Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Wed, 02 September 2009 15:44]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Thu, 03 September 2009 15:10]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Fri, 04 September 2009 04:56

I see another thread out there "co-ordinated attack" that just screams in my mind "change the damn rules to <everyone as enemy>". (or at least non allied players...)

You've set the rules to say alliances are not allowed, so that exception wouldn't even be needed.

Only reason left not to set someone enemy is if it's to allow a ship transfer, or perhaps if you needed to set friend because you were crazy enough to let someone use your gates in a NAPless game.

I sure hope we don't end up with a thread like that in this game.

I must say... I'm kinda expecting some drama around this pair of rules:

Quote:

- No alliances, no NAPs, single player victory only! - Communication, co-ordination and general gossip is totally legal.

The line between co-ordination and alliance is quite subjective. I wonder when intersettlement shifts from 'I just haven't killed him yet' to 'alliance!'

[Updated on: Fri, 04 September 2009 03:11]

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 04 September 2009 17:03

The line between co-ordination and alliance is quite subjective. I wonder when intersettlement shifts from 'I just haven't killed him yet' to 'alliance!'

The instant just before you backstab them with a wicked blade

Report message to a moderator

goober wrote on Fri, 04 September 2009 04:55

Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 04 September 2009 17:03 The line between co-ordination and alliance is quite subjective. I wonder when intersettlement shifts from 'I just haven't killed him yet' to 'alliance!' The instant just before you backstab them with a wicked blade

lol.

I have not disallowed cooperation and coordination. If you feel you can trust another race not to attack you, as Goober points out, then you are more than welcome to trust other races to help you in a campaign. I would imagine that most conversations will now descend to "this is the line, don't cross it!". However, you are still able to gossip and conspire against the big ugly race that can't be stopped. Heck someone might even believe you.

I know last game it worked quite well against the peace loving Xeelee. Several races were fooled into thinking that the Xeelee were aggressive blood thirsty savages, when all they wanted was a hug.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 04 September 2009 11:45

mlaub wrote on Sat, 05 September 2009 01:45 I would imagine that most conversations will now descend to "this is the line, don't cross it!". The funny thing, is you couldn't actually answer that with "I won't cross that line", because that would be a simple NAP.

Well, not really what I mean. The typical real world meaning is "A non-aggression pact is an international treaty between two or more states agreeing to avoid war or armed conflict between them." So, if you look at it from the standpoint of "I won't cross this line" in a typical game of stars, yes you are in fact agreeing to a basic form of a NAP. Although, it is doubtful many people would agree with that basic definition NAP, without a out clause and/or year termination date...Further, most players will go out of their way to follow those NAP's to the letter, to the point you spend the entire game negotiating instead of fighting.

What I mean by the rule, is strictly this- No race can be bound by NAPs, and there are no alliances. This doesn't mean you can't converse with your neighbor, and agree to a division of planets. So, go ahead and agree to that line in the sand with your neighbor, then attack him, if you want, as soon as he looks elsewhere. Meaning, I want people to feel free to do whatever they want, unlike a normal game with NAP's. You are not to be burdened by your sense of honor this game. Sure, you can negotiate all you want, but there are to be no bindings from such talk. Hence, you need not go overboard negotiating...

I see this as a real plus for the players that complained about the amount of time they spent negotiating in the last Glacier game. One person suggested that I eliminate all communication in this game.

I really don't want to eliminate communications, as frankly, sometimes you need to tell people about that "big ugly race over there". Or that you *really* need that planet, but could careless about the others. There were a couple players that made my life difficult in GLR2, and if they hadn't been stirring up trouble for me, it would not have been nearly as much fun.

So, if you have any ideas of how to reword that rule, taking into consideration what I said above, please offer them.

Thanks!
-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Sat, 05 September 2009 18:01

Oh dear... If that's what you intend by the rule, I see it as a massive shot to the foot. As I read it, effectively you are saying people CAN make NAPs (that's implicit in dividing up territory, which you have said is ok) they just can't define exit terms, and no one should consider bound by them. This leaves 'honourable' players who try to stick to their word with the choice of either: (1) Not negotiating, thus putting themselves at a massive disadvantage by not participating in diplomacy. (2) Inevitably breaking their word, since they were not permitted to agree terms to dissolve any agreements. I'm not going to agree to divide up planets with a player, then go ahead and completely ignore that agreement because the rules say I'm not bound by it. It's going against my word, I'd rather not make an agreement at all. But playing without diplomacy in a game where diplomacy is allowed is a massive handicap... So count me out of the game if we're playing like this. Either allow NAP *and exit agreements* or don't allow them at all, IMHO. I thought you'd gone with the latter (leaving us only to plot wars together etc... Not permitting us to give any guarantees not to attack any place / ship / time.)

I read it as:

There are no terms to be bound by, because you can't agree any definite terms. You can talk to each other but you are not permitted to make any binding arrangements. You can't break your word because you are not permitted to give it.

I can say to my neighbour, I'm doing this. They can say they are doing that. This may amount to colonising a planet in "each others space" for example. You note you won't be getting in each others way while this is going on. Believing that this state of affairs will continue is done at your own risk. Not taking this risky option when you have another neighbour with habs just like your own knocking at your perimeter is again done at your own risk.

Diplomatic Russian Roullette if you will.

I say lets spin that wheel

Report message to a moderator

goober wrote on Sat, 05 September 2009 04:47

I read it as: There are no terms to be bound by, because you can't agree any definite terms. You can talk to each other but you are not permitted to make any binding arrangements. You can't break your word because you are not permitted to give it. I can say to my neighbour, I'm doing this. They can say they are doing that. This may amount to colonising a planet in "each others space" for example. You note you won't be getting in each others way while this is going on. Believing that this state of affairs will continue is done at your own risk. Not taking this risky option when you have another neighbour with habs just like your own knocking at your perimeter is again done at your own risk. Diplomatic Russian Roullette if you will. I say lets spin that wheel

Goober nailed it. It should be fun!

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Heh, well, that's what I was describing when Matt corrected me.

I'm not sure what to make of it now

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Sat, 05 September 2009 11:24

Heh, well, that's what I was describing when Matt corrected me. I'm not sure what to make of it now

I think you are reading to much into the rule. Frankly, even this civil conversation could be considered NAP of sorts, as we are obviously not trolling each other, but are exploring a common problem. I am not interested in nitpicking to that level.

A typical Stars NAP (what I am forbidding) is defined by number of years, an out clause, and the understanding that neither party will commence hostilities.

Your example of:

Quote:

"I won't cross that line"

In response to my

Quote:

"this is the line, don't cross it!".

isn't really necessary. My proclamation is a statement, not a NAP proposal. You can either follow it, or ignore it. I don't see an issue here. You can respond with your own proclamation also.

So, back to your statement:

Quote:

This leaves 'honourable' players who try to stick to their word with the choice of either:

This statement is invalid, as you can't give your word. Hence, this solves your problem the way I see it.

Make sense?
-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator