MP Etiquette

[bleach168]

I've just started playing MP in Dominions. In general, it seems people just play however they feel like. Everybody I've interacted with has been pretty honorable but in different ways. I'd like to know if there are some unwritten rules for how to conduct yourself when playing MP Dominions 2.

Some situations I am unclear about,

1. Emails. As far as I know, it's okay to contact and discuss things through emails even though there is no ingame mechanic to allow it. Is this true for all games?

2. Non-Aggression Pacts. When someone says "NAP" I know it means a non-aggression pact but does it also imply a 3-turn warning to break? Or does that have to be explicitly stated? Also, what happens if someone breaks the treaty without the 3-turn warning. Does this ever happen?

3. Alliances. If you ally someone, is it your responsibility to announce it? If you want to prevent yourself or your ally from getting attacked, I would think you would want to announce it as a deterrent.

4. War. Is it okay to attack someone without warning if there had been no previous agreements? Or should you give them at least a 1 turn warning?

5. How common is it to gang up on the "supposed" leader?

6. Do people carry grudges over from one game to the next?

7. Trading. Is there a universal guide as to how much items and gems are worth in trades? Like how much a gem would cost in gold? Or does this differ in every game?

8. If two of your neighbors start exchanging blows do you:
a) Help the person losing
b) Help the person winning
c) Don't do anything and let it resolve

9. At what point, in your opinion, is it okay to go AI.

10. Mutual victories. How common is it for an alliance to just be declared the winner and the game ends like that?

Thanks for any answers.

[Ygorl]

Here's another newbie's take on some answers. I'm an extremely relevant newbie, though...

2) making a non-aggression pact is mostly meaningless unless you also agree to some minimum length, whether that be "until turn 25" or "until I give 3 turns' notice" or whatever. It should be explicitly stated, if the pact is important to you. I bet they do get broken, but I bet it doesn't happen all that often, and (touching on 6) when it does happen the rat-bastard loses a lot of trustworthiness in the eyes of anyone who's paying attention.
3) I don't see why it would be a responsibility
4) Sure it is. It's not very polite, but it's not dishonorable.
6) If someone backstabs you, it's fair to regard the person with a healthy amount of distrust. If someone plays a country that has a big nasty war with you, there's no reason to hold a grudge, as that's what the game's about, in the end.
7) Ah, the free-market economy...
8) Depends a whole heck of a lot on the situation
9) The later the better, up until the point where you clearly can't put up any effective resistance at all (at which point, especially if the game's on quickhost, there's only academic interest and pride to keep you in)
10) I dunno, but I hope it's not too common...

In general, I think people expect others to behave decently and honorably and honestly and friendlyly interpersonally, but not necessarily in-game. If I make a deal with you, I'm bound to follow through, and expect you to do the same. Of course, I'm probably planning to scorch your lands and sacrifice your virgins in-game, but I have to do that without violating any of the standards that we as humans have when dealing with each other.

Cheers!

[Graeme Dice]

bleach168 said:
1. Emails. As far as I know, it's okay to contact and discuss things through emails even though there is no ingame mechanic to allow it. Is this true for all games?

Some people don't like out of game diplomacy. Most engage in it constantly.

[quote[2. Non-Aggression Pacts. When someone says "NAP" I know it means a non-aggression pact but does it also imply a 3-turn warning to break? Or does that have to be explicitly stated? Also, what happens if someone breaks the treaty without the 3-turn warning. Does this ever happen?

[/quote]

If you don't agree on a warning time, then assume that it can be broken at any time. The person probably should warn you the turn before, but they won't necessarily do so.

3. Alliances. If you ally someone, is it your responsibility to announce it?

No, in fact, it's often a good strategy to ally with everyone, including people that are fighting massive wars with each other.

If you want to prevent yourself or your ally from getting attacked, I would think you would want to announce it as a deterrent.

That depends on whether you want the other power bloc to know who to go for first.

4. War. Is it okay to attack someone without warning if there had been no previous agreements? Or should you give them at least a 1 turn warning?

Feel free to attack anybody that you aren't at peace with at any point.

5. How common is it to gang up on the "supposed" leader?

It's very common.

6. Do people carry grudges over from one game to the next?

Some do, some don't.

7. Trading. Is there a universal guide as to how much items and gems are worth in trades? Like how much a gem would cost in gold? Or does this differ in every game?

Trades are worth whatever you can get for them.

9. At what point, in your opinion, is it okay to go AI.

I very rarely go AI, as the turns get quicker and quicker as you start to lose.

[Zen]

bleach168 said:
I've just started playing MP in Dominions. In general, it seems people just play however they feel like. Everybody I've interacted with has been pretty honorable but in different ways. I'd like to know if there are some unwritten rules for how to conduct yourself when playing MP Dominions 2.

Hi Bleach! I'm a newbie too!

Some situations I am unclear about,

1. Emails. As far as I know, it's okay to contact and discuss things through emails even though there is no ingame mechanic to allow it. Is this true for all games?

The only reason that you wouldn't be able to do this is because at the beginning of the game there is a house rule limiting it (Use only in game Messages), as if to impose a sort of "Pony Express" delay. The messaging system is cumbersome and mostly a hinderance so most games that limit this are pure RP style.

2. Non-Aggression Pacts. When someone says "NAP" I know it means a non-aggression pact but does it also imply a 3-turn warning to break? Or does that have to be explicitly stated? Also, what happens if someone breaks the treaty without the 3-turn warning. Does this ever happen?

This is limited by the people you play with and of course crazy "House Rules" or what people feel is fair/how they play. I would never assume there is any delay on any sort of treaty, even if they say one ("I'll give you X turns before after I break this NAP") mostly because Diplomacy is filled with treachery. As for the Last two, if someone breaks it without 3 turn warning, well, I guess they felt the need too, shame on you for not being ready and shame on them for breaking their word (though you will find it common).

3. Alliances. If you ally someone, is it your responsibility to announce it? If you want to prevent yourself or your ally from getting attacked, I would think you would want to announce it as a deterrent.

Thus begin the psychological implications of diplomacy. Everything you ever learned about human action/reaction, read about Machiavelli and Sun-Tzu should help you here. Sometimes it can be good to announce such things, depends on who you are playing and how you want to use your Alliance.

4. War. Is it okay to attack someone without warning if there had been no previous agreements? Or should you give them at least a 1 turn warning?

War is war, everything is okay in war. If you want to lose a part of your advantage in order to portray a certain type of personality/function you could give people a warning, but why would you want to give people a chance to be ready to defend unless you want them to defend places they think you will attack?

5. How common is it to gang up on the "supposed" leader?

Enough, it's not uncommon for people to try to blind others to their own ambitions by giving reasons for 'ganging up' on supposed game dominators.

6. Do people carry grudges over from one game to the next?

The Meta-game. Some do, some don't. Depends on who you play with and how badly you have made their grudge. Hate everyone equally I say!

7. Trading. Is there a universal guide as to how much items and gems are worth in trades? Like how much a gem would cost in gold? Or does this differ in every game?

This differs based on need, if you can convince your trading partner that there is a standard, maybe he won't know how much you need that particular item and how much you'd be willing to pay for it. Cheap as you can get it, would be my suggestion.

8. If two of your neighbors start exchanging blows do you:
a) Help the person losing
b) Help the person winning
c) Don't do anything and let it resolve

Lots of factors to this, but some factors could be:

How much will Player X pay me for help?
How much territory can I take from Player X if I don't help?
How much territory will I lose if I help Player X?
What is the perception of X Players if I help Player X?
What is the perception of X Players if I don't help Player X?
What is the total benefit of helping or not helping Player X?
What will be my current position if I take territory from Player X?
Will I be able to defend newly aqquired territory from Player X within X # of turns?
How will this impact other bordering nations if I withdraw troops to either border?
How sneaky can I be and help both while gaining from both?

Misdirection!

9. At what point, in your opinion, is it okay to go AI.

The point you feel you cannot add to the game and going AI will not serve as a detrement to the game while meeting your RL responsibilities. More often or not this question should be asked after you ask yourself "Can I find a Replacement?"

10. Mutual victories. How common is it for an alliance to just be declared the winner and the game ends like that?

Often, as most players (new mostly) don't know the scope of the end game or plan for it by placing Victory Conditions that will allow for a 'winner' without going through the drudgery of a slugfest ending.

[Thufir]

Good post - I was thinking of posting something similar, myself (though I'd doubt I'dve done as good a job )

bleach168 said:
2. Non-Aggression Pacts. When someone says "NAP" I know it means a non-aggression pact but does it also imply a 3-turn warning to break? Or does that have to be explicitly stated? Also, what happens if someone breaks the treaty without the 3-turn warning. Does this ever happen?

Well, as we both know, this does happen since I did it to you in Live & Learn.

To put this into context, I come from a background of Diplomacy, where the backstab is an essential part of the game. In that game, a NAP is very much a buyer beware proposition, and everybody knows it going into the game. There is no enforcement of NAPs, and it is quite commonplace to violate NAPs or any other agreement with a surprise attack. With good players, NAPs and/or alliances are always positionally driven, and a good player can detect an incoming backstab by noticing when it is in another players interest to shift alliances (much like in the real world - this was Henry Kissinger's favorite game for good reason).

Of course, it is very critical in this ruthless sort of game that players not take grudges from game to game, and having mature players is absolutely essential in order to enjoy the game (and when you do, the game is truly awesome).

I have the strong impression that the prevaling trend in Dominions is quite unlike Diplomacy, and that there are unstated conventions, and like yourself I would like to hear what experienced players have to say on the question.

9. At what point, in your opinion, is it okay to go AI.

While still pretty much a newbie, I have hosted most of the games I'm in, and I do have an opinion on this (well, and truth be told on most other topics, tho often I manage to keep my mouth shut ).

It's always desireable to fight to the bitter end, and I think much of the time, it doesn't need to be time consuming to do so. While my position was competitive in L&L, I put in as much as an hour per turn. But now that it is not I do them much quicker (say 20 minutes). Of course some of that time reduction is due to reduced complexity, but most is just less attention to detail. But despite the reduced time, I'm sure that I'm playing much better than an AI. Also, despite taking 1/3rd the amount of time, I'm sure my 20 min plans are more than 1/3d as good my 1hr plans, as turn planning is a case of diminishing returns. Also, I've found when you're truly at your Last stand, turns are very easy to process, so I think it's just as easy to never go AI.

One big exception that I've seen is the case where a player is down to one province or two, and for whatever reason, the original attacking player(s) decide not to finish the player off. That's a decent reason to go AI.

OTOH, often I think it's not that big a deal to go AI, especially if RL obligations are kicking in. I guess I'd say it's really bad to go AI when you own a large number of provinces. For example, right now in L&L, its obvious I don't have the resources or the skills to defeat your devil armies. Although it's a forgone conclusion how this will end, I owe it to the players you're still competing with to put up a fight. Still having 19 provinces, I think it would fairly rotten to go AI. If I were down to 4-5 provinces, it would be much less of a problem (and also, at that point, it becomes much easier to submit the turns anyhow).

[bleach168]

Hey Zen,

Since you just registered yesterday you must not know anything about the game and must be making all this stuff up. Therefore, I will not listen to your garbage.

Just kidding!

Thanks for the responses everyone. I certainly have to change my trading tactics!

[bleach168]

Thufir,

I'm very familiar with Diplomacy. I've played it many times and while it's a great game, it always leaves a sour taste in my mouth, especially if I win. Breaking treaties in Diplomacy isn't just commonplace, it's practically a requirement! After playing Diplomacy, Dominions feels like playing Candyland with your little sister.

Concerning L&L, you've been a great sport thus far. I'm sure fighting a losing war is very disheartening. I've debated asking for a cease-fire as I'm not sure how cleanly I can finish you off or if I even can. There are bigger concerns looming on the horizon that has got me really worried. Maybe we should take this to PMs. hehe

[Nagot Gick Fel]

bleach168 said:
1. Emails. As far as I know, it's okay to contact and discuss things through emails even though there is no ingame mechanic to allow it. Is this true for all games?

Unless otherwise stated by the host, yes. There's no way to enforce no-comm rules. Anyway I've seen "no email, ingame Messages only" and "no communications at all" games.

2. Non-Aggression Pacts. When someone says "NAP" I know it means a non-aggression pact but does it also imply a 3-turn warning to break? Or does that have to be explicitly stated?

It should always be stated.

Also, what happens if someone breaks the treaty without the 3-turn warning.

I guess someone else will feel pissed off.

Does this ever happen?

Sometimes. Although most often, devious players will try to use some sort of 'magical time compression' to argue they didn't violate the NAP warning. Consider this: A and B agreed on a NAP with a 3-turn escape clause. Turn 39, A (who used only email so far) sends an ingame message to B to notify him he wants to cancel the NAP. Turn 40 A issues his armies orders to invade B's provinces. Turn 41, A's orders are effectively carried on. A will argue that the 3 turns-delay was respected (39-40-41, implying he sent his notice at the beginning of turn 39, and his armies invaded at the end of turn 41), while from B's viewpoint, only 1 turn passed since he received the message in turn 40 and was invaded in turn 41. Or even zero if he considers that the attack was actually initiated in turn 40. Sounds silly? Yet I've seen that happen, exactly as described.

3. Alliances. If you ally someone, is it your responsibility to announce it? If you want to prevent yourself or your ally from getting attacked, I would think you would want to announce it as a deterrent.

Whatever suits you.

4. War. Is it okay to attack someone without warning if there had been no previous agreements? Or should you give them at least a 1 turn warning?

Whatever suits you. Remember, you're a pretender god at war with every other pretender god, so by default your neighbours are your enemies, and enemies don't need warnings.

5. How common is it to gang up on the "supposed" leader?

Fairly common.

6. Do people carry grudges over from one game to the next?

Some don't, some do.

7. Trading. Is there a universal guide as to how much items and gems are worth in trades? Like how much a gem would cost in gold? Or does this differ in every game?

No universal guide, although most assume 1 gem ~ 10 gold. I you trade items for gold or gems, expect to pay an extra for the mage(s) who spent a turn to forge each of these items, and don't expect to get a discount because of a forge bonus.

8. If two of your neighbors start exchanging blows do you:
a) Help the person losing
b) Help the person winning
c) Don't do anything and let it resolve

Whatever I think will benefit me the most, in term of relative power to these neighbors.

9. At what point, in your opinion, is it okay to go AI.

(1) Both arms broken, and can't find a sub (and you tried hard).

(2) You just realized your opponent in this game is Norfleet in disguise.

10. Mutual victories. How common is it for an alliance to just be declared the winner and the game ends like that?

Not uncommon, if the host allows shared victories.

[Alneyan]

Nagot Gick Fel wrote:
Sometimes. Although most often, devious players will try to use some sort of 'magical time compression' to argue they didn't violate the NAP warning. Consider this: A and B agreed on a NAP with a 3-turn escape clause. Turn 39, A (who used only email so far) sends an ingame message to B to notify him he wants to cancel the NAP. Turn 40 A issues his armies orders to invade B's provinces. Turn 41, A's orders are effectively carried on. A will argue that the 3 turns-delay was respected (39-40-41, implying he sent his notice at the beginning of turn 39, and his armies invaded at the end of turn 41), while from B's viewpoint, only 1 turn passed since he received the message in turn 40 and was invaded in turn 41. Or even zero if he considers that the attack was actually initiated in turn 40. Sounds silly? Yet I've seen that happen, exactly as described.

Heh, that would be a classical example of "why the exact wording of your requests matter". Along the same lines, there would be quite a different between "I won't attack your province" and "I won't attack your provinces", or even "I won't attack provinces" (this one would be only for pacifists). And the same reasoning would go for requests such as "do not give away some information to Pythium"; though you would likely violate the spirit of the agreement when giving someone else this information, to be then transmitted to Pythium.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Alneyan said:
Heh, that would be a classical example of "why the exact wording of your requests matter". Along the same lines, there would be quite a different between...

[snip examples]

Exactly. Reminds me about the heated debate about the wording of UN resolution 242.