Alamaze - New

Seems pretty clear to me. While obviously NAPs are not binding in game, I fully support sharing issues like these publicly. I will avoid dealing with Mr. Harry O moving forward and I'm sure others will do the same.

Yes, Forum is only means of keeping players honest (well, that and Honor). This is clear deception. Not good. Will never do a NAP with Harry O.

I would be interested in hearing Harry's side.

So would I though this one is less about sides since Hamlet provided a transcript of every exchange.

Imtheochaidh soir is siar
A dtáinig ariamh an ghealach is an ghrian
Imtheochaidh an ghealach's an ghrian
An duine óg is a cháil 'na dhiadh
Imtheochaidh a dtáinig ariamh
An duine óg is a cháil ne dhiadh

I would guess Harry O may choose not to reply, and I feel this has been dealt with too harshly by players. And I really hope Harry O, who I have had successful dealings with in early games and found him honorable, let's this blow over.

Every kingdom, every player, has their side to the story in any game.

I feel it cheats what Alamaze can be when seemingly everyone is asking for a NAP with all neighbors on T0, and then agree to attack the kingdom that did not agree. Come on.

I will repeat a "diplomacy" I had with a top player in more than one game, known as The Deliverer. Always along blurry lines of supposition, and we sort of felt out how our understanding of non-immediate combat was going, and could change at any time. I seriously doubt either of us would call out the other no matter how things turned, and I really feel this makes for a much more entertaining experience than the "attack who doesn't join the alliance" approach.

I wish more players would "come to the gray side, Luke". Those players that have lamented fast ending games might look in the mirror, as they allowed the top dog to do his will and find their hands tied. Oh well.

Look at Earth history, look at current events in Crimea. Does any power ever really comply with every conversation? Players really handcuff what Alamaze can be when they want multiple T0 game-long alliances, just as when they work up a 3v1 boner.

Great point Mouser but not related to what did happen here.

(03-24-2014, 01:11 AM)Daredevil Wrote: [ -> ]Great point Mouser but not related to what did happen here.

Alright, and I see I am going against the grain, but if Putin tells Obama he is not going to invade Eastern Ukraine, ah, never mind, the analogy doesn't work in the Alamaze muti-verse.

My main point is there should be far fewer NAPs and those that persist should be limited in scope, not "Game long NAP - agree or be the target!" The game designer likely must fix this as it doesn't seem the players will.

I'm also not too hot on "exposing" players. You can make a note on your experience with Player A in Game B. You might be surprised how it changes with player A in Game C. Again, Alamaze would be a more boring place if everyone behaved like ants.

For what it's worth, Mr. Mouser, I agree with you.

The prevalence of NAPs and the detrimental impact that they have on gameplay does not excuse lying, breaking your word, or personal insults. Especially when it is a veteran player doing these things to a new player.

I am not in favor of ostracizing players from the community or declaring someone an enemy out of hand in future games. I have had an enjoyable adversarial relationship with this particular player in one of my games, and will continue to treat him with honesty and respect, just like I would any other player.

But it is perfectly reasonable for Hamlet to be upset, to air his grievances in the forum, and spark a discussion on the topic.