Quote:
johan osterman said:
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.
|
I agree players should be allowed to violate NAPs or even quit playing when they don't like the way the game is proceeding. However, all this information should be logged on a website for others to review. If one player has a long-term history of always quitting after turn30 a history of the behavior should be recorded. By recording the behaviors of others the host and players of a game will be more knowledgeable for what can be expected. For most individuals which are common backstabbers or game droppers they will disagree and most individuals which are honorable with treaties will approve.
The current environment provides a disadvantage to those willing to be honorable for treaties made during a game. Providing all the treaty information to be publicly known on a website will still allow players to backstab on a treaty.
There's no reason new players have to suffer months of hurtful gaming experiences to learn which individuals are the backstabbers and/or game droppers.