MP Etiquette

[tinkthank]

Great questions! And excellent answers too. I agree with most of them, but will add my newbie two Eurocents here:

- As I. Kant correctly noted, you can't really want to exist in a world in which *lying* was systematically present (in other words, you have to want to live in a world in which there is some form of valence system), IF you want your words to mean anything in a pragmatic context. Thus, NAP's as speech-acts (that is, NAP's that are not exactly complete hot air) must be filled with content, and that means they cannot be broken continually. My view of "etiquette" is based on this; an NAP which can and will be broken at any time is not a true NAP, there must be entry and exit rules. Thus I treat those people who break NAPs as system-breakers and try to defame them in-game and take an aggressive stance against them asap. Of course, this must be contextualized: I only do this for NAPs with me (since I have no idea of how others go about with each other), and since this is a WAR game, I know someone will HAVE to attack me sooner or later, and so if this someone had an NAP with me and basically indicates that it is time to go to war, this is completely acceptable. I try to do the same, for the above-mentioned reasons. That being said, Backstabbing is an important part of the game, but I do tend to try to remember who backstabs when, so I can trust them/not trust them in the future. People *will* remember you as being a trustworthy fellow or a hard-core utilitarian.
- NGF gave the rule-of-thumb that a gem can often be seen for 10 gold -- this will be veeeery different from turn to turn and depending on what you want.
- Keep asking. In an MP game I am currently hosting, I was unsure of the E-mail rule myself, so I asked everyone whether they would accept "magical insta-communication" (I got the basic answer: "yes"). I dont know how new you are, but you may or may not know who the character referred to as "Norfleet" is. In any case, to make the matter very short, Norfleet is no longer here because he got caught hacking the game to cheat, but before that, there was some thread in which he was accussed of cheating by exploiting out-of-game information. I personally did not see that as a "cheat", but others disagree: some want to keep the information flow as in-game as possible.
I think some of these questions and some of these answers should go to Liga's excellent archive.

[alexti]

Nagot Gick Fel said:
Although most often, devious players will try to use some sort of 'magical time compression' to argue they didn't violate the NAP warning. Consider this: A and B agreed on a NAP with a 3-turn escape clause. Turn 39, A (who used only email so far) sends an ingame message to B to notify him he wants to cancel the NAP. Turn 40 A issues his armies orders to invade B's provinces. Turn 41, A's orders are effectively carried on. A will argue that the 3 turns-delay was respected (39-40-41, implying he sent his notice at the beginning of turn 39, and his armies invaded at the end of turn 41), while from B's viewpoint, only 1 turn passed since he received the message in turn 40 and was invaded in turn 41. Or even zero if he considers that the attack was actually initiated in turn 40. Sounds silly? Yet I've seen that happen, exactly as described.

Interesting story... I was always assuming that 3-turn notice means that if the messenger is sent on turn 39, the armies can be sent on turn 42. Thus the messenger arrives on turn 40 and invading armies on turn 43, which seem to respect the pact conditions. For this reason I usually duplicate the termination notice in-game and in email.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

alexti said:
I was always assuming that 3-turn notice means that if the messenger is sent on turn 39, the armies can be sent on turn 42.

I guess that's what most players would assume too, anyway you'll eventually find someone someday to 'interpret' that in the most favourable way (for him) if you just 'assume' things without being more explicit.

Someone should define (with surgical precision) the terms NAP, escape clause, etc. in a 'Diplomacy in Dominions' article, so we could refer to it without having to repeat the tedious stuff everytime we try to achieve a deal with another nation.

[KroolDeath]

Great post, I too thought about making a similar post when I started, but as Thufir said, I don't think I could have done it as well.

Diplomacy in this game is interesting to me because the fact that an enemy in one game may be an ally in another, or maybe an enemy forever. The fact of the matter is, you will see each other again, either in-game, forums, etc.

I think it is probably healthy not to carry grudges out of game.

Krool

[Schmoe]

I'd like to express my views on the subject, which bleach may care about, as he/she is in a game with me right now.

I think that trustworthiness and honor are commodities, just as magical gems, troops, and gold are commodities. Both of these have some worth in that, the more a nation has at some point in the game, the more likely someone is to believe what that nation promises later on, and the more likely someone is to make an agreement with that nation. This can often be an advantage for the side in question. Consider the following contrived example:

You are at war with two nations, and you probably can't continue to fight a two front war. Because of other world-wide events, these two nations both propose a peace treaty to you. One has been shown to be untrustworthy, one has been fair and trustworthy in the past. Which are you more likely to make peace with? Chances are, you will make peace with the trustworthy opponent, as that peace means more to you. Thus, the trustworthy nation has gained.

Like all other commodities, there will be times when you absolutely cannot afford to remain faithful to an agreement, but it's good to do so while you can. That is why I gave Jotunheim a 1 turn warning prior to attacking. That is also why I gave Abyssia a 1 turn warning prior to attacking. Both of these decisions were at some cost to me, but I was hoping to show that, while my country certainly has ambitious designs, they wish to carry out those designs while remaining honorable. While I don't expect honor in return, I hope that my actions increase the likelihood of receiving it.

Just my 2 cents.

[Gandalf Parker]

Others have already jumped in and I havent read the whole thread but here are some notes from me...

As far as NAPs (non-aggression pacts) with any contract, if its not in the contract then its not in the contract. Some will make allowances for things the other person "thought would be true" but others will split hairs on the wording of the agreement. The phrase "get it in writing" comes to mind.

Grudges: you might want to make a distinction here. I havent seen alot of problem with grudges going from game to game. HOWEVER it should be noted that I have seen alot of REPUTATIONS carrying over from game to game. People who want to back-stab an ally as Ermor in one game, then get mad because their Marignon is not treated as an honorable paladin in the next game, might have a valid point but the reality is that such role-playing doesnt tend to hold up well. No matter who I play its still Gandalf Parker who will be remembered for the actions of that nation. For that reason various methods of doing truly anonymous games have been discussed tho I cant remember any of them being done.

Trading is Supply and Demand. You might figure it on how many gems it cost you to make it. Or you might figure it on how hard it would be for the other guy to get it so early in the game or in such quantity.

On the two neighbors thing you forgot "watch and wait to hit whoever gets weak, maybe both". At a large battle not all of the vultures are animals.

Going AI should be a Last resort. Try for a replacement. I try to sell it as a perfect way for newbies to get a feel for multiplaying since it comes with a ready-made excuse if you do badly.

[Kel]

bleach168 said:
1. Emails.

I do. Though I wouldn't necessarily mind a game whene noone knew each other and were limited to the ingame system, might be fun.

2. Non-Aggression Pacts. When someone says "NAP" I know it means a non-aggression pact but does it also imply a 3-turn warning to break? Or does that have to be explicitly stated? Also, what happens if someone breaks the treaty without the 3-turn warning. Does this ever happen?

I don't assume 3 turns and, though that is probably the average, it should be stated. Several of mine in the past have been 2 turn and a couple have been game long.

3. Alliances. If you ally someone, is it your responsibility to announce it? If you want to prevent yourself or your ally from getting attacked, I would think you would want to announce it as a deterrent.

It depends on the situation but I don't think I would ever announce it to everyone, it would encourage people to ally against you as well.

4. War. Is it okay to attack someone without warning if there had been no previous agreements? Or should you give them at least a 1 turn warning?

If it's someone I haven't established any trust/peace with, I wouldn't warn them.

5. How common is it to gang up on the "supposed" leader?

As others have said, it's really common.

6. Do people carry grudges over from one game to the next?

Personally, I always try to remember what people are like, whether it's being treacherous, honorable, aggressive, communicative, etc. It's not a grudge, it's just experience with that person.

7. Trading. Is there a universal guide as to how much items and gems are worth in trades? Like how much a gem would cost in gold? Or does this differ in every game?

I usually see items/gems traded for like items on a 1-to-1 basis. One path enhancer for another, 10 of these gems for 10 of these. Gold and blood slaves are the two that vary a bit from person to person.

8. If two of your neighbors start exchanging blows do you:

No etiquette, all depends on your political/tactical situation. It can be an opportunity to make a new friend in that war or just a chance to deal with a problem somewhere else.

9. At what point, in your opinion, is it okay to go AI.

The etiquette here varies so wildly, I hesitate to call it etiquette. The nice thing is that you can often make your turns much faster and still be 90% efficient by not micro managing too much. This is usually still way better than going AI or, worse, just not showing up for turns as some people do.

10. Mutual victories. How common is it for an alliance to just be declared the winner and the game ends like that?

Well, there isn't usually a lot of official declaration in my games. The goal is to make sure that noone is alive to object when you make the declaration

- Kel

[Alneyan]

Nagot Gick Fel said:
Someone should define (with surgical precision) the terms NAP, escape clause, etc. in a 'Diplomacy in Dominions' article, so we could refer to it without having to repeat the tedious stuff everytime we try to achieve a deal with another nation.

Hmm, let's see.

* Standard time measure (known as Nagot time based on the tale of the general who had expected reinforcements to arrive one turn earlier because of a different conception of time; his Last word when he realised his mistake was "Nagot". Modern historians believe he timed his Last words a bit too late, and failed to finish the famous phrase). The standard time measure is based on the viewpoint of the receiver, and all times are based upon this view. For example, a message sent on turn 39 and scheduled to reach the target by turn 40 will belong to turn 40 in the STM system. Likewise, an offensive launched on turn 51 will effectively happen on turn 52 STM. For all other purposes, the standard time is equivalent to the variable time.

* Variable time system. In this system, time is perceived through the viewpoint of the sender. A message sent on turn 39 will take place on turn 39 VMT. A rough conVersion between standard and variable time can be done with the following formula: VTS+1=STM. Note that all times must be given in the same reference medium to avoid creating further confusion; as such, if a message sent on turn 39 standard time warns of an offensive by turn 42, turn 42 will have to be standard time as well.

* Non-Aggression Pact. This treaty means two nations have agreed not to attack each other during its duration (see above for an explanation of the various time systems). None of the involved parties may attack the other, either through mundane or magical means. Likewise, it is forbidden to launch offensives against both the provinces and the armies of the other nation. If a player fears the other nation might attack her army by mistake, it is advised to explicitely tell the other party about moves in provinces belonging to a third party.

* Non-Interference Pact. This treaty encompasses all the provisions of the above, and also prevents the two involved parties from disclosing information with other nations. For all purposes, the two nations are prohibited from meddling in each other's business, and information leak would be regarded as a breach of this treaty.

* Trade Alliance. Under this treaty, the two involved parties agree to gather their economical strength against other nations. As such, the trade allies are to share all information regarding trades with other nations, and any trade can only take place if both nations will it. For example, if Marignon and Man have a trade alliance, they both need to agree to selling weapons of magical destruction to Ermor. This treaty is mostly useful to enforce a trade blockade on another nation.

This was a standard guide for apprentice diplomats within the Celestial Empire. For graduate students, please consult the twenty-seven tomes about "Diplomacy, Furthering the Cause of the Celestial City, and Splitting Hairs".

Did you have something like this in mind Nagot, or was I digressing once more?

[Vynd]

I think that out-of-game communication, via e-mail or whatever, is pretty much essential if you want to have effective diplomacy. Using the in-game system it takes a minimum of two turns to make any sort of agreement, and three turns for the person who initiated the idea to find out that the other player accepted (or declined). It takes even longer to negotiate and carry out a trade. The game just doesn't Last long enough for that to be practical.

Here's a question I have along the same line as bleach. When it comes to trades, do people generally swap things simultaneously or do is it Player A gives something to Player B, who upon receipt gives something back to Player A? And have folks experienced much trouble with people lying in their "trades" and not actually giving what they promised?

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Alneyan said:
Did you have something like this in mind Nagot, or was I digressing once more?