AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[AreWeInsaneYet]

To record ppl in games who breached NAP.
Although my time do not allow me to play that many multis like I did, I think there shall be one thread like this, and as I failed to find one, this thread is created. If there's one like this already please PM me and feel free to ask moderators remove this thread.

Parcelt as C'tis IN Llamabeast's Chinchilla - Claimed that "NO NAP's Signed". Keep attacking while negotiating, and the so said negotiation turned out to be some way to took your provinces while keep your armies at bay. Did this to All his neighbors - Confirmed.

Tibbs as Ulm IN Velusion's Sophistry - Attacked without agreed notification. Two of three nations in the coordinated attack canceled NAP in time, only this guy attacked without saying a word.

[Micah]

Grudges should not be carried from one game to the next, this thread only encourages that. If someone breaks a NAP it should go in the game thread.

[Cheezeninja]

This is information that veterans of MP are already going to have, and act on. I don't see a problem with a thread about it.

It doesn't encourage grudges, a grudge will just lose you the game to the advantage of those not involved. It encourages proper caution towards repeat offenders.

[AdmiralZhao]

I have it on good account that AreWeInsaneYet broke a NAP himself in the Chinchilla game.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I think this is a bad idea, in my observational experience.

First off, it won't end well, whatever your intentions are. A thread like this is tinder- not a bad thing, but add a couple sparks and it'll go up in flames. All it takes is one person having a bad day and responding carelessly, and someone responding rashly. And nobody playing containment.

I had a few other points, but I'm going to have to think on the wording a bit. And I'm not certain whether their worth going over if I'm as apathetic as I am.

I do recommend you formalize a treaty in the forum threads to a). prevent honest misunderstandings and forgetfulness, and b). hold up as evidence if you insist on running a blacklist, to resolve the eventual conflict of view.

I personally try to hold to secret alliances honestly and fairly, but I follow the trust but verify method for that. Whether by spies, or by enticements combined with minor reserves to make sure I'm not a quickly plucked fruit. If a treaty's not signed or not public, you're asking for trouble -honest or dihonest trouble. You won't always get it, but its a lot more likely.

A few games of Risk 2010 over at "Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow" eventually had me enjoying that sense of paranoia. Though not winning the game. I was still the n00b.

Anyways, I don't care either way if you come up with a blacklist, but I did want to warn you. I'm going to wander off to another thread now.

[lch]

Cheezeninja said:
This is information that veterans of MP are already going to have, and act on.


Hardly. The player base is huge, games take a long time, and you'll have to be neighbors to initiate any kind of NAP talk. Some names may reoccur again and stick, but I doubt that players remember people from past games that much. They'll probably remember the nations they played.

"Veterans" know that the rules of fair play do not apply in love and war. They know that they might get backstabbed at one point or the other if they are doing too good or fall back too much, and they don't have a problem with it. After all, this is just a game, we don't play for a jackpot.


Cheezeninja said:
I don't see a problem with a thread about it.


I don't see the point of having one. You may make your own list and use it, but what's the use in making it public? There are always two sides of the same medal.

[llamabeast]

AWIY, if you are going to do this at all do it in your own head. A strong principle of dominions diplomacy is that you have to see the player as separate from the nation, and carrying grudges/friendships from one game to another really isn't okay. Remember that many people roleplay their nations, so they may just be roleplaying as a dishonest backstabbing nation in one game, and an honest one in the next. To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

If someone betrays you in a game then by all means make a fuss about it in that thread - say "Ermor betrayed me! Kill him!", but saying "llamabeast is a bad person! Everyone should attack him in all games" completely ruins the role-playing spirit and is just not very nice. (incidentally this situation's never arisen!)

I have to say I think this thread is quite unpleasant and inflammatory, and players in question are likely to find it quite hurtful. I'm sure you meant well, but I think if we have this kind of thing in the forums it could really lower the tone of the community. Those who read the forums a lot will know that I am almost never critical, so I don't make these comments lightly.

[llamabeast]

This (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showthreaded.php?Number=474483) is very worthwhile to read.

[Methel]

Im behind the llama on this.

I find this thread offencive.

[Edi]

I also find this thread offensive. However, I'm not going to lock it for the time being. The thing to remember here is that a particular game is distinct from a particular player, someone who was your staunch ally in one game may stab you in the back in the next one. Besides that, as long as there is not a set of commonly agreed-upon rules about notification of attack being mandatory in a given game, this sort of thread will come across as whining about nothing.

Further, this sort of thread is a prime breeding ground for vendettas, which are something that will absolutely not be tolerated. If you have a problem with somebody's in-game conduct, keep it to PM, email or the particular thread dedicated to that game. If you start making lists where you add up everyone who ever got the better of you in a game, even if it was through backstabbing, fine, but keep them to yourself. The moment you start airing vendetta lists on the public forum, YOU get on the moderators' watch list. If it spirals out of control, the proverbial ton of bricks is liable to fall mostly on the person seen as the instigator of any trouble.

Try to keep that in mind.

With the limited Dominions MP experience that I have (just 2 games of Dom2 long ago), I remember being backstabbed and doing some backstabbing myself and we all had a good laugh about it afterward.

[jimkehn]

I agree with Edi, Llamabeast and Methel. This is a game!!! We are dealing with diplomacy, war, and intrigue. Guess what?? That happens in real life?? Remember the Russo-German Pact in 1939??? And how it was broken in 1941???? Someone above mentioned that in one game a player may be roleplaying a nation as a disingenuous thug, and the next as a knight-hearted benevolent. I never carry a grudge from one game to another (although I can think of at least one person who may think I do...8^).....) I think threads like this tend to take away the intent of the game.......to have fun; and to encourage unintentional results......take the game too seriously.

[Gandalf Parker]

We have removed people from the forums for carrying vendettas too far into other threads. Im afraid that it will be up to each person to read about NAP complaints. A blacklist definetly does not fit the desired feel for Shrapnels forums.

On the OTHER hand...
people should realize that reputations DO follow you. I understand saying "how I play my god in THIS game is not how I play my god in the next game" but Im afraid that it just doesnt tend to hold true. The RPGers would like full creativity for each new god but the Strategists tend to keep score across games (and lists).

We have sometimes discussed ways to have completely anonymous games. So far we can achieve about a 90% anon if someone wants to set up such a game.

[Kristoffer O]

> To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

Huh? I didn't know that.

I have never played a game of strategy and diplomacy in wich pacts are not expected to be broken.

I'm not very fond of NAP's as it seems people expect anyone who breaks them to be a bastard. I will unvariably attack an opponent when I assume my gains will be the greatest (including diplomatic ones).

There should be no unbreakable pacts, and if players use the term 'NAP' to mean 'a pact that makes you a bastard if you break it' I think the diplomatic traditions of this game has been broken somewhere http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

It is fun to betray, and it is fun to be betrayed. Frustrating, yes, but all the more fun when you strike back with righteous vengence! Or die trying to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It is also more fun to play when you might expect a backstab from one of your neighbours at any time.

[Yucky]

Gandalf Parker said:
people should realize that reputations DO follow you. I understand saying "how I play my god in THIS game is not how I play my god in the next game" but Im afraid that it just doesnt tend to hold true.



I agree. Someone would be a fool to let another player betray them twice.

[Sleet]

I do not think this a good idea. Even if NAPS were a holy right and a sin to break, having a thread to start the flame-wars and vendettas for them is a recipe for disaster.

I will not be checking or posting in this thread at all again.

Salute.

[DrPraetorious]

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.

[Ubercat]

Evernight, a web based fantasy wargame that I used to play (evernightgame.com) has a good system for diplomacy. Everything I know about NAP's I learned from them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

They have a good message log, which would be very helpful in DOM3 MP for many reasons beyond keeping people honest. There's also a setup where you can rate other players on a scale for various things like honor, communication, skill, etc. and type up a blurb about your experiences with them for other players to read.

Could be useful here if it were implementable.

-Ubercat

[Morkilus]

The only use for this thread is to compile a list of whiners. I hope we don't see this sort of thing very often. Individual game threads are for reputation-bashing, and it should all be in-character.

Color me disgusted.

[Jazzepi]

What's the color of disgusted anyways? Brown?

I dislike this sort of thread as from a practical standpoint it's extremely unwieldy.

1. It doesn't really help anyone, because there's no way to verify if the entries are accurate.

2. People who are on the list can just make a new name if they really care.

3. People who don't deserve to be on the list have no method of appeal.

4. It's silly, it's a game you play to win. If you don't expect people to break treaties then you shouldn't be playing. I, personally, like to try to stay on the straight and narrow, but sometimes circumstances dictate otherwise.

Jazzepi

[Tuidjy]

I like peace treaties and stick to mine. But then, I avoid 'evil' nations,
always take a life domain, and won't touch blood magic. This probably says
something about me, and probably it is not good.

I have had a few treaties broken on me, usually because I have grown too strong,
and once because I was too weak. I do not think I have been often surprised.
The only time I am really bothered is when the player has been role-playing
before that, and all of a sudden breaks a treaty for purely 'play to win' reasons.

For example, Pythium betraying Ulm when their alliance against Ermor had just
started turning the undead tide. This was the first time I was betrayed, and
I still remember it. The real lesson from that game was 'Ulm sucks' though.

My personal view is - you do not have to make treaties and alliances. If you
choose to make them, you better stick by it. If you break them, I will not
attack you in the next game, but I sure as Hell will not make a treaty with you.
I will conduct diplomacy to prove that "you do not want to eat me, you want to
eat my brother", but that's it.

As for this thread, I like that people can talk about their views on treaties,
but I dislike the naming of offenders. Hard to clear a reputation once it is
besmirched, and I am only human. I happen to have two treaties with people
named in this thread, and all of sudden, I am worried.

[NTJedi]

I've brought up this topic and similar topics in the past yet requested a website be used instead to chart how players behave during a game.

Actions to be recorded of players:

1A) Treaties player has broken without warning:
1B) Treaties player has broken with proper warning:
*each treaty will have to be given a unique name for agreed reference

2A) Game Turn and remaining provinces when a player abandoned the game, thus scrounging for replacement or switched to AI:
2B) Games where the player has played to the bitter end:
*useful to know when searching for brave allies on future games

3A) Games where player has been proven to have cheated or attempted cheating:


((Let me know if I missed any... and we can always add more later.))


This type of website would allow players to more easily identify the character of players, otherwise it could take months for new players to painfully learn this information. On the same token this information can be used by those hosting a game to find specific types of players. For example a game where all players are known as backstabbers or some other game where all players are known to stay strong with treaties.

------------

Another idea is this website can eventually provide a personal login/password for each gamer where each treaty can be created and signed on the website. Only those individuals which have been offered and signed the treaty will be able to view the treaty... until the game has officially ended. Much easier to remember all the treaties if the details of each treaty can be viewed by both individuals at any time, instead of logging the information in notepad or written on a notebook.

[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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.
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!
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif and we can forget about all this.

[Chris_Byler]

Kristoffer O said:
> To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

Huh? I didn't know that.

I have never played a game of strategy and diplomacy in wich pacts are not expected to be broken.


Hear, hear. One of the prototypical games of diplomacy is Diplomacy itself, and as the manual for that game states, "These discussions and written agreements, however, do not bind a player to anything he/she may say. Deciding whom to trust as situations arise is an important part of the game." I feel that Dominions should be played the same way.

Many times in history and mythology, rulers have decided that a treaty wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. The deeds of gods are not recorded in history (reliably anyway), but in mythology many are treacherous bastards. It is both a better fit with the game-world and more fun to allow treachery without restriction (other than the *in-game* revenge of the betrayed).

Treason never prospers: what's the reason?
Because if it prospers, none dare call it treason.

[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...

[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.

[LoloMo]

The purpose of a NAP is to protect your backside and allow you to concentrate your forces elsewhere, thus multiplying your military might several fold. This is such an enormous part of the strategy of DOM that diminishment of its importance will change the entire gameplay of DOM3.

If NAPs can be broken any time, then agreeing to a NAP weakens you rather than strengthens you. I for one will never form NAPs with anyone who break one, and I believe that is the principle of most players who play Dom regularly.

If you like to roleplay a NAP breaker, then I would expect nothing less in the next nation you play.

However, I am against making public your own list of NAP breakers, as everyone knows, it can be abused, can not be verified, and will lead to heated debates that are not good at all for the dom community.

Also, it has been pretty much an established culture here in the dom community that you do not break NAPs, and the regular players do not break NAPs, and problems with NAP breaking are usually limited to new players, and most likely players you will not play against in the future anyway.

On the otherhand, I would like to play a few games where it is stated explicitly that NO NAP is binding, and that NO TRADE is binding either.

[Kristoffer O]

A need to agree here might not be needed.

Now people knows that there are different ways to percieve NAP's and it is possible to decide if a new game will be one way or the other.

Seems there is enough players of each kind to accomodate games for both. And I suppose most people dont have a big issue with either kind, just as long as they know what they are getting into. I personally prefer not to play with strict NAP's, but I wouldn't mind playing that way if I knew beforehand that everyone in the game had the same view on NAP's.

It should not be too difficult to post:

New game: Gemet
Map: Aran
Graphs: On
NAP's: yes
Mods:

etc

[LoloMo]

I would suggest that differentiation in the next game I play. Although I think the default assumption is that NAPs are unbreakable.

Perhaps we can establish a set of NAP rules that can be adopted per game, so that it is very clear. We can just say, we will be using NAP Ruleset Number 3 for this game.

I for one would like a rule set where if you terminate an existing NAP, you are bound by the 3 turn peace announcement clause, but the nation you terminated the NAP with is allowed to decide if war will start immediately, at his discretion. It makes much more sense that way.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Heh. That reminds me of my "Las Vegas" style game idea. I'm going to start one up once I lighten my current game load. I'm pretty full at the moment.

New Game: Ministry of Truth
Map: Aran
Graphs: Off
NAP, secret alliances: yes
Treachery: Optional, but encouraged.
Mods: Worthy heroes.
Joining: Public.
Out of game reputation- Unchanged because...
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

[Kristoffer O]

Nice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Shovah32]

Very nice, looks like alot of fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Unfortunately, my load won't be light enough for a while. I'm currently involved in five games, though I'm currently threatened by extinction via R'lyeh in two of them.

[HoneyBadger]

I'd just like to state that I can act one way in a given game, and completely switch in another game.

In the first game I can be utterly loyal, honest, and incorruptible, even to the point of losing a game unnecessarily over a point of honor.

In the second, I can be an utter bastard, a snake, perfectly courteous, perfectly oily. I can plant not one but three daggers in your back, poison your food, poison your mind, adulter your wife and sell your kids, and make you not only thank me, but love me for it.

It's called "role-playing", and over the years, it's given me amounts of pleasure only greatly-and only sometimes- overshadowed by sex.

[Stryke11]

A list of bad guys will just cause more trouble than it's worth, for all the reasons stated above.

Still I am horrified at the number of people who find the intent of the OP "offensive." That's kind of like tolerating the criminals and loathing the sheriff, or OK, perhaps vigilante. It makes me kind of uneasy getting involved in games with them. Like it or not, game or real life, actions have consequences. We learn this when we are children. You think just because you play LA Ermor that you can do whatever you want and then say "I was *roleplaying* guys!" Well, perhaps if you're playing with close friends, but if I was in that game, I would remember everything you did.

Nevertheless, it's my opinion, once bitten twice shy and all that. I don't think posting a wanted list is the way to go. If you act honorably, you will gain a reputation as such, informally, and if you behave dishonorably, you will gain a reputation for that as well.

[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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[HoneyBadger]

That's very true. You do what you do, and people are going to take impressions away from that. But, please let's keep in mind that this is a game.

I could murder every man, woman, and child in EA Ulm, face to face with my teeth, and guess what? That would mean I was doing exactly what I'm supposed to do in the game.

Our society's mores don't apply, don't even enter into the universe Dom3 is played in, so the worst, most hurtfelt thing you can ultimately do to another player is to betray his good intentions-when he has them.

One of the things this game is lacking in-and which ultimately causes some amount of emotional harm in MP games-is context. We usually have a handle on what our own personal nation does and believes-because we decide that ourselves, on the spot, and we have a clue what the other nations are about, but how do they interact? Who are the neutral parties? Where are things black and white, and written in stone? What's the history behind the world?

Dominions 3 has some of that, but it's incomplete and haphazard at best, rumors and guesses at worst.

Mictlan kills children, by the score, messily, but that's alright. EA Ermor doesn't care, other than the fact that Mictlan is ENEMY. Pangaea steals hundreds of womenfolk from other nations and turns them into naked beasts, then unleashes them on their foes in battle, to kill and be killed. Marverni doesn't care, other than the fact that Pangaea is ENEMY. R'lyeh summons evil beyond human comprehension into the world on a regular basis, through a gate that is unstable at best. Ulm doesn't care, other than the fact that R'lyeh is ENEMY.

Why do Aboleths want to conquer the world? Why not just conquer the muddy parts really well? Why does Agartha want supreme power? so they can live in caves and catch fish? Maybe if they don't, humans might come along and conquer them first-and they do, but which humans, and why? Are their rumors that Mictlan's cities are made of gold? Does Marverni want to convert the pagans? Are they using that as an excuse to rob and enslave and slaughter the Mictlanese? In this world, *everyone* wants to convert the pagans! so where's the meat in that argument?

That to me is a big problem. It should be a big problem for other nations that you're doing these things, and it should be a big problem for independents too. Proving that your way-however vile it might appear to other cultures-is the right way, should be a challenge to meet and accomplish and force upon the world, but it's not. The only thing you have to do, ultimately, is conquer the world by whatever means necessary, because the world of Dominions is incomplete. Those gaps-the gaps that distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, for the party that's interpreting them, and the party that's performing the action in question-are missing, which renders this thread completely useless, since one really *can* use the argument "I was only roleplaying", because the distinction between "good" roleplaying and "bad" roleplaying hasn't been made.

Now yes, one of the major themes of the game is that when you play Dominions, you're playing as a would-be god, desiring to be the only One True God, but gods are cultural things-they come from somewhere, and one of the major driving forces behind a religion is to teach morality, culture, and one's place in the universe. The world of Dominions is incomplete in exactly those areas, and that makes roleplaying potentially very plastic.

[Stryke11]

Which actually brings me to something I've been pondering lately. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Historically, more than one nation has worshiped the same god, and since the dominion scale represents the conversion of a province, it would be awesome to have some mechanic (like culture influence in Galactic Civilizations 2) whereby a province can rebel against it's owner in favor of the god they believe in. This would give having a strong dominion a bit more teeth. Also, in some cultures, there are a number of gods who work in concert, a pantheon, so there is no real reason alliances of like minded nations can't happen, perhaps both gods can ascend? If it has to be all or nothing, you still wouldn't normally kill every man, woman, and child in the nation your conquered. Just the leadership. It would be cool if you received some kind of assimilation bonus when you conquered a nation, reflection that nation's skills being worked into your society. Say cheaper forging if you conquer Ulm (maybe only in their home province). I can't think of something every nation can offer, but I'm sure those of you who love those nations can. Maybe it could only work in SP just to add to the atmosphere, and so as not to unbalance MP.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with blacklists, but HoneyBadger just caused me to think a little bit about this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif.

[Sombre]

I think if you're going to play a game where the only kind of agreement is a NAP and it cannot be violated, you should state that beforehand.

Like if anyone announces a NAP they have to do it in public on the forum and if they break it they are simply turned AI and kicked from the game. That way you can have your games where diplomacy is as simple as NAP or not.

I'd also like to see some national roleplay games, where people should act in accordance with their nation - so Pangaea and Marverni are more likely to get along than Pangaea and Abysia, where Pythium and Ermor squabble but can on and off ally or fight etc.

That way if you agree to peace with a neighbour who is similar to you (say Man and Ulm or something) you can reasonably expect them to stick to the peace unless there's some incident. If you're bordering LA Ermor you can reasonably expect them to try and keep coming at you like the terminator.

[Beorne]

This is strange, I find the mayority of posts saying that NAP are freely breakable without utter consequencies. If NAP are freely breakable then NAP does not exist, point. If someone breaks a NAP on me he will have a broken reputation for me and for players I urge to communicate. I'd exclude public lists for the load of issues raised before.

[Aethyr]

In the spirit of the game, there is something artificial about the "assumption" that NAPs are inviolable. In a world with diverse and powerful beings--all vying for supremacy--why would this be true?

I have no problem with a nation "covering its back side" so it can concentrate all its might against another enemy, it is exactly what I would expect a nation in a weaker position to do.

Likewise, I have no problem with that same nation deciding at some point that its position has changed, and it is now strong enough compete against that enemy head on without the crutch our "NAP" provides. Even if that decision terminates our agreement prematurely and without warning. It is all in the spirit of the game (but you may be sure I will remember). I believe that those who suggest differently may be at best trying to ensure a little too much "stability". At worst, it is potentially unbalancing, and lessens the need for strategic planning--although I will not try to develop that thought in this tread.

Otherwise, I agree with almost everything that HoneyBadger, Stryke11, and Sombre have said.

[johan osterman]

I don't quite get why people are saying that if NAPs can be broken they don't exist. Allies backstab each other in the real world and people still form alliances. Hitler violated his NAP with Stalin. Byzantium signed a perpetual peace with their muslim neigbour that was broken at intervals of of ten years or so, and after each violation of the treatie tributes were exchanged and a new perpetual peace was announced.

Not that this should influence how you play, but when dom PPP first was conceived it was a conscious decision not to include hardcoded diplomacy options, and some effort were even made to discourage players from forming longterm alliances. So it is certainly not a intended feature of the game. But obviously if people feel it it more enjoyable to play this way they should. As others pointed out, the tension over this issue is from peoples different expectations.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Beorne said:
This is strange, I find the mayority of posts saying that NAP are freely breakable without utter consequencies. If NAP are freely breakable then NAP does not exist, point. If someone breaks a NAP on me he will have a broken reputation for me and for players I urge to communicate. I'd exclude public lists for the load of issues raised before.



In my interpretation, the majority of people are saying that NAP are breakable with consequences lasting only the length of the game. Personally, if someone broke a non-agression pact with me, I'd be ticked in the short term, but wouldn't bother to remember it into the next game under most circumstances. The very nature of victory in this game (No allied wins), only one victor, all other pretenders must die theme, makes me trust no-one, and expect betrayal- only hoping for honor.

Even my alliances are buttered along by reserves and constant artifact exchanges and gem trades and such. Mutually speaking, but addicting to the other party. I make sure there are benefits for me and them, while the cost of breaking that treaty outweigh the rewards. I may keep a reserve of forces, except when things get real desperate. Even in this state of uneasy trust, NAP are still beneficial. While I have some hanging around using upkeep, these guards aren't dying and in need of replacement, and I'm freed to spend my remaining money elsewhere.

This paranoia isn't a reflection of my opinion of the other person- if I met my secret alliance partner [classified] in real life, I'd be willing to fully trust him/her. I trust my sister with a lot of things, for instance, but if my sister was a gamer, I'd fully expect her to backstab me in-game. She's not a gamer though, so, meh...

[atul]

The problem I have with NAPs is their all-encompassing nature and the laziness in making them. All right, I can understand that if people play 5 games at the same time, have a work and life outside of gaming and so on they don't have much time to put into forging a decent agreements, but sending a message with nothing but "Neighbours. NAP 3 turns?" is nothing short of lazy.

When I first started playing Doms with several friends, we had all kind of diplomatic agreements which resulted in some surprises. Like in one instance Abysia had promised Marignon that they would not initiate war in exchange of beneficial border, but had a defensive pact with Van declaring any attack on one in effect an attack on the other nation too. After Van had goaded Marignon to attack him, Abysia was actually diplomatically bound to backstab Marignon. Fun and all.

My first game with people in this forum had me meet my first neighbour, who sent me a message "NAP 3 turns ok?" and when I agreed he greedily cut me off from much of the indies.

If I'd have it my way NAPs would be only among equal partners. I mean, if you're a lot bigger than your neighbour, why the hell should you be bound to respect anyone who's just cowering in fear and desperately trying to form an alliance against you? Usually NAPs are made in early game when everyone's about equal, but as time goes by it should be quite clear who can stand on their own and who live at the mercy of others.

One other thing that I've already touched a bit is that NAPs shouldn't be used as "Get Out of the Jail Free" card. If you piss me off, sure as hell I'm going to pound you to ground if I'm able. Pushing dominion, building forts at the border, keeping unnecessary troops there, cutting me off prizes without prior consultation. All the irritating stuff.

On the flip side, I've noticed that if you're friendly and not too agressive people tend to respond in kind. Even when not bound by formal agreements or anything.

And to cover my back: Despite what I've written, I've never breached a deal in MP. Cancelled several NAPs, sure, but I've respected their expiration times to the fault, and those I don't count breaking. Peer pressure, what a powerful tool.

[Beorne]

Lazy_Perfectionist said:

In my interpretation, the majority of people are saying that NAP are breakable with consequences lasting only the length of the game. Personally, if someone broke a non-agression pact with me, I'd be ticked in the short term, but wouldn't bother to remember it into the next game under most circumstances.



One thing is to say not to mix game with reality and not to carry over grudges in reality. And I obviously agree with this.
One other thing is not carrying over from a match to the other the feeling of untrust caused by betrayal. Very often, if one breaks a nap without previous warning, he seriously cripple the ex-allied. Is very proobable his ex allied will lose badly. I think nobody can say he will not take ower the distrust feeling on the traitor in the next game. It's beyond the rational.
And, to walk on the (for me unappropriate) parallel with history, I've not said that I will enforce my allies to keep the nap, I can not enforce anyone anything. I have only said that the player will be horror marked for a big time to come. I don't think Hitler & Stalin would have made another alliance if they both survived. The only condition would be the overthrow of one of them. Nation can do repeated peaces, but Pretender Gods (= leaders) tend to carry on serious grudges. I'm a Pretender, not a population.

[Gandalf Parker]

I think all of this also goes with the requests that keep popping up to "add diplomacy to the game". Adding diplomacy options to a menu would place game-restrictions on the actions. Such as game-managed NAPs.

The way it is now we have ultimate diplomacy and unlimited options. Very real world but that isnt always what all gamers would prefer. They want an impartial referee. I can see the advantage to both sides of the discussion and Im not sure which one would be best. Best for game play? probably continue with it unmoderated by forum or game menus. Best for sales? possibly a menu-managed diplomacy feature would be good but I dont see Johan working on anything that major anytime soon.

Besides, this would be another of those "there are plenty of THOSE games already out there so lets not change one of the things that makes us nicely unique".

(of course since I mostly play solo I wouldnt mind abit more recognition by the AIs of my gifts)

Gandalf Parker
-- To some people, unlimited options seems to them to be zero options.

[NTJedi]

johan osterman said:
I don't quite get why people are saying that if NAPs can be broken they don't exist. Allies backstab each other in the real world and people still form alliances. Hitler violated his NAP with Stalin. Byzantium signed a perpetual peace with their muslim neigbour that was broken at intervals of of ten years or so, and after each violation of the treatie tributes were exchanged and a new perpetual peace was announced.

Not that this should influence how you play, but when dom PPP first was conceived it was a conscious decision not to include hardcoded diplomacy options, and some effort were even made to discourage players from forming longterm alliances. So it is certainly not a intended feature of the game. But obviously if people feel it it more enjoyable to play this way they should. As others pointed out, the tension over this issue is from peoples different expectations.



I agree players should be allowed to violate NAPs or even quit playing when they don't like the way the game is proceeding. However, all this information should be logged on a website for others to review. If one player has a long-term history of always quitting after turn30 a history of the behavior should be recorded. By recording the behaviors of others the host and players of a game will be more knowledgeable for what can be expected. For most individuals which are common backstabbers or game droppers they will disagree and most individuals which are honorable with treaties will approve.
The current environment provides a disadvantage to those willing to be honorable for treaties made during a game. Providing all the treaty information to be publicly known on a website will still allow players to backstab on a treaty. There's no reason new players have to suffer months of hurtful gaming experiences to learn which individuals are the backstabbers and/or game droppers.

[Aethyr]

NT--

I completely disagree with almost everything you have said. However, we do agree on two very important points:

1) Those who "trust" will always be at a disadvantage (potentially) in WAR.

2) "There can be only one" (unless he/she allows a weaker ally, a respected/feared opponent, or an obedient lackey to survive).

I think both new and old players should keep these things in mind, and defend themselves accordingly, or be prepared to suffer a "hurtful" experience.

[tibbs]

AreWeInsaneYet said:
To record ppl in games who breached NAP.
Although my time do not allow me to play that many multis like I did, I think there shall be one thread like this, and as I failed to find one, this thread is created. If there's one like this already please PM me and feel free to ask moderators remove this thread.

Parcelt as C'tis IN Llamabeast's Chinchilla - Claimed that "NO NAP's Signed". Keep attacking while negotiating, and the so said negotiation turned out to be some way to took your provinces while keep your armies at bay. Did this to All his neighbors - Confirmed.

Tibbs as Ulm IN Velusion's Sophistry - Attacked without agreed notification. Two of three nations in the coordinated attack canceled NAP in time, only this guy attacked without saying a word.




Your post is quite amusing, in an ignorant sort of way.

I considered our NAP broken when your army stealthed south through my lands and destroyed one of my armies that was trying to take an independant province.

[Chris_Byler]

atul said:When I first started playing Doms with several friends, we had all kind of diplomatic agreements which resulted in some surprises. Like in one instance Abysia had promised Marignon that they would not initiate war in exchange of beneficial border, but had a defensive pact with Van declaring any attack on one in effect an attack on the other nation too. After Van had goaded Marignon to attack him, Abysia was actually diplomatically bound to backstab Marignon. Fun and all.


Secret alliances? Didn't you learn anything from the history of World War I? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Seriously though, this kind of thing is why no-holds-barred diplomacy is just more fun (IMO).

I think it is a good idea for anyone who wants to regard treaties as binding to state so up front before the game begins. I won't be joining such a game, but some people might want to.

Binding treaties are a house rule though, not something enforced by the game or intended by Illwinter, and I think everyone should be aware of that and not expect them to be in effect unless they have been specifically agreed to before the game. And carrying a grudge outside the game for treachery in a game where treachery is legal is just poor sportsmanship.

[tibbs]

NTJedi said:
There's no reason new players have to suffer months of hurtful gaming experiences to learn which individuals are the backstabbers and/or game droppers.




Raise your hand if you've had a hurtful, suffering experience playing Dominions.

If you have, you're taking the game too seriously. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Morkilus]

tibbs said:

Raise your hand if you've had a hurtful, suffering experience playing Dominions.

If you have, you're taking the game too seriously. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



Considering that AreWeInsaneYet hasn't posted since his cheap shot, I'd say he was just getting out some aggression. I'll play with you anytime, Tibbs. Hugs for all!

Also: I don't make "formal" NAPs because I'd have to, you know... take notes or something. I don't need more paperwork, especially with four games running.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

On the counter side to my 'Las Vegas' game (WWI, secret pacts), it may be interesting to have a public diplomacy game, where everyone agrees to conduct diplomacy by forum, and consider the results binding. This way, the politicin could get pretty fierce as everybody negotiates- kind of like the scramble to get mercs, except you see the other' bids.

Include in each contract several 'breach' and termination clauses. The common termination would be three turns warning, psssibly shortened to one with a cancellation fee. the 'breach' would fall under accidental and intentional penalties, with varying degrees of repercussion. They might be levied a fine, or excluded from all further political discussions, treated as a rogue.

The idea is that diplomatic alliances can be publicly bought. If someone knows about your public treaty, then they can negotiate with a third party to get that party to declare the three turn warning and shift sides. This whole system of public negotiations removes most of the misunderstandings, gives a record, and etc. etc.
Completely public negotiations may be problematic- so maybe limit it only to the binding agreement made public. An agreement will not be valid until it posted and signed by both parties. Before then, it is as nonexistent, and useless.

Of course, there's also the game style with no diplomacy whatsoever- or just trade. Continuing with orwell, I'd call that game the ministry of peace.

[Dedas]

If Parcelt and Tibbs had been cheating (breaking game rules) I too would have been angry. But apparently this didn't happen. They just broke an in-game mutual agreement called "NAP" by some people. Not covered by any rules, not default ones or rules tied to just this game, agreed upon by every participant before the game started.
So end of story.

Everything could have been all different of course. But it wasn't... so no need point fingers on anyone or start constructing "top-ten-wanted-dishonest-people-who-played-fair-by-the rules-but-cheated-me-anyways-somehow" lists. That is just playing silly, not Dominions.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

If we're going to draw parallels from history, nations have had peace followed by war followed by peace, even when individuals such as kings and queens are involved. Or three years between every battle.

You could interpret pretenders as either closely involved with their people (Fertility god), or rather careless (God of Death)- an assault against your nation isn't always an assault against your pretender, personally, though sometimes it may be. One could argue that a pretender would be more likely to view their people as 'chess pieces', disposable when its to their advantage.

[Aethyr]

I would argue that a callus pretender who sees their people as "chess pieces" would more likely view those people as the source of their power. Therefore, any attack on those people (or the precious land they occupy)would be considered to be a direct threat to his/her power base.

[NTJedi]

Aethyr said:
NT--

I completely disagree with almost everything you have said. However, we do agree on two very important points:

1) Those who "trust" will always be at a disadvantage (potentially) in WAR.

2) "There can be only one" (unless he/she allows a weaker ally, a respected/feared opponent, or an obedient lackey to survive).

I think both new and old players should keep these things in mind, and defend themselves accordingly, or be prepared to suffer a "hurtful" experience.



My point was there's no need for NEW players to go thru the hassles of learning who can be trusted and who cannot be trusted. And gamers new with hosting a new game shouldn't have the pains of learning which gamers are known for dropping out early.

Tibbs, I didn't mean "emotionally" hurtful... I meant "game time lost" hurtful as it could take months to identify the known backstabbers compared to those known to be honorable to the treaties.

[Baalz]

I'm kinda surprised that so many people are so quick to ignore a NAP, and deride those who honor them as playing at a disadvantage. I see it the other way, knowing full well that I'll likely be playing future games with the same people I think wantonly backstabbing other players puts you at a pretty severe disadvantage. It's not about carrying grudges from game to game, it's just human nature that players who you backstabbed will (rightly so) be very slow to trust you, even in another game. You can talk about roleplaying all you want, but I know that if a player backstabbed me before there is a non-negligble chance it'll happen again, whereas there are other players are a much better risk investment to build friendly relations with.

The very notion of a non-binding NAP is an oxymoron, if the assumption is that you'll be attacked whenever it's in the attacker's advantage why bother saying anything? Someone who has shown me that this is their view of NAP has shown me that they don't think NAP exist at all, and thus will never have a NAP with me in any other game. Consequently they'll be high on my list of targets to attack sooner rather than later, assuming I can secure NAPs with my other neighbors. Again, not about a grudge, it's simple pragmaticisim to not ignore a de-facto threatening neighbor who I've always got to worry about an imminent attack from. I have to assume many players feel the same way, even if they don't rationalize it consciously, so the more you backstab people, the more you get screwed. Particularly since the people you're most likely see in multiple games are also generally going to be the most dangerous players.

[tromper]

Well said, Baatz. Those who've broken NAPs with me in the past are on a personal list of mine - and they will lose the chance in the future. Probably to my quick demise, but oh well. There's no ire or hatred or anything. And sharing this info with friends, perhaps, is fine. And they can make their own decisions. But on the public forum - that's rather inappropriate.

That list of game 'rules' is bogus, however. If I'm not entitled to have my personal list *based upon previous experience* with a player from a past game, as that would break some sort of arbitrary rule-set, please don't allow me to join your game(s). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[NTJedi]

tromper said:
Well said, Baatz. Those who've broken NAPs with me in the past are on a personal list of mine - and they will lose the chance in the future. Probably to my quick demise, but oh well. There's no ire or hatred or anything. And sharing this info with friends, perhaps, is fine. And they can make their own decisions. But on the public forum - that's rather inappropriate.

That list of game 'rules' is bogus, however. If I'm not entitled to have my personal list *based upon previous experience* with a player from a past game, as that would break some sort of arbitrary rule-set, please don't allow me to join your game(s). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



I also agree with Baalz

[Salamander8]

I gotta agree with Baalz as well.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

If the game doesn't specify anything, I'm all for keeping your standards- it's one reason why I haven't broken a pact yet. Keep your private lists - I don't intend to get on them, and I can't stop you from making them if I wanted to.

However, occasionally I do want to be treacherous. So, I will have a game with that arbitrary rule-set, and you won't be invited. No ill-feelings, I'll still be okay playing with you in a regular game- but I will maintain the right to an 'evil-backstabbing game' rule-set, just like 'king of the hill', or any other arbitary rule-set.

For me, NAPs do exist, and that's why I haven't blighted your capital yet.

[Archonsod]

NTJedi said:
I agree players should be allowed to violate NAPs or even quit playing when they don't like the way the game is proceeding. However, all this information should be logged on a website for others to review.



Quitting the game because you're losing is just being a bad sport, or impolite. Again though it depends, if the player gives advance warning or otherwise states that they're going to leave fair enough. Sometimes RL does get in the way, sometimes you'd rather bow out gracefully than see things through to the bitter end.
As for diplomacy, would it not in fact be easier for people to simply state, when getting the game together, what kind of diplomacy they want. Whether they want a political type game or if NAP's should be inviolate, or even if anyone forming an agreement has to wear their pants on their head for the duration. That way people know from the outset how they're expected to behave. If they get kicked out of the game for breaking a NAP they can't complain if the host stated NAPS were inviolate, similarly if someone gets backstabbed and the host mentioned the game was going to be an experiment in machevellian politics there's no grounds to complain about someone being dishonest.

To weigh in on the opinionated side of the debate, I actually wouldn't play a multiplayer game if diplomatic moves were expected to be binding. I play multiplayer for the political aspect, backstabbing, manipulation and sabotage are all par for the course. Without that aspect, I'd have no reason not to stick to singleplayer.

As far as the phrasing of a NAP goes, if someone does send me a "NAP for 3 turns" message I usually need to hold back from sending a four letter reply. If one is going to use diplomacy in the game, you should at least do it properly. In character posts are nice, as is giving me a reason not to crush you like an ant http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif In most games I play, diplomacy is used as simply another tool - form an alliance or NAP with two fighting players, equip both sides (but not too much) then crush the victor when they least expect it? I think so.

@ Gandalf - the reason I'd like to see a menu driven/hard coded diplomacy is not so much to have it enforced by the game, but more to have it recognised by the game. It would give more options if you could move your troops through allied territory for example (one of which being nullifying your alliance and siezing any provinces your army was currently 'aiding the defence' in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

[Ironhawk]

Guys....

I have to say I am terribly disappointed with you all...

Here I see this thread title and I expect to see a massive flame war! But instead it was just logical conversations. Come on guys - this was supposed to be my entertainment for the afternoon!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Hehehehe.

But seriously I am glad to see that people are discussing things so reasonably tho. I agree with the general sentiment that violating NAPs should only be treated on a game-by-game basis. IMO, there really isnt a need for a blacklist or honor-ranking system in dom because there just isnt enough treaty breaking to warrant it. Most experienced players know that thier reputation has value and won't risk it just for a slight advantage in one game.

[Gandalf Parker]

It is one of the advantages of having the gaming community tied so directly into the forum. You forum ID is your reputation.

And by the way, its not as easy to change as someone might think. These boards do not allow multiple IDs and they report multiple logins on the same IP to the moderators. Yes, of course you can change IPs also but its not like you can easily do it anytime you get a black mark on your login here.

[Sombre]

I partly agree with Baalz, but I don't think treaties are worthless simply because they are sometimes broken and I don't think it's worth attacking someone based on the idea that since there's no possibility of a NAP they should be your #1 target. If they haven't made a threatening move towards you (they lack a huge army hovering on the border) and they say they don't have any intention of attacking you and on top of that you have other 'friendly' diplomatic relations such as trade, sharing of information or dividing of indy provinces to avoid conflict, then you haven't got much cause to believe they're going to attack you. Perhaps it's a cunning ploy on their part and they're hiding troops, but that sounds like a legitimate strat they're using, so fair play to them. I know I'd be less trusting of glamoured or stealthy nations and be sure to keep a reserve ready to deal with them.

Of course it would be silly to assume they'll never attack you, or they'll announce it before doing so, unless it's been clearly stated that you have a NAP and it cannot be broken, with the punishment being that they'll be kicked, or you'll refuse to play with them ever again.

I think there's plenty of room for meaningful diplomacy where treaties are still broken. You can also add house rules on top if you'd like.

[NTJedi]

Ironhawk said:
Most experienced players know that thier reputation has value and won't risk it just for a slight advantage in one game.


I agree, yet currently all NEW players are stuck playing as blind pigeons for months until they learn the good and bad reputation of others. A website tracking the information would remove this disadvantage for new players.

[Gandalf Parker]

If you want to do a website then go for it. That would seem to solve most of the problems. It would be off of Shrapnel, not directly supported by them or Illwinter. That is after all, the answer for anything that isnt supported by the forum.

[HoneyBadger]

I recently had to drop out of 2 MP games abruptly because it was either that or have severe personal consequences, and I felt bad about it, because I'd intended to play the games to their conclusion, but the way the game hosts was a major inconvenience that ultimately-and quickly-proved insurmountable.

I made sure to post on that game's thread so that everyone concerned would be very clear that I was quitting the game, though, and why.

To just up and quit a game without even telling anybody, that's just bad behavior.

It would be equally bad, to my way of thinking, to quit one game and continue the other, if you've made an equal commitment to both, and their weren't any other factors, such as one having a replacement standing by.

[Warhammer]

My .02...

I have no problems with NAPs. Especially in the early going, there is typically no benefit to going to war with someone early while Indies are still available (unless of course you are playing a rush nation).

That said, I think NAPs can be broken. If you don't have forces on the border and I have a fair amount on mine, I might consider moving in, especially if it is something that will hurt you severely.

However, the worst thing a player in any diplomatic game came do is make a move that only benefits him in the short term. If I take province X, and break a NAP, and that does not impact you severely, I am a moron.

Maybe it was my years of playing Diplomacy, but there comes a point in every game in which you need to make a play for the win. If the #1 and #3 players are allied against #2, it might be worth it for #3 to go ahead and stab #1. Why? If their relative strengths do not change, #3 will finish #2 after #2 is knocked off. But, if he stabes #1, he will probably benefit more from an alliance with #2 at that point, etc.

The game itself provides its own penalties and rewards for NAPs and alliances. I have not broken one to date, but I am do not want to be held bound to something that is going to doom me to future defeat. Let's say that in game X, I make a NAP with Caelum. It is for 24 turns, and over the span of those 24 turns, both Caelum and I expand. Eventually my only border is that with Caelum. I still have 10 turns left on my NAP, am I supposed to just sit and wait for the dang thing to expire while he is out expanding elsewhere? (Not withstanding my allowing this situation to develop)

[NTJedi]

Gandalf Parker said:
If you want to do a website then go for it. That would seem to solve most of the problems. It would be off of Shrapnel, not directly supported by them or Illwinter. That is after all, the answer for anything that isnt supported by the forum.



Actually those who frequently do hosting of games should vote for an individual to manage the information on a website.
In my multiplayer opinion the website would become quite popular as players from existing games would want to review past treaties from other games regarding current opponents. Also the gamers which host games would be able to organize groups of players together... such as a backstabber game, an honorable treaty game and/or a reliable player game where no one drops out from bad starts/events.

[tibbs]

NTJedi said:

Ironhawk said:
Most experienced players know that thier reputation has value and won't risk it just for a slight advantage in one game.


I agree, yet currently all NEW players are stuck playing as blind pigeons for months until they learn the good and bad reputation of others. A website tracking the information would remove this disadvantage for new players.



But who's opinion do you base the list on?You can put up a list, but how can you guarantee it's accuracy? There are always two sides to every story.

Take for example myself, the original person accused. He said I broke the NAP, yet he stealthed his army(whose capital is north of me) through my territories and suddenly started taking independant territories south of me and thus causing the collision and annihilation of one of my armies.

In my view, an army of another nation sneaking through my lands and then taking lands that border my nation and causing the destruction of my army voids any pact or peace treaty. Those are definitely aggressive actions.

[Archonsod]

HoneyBadger said:
It would be equally bad, to my way of thinking, to quit one game and continue the other, if you've made an equal commitment to both, and their weren't any other factors, such as one having a replacement standing by.



Well, if you know you're going to lose in one game then there's not really that big a problem to calling it quits, unless you own most of the provinces. If the game is at a point where you have two or three large empires and a bunch of smaller six or seven provinces and one of the smaller players would rather concentrate on another game, fair enough, as long as he tells the other players of his intent to quit.
Admittedly, if I were in that situation I'd also secretly promise the same territories to each of those larger players on my last turn. I won't be around to watch the fur fly, but at least I know I'll be gone with a bang http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Aethyr]

Blaalz, you make some excellent points. To clarify, I was not necessary advocating that NAPs be ignored, nor was there intent to dinegrate those to adhere to them out of their own personal sense of honor (or sheer pragmatism). To further clarify my own position, I will personally avoid entering into NAPs unless I have some confidence they will be upheld by the other player(s), and then (most likely) only for a finite period of time. Why? Because I intend to honor my agreements, but do not wish to limit my future flexibility. That said, am I saying I will absolutely never break an agreement? Probaly not, but under the right set of circumstances, who knows...

Finally, I absolutely concur with your observation that you will carry YOUR past experiences from game to game. On a human plane, this is to be expected to some degree. What I sharply object to is the notion that there should be some sort of "master list" of "violators" presumably to help other (new) players. It would be just as silly to suggest that there be a list of names of those who commonly ally with each other (secretly or not) so the rest of us know who to watch out for.

After all, I'm sure there are many "positive" experiences that are carried over from game as well, yes? Over time, these experiences lead to greater confidence and an increased likelihood of a future alliance, yes? It could be argured that this puts the other players without this benefit at somewhat of a disadvantge, yes? And all the while everyone feels "honorable" about keeping their agreement. So, you protect your backside so as to concentrate your attention on a foe who may not enjoy a simular advantage. Where's the honor in that?

This is a war game premised on world domination. Should there be temporary alliances? Sure, but the concept of a "binding" and permanent NAP seems quite incongruent to me, and keeping some type of global list based on this premise would (further) imbalance play.

[Sandman]

Anonymous attack spells make the idea of a database of trustworthy players pointless. What happens when one player casts a misleading anonymous ritual to dupe another player into attacking a third party? Both dupes will accuse the other of violating their NAP, and to an extent, both will be right.

[NTJedi]

tibbs said:
But who's opinion do you base the list on?You can put up a list, but how can you guarantee it's accuracy? There are always two sides to every story.


Ideally the original treaty should be created, sent and signed on the website where only those individuals involved have access until the game has been finished. Each individual should be allowed an optional brief comment. The games current method of communication has no way to review messages, treaties or trades.
Any individual which is part of the treaty can mark the treaty as being violated or honored then the host of the game should be allowed to vote an opinion as well.




tibbs said:
He said I broke the NAP, yet he stealthed his army(whose capital is north of me) through my territories and suddenly started taking independant armies and thus causing the collision and annihilation of one of my armies.

In my view, an army of another nation sneaking through my lands and then taking lands that border my nation and causing the destruction of my army voids any pact or peace treaty.



NAP's should be updated to include "NO SNEAKING ARMIES or SCOUTS without PERMISSION on specified provinces" otherwise the sneaking army could be caught by local milita and/or patrollers thus being a violation. I'd definitely recommend everyone including this for future NAPs otherwise face the possible consequences of a loophole.

[NTJedi]

Sandman said:
Anonymous attack spells make the idea of a database of trustworthy players pointless. What happens when one player casts a misleading anonymous ritual to dupe another player into attacking a third party? Both dupes will accuse the other of violating their NAP, and to an extent, both will be right.



Anonymous attack spells cannot be proven without hacking into the turn log. These cannot be made as part of any NAP for this reason.

[jutetrea]

I'm failing to understand a lot of the angst here with non-violate NAPs. Usually its just a delay as you dissolve the nap, wait 3 (or however many) and then attack.

That sneak thing with Tibbs I wouldn't consider a breach of NAP. Everyone has to expand, running into someone elses army and getting annihilated sucks but its not like he purposefully attacked you. IMO the better thing for him to do would have been to apologize and possibly reimburse you for some of your troop costs, or give up the province, or share the revenue of the province for x turns. If he didn't offer I would ask, if he says no and it really annoyed me I'd dissolve the NAP and then attack.

Now, if it was a blocking move and it would hem you in, that's a different story. I'd just assume he was being a jerk and dissolve the NAP. Leave it to him to convince you otherwise.

Now my question is, what really consitutes a NAP if every little thing isn't laid out.
- obviously direct military contact
- map spells? I would assume so, but I know others differ
- preaching?
- Aggressively (subjective) spreading dominion?
- Instigating others to map bomb you? Probably, but i'm guilty of this one once. (Didn't break the letter of the law, but bent the heart a bit) The other party didn't believe me ,were goaded into attacking me and losing.
- Targeting for someone else's map spells?
- Giving away priveleged info?
- Troop buildups?
- Border fortresses?
- Forum badmouthing?
- Anything else?

[NTJedi]

Aethyr said:
Blaalz, you make some excellent points. To clarify, I was not necessary advocating that NAPs be ignored, nor was there intent to dinegrate those to adhere to them out of their own personal sense of honor (or sheer pragmatism). To further clarify my own position, I will personally avoid entering into NAPs unless I have some confidence they will be upheld by the other player(s), and then (most likely) only for a finite period of time. Why? Because I intend to honor my agreements, but do not wish to limit my future flexibility. That said, am I saying I will absolutely never break an agreement? Probaly not, but under the right set of circumstances, who knows...



That's all fine... sounds good.



Aethyr said:
Finally, I absolutely concur with your observation that you will carry YOUR past experiences from game to game. On a human plane, this is to be expected to some degree. What I sharply object to is the notion that there should be some sort of "master list" of "violators" presumably to help other (new) players. It would be just as silly to suggest that there be a list of names of those who commonly ally with each other (secretly or not) so the rest of us know who to watch out for.


The purpose of the list is to simply record the events and treaties of each game. Historical information which can be used by new players helping remove one of their MANY disadvantages.


Aethyr said:
After all, I'm sure there are many "positive" experiences that are carried over from game as well, yes? Over time, these experiences lead to greater confidence and an increased likelihood of a future alliance, yes? It could be argured that this puts the other players without this benefit at somewhat of a disadvantge, yes?


Correct... yet the new players should have as many disadvantages removed as possible for better game balance.


Aethyr said:
And all the while everyone feels "honorable" about keeping their agreement. So, you protect your backside so as to concentrate your attention on a foe who may not enjoy a simular advantage. Where's the honor in that?

As I have previously been saying, "Players can break NAPs without warning or blindly drop games". The only individuals not wanting to record the historic events of a game are those wanting to keep the joy of taking advantage of new players to the gaming community.


Aethyr said:
This is a war game premised on world domination. Should there be temporary alliances? Sure, but the concept of a "binding" and permanent NAP seems quite incongruent to me, and keeping some type of global list based on this premise would (further) imbalance play.


I agree there should not be any "binding" and/or permanent NAP. If there was a record of the treaties from each game which became available for view by everyone once the game was finished then you can bet veterans and new players would be visiting this website. The information would only display what veteran players already know and what should be known by new players thus bringing a closer game balance. Otherwise the new players will continue to be the blind pigeons.

[DrPraetorious]

It goes both ways.

There are advantages to taking risks in general - so if you sign NAPs with people, and gamble that they'll keep them (which is generally what I do), you're going to be in better shape in those games where it pays off.

OTOH, if you have a reputation for *rarely* breaking NAPs, this may be to your advantage since suspicious neighbors will waste troops guarding their borders with you. If you break them a lot, obviously they won't sign NAPs with you at all.

One of the enjoyable things about MP dom3 is the great diversity in strategy and approach. Any effort to "enforce" honorable play risks jeopordizing that.

As for lamers, I'd support a list of quitters 100%. All's fair in love and war, but if you quit too much (which is obviously open to interpretation), I'd like to know.

But I think any such list is invariably going to devolve into a recrimination-filled flamewar; this discussion has been very civil so far because the one person who's name-was-named happened to have a good sense of humor about it.

As for anonymous attack spells - if someone casts an anonymous attack spell at me, and I know it was them, I attack them. Likewise if someone starts walking void spectres through my territory. I strongly oppose "legalism" in dominions3 - the ingame communications aren't stored, and I'm not going to go over my ingame diplomacy with my lawyer. I'd much rather deal with someone who occasionally breaks their treaties than someone who tries to weasel around with what they do and don't mean.

Finally, as an American, I reserve the right to attack anyone who has both the intent and ability to acquire anonymous attack spells which they might cast against me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Anybody worth keeping a NAP with would be willing to discuss, or inform you if direct military conflict is/may become a problem. I feel you get out of NAP what you put in- though it may be less than an alliance.

I'm less annoyed with the person I signed a NAP, left them alone a year, and then they surpise attack me than I am with a person I've been sharing non-critical information/trades, or communicating with every turn - who then backstabs me. If they break an alliance without warning, then I'm going to have issues. But the less involved, the less I care.

[NTJedi]

DrPraetorious said:
As for lamers, I'd support a list of quitters 100%. All's fair in love and war, but if you quit too much (which is obviously open to interpretation), I'd like to know.




I previously discussed this issue with Gandalf, basically the list would contain just facts as listed below.
Name/Contacts of Individual:
Game Turn when player dropped:
Number of remaining provinces owned by the individual when the player was dropped:
Name/Date of the game:


Obviously one bad game drop wouldn't ruin a reputation, yet a dozen will make any game host frown at having that flaky/lamer player participate.

[Aethyr]

NT--

Either I'm getting tired, or you're wearing me down...I think we agree more than we disagree, and I'm totally with you on the list of players who "drop out" as long as we recognize that none of us are immue to circumstances beyond our control. So, we'll all need some "grace" from time to time.

[Rathar]

This thread and a website based on this concept are very very bad ideas.

The potential for witch-hunt is enormous plus you immediately run into the problem of who polices the police. There are more reasons why this is bad, very bad but those are sufficient imho.

Take a step back, put on your common sense goggles and stare at this again.

Rathar

[Sieger]

Gandalf Parker said:
I think all of this also goes with the requests that keep popping up to "add diplomacy to the game". Adding diplomacy options to a menu would place game-restrictions on the actions. Such as game-managed NAPs.



It wouldn't necessarily restrict actions. In Master of Orion 2 you could establish an alliance, or a non-aggression pact. You could break either in a violent manner, there was nothing hardcoded that prevent you from doing so. However, the AI (and this tended to have a galaxy-wide effect) becomes very unpleasant towards a nation that repeatedly breaks treaties. If you are at war you could also declare a peace treaty that had a set number of turns in which you wouldn't attack one another. You could violate that, too, and if you did the diplomatic hit you took across the game was pretty significant.

Basically in MOO2 diplomacy just made the overall single player game more interesting, you could completely ignore it if you want, you could also, of course, use it to your advantage (make peace with strong neighbors while you work against weak neighbors and et cetera.) In multiplayer it was just a convenience factor, in that it let your diplomatic relations be expressed in an easy to see panel, without restricting any specific type of action.

Not that I want Dom3 to be MOO2, they are both great games and there's no reason to try to make one more like the other. It's just the first example that came to mind when thinking about diplomacy as it has been implemented in other turn based games. Thematically the lack of diplomacy may make sense, in MOO2 while one goal was galactic domination, there were multiple ways to win the game. In Dominions, you're a pretender god fighting against other pretenders to become the sole god, "there can be only one" so the story itself kind of makes diplomacy meaningless.

[sum1lost]

jutetrea said:

I'm failing to understand a lot of the angst here with non-violate NAPs. Usually its just a delay as you dissolve the nap, wait 3 (or however many) and then attack.

That sneak thing with Tibbs I wouldn't consider a breach of NAP. Everyone has to expand, running into someone elses army and getting annihilated sucks but its not like he purposefully attacked you. IMO the better thing for him to do would have been to apologize and possibly reimburse you for some of your troop costs, or give up the province, or share the revenue of the province for x turns. If he didn't offer I would ask, if he says no and it really annoyed me I'd dissolve the NAP and then attack.

Now, if it was a blocking move and it would hem you in, that's a different story. I'd just assume he was being a jerk and dissolve the NAP. Leave it to him to convince you otherwise.

Now my question is, what really consitutes a NAP if every little thing isn't laid out.
- obviously direct military contact
- map spells? I would assume so, but I know others differ
- preaching?
- Aggressively (subjective) spreading dominion?
- Instigating others to map bomb you? Probably, but i'm guilty of this one once. (Didn't break the letter of the law, but bent the heart a bit) The other party didn't believe me ,were goaded into attacking me and losing.
- Targeting for someone else's map spells?
- Giving away priveleged info?
- Troop buildups?
- Border fortresses?
- Forum badmouthing?
- Anything else?



Aggresive action. Invading, instilling unrest, spellbombing, sending in assasians, the guys with the plague charms, that sort of thing.

[llamabeast]

Okay, so in MP games I run from now on I will specify the diplomacy rules. Either binding NAPs or what LazyPerfectionist called Vegas rules (and I might call Machiavellian). That should clear up any confusion.

Of course even in the case of binding NAPs they may sometimes be broken due to a misunderstanding or forgetfulness. I'll make sure players are clear that it doesn't go beyond that game (apart from in their own heads of course).

[Gandalf Parker]

I will settle one thing now. I dont plan to be the one to decide what is or isnt a breach of agreement. Not here. And not with a webpage.

The question of who referees is a valid one.
I dont remember seeing ANY "broken NAP" that wasnt argued.

Gandalf Parker

[HoneyBadger]

I have a partial solution-to follow what I think Gandalf has in mind.

Why not, with nation creation, and hard coded into the game, establish a diplomatic reaction table that- independent of what a player does-keeps track of how the AI playing one nation, reacts to another nation?

If you blood-harvest or summon undead or maenads or demons, indeps should attack you, because you'd be viewed as a threat, and AI nations should have a tendancy to ally against you.

If you have a large, disciplined standing army, that should make indeps wary of you, and build up their defenses, but if you give them gifts and don't step on their feet, they should look favorably on you, and be willing to help you, let down their guard, or even open trade relations and alliance options. It would also furth distinctify nations from one another.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I'm not certain its necessary to specify the diplomacy- though in newbie games, it certainly wouldn't hurt to outlaw backstabbery. I was quite happy with the middleground that was standard before this discussion, though I would find special cases interesting. I think some plaeyrs already got involved in the nothing but war games.

[Aethyr]

Sigh...LB, I really don't like the direction this is taking. Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned about NAPs resulting in a single nation be ganged up on, but it seems I'm in the minority?

Anyway, if you really feel the need to proceed along this course, you might want to consider some type of "cap" on the number of turns a "unbreakable" NAP can cover. After that, it's month-to-month...

[Dedas]

To be honest I think that we all are taking this a bit too seriously for our own good. Maybe if we relaxed some we would actually enjoy the fine nature of this game; which actually happens to be (amongst other things) backstabbing and treachery.

If it happens in the game! Let it stay - in the game.

To elaborate:
A game is an alternative world with its own rules and morals. We shouldn't be playing ourselves, taking everything personally. Instead we should take this opportunity to pretend to be someone or something else. It is a kind of freedom.

And finally:
Have we all forgot to relax and just play along? Yes I'm asking you.

[Velusion]

I think everyone knows this sort of list is DOA.

I agree with Baalz - NAPs are a part of MP Dom3 whether you like it or not. Part of the strategy is the diplomacy of working within that artificial limit to get the best deal.

If a nation won't form a NAP with me I assume we are at war and act accordingly.

However - there can only be one winner. I do think that people that honor NAPs to the point of denying themselves the win are silly. If breaking a NAP gives me a reasonably good shot at completely clinching the win, I'll probably do it. Otherwise, with your reputation on the line, it's almost never worth it.

I will admit enjoying reading about the fallout in games were a "secure" pact is broken. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[llamabeast]

Okay then, following objections I will not specify diplomacy in future games and I'll leave it in it's current slightly ambiguous state, which mostly works pretty well.

I do think a no-holds-barred 'Vegas' game sometime would be good for a change though.

[Aethyr]

I do agree with Dedas and Velusion. This works for me.

[llamabeast]

Yeah, I agree with Dedas too. Problems arise when people take things too seriously. And I also agree with Velusion, although personally I'd find it quite hard to break a pact. Probably why I always sucked at the Diplomacy board game!

[Taqwus]

llamabeast said:
Yeah, I agree with Dedas too. Problems arise when people take things too seriously. And I also agree with Velusion, although personally I'd find it quite hard to break a pact. Probably why I always sucked at the Diplomacy board game!



*snort*

When I was hanging around with fairly active board gamers -- playing games like Diplomacy or Empires in Arms -- it was generally accepted that baring your throat, even to a nominal ally, was fatal if it was clearly advantageous for the other. Diplomacy was most reliable when coordinating the violent dismantling of third parties to the obvious advantage of both. :p

[Nightblade]

For me it is rather simple, i only play games with friends, either the ones from real life(tm) or the people i met and befriended with over the internet.

When i play with my friends, we always establish rules in our games.

Until now none ever betrayed anybody, has double crossed anyone in an alliance, unless it was an -agreed by everyone- part of those rules we create for our specific game.

This way everyone has fun.
I believe agreed by every players pre-games rules are the way to go to avoid a game to be unfunny in the end for some players.

Now for the case of playing with people you don't know, if they don't resepct some agreed pre-games rules, they are not worth playing with, just play with someone else.

[Warhammer]

Taqwus said:

llamabeast said:
Yeah, I agree with Dedas too. Problems arise when people take things too seriously. And I also agree with Velusion, although personally I'd find it quite hard to break a pact. Probably why I always sucked at the Diplomacy board game!



*snort*

When I was hanging around with fairly active board gamers -- playing games like Diplomacy or Empires in Arms -- it was generally accepted that baring your throat, even to a nominal ally, was fatal if it was clearly advantageous for the other. Diplomacy was most reliable when coordinating the violent dismantling of third parties to the obvious advantage of both. :p



Austria had lots of fun in both those games. Best move in EiA was to just go with Charles based in Vienna so he could react to any ally's, I mean enemy moves.