AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[WraithLord]

DrPraetorious said:
I think that the game has the reverse problem - people keep their agreements even when it's crazy, from an in-game standpoint, to do so.

They do so in order to avoid being regarded as treaty breakers, for the classic game theory reasons, as well as personal ethics. This has the effect of making everyone (including, I must say, myself) too honorable.

The other problem is that the game has no long-term message memory. If you have longterm diplomatic arrangements of some kind with someone, and they offer an NAP, and you ignore that but continue to coordinate strategically, they *invariably* think that you agreed to the NAP. But you can't call up the messages in question and demonstrate that you didn't actually agree to the NAP.

I agree with DrP. that's why I really like the "no diplomacy" games. Somehow they end up as the most exciting one.

I also agree that its part of the fun in the game to break treaties and since this is only a game it doesn't say anything about the player's morals in real life. In a way its kind of childish to keep track of "treaty" breakers. I'm not for that.

[Shovah32]

Lets just say im a much more trust-worthy person in game that in real life .
Im not really a strong supporter of either side of this arguement but im interested to see how it turns out.

[Dedas]

I'm just popping up to tell you that I fully agree with DrP and WraithLord on this this.

This is a game and it should be played by its rules, and I can't find a rule that says that you can't break a NAP or should be the subject of public punishment on an online forum if you do. However, you are of course free to make new rules on top of the default ones, but don't expect that everyone will follow them or agree on them.

Happy gaming!

[parcelt]

As one of the players mentioned by AreWeInsaneYet, allow me to weigh in. Bottomline, I think Jazzepi really said it all a few posts above.

On the specific situation in the Chinchilla game that AreWeInsaneYet refers to, I'll say the following:
- I won't go into the details of who's wrong or right; we had a 'yes-no' discussion on this in the game thread, I guess we just don't agree and for me that's just another instance where diplomacy fails, and that's fine. This goes to the points brought up by Jazzepi that 1) there is always more than one side to a story, and how can others verify if what you claim is true? I certainly and sincerely do not agree with the claims you make, but I can't prove this, apart possibly from the claim about me treating all my neighbours as I allegedly treated you - this could be discarded by my neighbours although I wouldn't want to ask them to get involved in this discussion, and 2) there is no way to appeal. Even if you were right in this instance (which I think you are not, the type of thread you are suggesting could be abused.
- I will say that a lot of what went wrong was due to miscommunication between our nations, partly due to the lag in the messaging system which I had to get used to - this is my first MP game. While I apparantely haven't been able to convince you of this, the things that did go wrong (for the record, again, this did not even involve breaking any NAPs), were non-intentional. I also did send you a message to apologize for that early on.
- We had (and are having) some fun fighting in the game ever since diplomatic talks were abandonded - although I am clearly on the losing side I am learning some lessons and still enjoying the game. If you're looking for revenge I'd say you're getting plenty by kicking my @ss ingame.

Given all of the above, I do find it a bit much for you to come and trash my name and reputation on a public forum. Very easy too, as there is little I can do to defend against it.

I would prefer we'd solve this by getting into a new game together. We'll fight honorably, I will win and we can forget about all this.

[Edratman]

I read the first two posts and decided that the purpose of this thread is offensive to me and I do not believe it is consistent with the tenor of the forum.

There is probably a place for this thread, but not here.

I write this from my perspective as a contender for both the oldest player (56) and longest tenure as a computer game player. (I'm sure someone will top me in both categories.) I started playing text-only computer games, with a cassette (that is correct, a cassette identical to the pre-CD music cassettes) as the storage medium way back in 1980 or 81.

I've seen this start before many times, and it has never boded well.

[lch]

Edratman said:
I write this from my perspective as a contender for both the oldest player (56) and longest tenure as a computer game player.

Quick, gather around here, someone is challenging Gandalf Parker. :O

[sum1lost]

There's a 62 y/o in the legion arena forums, and a handful more who are over 40...

[Sleet]

sum1won said:
There's a 62 y/o in the legion arena forums, and a handful more who are over 40...

Only reason to jump back in the thread as all has been said:

Raises a hand for the 40+ crowd.

[Sombre]

I was personally pretty surprised to see how seriously people take NAPs - everyone seemed to mention them and they appear to basically be the only kind of treaty used in dom3. Yet they aren't in the manual, that I can see, and they aren't any more supported by the game than any oter kind of diplomacy. They're just something some people like to use.

I personally would never agree to a NAP, because if I want to attack you, I will. At any moment. That's how diplomacy works in reality - the punishment for breaking treaties and generally behaving like a bastard is that it can come back to haunt you, but I don't think it should carry across from game to game, following a player. It probably will, to some extent, but given the number of people who like to roleplay their nation a little, it does seem a bit silly.

I think the main problem here is that there's a lack of communication. Person A says "NAP for 10 turns, agree?" to person B. To them, if B agrees, that's like a law or rule in the game for the next tne turns and they will observe it strictly. But to B, perhaps when they agreed to that "NAP for 10 turns" they were under the impression it was just like diplomacy in most games, where treaty breaking does happen but can backfire spectacularly. If both players assume the other is thinking the same thing, all you get is:

A: NAP for 10 turns?
B: Yes.

Not much of a discussion there, but the two players meant very different things. Perhaps if A had said "Non Agression Pact for the next 10 turns? Please note if you agree, I will take this as a promise from you as a player of the game and if you break it I will not play with you again." then B would never have agreed, since it isn't nice for people to be playing the game according to different rules (the reason I'd never agree to a NAP, ever).

[Shovah32]

Just thought I should add that in my history of playing dominions I have always considered NAPs to be inviolable and have maintained them and followed their rules whenever I agreed to them and have recieved the same from those I have made them with as that was simply the way they were introduced to me(or the way i interpreted them, not sure. Was quite a while ago) when i first started playing dominions 2.

I think we need to agree here on whether they are inviolable or not and the general consensus seems to be not.