MP: Chlorolera is made of contagious and deadly!

[Zapmeister]

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.

[Jazzepi]

Originally Posted by Zapmeister

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.

Those are the ones I enjoy backstabbing the most

Jazzepi

[Quitti]

Originally Posted by Zapmeister

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.

And that's exactly the reason why Discharge (another MP game) has "machiavellian" diplomacies - like real world. Breaking a treaty might benefit you, forging a solid trust can benefit you even more. It all depends. Just keep in mind, it's said in llamaserver faq about starting a game:

Now, this first post needs to include all the details of the game:
...
- Diplomacy policy (are treaties considered unbreakable, or is this a Machiavellian world?)

I usually consider it a machiavellian game if it's not stated that it's not. I suggest everyone do the same. If something is not EXPLICTLY forbidden, it must be allowed. There's no gray area between them in this case.