Quote:
NTJedi said:
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.
|
Quitting the game because you're losing is just being a bad sport, or impolite. Again though it depends, if the player gives advance warning or otherwise states that they're going to leave fair enough. Sometimes RL does get in the way, sometimes you'd rather bow out gracefully than see things through to the bitter end.
As for diplomacy, would it not in fact be easier for people to simply state, when getting the game together, what kind of diplomacy they want. Whether they want a political type game or if NAP's should be inviolate, or even if anyone forming an agreement has to wear their pants on their head for the duration. That way people know from the outset how they're expected to behave. If they get kicked out of the game for breaking a NAP they can't complain if the host stated NAPS were inviolate, similarly if someone gets backstabbed and the host mentioned the game was going to be an experiment in machevellian politics there's no grounds to complain about someone being dishonest.
To weigh in on the opinionated side of the debate, I actually wouldn't play a multiplayer game if diplomatic moves were expected to be binding. I play multiplayer for the political aspect, backstabbing, manipulation and sabotage are all par for the course. Without that aspect, I'd have no reason not to stick to singleplayer.
As far as the phrasing of a NAP goes, if someone does send me a "NAP for 3 turns" message I usually need to hold back from sending a four letter reply. If one is going to use diplomacy in the game, you should at least do it properly. In character posts are nice, as is giving me a reason not to crush you like an ant
In most games I play, diplomacy is used as simply another tool - form an alliance or NAP with two fighting players, equip both sides (but not too much) then crush the victor when they least expect it? I think so.
@ Gandalf - the reason I'd like to see a menu driven/hard coded diplomacy is not so much to have it enforced by the game, but more to have it recognised by the game. It would give more options if you could move your troops through allied territory for example (one of which being nullifying your alliance and siezing any provinces your army was currently 'aiding the defence' in
)