for replacement or switched to AI:
2B) Games where the player has played to the bitter end:
*useful to know when searching for brave allies on future games

3A) Games where player has been proven to have cheated or attempted cheating:


((Let me know if I missed any... and we can always add more later.))


This type of website would allow players to more easily identify the character of players, otherwise it could take months for new players to painfully learn this information. On the same token this information can be used by those hosting a game to find specific types of players. For example a game where all players are known as backstabbers or some other game where all players are known to stay strong with treaties.

------------

Another idea is this website can eventually provide a personal login/password for each gamer where each treaty can be created and signed on the website. Only those individuals which have been offered and signed the treaty will be able to view the treaty... until the game has officially ended. Much easier to remember all the treaties if the details of each treaty can be viewed by both individuals at any time, instead of logging the information in notepad or written on a notebook.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I agree with DrP. that's why I really like the "no diplomacy" games. Somehow they end up as the most exciting one.

I also agree that its part of the fun in the game to break treaties and since this is only a game it doesn't say anything about the player's morals in real life. In a way its kind of childish to keep track of "treaty" breakers. I'm not for that.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Lets just say im a much more trust-worthy person in game that in real life http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.
Im not really a strong supporter of either side of this arguement but im interested to see how it turns out.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I'm just popping up to tell you that I fully agree with DrP and WraithLord on this this.

This is a game and it should be played by its rules, and I can't find a rule that says that you can't break a NAP or should be the subject of public punishment on an online forum if you do. However, you are of course free to make new rules on top of the default ones, but don't expect that everyone will follow them or agree on them.

Happy gaming!
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

As one of the players mentioned by AreWeInsaneYet, allow me to weigh in. Bottomline, I think Jazzepi really said it all a few posts above.

On the specific situation in the Chinchilla game that AreWeInsaneYet refers to, I'll say the following:
- I won't go into the details of who's wrong or right; we had a 'yes-no' discussion on this in the game thread, I guess we just don't agree and for me that's just another instance where diplomacy fails, and that's fine. This goes to the points brought up by Jazzepi that 1) there is always more than one side to a story, and how can others verify if what you claim is true? I certainly and sincerely do not agree with the claims you make, but I can't prove this, apart possibly from the claim about me treating all my neighbours as I allegedly treated you - this could be discarded by my neighbours although I wouldn't want to ask them to get involved in this discussion, and 2) there is no way to appeal. Even if you were right in this instance (which I think you are not:), the type of thread you are suggesting could be abused.
- I will say that a lot of what went wrong was due to miscommunication between our nations, partly due to the lag in the messaging system which I had to get used to - this is my first MP game. While I apparantely haven't been able to convince you of this, the things that did go wrong (for the record, again, this did not even involve breaking any NAPs), were non-intentional. I also did send you a message to apologize for that early on.
- We had (and are having) some fun fighting in the game ever since diplomatic talks were abandonded - although I am clearly on the losing side I am learning some lessons and still enjoying the game. If you're looking for revenge I'd say you're getting plenty by kicking my @ss ingame.

Given all of the above, I do find it a bit much for you to come and trash my name and reputation on a public forum. Very easy too, as there is little I can do to defend against it.

I would prefer we'd solve this by getting into a new game together. We'll fight honorably, I will win http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif and we can forget about all this.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Hear, hear. One of the prototypical games of diplomacy is Diplomacy itself, and as the manual for that game states, "These discussions and written agreements, however, do not bind a player to anything he/she may say. Deciding whom to trust as situations arise is an important part of the game." I feel that Dominions should be played the same way.

Many times in history and mythology, rulers have decided that a treaty wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. The deeds of gods are not recorded in history (reliably anyway), but in mythology many are treacherous bastards. It is both a better fit with the game-world and more fun to allow treachery without restriction (other than the *in-game* revenge of the betrayed).

Treason never prospers: what's the reason?
Because if it prospers, none dare call it treason.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I read the first two posts and decided that the purpose of this thread is offensive to me and I do not believe it is consistent with the tenor of the forum.

There is probably a place for this thread, but not here.

I write this from my perspective as a contender for both the oldest player (56) and longest tenure as a computer game player. (I'm sure someone will top me in both categories.) I started playing text-only computer games, with a cassette (that is correct, a cassette identical to the pre-CD music cassettes) as the storage medium way back in 1980 or 81.

I've seen this start before many times, and it has never boded well.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Quick, gather around here, someone is challenging Gandalf Parker. :O

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

There's a 62 y/o in the legion arena forums, and a handful more who are over 40...

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I was personally pretty surprised to see how seriously people take NAPs - everyone seemed to mention them and they appear to basically be the only kind of treaty used in dom3. Yet they aren't in the manual, that I can see, and they aren't any more supported by the game than any oter kind of diplomacy. They're just something some people like to use.

I personally would never agree to a NAP, because if I want to attack you, I will. At any moment. That's how diplomacy works in reality - the punishment for breaking treaties and generally behaving like a bastard is that it can come back to haunt you, but I don't think it should carry across from game to game, following a player. It probably will, to some extent, but given the number of people who like to roleplay their nation a little, it does seem a bit silly.

I think the main problem here is that there's a lack of communication. Person A says "NAP for 10 turns, agree?" to person B. To them, if B agrees, that's like a law or rule in the game for the next tne turns and they will observe it strictly. But to B, perhaps when they agreed to that "NAP for 10 turns" they were under the impression it was just like diplomacy in most games, where treaty breaking does happen but can backfire spectacularly. If both players assume the other is thinking the same thing, all you get is:

A: NAP for 10 turns?
B: Yes.

Not much of a discussion there, but the two players meant very different things. Perhaps if A had said "Non Agression Pact for the next 10 turns? Please note if you agree, I will take this as a promise from you as a player of the game and if you break it I will not play with you again." then B would never have agreed, since it isn't nice for people to be playing the game according to different rules (the reason I'd never agree to a NAP, ever).

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Just thought I should add that in my history of playing dominions I have always considered NAPs to be inviolable and have maintained them and followed their rules whenever I agreed to them and have recieved the same from those I have made them with as that was simply the way they were introduced to me(or the way i interpreted them, not sure. Was quite a while ago) when i first started playing dominions 2.

I think we need to agree here on whether they are inviolable or not and the general consensus seems to be not.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

The purpose of a NAP is to protect your backside and allow you to concentrate your forces elsewhere, thus multiplying your military might several fold. This is such an enormous part of the strategy of DOM that diminishment of its importance will change the entire gameplay of DOM3.

If NAPs can be broken any time, then agreeing to a NAP weakens you rather than strengthens you. I for one will never form NAPs with anyone who break one, and I believe that is the principle of most players who play Dom regularly.

If you like to roleplay a NAP breaker, then I would expect nothing less in the next nation you play.

However, I am against making public your own list of NAP breakers, as everyone knows, it can be abused, can not be verified, and will lead to heated debates that are not good at all for the dom community.

Also, it has been pretty much an established culture here in the dom community that you do not break NAPs, and the regular players do not break NAPs, and problems with NAP breaking are usually limited to new players, and most likely players you will not play against in the future anyway.

On the otherhand, I would like to play a few games where it is stated explicitly that NO NAP is binding, and that NO TRADE is binding either.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

A need to agree here might not be needed.

Now people knows that there are different ways to percieve NAP's and it is possible to decide if a new game will be one way or the other.

Seems there is enough players of each kind to accomodate games for both. And I suppose most people dont have a big issue with either kind, just as long as they know what they are getting into. I personally prefer not to play with strict NAP's, but I wouldn't mind playing that way if I knew beforehand that everyone in the game had the same view on NAP's.

It should not be too difficult to post:

New game: Gemet
Map: Aran
Graphs: On
NAP's: yes
Mods:

etc

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I would suggest that differentiation in the next game I play. Although I think the default assumption is that NAPs are unbreakable.

Perhaps we can establish a set of NAP rules that can be adopted per game, so that it is very clear. We can just say, we will be using NAP Ruleset Number 3 for this game.

I for one would like a rule set where if you terminate an existing NAP, you are bound by the 3 turn peace announcement clause, but the nation you terminated the NAP with is allowed to decide if war will start immediately, at his discretion. It makes much more sense that way.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Heh. That reminds me of my "Las Vegas" style game idea. I'm going to start one up once I lighten my current game load. I'm pretty full at the moment.

New Game: Ministry of Truth
Map: Aran
Graphs: Off
NAP, secret alliances: yes
Treachery: Optional, but encouraged.
Mods: Worthy heroes.
Joining: Public.
Out of game reputation- Unchanged because...
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Nice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Very nice, looks like alot of fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Unfortunately, my load won't be light enough for a while. I'm currently involved in five games, though I'm currently threatened by extinction via R'lyeh in two of them.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I'd just like to state that I can act one way in a given game, and completely switch in another game.

In the first game I can be utterly loyal, honest, and incorruptible, even to the point of losing a game unnecessarily over a point of honor.

In the second, I can be an utter bastard, a snake, perfectly courteous, perfectly oily. I can plant not one but three daggers in your back, poison your food, poison your mind, adulter your wife and sell your kids, and make you not only thank me, but love me for it.

It's called "role-playing", and over the years, it's given me amounts of pleasure only greatly-and only sometimes- overshadowed by sex.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

A list of bad guys will just cause more trouble than it's worth, for all the reasons stated above.

Still I am horrified at the number of people who find the intent of the OP "offensive." That's kind of like tolerating the criminals and loathing the sheriff, or OK, perhaps vigilante. It makes me kind of uneasy getting involved in games with them. Like it or not, game or real life, actions have consequences. We learn this when we are children. You think just because you play LA Ermor that you can do whatever you want and then say "I was *roleplaying* guys!" Well, perhaps if you're playing with close friends, but if I was in that game, I would remember everything you did.

Nevertheless, it's my opinion, once bitten twice shy and all that. I don't think posting a wanted list is the way to go. If you act honorably, you will gain a reputation as such, informally, and if you behave dishonorably, you will gain a reputation for that as well.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Only reason to jump back in the thread as all has been said:

Raises a hand for the 40+ crowd. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

That's very true. You do what you do, and people are going to take impressions away from that. But, please let's keep in mind that this is a game.

I could murder every man, woman, and child in EA Ulm, face to face with my teeth, and guess what? That would mean I was doing exactly what I'm supposed to do in the game.

Our society's mores don't apply, don't even enter into the universe Dom3 is played in, so the worst, most hurtfelt thing you can ultimately do to another player is to betray his good intentions-when he has them.

One of the things this game is lacking in-and which ultimately causes some amount of emotional harm in MP games-is context. We usually have a handle on what our own personal nation does and believes-because we decide that ourselves, on the spot, and we have a clue what the other nations are about, but how do they interact? Who are the neutral parties? Where are things black and white, and written in stone? What's the history behind the world?

Dominions 3 has some of that, but it's incomplete and haphazard at best, rumors and guesses at worst.

Mictlan kills children, by the score, messily, but that's alright. EA Ermor doesn't care, other than the fact that Mictlan is ENEMY. Pangaea steals hundreds of womenfolk from other nations and turns them into naked beasts, then unleashes them on their foes in battle, to kill and be killed. Marverni doesn't care, other than the fact that Pangaea is ENEMY. R'lyeh summons evil beyond human comprehension into the world on a regular basis, through a gate that is unstable at best. Ulm doesn't care, other than the fact that R'lyeh is ENEMY.

Why do Aboleths want to conquer the world? Why not just conquer the muddy parts really well? Why does Agartha want supreme power? so they can live in caves and catch fish? Maybe if they don't, humans might come along and conquer them first-and they do, but which humans, and why? Are their rumors that Mictlan's cities are made of gold? Does Marverni want to convert the pagans? Are they using that as an excuse to rob and enslave and slaughter the Mictlanese? In this world, *everyone* wants to convert the pagans! so where's the meat in that argument?

That to me is a big problem. It should be a big problem for other nations that you're doing these things, and it should be a big problem for independents too. Proving that your way-however vile it might appear to other cultures-is the right way, should be a challenge to meet and accomplish and force upon the world, but it's not. The only thing you have to do, ultimately, is conquer the world by whatever means necessary, because the world of Dominions is incomplete. Those gaps-the gaps that distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, for the party that's interpreting them, and the party that's performing the action in question-are missing, which renders this thread completely useless, since one really *can* use the argument "I was only roleplaying", because the distinction between "good" roleplaying and "bad" roleplaying hasn't been made.

Now yes, one of the major themes of the game is that when you play Dominions, you're playing as a would-be god, desiring to be the only One True God, but gods are cultural things-they come from somewhere, and one of the major driving forces behind a religion is to teach morality, culture, and one's place in the universe. The world of Dominions is incomplete in exactly those areas, and that makes roleplaying potentially very plastic.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

Which actually brings me to something I've been pondering lately. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Historically, more than one nation has worshiped the same god, and since the dominion scale represents the conversion of a province, it would be awesome to have some mechanic (like culture influence in Galactic Civilizations 2) whereby a province can rebel against it's owner in favor of the god they believe in. This would give having a strong dominion a bit more teeth. Also, in some cultures, there are a number of gods who work in concert, a pantheon, so there is no real reason alliances of like minded nations can't happen, perhaps both gods can ascend? If it has to be all or nothing, you still wouldn't normally kill every man, woman, and child in the nation your conquered. Just the leadership. It would be cool if you received some kind of assimilation bonus when you conquered a nation, reflection that nation's skills being worked into your society. Say cheaper forging if you conquer Ulm (maybe only in their home province). I can't think of something every nation can offer, but I'm sure those of you who love those nations can. Maybe it could only work in SP just to add to the atmosphere, and so as not to unbalance MP.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with blacklists, but HoneyBadger just caused me to think a little bit about this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I think if you're going to play a game where the only kind of agreement is a NAP and it cannot be violated, you should state that beforehand.

Like if anyone announces a NAP they have to do it in public on the forum and if they break it they are simply turned AI and kicked from the game. That way you can have your games where diplomacy is as simple as NAP or not.

I'd also like to see some national roleplay games, where people should act in accordance with their nation - so Pangaea and Marverni are more likely to get along than Pangaea and Abysia, where Pythium and Ermor squabble but can on and off ally or fight etc.

That way if you agree to peace with a neighbour who is similar to you (say Man and Ulm or something) you can reasonably expect them to stick to the peace unless there's some incident. If you're bordering LA Ermor you can reasonably expect them to try and keep coming at you like the terminator.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

This is strange, I find the mayority of posts saying that NAP are freely breakable without utter consequencies. If NAP are freely breakable then NAP does not exist, point. If someone breaks a NAP on me he will have a broken reputation for me and for players I urge to communicate. I'd exclude public lists for the load of issues raised before.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

In the spirit of the game, there is something artificial about the "assumption" that NAPs are inviolable. In a world with diverse and powerful beings--all vying for supremacy--why would this be true?

I have no problem with a nation "covering its back side" so it can concentrate all its might against another enemy, it is exactly what I would expect a nation in a weaker position to do.

Likewise, I have no problem with that same nation deciding at some point that its position has changed, and it is now strong enough compete against that enemy head on without the crutch our "NAP" provides. Even if that decision terminates our agreement prematurely and without warning. It is all in the spirit of the game (but you may be sure I will remember). I believe that those who suggest differently may be at best trying to ensure a little too much "stability". At worst, it is potentially unbalancing, and lessens the need for strategic planning--although I will not try to develop that thought in this tread.

Otherwise, I agree with almost everything that HoneyBadger, Stryke11, and Sombre have said.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

I don't quite get why people are saying that if NAPs can be broken they don't exist. Allies backstab each other in the real world and people still form alliances. Hitler violated his NAP with Stalin. Byzantium signed a perpetual peace with their muslim neigbour that was broken at intervals of of ten years or so, and after each violation of the treatie tributes were exchanged and a new perpetual peace was announced.

Not that this should influence how you play, but when dom PPP first was conceived it was a conscious decision not to include hardcoded diplomacy options, and some effort were even made to discourage players from forming longterm alliances. So it is certainly not a intended feature of the game. But obviously if people feel it it more enjoyable to play this way they should. As others pointed out, the tension over this issue is from peoples different expectations.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

In my interpretation, the majority of people are saying that NAP are breakable with consequences lasting only the length of the game. Personally, if someone broke a non-agression pact with me, I'd be ticked in the short term, but wouldn't bother to remember it into the next game under most circumstances. The very nature of victory in this game (No allied wins), only one victor, all other pretenders must die theme, makes me trust no-one, and expect betrayal- only hoping for honor.

Even my alliances are buttered along by reserves and constant artifact exchanges and gem trades and such. Mutually speaking, but addicting to the other party. I make sure there are benefits for me and them, while the cost of breaking that treaty outweigh the rewards. I may keep a reserve of forces, except when things get real desperate. Even in this state of uneasy trust, NAP are still beneficial. While I have some hanging around using upkeep, these guards aren't dying and in need of replacement, and I'm freed to spend my remaining money elsewhere.

This paranoia isn't a reflection of my opinion of the other person- if I met my secret alliance partner [classified] in real life, I'd be willing to fully trust him/her. I trust my sister with a lot of things, for instance, but if my sister was a gamer, I'd fully expect her to backstab me in-game. She's not a gamer though, so, meh...

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

The problem I have with NAPs is their all-encompassing nature and the laziness in making them. All right, I can understand that if people play 5 games at the same time, have a work and life outside of gaming and so on they don't have much time to put into forging a decent agreements, but sending a message with nothing but "Neighbours. NAP 3 turns?" is nothing short of lazy.

When I first started playing Doms with several friends, we had all kind of diplomatic agreements which resulted in some surprises. Like in one instance Abysia had promised Marignon that they would not initiate war in exchange of beneficial border, but had a defensive pact with Van declaring any attack on one in effect an attack on the other nation too. After Van had goaded Marignon to attack him, Abysia was actually diplomatically bound to backstab Marignon. Fun and all.

My first game with people in this forum had me meet my first neighbour, who sent me a message "NAP 3 turns ok?" and when I agreed he greedily cut me off from much of the indies.

If I'd have it my way NAPs would be only among equal partners. I mean, if you're a lot bigger than your neighbour, why the hell should you be bound to respect anyone who's just cowering in fear and desperately trying to form an alliance against you? Usually NAPs are made in early game when everyone's about equal, but as time goes by it should be quite clear who can stand on their own and who live at the mercy of others.

One other thing that I've already touched a bit is that NAPs shouldn't be used as "Get Out of the Jail Free" card. If you piss me off, sure as hell I'm going to pound you to ground if I'm able. Pushing dominion, building forts at the border, keeping unnecessary troops there, cutting me off prizes without prior consultation. All the irritating stuff.

On the flip side, I've noticed that if you're friendly and not too agressive people tend to respond in kind. Even when not bound by formal agreements or anything.

And to cover my back: Despite what I've written, I've never breached a deal in MP. Cancelled several NAPs, sure, but I've respected their expiration times to the fault, and those I don't count breaking. Peer pressure, what a powerful tool.

Re: AWIY\'s blacklist of dishonest peoples
 

One thing is to say not to mix game with reality and not to carry over grudges in reality. And I obviously agree with this.
One other thing is not carrying over from a match to the other the feeling of untrust caused by betrayal. Very often, if one breaks a nap without previous warning, he seriously cripple the ex-allied. Is very proobable his ex allied will lose badly. I think nobody can say he will not take ower the distrust feeling on the traitor in the next game. It's beyond the rational.
And, to walk on the (for me unappropriate) parallel with history, I've not said that I will enforce my allies to keep the nap, I can not enforce anyone anything. I have only said that the player will be horror marked for a big time to come. I don't think Hitler & Stalin would have made another alliance if they both survived. The only condition would be the overthrow of one of them. Nation can do repeated peaces, but Pretender Gods (= leaders) tend to carry on serious grudges. I'm a Pretender, not a population.