Permanent NAPs have been removed from the game. Existing P-NAPs have been converted to 72-turn-NAPs.
PNAP are gone in order to encourage more action.?
Finally! About time! PNAPs are not needed! Whooo hooooooo!!!
Now get to fighting spirit!
It might sound like I’m critising every decision, but I’m not at all, just giving my thoughts. Sorry for being a pain @I_like_pie.
First of all, there will be more permanent naps signed unofficially, which is not a good thing either, because it brings back the opportunity of back stabbing and dishonorable play, which is just adding a reason for someone to quit ic. (edit: this has already been discusses in another thread, so let’s focus on part two below)
Secondly, I think removing permanent naps from the game might even discourage aggressive play. Bear with me here.
Say you’d have the option to fight someone and sign a permanent nap with them. You can move on and focus fully on another target. If there’s only two naps maximum per family, that’s 12 families (in MW 66) left to fight.
You sign a 24/48/72 hour nap with them, you’re obliged to focus more on infra. Because a cancellation war when your opponent outmatches you econ-wise, is hard to win. So you need that econ running. In my opinion, that most likely will make it so all families will have to focus on economy more in general and starting other conflicts will be less appealing.
Ideally, if we’re only trying to increase conflict to maximum levels, I’d even say that:
Only permanent naps, combined with a 2 naps limit and unofficial naps considered as IA would strongly encourage conflict. (just pointing something out, not actually a fan of this idea, as I think cancellation naps are and should remain a part of the game)
You’re not being a pain, it’s all good. Despite my reputation for being grumpy (well deserved, perhaps ) it’s usually players throwing personal attacks at the team that irks me.
You’re not doing that, you’re providing constructive criticism on a specific feature and it’s very much appreciated.
Anyway, you raise an interesting point about how this might stifle conflict. I think one factor that may balance that out however is smaller families being more significant players as a result of larger families not all being able to perm nap each other.
I anticipate this changing the “well, there’s nothing else to do” mindset that naturally leads families to focus on the only targets that remain, which is smaller families that never got a nap because there’s no advantage in giving them one.
By removing permanent agreements, there’s now always risk that another similarly sized family will cancel on you, and there’s also always an option to fight any family. This is a gain for competition imo.
Ultimately though, we’re both speculating. I do see validity to your point and we’ll want to watch closely to see if and how this affects things. At the very least though, it’s worth trying.
no pnaps … good change!
True. It’s all just speculations at this point. I guess we’ll find out soon enough, though it’s hard to judge it on this round only as there’s a lot of variables that have changed this round (smaller map, closer systems, more families, no naps, no pnaps, no drafts).
I’ve always stand on the idea of no PNAP every round, although I sometimes had to accept them due to pressure in war. I didn’t like PNAP for one reason: you can’t break it.
Let’s say there are 10 families. #1 fam decided to give #2 fam a PNAP so they can farm bottom families easily. Then at the end of the round, they changed mind and want to cancel PNAP just to fight who is better family. I’ve seen this happen sometimes in the past. PNAP is useless but 24/48/72 NAP is better way to do it. Why not use them? I don’t see the problem in having no PNAP at all.
Sure, there will be unofficial PNAPs but there may be backstabbing and breaking PNAP and becoming dishonorable is possible.
Try go for a round without PNAP and see what happen first. Then we can discuss pros and cons on no PNAPs.