Ingame messages- totally n00bish question

[Nikelaos]

i find the idea of NAPs pretty useless, someone can break at any time regardless of the agreement, if you're full fledged allies then you know you're ally won't attack you and will help you because they gain from you helping them, NAPs the only one who gains is the guy who stabs the other in the back first when they need help the most.

[Ironhawk]

Are we playing the same game? How are you two relying on "allies" in a game where only one person can win? In all my MP games I only *very* rarely come across someone willing to fully ally with me. It just doesnt make any sense in the context of the game designed for a single winner.

[Skirmisher]

Originally Posted by Ironhawk

Are we playing the same game? How are you two relying on "allies" in a game where only one person can win? In all my MP games I only *very* rarely come across someone willing to fully ally with me. It just doesnt make any sense in the context of the game designed for a single winner.

I'm still new at MP but people have said that alliances can in fact win games. Granted thier isn't one winner. But I think if you look closely at alot of the MP games,they just get called when a person or persons are well out in front.

If people want to have NAP's with people, all the power to them.
I'm just not the type of person to become involved with casual "maybe I'll stab you in the back, maybe I won't relationships" So I prefer to treat everybody as an enemy unless they are cooperating with me.

You said that alliances were rare but even that indicates that at least one person was willing to be your ally.