Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that this NAP will produce a lot of side effects.
For instance, we will see who opts in, opts out, and doesn't participate in the discussion at all. We will see who rules lawyers the agreement, who attempts to skirt it, and who practices the very spirit of the agreement. Finally, we will see some groups true colors when corner cases arise.
This NAP, while attempting to set a minimum par at which all settlements can play at and grow, will also set the political stage for after the Great Catastrophe.
I agree. It can be very enlightening to see who does what with such a document. It can be instructive, beyond PMs and voice chat, to see who you might want to form larger agreements with in the future.
You have a valid point; I just don't see how it could be considered a very important one, and it superficially resembles a point that would be important but requires a deliberate misunderstanding to believe.
Once I saw the point you were making wasn't the one I thought it was, everything clears up.
Just out of real curiosity, what point did you think I was making?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In every game I played with territorial warefare there is the issue of who will be the first to attack.
Benefit: they are the first and take others unprepared / by surprise
Downside: you set up yourself as a potential target by alliances which do want to war against others but who have scruple to do so 'unjustified'
The NAP ensures that small settlements have time and are not flattened quickly. On the other hand they might increase the up/downsides I mention above.
Of interest will be if settlements try to skirt around it without open attacks. I will watch this with interest - not just because of my own settlement but also because I will likely be called if this happens.
But overall I think it is a good sign that players like to try to give everyone some time. I have been in games where all-out war from minute 1 would give the attacker a benefit and allow him to dominate. This is the scenario that needs to be avoided as it would severly harm the whole development.
Building an economy takes a while - especially now that crafter need more XP. And not all settlements will be able to build up the economy as quickly as TEO. But if they have a little bit more time then this allows them to gain at least a foothold.
Long term nothing is guaranteed. I just yesterday saw someone proclaiming that my alliance doesn't stand a chance long term. If that is the opinion of an active middle sized alliance - even if only from a minority here - then I think something like the NAP should help at least to give everyone a chance.
Long term you will have to work for your right of existence. I'm doing so since day 1 of the land rush when I placed my hat into the ring.
Okay, someone's pointed out my previous post comes off as a bit passive-aggressive, so let me clarify: That's legit curiosity there. I'm not always too quick on the uptake. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this arrangement is less of a Non-aggression pact, as it is actually a Mutual-Defense pact. A key stipulation is that people should band together to take towers back from an aggressor that violates the core tower zone. I can't recall in history a non-aggression pact with more than two parties.
No, that's not in the text, and was never discussed, and almost certainly would not have been agreed to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hey, I'm not arguing that. I'm only pointing out that there is, most definitely, a net negative effect on those who wish to deliberately opt out of the NAP. How great that effect is is a question for more game-savvy minds than my own. I'm just doing the math, guys. :P
Your point is technically valid, but kind of pointless. It's equally valid to say that there is a net negative effect on everyone who didn't join the Everbloom Alliance because there are some who did. Sure, but so what?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this arrangement is less of a Non-aggression pact, as it is actually a Mutual-Defense pact. A key stipulation is that people should band together to take towers back from an aggressor that violates the core tower zone. I can't recall in history a non-aggression pact with more than two parties.No, that's not in the text, and was never discussed, and almost certainly would not have been agreed to.
Is that where the concerns are coming from? Do non signatories believe that signatories are in a Grand Alliance to focus on those that aggress on core towers?
No, that's not in the text, and was never discussed, and almost certainly would not have been agreed to.
Yes, it totally was. There use to be text in a document that mentioned a 48 hour window for a settlement to regain it's towers, or they were fair game to other NAP settlements. If a settlement was deemed inactive (whatever that means) then the towers were fair game till they petitioned to prove they were active again.
It looks like the document has since been redone, and has less detail on execution and more info on setting up tribunals.
Is that where the concerns are coming from? Do non signatories believe that signatories are in a Grand Alliance to focus on those that aggress on core towers?
Yes, based on what I read in the original "pre-weekend meeting" version, that is where my concerns came from.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Doc
I believe (does not make a fact) that most things will be pretty much (generally) local for the WoT. So, if you mess with a signatory or are not signed on, the local signatories may see the aggressor as "open".
How is that different than a local alliance and messing with such people already?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, that's not in the text, and was never discussed, and almost certainly would not have been agreed to.Yes, it totally was. There use to be text in a document that mentioned a 48 hour window for a settlement to regain it's towers, or they were fair game to other NAP settlements.
Used to be text in a document that was not this document? Immaterial.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't recall in history a non-aggression pact with more than two parties.
Only because Switzerland is now a unified nation.
Wikipedia's entry (You don't get real research under field conditions. Sorry) on the Old Swiss Confederacy states:
The Eidgenossenschaft was initially united not by a single pact, but by overlapping pacts and bilateral treaties between members.[5] The parties generally agreed to preserve the peace, aid in military endeavours and arbitrate disputes. Slowly, the members began to see the federation as a unifying entity. In the Pfaffenbrief, a treaty of 1370 among six of the eight members (Glarus and Berne did not participate) forbidding feuds and denying clerical courts jurisdiction over the confederacy, the cantons for the first time used the term Eidgenossenschaft. The first treaty uniting the eight members of the confederacy was the Sempacherbrief of 1393, concluded after victories over the Habsburgs at Sempach in 1386 and Näfels in 1388, which forbade a member from unilaterally beginning a war without the consent of the other cantons.
(the citation in that text is: Würgler, A.: Eidgenossenschaft in German, French and Italian in the online Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, 8 September 2004)
I'd like the emergent nation we're building among Tavernhold, Talonguard, and Stoneroot Glade to borrow heavily from this model, but even this is a closer association than the NAP we're discussing here is, because the NAP doesn't have the "aid in military endeavors" clause at all.
So, if I write a memorandum where I suggest it might be a good idea to burn down Ulf's house, but then later redact that statement, you have nothing to be concerned about, right? :D
Of course it is material. We're not robots.
And, this is a game that is being designed to be intensely competitive, so if I get the hint that people might be orchestrating a setup to preserve long-term hegemony via META, I'm going to speak up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're trying to avoid an early dominant force that could straight up kill PFO. The result in the meantime (assuming the NAP holds) is several factions biding their time and fighting over the non-core towers. It's still not a complete truce, we didn't divide all the towers up and say this is what everyone gets, there is still plenty to fight over we just wanted to insure that player settlements are at minimum a better option than NPC settlements. Are there ramifications of this agreement simply existing? Sure, but I personally cannot say any of those mentioned are worse than if the NAP did not exist.
That all said, constant warfare is just as bad as constant stalemates. From what I have gathered the game is designed for very purposeful and deliberate actions, not constant and chaotic ones. As far as large power blocks go there should be mostly peace between them with (relatively) brief and deliberate offensives from time to time. Think of it more like campaign seasons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want EE to be about growth and discovery. The richer a world we have when it "goes open" the more likely it will be to continue to be a place people can enjoy. There are already enough people convinced it is doomed without having most of our small settlements vanish before they open the doors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, if an idea is discussed ad nauseam but the idea is not adopted, and later a different group of players with perhaps some overlap with the original group come up with a plan of action binding only on themselves and not containing parts of the original idea which were objectionable in the first place, they remain somehow responsible for the initial idea which never actually happened in the first place?
There is no "burn the house" clause in any of this. That's a deliberately exaggerated (I might even suggest inflammatory) comparison.
they remain somehow responsible for the initial idea which never actually happened in the first place?
No. I never used the word "responsible".
This has gotten rather pedantic, so I'm going to bow out of this thread.
If only because of all the groups that enjoy the idea of fighting over towers, I expect that will be true.
However, considering pretty much everybody's signing up...doubt it'll come up. I think it'd be fair to give the one group nobody's been able to contact a chance to get acquainted with the NAP, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regardless of how its stated the NAP will be pretty much compulsory.
Being the one lone settlement that anyone that is bored or has idle time on their hands can go harass is not going to be a viable position.
Given the formation of power blocks and alliances the general statement is true regardless of this particular NAP. Without the NAP the end result for a lone settlement would just have been which neighboring power block is going to eventually eat them up (either through force or diplomacy) unless they lucked out and happen to have incredibly passive neighbors.
With the NAP existing power blocs have essentially given them a reprieve when previously they had none. Yes there is a caveat that if you knock yourself out of the NAP you will be an ideal target for those that have not...which you would have been without the NAP anyways. That said if you think people would have been crossing half way across the map to take and hold your core six towers I personally believe you are incredibly mistaken, the logistics are too problematic even at this juncture.
Your neighbors are your greatest threat, which is readily apparent as the current power blocs are heavily influenced by geographical proximity...
None of the things that have occurred to this point are happening in a vacuum, and we're not even in the game yet. Lines will be drawn, personalities will emerge, some of what has been built will fall apart, and game mechanics will cause significant shifts. As a settlement stakeholder I will do whatever I can do maintain our vision and preferred level of autonomy and if that means forming these sort of agreements so be it. To do anything else would be to ignore the realities of this sort of game.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Just out of real curiosity, what point did you think I was making?You have a valid point; I just don't see how it could be considered a very important one, and it superficially resembles a point that would be important but requires a deliberate misunderstanding to believe.
Once I saw the point you were making wasn't the one I thought it was, everything clears up.
That one if the intents of the NAP was for participants/signatories to exclude, harm, or gain advantage over settlements that didn't participate or sign.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If only because of all the groups that enjoy the idea of fighting over towers, I expect that will be true.
However, considering pretty much everybody's signing up...doubt it'll come up. I think it'd be fair to give the one group nobody's been able to contact a chance to get acquainted with the NAP, too.
It would be unfair to do otherwise. There will be some reasonable people who cleave to the letter of the document, which is part if why long discussions were made to cause the intent and letter to converge relatively closely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Phyllain's point on the sword was slightly misconstrued in some of the replies. He wasn't coming at it from he himself being an aggressor. I think what he was basically saying is that no group in their right mind will act out against the NAP unless they have a heavy PvP strength and/or welcome the fun/conflict. Anyone who openly acts against it or declares they are not in support will likely see other companies/settlements in their core 6 towers. The attackers may or may not try to keep the towers travel times being what they are.
All that being said I'm neutral myself on the NAP. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I find the notion of an "advocate" on a tribunal confusing. Anyone on the tribunal should be doing their best to be neutral. I suggest that we consider reopening the discussion and replacing advocate with "nominee" or "selection" or some other word.
It's a standard thing for an arbitration board to have one person selected by each party, and one person that everyone agrees is neutral. Since there's no way to allow someone to select an arbiter without letting them select an arbiter who will be "more fair to them", balancing it out works pretty well. It's expected that it might come to pass that the arbitration actually takes the form of the two biased arbiters trying to convince the neutral one, which is isomorphic to a single neutral party making the decision.
Also, it's expected that the party that selects an arbiter will provide all of the information that is in their favor to that arbiter, who will then make sure that it is shared with the tribunal. That has the superficial appearance of looking a lot like an adversarial system, even though it really isn't.