The problem with NAPs

Strategy, feedback, or anything SUBTERFUGE-related
Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:29 pm

  • I've started refusing NAPs which, so far, had been a terrible idea. Basically all the other players decide I'm an enemy and wipe me out. The problem is I don't want to change, I believe NAPs are one of the worst parts of the game and I refuse to play along.

    My problem is that agreeing to a NAP is rarely in your own interests. Players ask for a NAP because they want to do something without fear of reprisal. No player should ever agree to give another player an easy time as it reduces their own chance of winning.

    What do you all think? Do any of you think that NAPS make the game better?
    Posts: 8
    Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:40 pm

Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:56 pm

  • I don't think the NAPs are good for the game either. However, without them, nobody would be able to commit to an attack fully (or get screwed by doing so), especially when we are in a state of the game that everybody loves making them.
    Imagine how stupid the average person is. Then realize that half of the people are even stupider than that.
    -George Carlin
    User avatar
    Posts: 1364
    Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:51 am

Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:10 am

  • 100% agree. NAPs are poisonous, and have robbed this game of a lot of its fun. The first time I was offered a NAP (by the person who invented the dastardly things, I presume...) I laughed in the guy's face. I eventually took the NAP, immediately broke it, and ran him over. He was number 1 at the time, and went on to badmouth me to all the other top rated players until my rating plummeted too far for me to play with them.

    Whether or not I was in the wrong (by today's standards I totally was), the point remains: (UNFORTUNATELY) NAPs are an integral part of today's game. And I don't see them disappearing. Though games w/o NAPs are much more intense and exciting, imo.
    Posts: 122
    Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:16 am

Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:50 pm

  • Personally I don't like agreeing to permanent NAPs. They just create akward situations in the late game where you can't attack the player that you need to take out to win.
    If I agree to one, I always attach a condition to the NAP, like time, Neptunium count or number of remaining players.
    I usually prefer asking for a temporary demilitarization of the border. It's effective, not trust-based, both players can play more agressive on the other side immediately, but don't commit themselves fully.

    Also if you hate NAPs, you probably love anonymous mode, where they are as meaningful as a tinkerer on a shieldless factory. Players still make them for some reason, but no one respects them anyway.
    “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away.”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    User avatar
    high commander jay
    Posts: 47
    Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:01 am
    Location: Deeply submerged in my imagination

Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:30 am

  • I think I've decided how I'm going to handle NAPs from now on. Anyone asking for one needs to tell me what they're plans are. If they deviate from that plan in any way the NAP is voided.
    Posts: 8
    Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:40 pm

Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:26 pm

  • ^^^interesting. Never thought of putting conditions on a NAP, nor have I ever seen that. I will certainly be trying that out in my next game.
    Posts: 122
    Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:16 am

Return to General

  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests