MP: EA Oceans of Land - (Noob game) [running]

[Yskonyn]

That's why I only listed the 3 turn limit rule for Alliances. Maybe we should up that to 5, to indicate its significance in relation to NAP's.
See the first post for the current 'rules'. NAP's are only binding if they're made known publicly here in this thread. Any secret agreements are at your own risk.
I've seen NAP's been signed with a specific turn count right from the start; say player A and B agree upon a NAP-5. This means, afaik, that for 5 turns they will not attack or otherwise harm eachother (including economic harm). After 5 turns it ends and it should be renewed by both players to keep it intact. Now, if this agreement was registered on the forum it is binding. If it is not, they're on their own when one decides to backstab the other.

Of course there is no game system in place to limit players from doing stuff to other players even when we say here those agreements are binding. But there is no way to counter this anyway. Like Grudge said, people will remember.

[Doo]

Can we have renaming ON please?

[Yskonyn]

Great idea Grudge, I will update the first post accordingly!

Doo, renaming has already been enabled on Llama. So yes, you can have it.

To clarify a bit more in the 'buffer' I was talking about a few posts back (and as explained in the first post of this thread):
The 'buffer' I was talking about was the amound of turns you cannot commence hostile action against the other player after you have broken an alliance.
So if you want to cease having an alliance with player X, you notify him or her, then the 3 turns start where you cannot attack player X so he has some time to prepare and settle for the broken alliance.

This has nothing to do with NAPs. You make and brake NAP's just like Gudge suggested. You agree with the other player how you want your NAP and if its then registered on the forums its binding, if not you're on your own.
How many turns you want the NAP to hold is entirely up to the two players to decide amongst themselves.

First post is ammended accordingly. Feel free to post any questions.

I am all for the first 10 turns no hostilities pact myself as well. Including Grudge's tips to prevent the abuse rdonj was talking about.

[Yskonyn]

Ok people a few things:

First, I've misunderstuud the common NAP practise and to prevent us new players ending up in discussions over this in other games, the NAP rules are a bit different than what I have outlined before.
I thought if two players would agree on a NAP-5, for example, this was a non-agression pact for 5 turns. After this you either renew or you cease to have it.
It turns out that the most common use is different:
If two players agree on a NAP-5 those two players have a NAP until either of them cancel it, but then those 5 turns start where you are NOT allowed to attack still. Only after the 5 turns have passed you can commence hostilities.
For a NAP-3 this would be three turns and so on.
My appoligies for the confusion. The first post is ammended.

We have about half of the players now who like the idea of the 10 turn no hostilities pact at the start of the game, but I need you all to cast a vote please so we can decide if we add it to the game or not. Most votes wins.

Finally, I will be out of the country from now on, so Grudge is the man to turn to.
He ammends any rules might there be any changes needed and otherwise the game starts like we have decided upon now. The latest version of the first post in this thread should always be leading. (Except we are waiting for the 10 turn no attacks upon start at the moment).

Good luck with your preperations and I will see you all on friday!

[13lackGu4rd]

jeez Grudge, I was simply replying to this post:

Originally Posted by Yskonyn

We have about half of the players now who like the idea of the 10 turn no hostilities pact at the start of the game, but I need you all to cast a vote please so we can decide if we add it to the game or not. Most votes wins.

he wanted everyone's votes, I put mine up... oh and so far those who voted on the forums are tied 2:2 so unless it was all via PMs, aka behind the scenes, than the votes are tied. well, I guess you 2 are for it but you guys are the admins...

[GrudgeBringer]

We are also players....and we vote also.

Admin simply means we are there as a courtesy to give you extensions, take holidays off, rollbacks (if needed), knowing you have not ever staled and are about to so we give another 6 hours and PM you so you WON'T stale.

And I am NOT admin...I am backup only because I am on the forum a lot and check the site so I WILL catch all those that ask questions, or extensions.

Please Understand...

These are the rules, this is how he set up the game and how it will be played unless you can convince HIM (not me) that it needs to be changed. He is out of the country without Internet access and will be back late Thursday. First turn goes out Friday, so you have about a 12 hour window to convince him of your preferences.

Vote on the forum is 4 to 2 FOR 10 turn No attack Nap to start turn (and 1 PM vote for as they don't want to be involved in all this drama). It was this vote when he left and I suspect it will stand when he gets back, so lets just get ready to enjoy ourselves and learn some stuff.

[Doo]

10 turn no hostilities: Yes

[Trumanator]

Far be it from me to tell you guys how to run your game, but imo a ten turn no-rush rule is warping the game experience and simply putting off the need to learn how to defend against a rush. Since you lack experienced players, presumably any early rushes that do happen will be fairly straightforward and should be perfectly counterable. There really aren't many rushes that can happen inside ten turns anyway, and your settings have left out many of the nations capable of them, so I feel that the rule might not be necessary.

It is of course your game, and feel perfectly free to ignore me at your own discretion.

[Dark Kitty]

I'm also in favor of no hostilities during ten turns.

[earcaraxe]

I oppose the 10-turn no-hostlities rule. My reasons are:

1) won't help you significantly (or at all) if you are on the receiving side of rushing.
2) takes out excitement from the first 10 turns.
3) its an extra rule with very minimal effect (and it will make our game even more special).

and in my opinion these outweight the benefits.

...

I think the same (3rd point) about "overmaking" the rules of NAPs, for instance: making it mandatory to announce on forum or making it "binding", etc.. to sum up: making it an "official" term with given rules.

A NAP-breaker will be "punished" - given publicity - by community (for example with loss of popularity which i consider important in a game with diplomacy), just like it happens with breakers of given words in life. Of course, one can get away with it with skill and under some circumstances (just like in life), but this natural reaction adds price to agreement-breaking. My opinion - which is based on my experience ofc - is that its rare enough case for one to break his word to consider alliances and NAPs unstable (and im not living in some utopia).

To sum up: i think the argument (about NAPs) is about this: is it worth to improve reliability of NAPs (and other in-game agreements) by adding new rules?