|
Is that character a variant? (I just love getting asked that in channel.) - Charis |
|
Soliciting newbies for BtS PBEM / Tech Thread
|
|
Um. Given that even if, say, everyone is a close ten spaces from each other, an aggressive settler-first bit of idiocy would only be able to be planted a couple turns from the no-rush deadline...I somehow doubt that's an issue?
If only you and me and dead people know hex, then only deaf people know hex.
I write RPG adventures, and blog about it, check it out. Catwalk Wrote:We do need to clarify that, yeah. The binding part was bolded to emphasize that it needed further discussion. I guess it means the same it does in any other game, you get a reputation for being a NAP breaker if you break a NAP. I strongly encourage keeping NAPs though, and I would be open to discussing actual enforcement of NAPs (reloading if needed). What do people think? You guys can do whatever you want, but FYI a rolling 20t NAP would be a MAJOR INCREASE in the typical NAP length. While it's true that players have signed quite long NAPs e.g. to turn 80, say, remember that a) most of the turns there are before anyone would go to war regardless, and b) the important part is the cooldown. 7-10t cooldowns have been typical. If you really want to make NAPs at all weaker or even just compensate for making them game-enforced which to my knowledge no game has done before, at least make the cooldown limit less than 10 turns. To reiterate: typical NAPs that have been arrived at by skilled players wanting peace have had 7-10t cooldowns where the initiator of the cooldown gets first attack, and the NAP is not even game-enforced. And this has nevertheless resulted in people screwing themselves. Lengthening the cooldown to 20t sure isn't going to protect anyone from themselves.
to be honest Catwalk ... you're starting to sound like a bureaucrats wet dream with all those very arcane suggestions/demands for how the diplomacy should go ... this is a green game, hence it should be a simple game ... pick one thing, AI diplo, CTON, or full diplo, and stay with it, instead of going some wierd mixup that noone, specially not greens are able to find head and tails in
Commodore, 20t is max NAP duration, whether that is done with a rolling NAP or a specific expiration date. Rolling NAP is not mandatory, and if they do one it can have a shorter duration than 20t. Do you think it should be limited further?
Sian, so far the players who have signed up seem to agree with the proposal. It's basically AI diplo + NAPs and border agreements, not that hard to make heads and tails of. I wouldn't have much fun with CTON or strict AI diplo personally, and full diplo burned me out a bit in both my games so far.
Thinking about it, aggressively enforcing NAPs might be going a bit far. The knowledge of guaranteed safety from an opponent is powerful, and goes against the spirit of how diplomacy works. Not to mention that the reputation hit alone would be enough to cut down on any aggressive backstabbing by players. It certainly never seemed to be an widespread problem in existing games here.
That said, I have no issue with this sort of hybrid diplomacy in general. I think it's at least an intriguing change from the norm, and if it works well, hey, that's just another option for future games. And if it doesn't, then oh well, we're all a bunch of newbies anyway! Sian Wrote:to be honest Catwalk ... you're starting to sound like a bureaucrats wet dream with all those very arcane suggestions/demands for how the diplomacy should go ... this is a green game, hence it should be a simple game ... pick one thing, AI diplo, CTON, or full diplo, and stay with it, instead of going some wierd mixup that noone, specially not greens are able to find head and tails in This. |
