Illwiki Dominions 5 Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • NAPS - a rundown and two formal doctrines
dom6:naps

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
dom6:naps [2025/07/16 04:49]
cybertron2 [Treatise 3 - Cybertron2's Treatise] 		dom6:naps [2025/07/16 06:51] (current)
cybertron2 [Treatise 2 - Strict Ingame NAP]
Line 32: Line 32:
 ==== Treatise 2 - Strict Ingame NAP ==== ==== Treatise 2 - Strict Ingame NAP ====
 You follow the rules of the game. AKA the players create a NAP ingame. If an action would breach the NAP ingame, it is a breach. You follow the pre-defined preset illwinter rules - as coded into the game. AKA if the game says its a nap break - its a nap break. You follow the rules of the game. AKA the players create a NAP ingame. If an action would breach the NAP ingame, it is a breach. You follow the pre-defined preset illwinter rules - as coded into the game. AKA if the game says its a nap break - its a nap break.
 +
 +Note that this is somewhat exploitable with independent attacks and remote spells, and limits a players ability to respond to a throne rush (someone going for the win). As such, there is divided opinion on strict in-game naps for diplomacy. 
 +
 +In the authors (biased) opinion, this is generally inadvisable, and in practice a large proportion of players have expectations on NAP's that go beyond the strict in-game limitations.
 +
 +
  
  
Line 71: Line 77:
 People who behave like this are abusing the ‘future game consequence’ of a nap break (both in game, and in future games through reputation) – so I am creating and naming a mechanism for players who feel trapped by the threat of being called a ‘nap breaker’ when someone else abuses the terms. This is an **Indirect NAP break**  People who behave like this are abusing the ‘future game consequence’ of a nap break (both in game, and in future games through reputation) – so I am creating and naming a mechanism for players who feel trapped by the threat of being called a ‘nap breaker’ when someone else abuses the terms. This is an **Indirect NAP break** 
  
-Generally the community accepts the following behaviours+Generally the following behaviours are accepted. I loosely follow lucids interpretation for this:
  
 1) Your scouts and stealthy units are allowed in their borders (outside of actively elfing said napped player). 1) Your scouts and stealthy units are allowed in their borders (outside of actively elfing said napped player).
Line 103: Line 109:
  
 Fundamentally – the existence of out of game diplomacy and its prevalence affects the game. From a game health point of view – this is not wholly positive – as different people have different standards on acceptable behaviour. The issue is that players who make out of game deals fundamentally have an advantage over those who don’t, the more over the top the deal, the bigger the advantage.  Fundamentally – the existence of out of game diplomacy and its prevalence affects the game. From a game health point of view – this is not wholly positive – as different people have different standards on acceptable behaviour. The issue is that players who make out of game deals fundamentally have an advantage over those who don’t, the more over the top the deal, the bigger the advantage. 
 +
 +The second problem is known nap breakers can have problems in diplomacy. Which can cause out of game consequence - such as in future games.
  
 For the purposes of the below we are assuming NAP’s are honored – which is an issue of itself. Essentially, those that don’t honour NAPS face out of game consequence in deal-altering in future games / grudges etc. For the purposes of the below we are assuming NAP’s are honored – which is an issue of itself. Essentially, those that don’t honour NAPS face out of game consequence in deal-altering in future games / grudges etc.
Line 111: Line 119:
 2 players agree to take awake dracoliches (or a similar – capital rush pretender) pregame and rush the other 2 players. Knowing they have a safe border, this is much more ‘doable’. The game ends on turn 3 for 2/4 of the players. 2 players agree to take awake dracoliches (or a similar – capital rush pretender) pregame and rush the other 2 players. Knowing they have a safe border, this is much more ‘doable’. The game ends on turn 3 for 2/4 of the players.
  
-Now the community accepts the first example and rejects the second, but functionally, this demonstrates how gamechanging the out of game deal is. Players have different levels of how far they think is fair. Personally, I cap my deals at NAP3. I would prefer to cap them at NAP1 or NAP2, but this is a concession to the fact that most other players make longer deals. Others will make 50 turn or game long deals. Others will make pregame deals, and build their pretenders using that knowledge. Where the line is drawn changes player to player – but as a rule of thumb, the bigger the deal, the bigger the advantage for the players in it. +Now many players accept the first example and rejects the second, but functionally, this demonstrates how gamechanging the out of game deal is. Players have different levels of how far they think is fair. Personally, I cap my deals at NAP3. I would prefer to cap them at NAP1 or NAP2, but this is a concession to the fact that most other players make longer deals. Others will make 50 turn or game long deals. Others will make pregame deals, and build their pretenders using that knowledge. Where the line is drawn changes player to player – but as a rule of thumb, the bigger the deal, the bigger the advantage for the players in it. 
  
 Taken to the absolute extreme – you could have a pregame deal in a 9p game for 6 players to rush 3 players. The 3 are functionally always going to lose, the 6 always end up ahead, then you end up in a 6p game. Repeat again with 4v2 to end in a 4p game, then 3v1 to end in a 3p game, then 2v1 to get to 2 players and we end up with 2 players solely as a result of ganging up - at any given time the weaker party is outnumbered at least 2 to 1. This in my opinion takes the fun out of dominions, but is fundamentally a function of out of game diplomacy – to a lesser or greater degree. Taken to the absolute extreme – you could have a pregame deal in a 9p game for 6 players to rush 3 players. The 3 are functionally always going to lose, the 6 always end up ahead, then you end up in a 6p game. Repeat again with 4v2 to end in a 4p game, then 3v1 to end in a 3p game, then 2v1 to get to 2 players and we end up with 2 players solely as a result of ganging up - at any given time the weaker party is outnumbered at least 2 to 1. This in my opinion takes the fun out of dominions, but is fundamentally a function of out of game diplomacy – to a lesser or greater degree.
  
-This creates a two-faced problem. NAPS are mutually beneficial, but they also provide two players with an advantage over the rest of the lobby. As a community do we accept this. And layered onto that – how far is too far. This is not a question with a clear answer – but from a gameplay point of view is crucial – as it can go anywhere from slight advantage all the way to essentially locking players out of the game before it begins. +This creates a two-faced problem. NAPS are mutually beneficial, but they also provide two players with an advantage over the rest of the lobby. And layered onto that – how far is too far. This is not a question with a clear answer – but from a gameplay point of view is crucial – as it can go anywhere from slight advantage all the way to essentially locking players out of the game before it begins. 
  
-In short, I don’t want this to appear judgemental or like the author is trying to tell you how to play the game. This is used to illustrate the gameplay effect of these out of game deals, and how they functionally skew the game. Whether or not a player wishes to engage, how much, and how far is a personal decision, but due to the advantageous nature of it (and the general community scorn on deal breaking and lasting implications of being a NAP-breaker), it is a very real aspect of the game. Taken to its extreme, diplomacy trivializes parts of the game by turning it from a strategy game into a game of ‘gang up’.+In short, I don’t want this to appear judgemental or like the author is trying to tell you how to play the game. This is used to illustrate the gameplay effect of these out of game deals, and how they functionally skew the game. Whether or not a player wishes to engage, how much, and how far is a personal decision, but due to the advantageous nature of it (and the scorn that many player have towards deal breaking and lasting implications of being a NAP-breaker), it is a very real aspect of the game. Taken to its extreme, diplomacy trivializes parts of the game by turning it from a strategy game into a game of ‘gang up’.
  
-Ultimately – it is for each player to decide where they draw the line – if at all. Until the dominions community as a whole dials back a notch on its ‘honourable diplomacy’ policy, this will remain a essential, and game-warping aspect of every dominions match.+Ultimately – it is for each player to decide where they draw the line – if at all. Due to the strategic advantage, NAPS will remain a essential, and game-altering aspect of every dominions match.
  
 ===== Related Articles ===== ===== Related Articles =====
dom6/naps.1752641357.txt.gz · Last modified: 2025/07/16 04:49 by cybertron2

Page Tools

Content is available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. The Illwiki Dominions 5 wiki is not affiliated with Illwinter Game Design, the creators of Dominions 5.