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)