Question about diplomacy

[llamabeast]

I'd just like to say that I'm not disrespecting the feelings of those who have been backstabbed and have been upset by it. If they had the understanding that backstabbing was not allowed, I can easily see that it would ruin the game for them. That's why I think it's important we make NAP policies explicit from now on.

I will add a bit to the FAQ about starting LlamaServer games.

[llamabeast]

I added this to the LlamaServer FAQ text on organising games:

"- Make sure that you state what the game's policy towards treaties and non-aggression pacts is. Should they be inviolable, as many players prefer, or should they be mere words, as in real life? The choice is yours but it's important the players know the ground rules."

I hope people will consider that helpful.

[Psycho]

@chrispedersen:
I always considered this the defaults:
1) No MoD (well at least before 3.20)
2) Don't copy Bogus orders
3) Whether you respect a NAP is your own decision, but be aware that it can have consequences on your reputation

[Hoplosternum]

Originally Posted by Archonsod

If nobody has stated beforehand that NAPS are unbreakable then you can't blame a player for thinking otherwise;

This is the heart of the issue though, this is exactly what some of us believe and have been led to believe. >>

I have played a few different mp games apart from Dom3 and few have had any binding agreements. I.e. in most games you would be able and expected in some cases to ‘stab in the back’ an ally and do some double dealing in diplomacy. The boardgame Diplomacy would be one, the Pitboss Civ4 community another (although there is no ‘NAP’ convention there).


However from following threads here I was led to believe that NAPs here were to be honoured. If you sign up for one you keep it. There are plenty of threads (often quickly closed due to the flames!) with people moaning about betrayals of NAPs. Often people back off to and agree to back off for a couple of turns if they are revealed to have broken their word.


From that I assumed that the community took these NAPs as binding. I didn’t think they were binding because I blindly trust people on the internet But because the community gave me that impression and seemed to police this. There have been and are plenty of occasions when it would have been in my (and that games' longevity) that I stab rather than give the required warning but have always refrained from doing so as I believed and have been led to believe that doing otherwise would be the equivalent of cheating.


But if they are not they are not. I can play either way. It is just that I don’t think you can happily have half the people thinking they are binding and the other half thinking they can be broken.


So I am all for making it clear which way it is at the start of the game.


It is not obvious that NAPs can be broken. There are conventions in this game as there are in nearly all games.


For example I was very surprised when I started playing that in most if not all none team games on these boards only one person wins rather than the players forming teams/alliance blocks in the game and declaring joint or three / four way wins as happens say in your standard game of the boardgame Diplomacy. Where at the start of the game does the game creator say these are not allowed? Yet most people won’t accept these joint wins and most people use diplomacy to break up such blocks using the arguments ‘only one of you can win’ to encourage part of the alliance to attack the other.


People don’t play the game like that by convention. Just as I thought they didn’t break NAPs. You can play it either way with both. But everyone should know at the start.

[llamabeast]

The "only one person can win" thing kind of comes from the game itself. I think KO and JK were keen to emphasize that one of you is going to be the new god. There can only be one.

I think that's a good thing, because it means all alliances are ultimately temporary, which I think makes the diplomacy more interesting.

[Meursy]

These comments are intended for chrispedersen primarily, but relate to the discussion as a whole too.

First of all I agree that being 'betrayed', in a game feels bad (hey, so does getting eliminated!), and I agree that people who have broken agreements do get angry when someone attempts to make their treaty-break public. So fair enough, it's not all one way!


What was most interesting in chrispedersen's reply was that he rejected the proposal to start games as "break NAP ok" or "break NAP not ok", saying that: "its too difficult to set up games as it is - dealing with naps or no naps is just way too much headache."

However his alternative solution, to set up a sticky thread which rates each person in the entire community with a number between 1 and 5, indicating their attitude to NAPs, seems like a chain-reaction migraine in comparison!

For starters, who determines these numbers?!?! I think a few quiet moments are enough to realise that bird ain't gonna fly!


chrispedersen also mentions that: "I would say the anger is compounded because efforts to compile a list of either "ho hum" nappers or "no break" nappers have been disallowed (aka threads frozen)."

Have a think about why that is.


One more: "I don't want Nap or No Nap games - I just want to know what standards OTHER people are playing under."

Chris, I respect your opinions, and with hindsight I regret some of the more extreme comments I made in my last post. I mean no offense mate.

But this is just an impossible dream! People won't do it! It's a computer game!


P.S. I get the feeling this discussion is taking place between 'no break NAPers' and 'no break NAPers who nevertheless believe in the right of others to break NAPs"...the filthy rotten no NAP respect kids are just ignoring this and sending wave after wave of their own men at us

[Meursy]

Oh yeah and word up for llamabeast for taking appropriate action to address this issue in his FAQ...just another touch of class from the dashing Lord Warden of this Dominions 3 community!

[Dedas]

Yes, it is fortunate that we have the Llamabeast around to solve a situation like this. Thank you!

[thejeff]

A part of the problem is that I can't imagine even bothering to make a NAP in a game specifically labeled "Breaking NAPs is fine." -- the "hohum napper" strawman. If betrayal is that encouraged by the nature of the game, what's the point in diplomacy at all. Maybe really short-term deals.

But it doesn't seem like anyone's really for that. Even those here who are arguing that NAPs shouldn't be inviolable seem to be claiming they'd do so rarely, when doing so is likely win the game (or not doing so, lose it) not just on a casual whim or for a momentary advantage.

[Dedas]

Originally Posted by thejeff

A part of the problem is that I can't imagine even bothering to make a NAP in a game specifically labeled "Breaking NAPs is fine." -- the "hohum napper" strawman. If betrayal is that encouraged by the nature of the game, what's the point in diplomacy at all. Maybe really short-term deals.

But it doesn't seem like anyone's really for that. Even those here who are arguing that NAPs shouldn't be inviolable seem to be claiming they'd do so rarely, when doing so is likely win the game (or not doing so, lose it) not just on a casual whim or for a momentary advantage.

Very simple. Two or more people sign a NAP when they all believe they have something to gain from it. When one or more of them feel that isn't the case anymore the NAP agreement should not be considered very solid anymore. That is why you have to keep a close eye on your surroundings by putting time and resources into intelligence. Just one of the things that makes real diplomacy so interesting.