Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
Shoot the Moon Wrote:Isn't the trust you say they should be based on the real social norm keeping people from breaking them (namely that no one else would trust their team either if they were to break an NAP?). I think the answer is pretty simple, if you can't keep an agreement don't sign it. I think it is a reasonable expectation of a community based on trust (to the extent everyone has completely visible spoiler threads!) to expect people to honor agreements they signed.
Well the distrust of your action is a consequence to breaking an NAP. That's fine if you don't want to break it because no one will trust you. What I'm saying is that agreements should be based on mutual trust in the game based on the rules of the game and not be based exploiting the general conventions of the community. This is different than being mistrusted in a gaming situation. I'm fine with being labeled a back stabber with regards to a game but I have a feeling that it would also label you as a poor player in this community if you don't already have a reputation and can get away with it like a certain common arthropod we all know and love. 
If you want NAPs to be unbreakable just put it in the rules. It defies reason why you act like all NAPs are binding in game but that is not part of the rules just because the community will look down upon you.
In short, my argument is that the diplomacy in the game cannot be played to the full if you drag perception of people outside the game into it.
But I guess since this community is all about spinning stories, every enjoys a good villian and DRAMA which is why NAPs are not in rules. I'm fine with current NAPs but I think its much more interesting to let people go at it without consequence outside the game.
Posts: 2,585
Threads: 43
Joined: Apr 2008
One way the "damage" to a reputation of a player might be alleviated if the player described in their spoiler thread a particular persona or type of character they wanted to play in that particular game. E.g. "I'm going to attempt to play this entire game from with a narcissitic, short term outlook just to see what happens" or "I'm going to play the 'honoroable french' and never declare war on anyone to see how that goes."
Personally, I don't think a player should HAVE to admit to playing a role. NAPs should be just like any real life agreement in that it is impossible to clarify every single possible scenario. Therefore, inevitably, there will come a time when something happens that one side believes to be nullifying an agreement.
For a real life example, take a college friend of mine who was super clingy. I had agreed to visit him (6 hours away) over the summer term but his plans changed and he had to return to school sooner than expected. Since I had been planning on visiting the week before school started, I considered the plan to be cancelled. Turns out, he was pissed at me for not rearranging my schedule and getting off work early to come visit before he headed back to school. (We didn't stay close friends after that as his demands were clearly unreasonable). Of course, this is a ridiculous example, but the point remains: there can be many reasonable causes for an agreement to be nullified, especially when the terms are not clearly stated.
In short, I agree with the earlier statement that a NAP should clarify specific things the teams are agreeing either to do or notto do. Otherwise, it's leaves to many possible reasons to cancel.
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
dazedroyalty Wrote:One way the "damage" to a reputation of a player might be alleviated if the player described in their spoiler thread a particular persona or type of character they wanted to play in that particular game. E.g. "I'm going to attempt to play this entire game from with a narcissitic, short term outlook just to see what happens" or "I'm going to play the 'honoroable french' and never declare war on anyone to see how that goes."
That's a really clever idea and it would be the only way to make game-to-game trust, and thus NAPs, less influential.
By the way, I always assumed the definition of a generic NAP is "we won't declare war on each other" and see no reason to interpret any other action (that wasn't mentioned in that NAP agreement) as "agressive".
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
I'm not going to do some sort of Templar role-playing suicide fail unless there was a silly PB just for it.
Posts: 1,386
Threads: 8
Joined: Jan 2010
Agree about the comments regarding Slaze and too many libraries, not enough troops, he's got an average of 1.8 troops per city.
Looking at the city screens, appears not many production centres, and I'm really not certain about the palace jump.
Sure it may be the long term correct move, but in the short term he's playing an Organised leader, he's getting courthouses everywhere so FP shouldn't be too far away, and he's had it skywritten in big red letters by a duster aeroplane that war is around the corner on at least one front.
Wonder what sweet nothings our hippopotamus on meth has been saying 
Posts: 17,504
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
BobRoberts Wrote:Got to love those social conventions!
In a hypothetical world, wonder what the reaction would have been to NaMOC 'clipping' a final few turns off their NAP with India?
pindicator
I don't know about someone who would backstab you as a neighbour in RBCiv... people don't seem terribly forgiving about those sort of things and do seem to carry it from one game to another?
I agree. Personally I don't know that the short-term value of breaking your word is even close to the long-term damage ... and I'm talking about openly breaking your word. Things like "I'm not going to attack you for 30 turns" and then you declare in 5.
Where things get more interesting is when things are not specifically stated and you have room to manuever. I notice Sullla is always careful to leave himself some wiggle room in his wording, and especially careful not to "back himself into a corner" with his words. NAPs are a great example. Some people have said that they only consider a NAP to cover open aggression, like declaring war (even to only cover declaring war). Other people consider helping their enemies as acts of aggression. And wasn't it the Templars in the Apolotyn game that considered trading with other teams a sinister act even though they made no mention of this to the RB team?
The point of all that is everybody has pre-conceived ideas. You can choose to run Sullla's realpolitik route and just not spell out anything unless you need to, or you can lay everything out crystal clear but lose any element of surprise over your adversaries. Which route do you choose? I guess that depends on your preference, your in-game situation, and what you know of your opponent(s).
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
Posts: 8,775
Threads: 75
Joined: Apr 2006
athlete4life10 Wrote:@ 100% Science I make 209 beakers and lose 122 gold per turn.
@ 100% Cash I make 50 gold per turn and my free beaker.
From looking at Sulla's screenshots, they are (around):
@ 100% Science 217 beakers and lose 127 gold per turn
@ 100% Cash they make 45 gold per turn[/quote]
I think this quantifies nicely how well the CoW served Ottoman interests. Without the dogpile they aren't equivalent to FIN/PHI India. Now it looks like they are going to war with weaker neighbors to claim more land, while India is going to focus on vertical and economic growth, deferring future aggression until they have a decisive tech advantage. Both strategies look correct. I'm really curious to see how this plays out .
Darrell
Posts: 102
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2010
What a difference a couple words could have made:
Sullla Wrote:Dear Broker and plako,
Thanks for sharing some of your thoughts and plans with our team. We agree that coordination between our teams will be necessary to succeed in any future military engagements. In other words, WE make sure to have slaze and Dantski on board before going forward with anything!
We have a Non-Aggression Pact in place with Kathlete until Turn 170, but we don't have an extended agreement with Jowy, Nakor, or Whosit. If a "world war" were to break out, we see our role as grinding down what's left of Jowy and forcing Kathlete to support him, WHILE you and Dantski and slaze team up against Whosit and Nakor. I think that would be a very difficult conflict for their group to win.
While there's still a long time before we hit the Turn 150 date, it's definitely a good idea to plan ahead, so please do keep in touch with us as you've been doing. Thanks!
Sullla
The Killer Angels Just a little bit of thought about how it sounds would have given a greater appearance of solidarity, improving the strength of the alliance, without actually committing to anything more.
Posts: 1,229
Threads: 27
Joined: Aug 2006
pindicator Wrote:And wasn't it the Templars in the Apolotyn game that considered trading with other teams a sinister act even though they made no mention of this to the RB team?
Didn't Templars also think that you needed Iron connected to clear jungle? Far too much  affecting memory & inducing paranoia.
Posts: 17,504
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
|
