Solution for (dis)advantage when NAP ends

[Jeremy]

The thing is, you can't just take it or leave it.

I refuse do do NAPs because I philosophically object to them -- although I do offer verbal non-agression pacts. Then, several of my neighbors DO make hard-coded NAPs with each other, and they attack me. The existance of NAPs hurts me. So I just haven't been playing FFA games.

Jeremy

[piranha]

To sum it up a litle bit.

Which ideas should be added to the NAP?

These ones are the ones I think could be added and shouldn't be to hard to understand.

1. Allow players to form shorter NAPs (easy to do)
Either a:
2a. Allow players to pass through units on the map, but not through defense towers.
Attack NAP units at a cost (breaking the NAP) for example 100 gold / turn left that are payed to the other player (needs to be tweaked so it's not obvious that you wont break it all the time).
or b:
2b. Allow players to attack units even with NAP active but not attack cities or towers.

Should NAPs be limited or not possible in ladder games?

[KGB]

Piranha,

My Vote:

1) Shorter NAP's
2B) Changing NAP's to only function with regards to cities/towers would be ideal. That fixes the blocking problems AND fixes sitting on temples (which adding pass through won't fix). It also forces players to manually negotiate via trust factor not attacking units outside cities.

No NAP's in Ladder Games.

KGB

[Moonknight]

My Vote:

1) Shorter NAP's
2B) Changing NAP's to only function with regards to cities/towers would be ideal. That fixes the blocking problems AND fixes sitting on temples (which adding pass through won't fix). It also forces players to manually negotiate via trust factor not attacking units outside cities.

No NAP's in Ladder Games.

KGB

I second these, but maybe have some sort of 1-turn warning system, as in get out of my area/stop hogging that ruin, or you will be attacked next turn. The player giving the warning should be able to provide the reason for the warning. Of course, people will just give out the warning during the first turn of the NAP and then its point is moot.

[Chazar]

I support 2B, but I also want NAPs in ladder games.

I think forced NAPs are especially required in ladder games, when people play anonymously.

[piranha]

With 2b I'm thinking you can attack units on the map, not just the last turns of the NAP. NAP will only protect cities and towers, but that should be enough that you don't want to waste your heroes time looking at castles you cant attack. Scouts can easily be killed or stopped in a choke with a tower.

[Moonknight]

I think forced NAPs are especially required in ladder games, when people play anonymously.

And I would argue that all players should be anonymous in FFA ladder games. I've come across a few times where I get tag-teamed against by Warbarons buddies automatically from the get-go (regardless if I'm anonymous or not).

I guess I don't really care about NAPs in ladder FFA b/c I hardly play them due to it being a major crapshoot

[kenc80]

I like the idea of being able to attack NAP armies outside of castles because it makes me mad when an NAP move armies into my lands. - Ken

[KGB]

Piranha,

With 2b I'm thinking you can attack units on the map, not just the last turns of the NAP.

Yes. I understood that is what you meant and I agree with that idea.

MoonKnight,

And I would argue that all players should be anonymous in FFA ladder games. I've come across a few times where I get tag-teamed against by Warbarons buddies automatically from the get-go (regardless if I'm anonymous or not).

Sadly being all anonymous won't help since buddies probably already know who they are in such games anyway through private emails / messages in other games they are in etc.

They are indeed the crapshoot you say they are. So it's hard to take the FFA games seriously much less FFA ladder games.

KGB

[Finite]

I'm late to discussion, but I would propose making it like this:

On the first turn after NAP is over, the first player in turn order is only able to attack units outside cities.

Could combine this to allowing move through units of a player you have a NAP with since there would be less need to block them from camping near your cities when you know you can kill them before they attack.

Still would not help against occupying temples or such, but that risk can remain as a cost of making a NAP in the first place.