Question about diplomacy - Page 13

licker · #**121** September 5th, 2008, 08:08 PM

Sigh...

And this is why if you USE diplomacy even when you break a NAP these issues are not as severe as people want to make them.

Sure if someone just breaks the NAP and sends you 'PWNED u n00b!@!!' then of course you're going to not bother taking them seriously in another game.

If they actually give you a reasonable reason for their actions (even as much as an apology, not that it matters...) you are probably going to understand their position, even if you disagree with it.

As I've been saying, it seems as though the 'honorable' crowd is both incredibly lazy and touchy when it comes to diplomacy, and guess what... that sword cuts both ways as well.

konming · #**122** September 5th, 2008, 08:12 PM

Yes, and if not for consequences in other games, no one will stick to NAPs. The whole point of "backstabbing" is trying to knock someone out of the game, otherwise you gain nothing but a vengeful enemy.

konming · #**123** September 5th, 2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by licker

Sigh...

And this is why if you USE diplomacy even when you break a NAP these issues are not as severe as people want to make them.

Sure if someone just breaks the NAP and sends you 'PWNED u n00b!@!!' then of course you're going to not bother taking them seriously in another game.

If they actually give you a reasonable reason for their actions (even as much as an apology, not that it matters...) you are probably going to understand their position, even if you disagree with it.

As I've been saying, it seems as though the 'honorable' crowd is both incredibly lazy and touchy when it comes to diplomacy, and guess what... that sword cuts both ways as well.

Well, from the reading here I do not see how the "honorable" crowd is expecting NAPs to be invioable (the lazy part). They just want the facts out and consequences in.

It is the "consequences" that bothers the "backstab" crowd. They want "backstab" with no "consequences". It appears that they hate anyone who even remotely suggest "consequences". I frankly do not understand this, isn't "consequences" taught from elementary school?

LoloMo · #**124** September 5th, 2008, 08:23 PM

I would not break NAPs, and all the top players I know do not break NAPs. And the fact that they don't break NAPs I believe is an important part of their strategy.

Many people view NAPs as an out of character agreement, just like trading items or gems. I am one of those. There is not much roleplaying in most of the games I have played. And the NAP breakers I have spotted do not roleplay.

As a player who does not break NAPs, I believe I can play more strategically, as I have to be careful who I make NAPs with. By making NAPs with a player who does not break NAPs, my back is protected to the extent of the NAP. I would not make NAPs with a NAP breaker, as that would put me at a severe disadvantage, as I don't break NAPs.

In my experience, NAP breakers are very few. If you consider only players who have played more than 5 MP games on these boards, the list is even fewer.

For me, the scheming and plotting comes before the NAPs are signed. You fake strength, cajole, threaten, bribe others to sign the NAP. My diplomatic energy is spent there, not on trying to convince others why breaking that NAP is justified.

And I love these threads, I visit them from time to time, especially when I'm offered a NAP by someone whom I have never played against before

konming · #**125** September 5th, 2008, 08:24 PM

From the "intrigue" point of view, shouldn't breaking NAPs deliberately and sending "'PWNED u n00b!@!!" be more skillful than those with "reasonable" reasons? If you subscribe to "lively diplomacy" and not "lazy" diplomacy, shouldn't the first action more commendable? It is deliberately and masterfully excuted instead of being forced, isn't it?

licker · #**126** September 5th, 2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by konming

From the "intrigue" point of view, shouldn't breaking NAPs deliberately and sending "'PWNED u n00b!@!!" be more skillful than those with "reasonable" reasons? If you subscribe to "lively diplomacy" and not "lazy" diplomacy, shouldn't the first action more commendable? It is deliberately and masterfully excuted instead of being forced, isn't it?

Sorry you lost me, I don't understand a thing you said.

As I've said, I don't think I'd agree to too many NAPs where breaking them would be an issue, since I wouldn't accept these inviolate type NAPs in the first place. But my point is that even if I wound up in a NAP I felt I *had* to break (and again, this would not be done lightly, and only if it essentially allowed me to win basically immediately) I would provide my rational for doing so. It would not just be 'sucks to be you' and 'GG'.

Of course breaking NAPs has consequences, no one has disputed this, but as far as I am concerned there's a reasonable way to break a NAP and an unreasonable way.

konming · #**127** September 5th, 2008, 09:06 PM

May I guess that reasonable or unreasonable is from your point of view? If so, why shouldn't others have a different opinion from their point of view? In the end, the only thing for sure is that you broke NAPs in a certain way. So let's just present the facts, and let everyone make up his or her own mind, OK?

licker · #**128** September 5th, 2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by konming

May I guess that reasonable or unreasonable is from your point of view? If so, why shouldn't others have a different opinion from their point of view? In the end, the only thing for sure is that you broke NAPs in a certain way. So let's just present the facts, and let everyone make up his or her own mind, OK?

Which is what I've been saying all along isn't it?

If you don't make it clear up front in whatever you agree to then be prepared for whatever nonsense will follow.

I don't know what 'facts' you're talking about anyway.

konming · #**129** September 5th, 2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

My personal perspective on the matter is really no matter what the NAP stipulates if the breaker can outright win the game by breaking the NAP (in the case of VPs usually) then more power to them...

Quote:

Personally I find all these instances of people taking out their frustrations on other people in OTHER games to be much much worse than someone breaking a NAP in the first place.

I don't know, this is what you were saying right? It's Ok to break a NAP if it leads to outright win (and by defination, no recourse in the same game), but it is not OK to remember that in another game. Ok, what happened to the "consequences" thing when the only "consequence" is not OK?

Also many of you stated disgust for a NAP breaker list idea. Well, if what I said was what you were saying all along, why do you object to a venue that people can list past NAP breaches so others can read the facts and make up their minds?

As for the facts, I personally think it is simple. When and how you break a NAP (like in this case, NAP is signed until a certain turn but he likes to terminate it early, anyone dispute that?) and why (he cannot let the other party just win). I wonder how else do you define facts in this case?

LoloMo · #**130** September 5th, 2008, 11:11 PM

You can not have a public list of NAP breakers because whether a NAP is broken or not is subject to oppossing interpretations. Such a list would be bad for the community because of the abuse and conflict that it would generate. You can of course tell someone you play with privately what you think of the other players in your game.