Quote:
Originally Posted by cleveland
When I think back on how many glorious wars Machaka could have been embroiled in, I'm going to learn this lesson as "Don't sign a NAP ever." Better to die on your feet than live on your knees, Lord Obamono.  |
First up, congratulations to the Admiral and thanks to Juffos for running the game, but I'd also like to comment on this NAP business.
I'm not going to admit my age here, but suffice it to say that I cut my MP teeth on a boardgame called Diplomacy shortly after it was invented, in which agreements between players was the central theme.
The thing is, everyone understood that treaties and the like, while being essential tools for sorting out your friends from your enemies and arranging short-term operations, were never regarded as binding.
It's was a little disconcerting, I suppose, to come into this community and discover that these "NAPs" are regarded by many people as similar to legal contracts that
cannot be broken, even in the extreme situation we faced in this game.
This is not a whine
just an observation about the evolution of diplomacy in multiplayer games. While I acknowledge that others see it differently, I do still believe that trying to make treaties binding in a game does not improve the game.
I actually regard myself as a reliable ally. In-game relationships built up through a history of co-operation are the most valuable, I think, and I try to build a lot of them. I just hate it when people ask for certainty. I always want the option to stab, even if I rarely use it.
Just my 2c,
Zap.