Breaking of NAPs

[Wynand]

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.

I think your conclusion is right here, Mouser. If the perceived issues around NAPs are to be fixed, the game design should be altered.

Having said that, I'd personally caution against this. Most of the people that have posted to this thread aren't upset about the existence of NAPs or their specific architectures, but rather are commenting on the specific incident in question.

You've already done a great job introducing formats that eliminate or prevent the need for NAPs....which I find very enjoyable. Why not let the regular Steel variant exist as is?

Obviously, the choice is completely yours...but I'd hardly look at the back and forth on this particular post as a mandate from the player community to deal with the disruptive force of NAPs.

My two cents.

[Daredevil]

Surely Kevin is not suggesting the NAP we just entered is not to be honored....

[Mauler]

I'm with Wynand.

If people don't like being contract lawyers, there is the anonymous format that will better fit your play style.

As a player from 128 who has dealt with Hamlet though, I find it particularly hilarious that he cries foul on the forums given that he engaged in the same deceit in order to buy time to position his forces at the start of the game. Especially, after taking the RA's stuff.

Live by the sword, die by the sword my friend.

[kevindusi]

Surely Kevin is not suggesting the NAP we just entered is not to be honored....

Not suggesting any such thing, sir!

[Cloud]

Man, that's quite a lot of thread jacking. On the question at hand:

I am in a unique position to see the various sides of the personal/game conflict that is being had here. I am the SO in the same game being discussed, so when this issue is between the BL and the RA, you might well imagine I have some individual insight into this whole mess. As part of that, you may have to take what I'm about to say with your preferred portion of salt. I am, after all, evil (or so I've heard.)

There can be no defense for agreeing to NAP with no peaceful intent at all. I don't know for sure that that's the case here, but if it is - that's messed up. The idea that any portion of this community would consider this something other than perfidy most foul is disturbing.

Cloud

PS: I don't appreciate the ad hominem at the end either. If that was just the way people acted around here instead of the extreme exception that my experience suggests it is, I would drop all my games and never look back. Yuck.

[Mauler]

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'm a fan of Clannad Going to have to give it a listen tonight.

[Brogan]

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.

That's not quite accurate or fair. The two early games that most people have complained about ended on turn 11 and turn 12. Both had broken SVCs that allowed victory with only controlling 2 regions. Both players took their second region 1 turn from the end and won the next turn. Not sure what if anything you can do to stop someone from winning with 1 turn notice.
If you want to change the rules then you need to hard code naps and alliances. For instance a nap would prohibit entry into the corresponding kings pop centers and disallow any attack options. An alliance would allow pretty much what it does now. If you break an alliance it becomes an nap with then takes another turn to break. I think codifying naps and making alliances more robust would address a lot of issues people have and remove the shadyness potential of naps.

[DuPont]

I don't know, I kind of like the 'shadiness' of NAPs. There used to be 'marriages of state' that were effectively NAPs that couldn't be broken (unless one of the married people got killed - making for some interesting possibilities). Do people want those to come back? Not sure if they ever worked or not - I didn't every try to use it, myself. Though if we bring them back, I forsee a fun argument about allowing gay marriage in Alamaze.

As for the song I quoted, since it's called 'Harry's Game' and the lyrics translate to a man walking with his reputation behind him, it seemed appropriate.

[Brogan]

There are always gentlemens agreements that are what we call naps now. That you could still use if naps get codified.

[DuPont]

Speaking of naps, I wish DuPont V would take one right now. He's teething.