AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[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?

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.

[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.

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.