MP: Smiting Season (newb-intermediate, LA, CBM 1.92) smiting has begun!

[Finalgenesis]

Hi Groundworm, it's been half a year since my last MP game almost. I'd like to get my feet wet again, sign me up for Atlantis. I think you were arco in New Kinda noob way back when? Good times =)

I'm definitely newb, still in the 8~ games range and first time on 1.92. I hope I don't get rushed out too quickly!

For binding agreement, I highly recommend very clear and defined rules on it if we go ahead with it, otherwise it WILL go wrong. Let me provide a suggestion (which shed some light on where things can go wrong):

1) Only NAP X can be binding. X may be any non-negative, non-zero integer. For example, NAP using imaginary numbers will not be binding.(Yes this is a bad joke)

2) No last minute declaration (5 minutes before turn resolved), let's say a pm during first 6 hours for 24h turn and 12h for 48h turns will be considered valid, non-valid declaration will be considered valid starting on the next turn.

3) After declaration, 3 turns must occur counted as follows: Ex. NAP 3 - Turn 10 valid declaration made, Turn 11, Turn 12, Turn 13 battle may occur (orders can be given in turn 12)

4) All stealth units other then indie scouts caught will be considered breach of NAP (assassins, unrest generator ...etc are no no). Which leads into another problem, there is no repercussion for breach, in fact it seems like a freebie way to break NAP for war, there is no way to enforce the binding. You could say no stealth units in NAP mate territory period, but what can you do it you find them? End the game (another way to grief the game)?

5) Global spells will not be considered a breach of NAP, or do we want the restriction of not being allowed to cast certain global if you have NAP with anyone? The flip side of the coin is what if you are a long lived race and cast burden of time, while you have NAP 5 with most of your short lived rival?

6) Territory stealing is allowed because of how onerous obtaining proof is (you can't). Consider this example: Nation A is at war with nation B and have NAP 5 with Nation C. Every time Nation B takes a province from Nation A that it can't hold on (with say a ghost rider), Nation C would conveniently attack right after with a single scout to take it, and oddly Nation B doesn't say anything and their actions is in fact fully coordinated throughout, but Nation A cannot attack nation C immediately due to NAP 3, even though clearly Nation C is actively working with B to screw A over.

Basically, binding agreement can often be used as a sucker punching weapon that cause a lot of unhappy *****in', I've seen scenario 5 happen often, and scenario 6 in various variants a few times myself (all in non-binding games thankfully). You can abuse the hell out of binding agreement and cause a lot of grief unless you come up with a textbook sized rule list.

I'm fine either way, and despite the above I don't actually have a clear preference, but I've seen cases where if there was binding agreement it can go against it's original intention (a clean game) and turn it into a mess. So... since we're going binding agreement I'd like a set of very clear and precise rules =) doesn't mean I won't abuse any loopholes though (of which there will guaranteed to be some).

[Whollaborg]

Perhaps this doesn't qualify as a "simple NAP" any more

Originally Posted by Legendary League

Well, that's why every NAP has an expiration clause (either it's timed to last only X amount of turns before being renewed, or, more popularly, there is a cancellation clause which requires X turn notice before the treaty is dissolved and attacks may commence).

[Groundworm]

All right, Bat/man, you're in! Shall I put you down for Agartha or Bogarus?

Finalgenesis, I remember you! Great to play with you again! Welcome back!

The whole issue of binding vs. non-binding diplomacy seems to be contentious. I'm changing it to non-binding, with the caveat that most of the people I've played with have been more interested in having a good game that's won honorably. If someone does breach a NAP, feel free to call it out publicly so that it's noted for future reference. Things that constitute breaching a NAP include, among others: deliberately overwriting the same global, assassinating commanders, casting remote attack spells (hard to catch), etc. Trades of gems and items, as well as province swapping, are to be considered inviolate regardless.

[Finalgenesis]

I too like the reputation method =)

Now I gotta run up some SP and remove some of this rust.

[Finalgenesis]

Oh just curious, I assume quickhost is off?

[Carpetbagger]

Pythium I choose you!

[Bat/man]

So, make it Bogarus.

[decourcy]

I am interested but i have no experience with Llama server multiplayer. I am an experienced strategy gamer, with some game development credits, and i have now played several multiplayer games of Dom 3 with a direct IP connection on quick host.

If you are willing to give me a shot i would like Tien Chi or Jomon.

Michael

[Snacktime]

If you'll have me, I'll take Utgard.

I've played about 10 multiplayer games, but haven't played in at least a year and a half and trying to return, FWIW. I've used llamaserver but it's been a while. But I remember it being not too tough.

If you'd rather more experienced players np!

[shard]

I am interested in joining as Jomon, they seem to be vastly different from what I remember.
(Decourcy: I assume since you didnt state a preference, you wouldnt mind going with Tien Chi?)

I have no preference on the type of diplomacy, but a suggestion:

How about for diplomacy to be limited to ingame messaging and any breaches can be publicly announced if necessary (backed up by screenshots if warranted). This way you dont disadvantage those who dont spend so much time on the boards/irc or have arguments over timing of messages....