Multi-Player Standard Community Terms

[Cainehill]

Oversway said:
Half the players break NAPs with no warning anyways... what does it matter?

Heh. True enough - albeit one reason for this in long games can be that after 5 months, the player doesn't remember that they had a formal NAP. It'd be so #@*#ing nice if Illwinter would make such things a little easier to track.

Then of course, there's the players who you simply learn not to trust.

[NTJedi]

Yes, AgeofWonders2:SM had each player listed with either Unknown, War, Peace or Allied. AgeofWonders2:SM is another fantasy TurnBasedStrategy game. Allied players would spend a turn just to move into Peace... then next turn that player could move into war. Hopefully something like this will exist for DOM_3 except maybe two turns for each.

[OG_Gleep]

Graeme Dice said:
It's the only correct way to read the term "Three turn NAP" without making any assumptions about the meaning.

Until a few days ago, that was the assumption I was operating under. Thats how it was explained to work.

This is a quote from our discussion last night, which is one of the reasons I felt the need to bring this up.

<archae> NAPs have traditionally been interpreted as a number of turns of warning
<archae> if you want to use some other sense, you shouldn't call it a NAP

I am not the only one who was operating under this assumption.

I felt the need to resolve the two schools of thought, as I thought it would lead to a much smoother diplomatic process with no one misinterprating anything. It just seems very very odd to me that there are two schools of thought. It just made sense to me to bring it up and try to get a community definition for the term. That and its nice to get a new thread going every couple days. I thought it would be a nice discussion thread as per the feedback I got, I wasn't the only one who thought this.

As Cain said, I don't break them intentionally. I was about to go to War with someone, when in IRC he brought up our NAP. I had totally forgotten I had one setup. I have had only once incident that a player went back on his agreements. Other then that one isolated incident, diplomacy is the real reason I am hooked to MP as bad as I am.

[OG_Gleep]

Cainehill said:
It'd be so #@*#ing nice if Illwinter would make such things a little easier to track.

Yeah an in game note pad would be great, diplomacy screen, anything to help track the deals you have in place would be most welcome. Nah had a good idea, he has been keeping a log of all agreements, and important events. Think I am going to start doing that.

[Valandil]

Out of curiosisty, I will investiagte the possibility that calling a dog a cat DOES in fact make it one.

Let us start from the assumption: all dogs are cats.
Then, by logical extension, all non-dogs are non-cats.
If assumption (A) is false, cats are not dogs. This is (B).
A bit of speculation then:
A cat and a dog are very similar: both are quadrupedal, mobile, fur-covered, mammals. Both have similar habits and both have been domesticated for many, many years.
Is it not possible that the only reason (B) appears true is that we believe it?
If (A) were the accepted norm, would it be true?
Based on theory, not fact, observing an object causes that object to be 'isolated' and cease to be a collection of prabablilities.
The question is whether belief also isolates prabability waves, without the object being observed.

(This is a fundamental part of quantum theory) The value of the observable A lies in the range B (*).
One possible reading of (*) is operational: "measurement of the observable A would yield (or will yield, or has yielded) a value in the set B ". On this view, projections represent statements about the possible results of measurements. Also, its possible to interpret (*) as a property ascription: "the system has a certain categorical property, which corresponds to the observable A having, independently of any measurement, a value in the set B".
in which the existance is indepentant of the observed, and which MIGHT allow belief modified existance.

So, maybe, depending on our interpretation of Quantum Probability, saying a dog is a cat, and BELIEVING it, causes the dog to be, or to have once been, or to possibly be, a cat.

Granted, I'm not exactly Feynman, so I might have gone a little overboard.

Valandil, in association with Schrodinger's Cat-Dog
Edit: Quote still not working

[Endoperez]

Depends. For one, even if dogs were cats, cats might still be cats. Because of that, you can't say that all non-dogs are non-cats.

If we presumed that the word "cat" would mean a dog, and only a dog, however... A cat would be canus canus, a member of a domesticated species with similarities to wolves. The name with which we call dogs doesn't chance the dogs themselves - the only attribute that would chance is our perception of them, and even in that case it probably wouldn't change besides the name we would call them.