AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

Sombre · #1 July 29th, 2007, 07:30 PM

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 · #2 July 29th, 2007, 08:47 PM

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.

Kristoffer O · #3 July 29th, 2007, 09:20 PM

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 · #4 July 29th, 2007, 09:27 PM

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 · #5 July 29th, 2007, 09:29 PM

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 · #6 July 29th, 2007, 09:32 PM

Nice

Shovah32 · #7 July 29th, 2007, 09:34 PM

Very nice, looks like alot of fun

.

Lazy_Perfectionist · #8 July 29th, 2007, 09:50 PM

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.

LoloMo · #9 July 29th, 2007, 09:18 PM

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.