MP Pyrothere - LA slowpace - Game on! - Page 13

licker · #**121** March 23rd, 2009, 10:13 AM

I would never play in a game like that Agema. Far too much room for abuse and I cannot imagine how much people would whine and complain about it.

Still it could be done, but it still doesn't stop people from breaking the nap in the first place, only penalizes them after the fact. Only some kind of coded alliance system could do that, and we're not getting that

hEad · #**122** March 23rd, 2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agema

A way to make enforced NAPs without mods would be to have the game organiser enforce a penalty on a NAP-breaker.

He could change email and therefore withhold the .trn file from the offender and enforce one or more staled turns; as a step further even access the .trn file himself and pay the victim gems or gold from the NAP breaker's treasury (although not if he was playing himself as he'd also get unfair advantage info on the nation); he could give the offender's .trn file to all the other players so they'd know exactly what he had; in really severe situations he could simply kick the player out and get a sub or turn it AI.

It's not impossible they could do a rollback when a complaint was made, access the turn and either undo the attacks or enforce a stale instead, but it's much less fuss to to create a punishment far worse than any advantage gained by the NAP treachery.

I think that the opportunity for treachery is what makes diplomacy. I can see games played against the AI benefiting from some type of enforcement regime, but a pure MP game benefits from the unpredictability of human behaviour.

The consequences are apparent enough with in the game; no other player would be inclined to trust the backstabber - most likely leading to an eventual gang up on the now diplomatically isolated nation. Besides it just doesn't seem right for baby eating Lanka to be constrained by a little bit of paper...

Self regulation is the key. Let the games unfold as they will.

Agema · #**123** March 23rd, 2009, 11:45 AM

Yes, I mostly agree, although I do think if people signed up to a game where it was stated that NAPs were considered binding in metagame terms, you'd be making NAP-breaking cheating, and only cheats would do it, so it shouldn't be too bad. The punishment only really exists so people know what's coming to them if they cheat, and therefore sort of acts to reduce arguments.

Although obviously what was and wasn't acceptable under NAPs would also have to be totally clear, and I think you're right that there could be a lot of arguments anyway. Imagine if stealthy preaching was banned and you found a stealthy priest in your territory - the other NAP player could say he was just moving through or scouting and not preaching: impossible to resolve without an impartial 3rd party. Ideally the host would not play and be a referee, so he can see the 2h files when there's a dispute and know exactly what's happened if a complaint goes in.

But by and large it would be lot of trouble and effort for little gain. Personally, I'm not in favour of binding NAPs, but I think players who wanted to make it work could do so.

licker · #**124** March 24th, 2009, 10:06 AM

I'm going to be gone from March 27th through the 30th so as this is already a slow game I'm hopeful that a little longer down time during that period will not be too much to ask for.

Otherwise I will try to find a 1 turn sub, but sometimes that's not so easy to do.

Thanks

Gregstrom · #**125** March 24th, 2009, 12:21 PM

If things don't speed up, I doubt we'd even notice your absence.

It's possible AlpineJoe has disappeared, in which case a sub/AI would be called for.

Gregstrom · #**126** March 24th, 2009, 01:45 PM

Cancel that - he's still putting turns in.

licker · #**127** March 25th, 2009, 11:35 PM

Ok, so tonight may be my last night to put in a turn as we may leave tomorrow evening to beat a storm, so don't plan on me being able to play another turn until late Tuesday.

Gregstrom · #**128** March 26th, 2009, 02:34 AM

No problem - keep us posted

AreaOfEffect · #**129** March 27th, 2009, 10:56 PM

I understand this game is suppose to be slow and all, but I don't understand why we extended the turn for players who wait until the last moment. The only person who asked for an extension, to my knowledge, is licker, and his turn is in.

Gregstrom · #**130** March 28th, 2009, 03:43 AM

Oops, I'd thought licker was TC when he's actually Caelum. In which case, the postponement is hereby undone.

As per originally, the turn will generate at 17:35 GMT.