Rules and Conventions in playing WOK

Its all WOK here.

Moderators: Duke, trewqh, korexus, Egbert

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Rules and Conventions in playing WOK

Post by Hannibal » Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:41 am

You can read the hard-and-fast Rules by clicking on "Standard WoK Rules" in the main menu on the left of the Homepage, no problem.

But the hard-'n'-fast rules still leave some areas of doubt, even among veterans. So this is a thread for those areas.

And the biggest of these is NAP's, Non-aggression pacts. Which cause the most argument, the most enmity, the most aggro.

So the thread below is for debate about INTERPRETATION of the rules (not changing the rules), and questions about that. I rather suspect that NAP's will be the key area of debate, where even veterans don't agree on interpretation of the "rules". So it really does NEED some statement about Naps that we all can refer to rather than just disagree and leave people aggrieved...

So, this STARTS the thread for this stuff, and may become a sticky to start the thread. My next post will be a view that anyone can aggree or disagree with, we ought to have the debate! And then SETTLE on a SHARED view about Naps ... for the good of the community?

Han.
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:31 pm

Right. Now for stuff that people can comment on and take a different view on. Good. We really ought to settle on, and all stick to, the SAME interpretation, wherever it's in doubt, eg on Naps/Non-aggression pacts.

So, about Naps ...

1) First, we have to all share the view that NAPs are supposed to be inviolable, which is NOT obvious. This might sound bleedin'-obvious to some WoK-players, but it's not the case unless we TELL people that this is our convention in WoK. Some new players come out of playing games, ftf or online, where any alliance or deal, HOWEVER "CLEAR", is merely diplomatic, merely a false-promise in the spirit of the game, before backstabbing climaxes the game and makes the game interesting. Yep, really. For example, 100-times more folk play "Diplomacy" than play WoK, and any of THEM coming to us could be forgiven for looking at our NAP's in the SAME way as everybody looks at "deals" in Diplomacy, ie a promise you are totally allowed to renege on whenever you feel like it, because we are all only HALF-trusting each other, because you'll only win if you stay true to some promises you make, but regard other promises as conning the other guy .... which is what the "Diplomacy" game is all about ... backstabbing, lying, and reneging on deals is a key part of the game; nobody is supposed to complain if someone reneges on a deal, because all deals are regarded as diplomacy, either stuck to or backstabbed on, no problem, all part of the game of diplomacy ...! I've been there, done that. Worked in the area where any "deal" might be a con. That was fun!

My point is: new players arriving here do NOT know whether a "NAP" is just a diplomatic strategem, or is, by convention, something taken as fixed , not just a con. Before you get all moral about it, let me point out that "Diplomacy" (a less-brilliant game), has at least 100 times more players than we do; plus other sites which copy Diplomacy by also treating deals as mere diplomacy that you can renege on if you want.... For me, this explains some past newbies trying a game and then pissing off because of the aggro. Some promising player (I don't recall, but I think it started with X or Z ...), took poop on the boards for having ignored his nap-deal, and attacked his neighbour anyway, against the terms of the Nap .... Before he went away, never to come back, he asked "So I broke an alliance, what's the big deal??" Now, those of us who KNOW the WoK conventions know that it WAS a big deal; but how was HE supposed to know that?? We tell them? He probably regarded us as old-women-types who are shocked at reneging on deals, when he and others are more used to sites and conventions where a Deal is just a diplomatic ploy, that they might stick to or not, part of the fun is working out whom to trust and whom not to ... and you'll progress only if you pretend on several alliances ... and then figure out which ones to backstab on ... part of the fun!

So, some new players come out of games with DIFFERENT conventions as to whether a NAP or Deal is just a bluff, part of the game, and are just amazed if "we" regard his nap-breaking as unpleasant rather than part of the game. I've seen at least three good new players leave us in disgust because they took poop for breaking a nap ... when it was obvious to me that they quite simply regarded NAP's as diplomatic ploys rather than realisaing that in WoK they were supposed to be stuck to ...

I've written long again. So I'll leave (2) till later, and my post on "What is a Nap?" till later. Comments so far?

Han
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:32 pm

Anybody any views?

Han
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
Saladin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Saladin » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:49 pm

Well it's not a written rule (or should never be a written rule) that you have to honour your naps.

Personally i find honouring your naps and alliances essential to building up a good relationship with your fellow players. But there have been players who would now and then break a nap if it suited them and still did well in the vast world of Kaomaris.

I agree with you that it's wise to inform new players of the fact that the vast majority of players stick to there naps and expect others to do as well. But it should never be mandatory.

Actually this is why we've always had the great clan system, so new players would be thought about how things are done in the WoK and could ask any and all questions.

I understand that the rule that new players have to join a clan has been suspended because of clan heads and such not replying in time or not at all. But how about allowing players to join a game right away, but asking them to join a clan as well. Because if you let new players simply join and don't show them the do's and don'ts of wok and introduce them to the other players they will be bored and leave after a handful of turns.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."

"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."

User avatar
Underdog
Commander
Commander
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Indiana, USA---Mercenary(for now)
Contact:

Post by Underdog » Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:09 pm

I agree with Sal in that you cannot FORCE players to abide by their agreements. That is the single biggest cause of headaches in this game. We all have our interpretations of what we mean when we type up these agreements. If you cannot trust the player you are making this agreement then why are you making it in the first place? The second biggest problem with this system is that for some reason some of the players seem to think it should be mandated that players stick to their agreements. I know that before I left their were players who spent more time whining on these boards about supposed NAP violations than they spent putting in orders. I was always taught when I started playing that the boards were the LAST place to go about violations. you started with the player involved. then if you got no satisfaction you went to their clanhead. if you could not get any satisfaction that way then you just beat the living crap out of them every chance you got. I dont think Piebald lasted very long in most games he played anywhere near TK. Craig had more friends and Piebald didnt want friends so he usually was eliminated pretty early. I found him to be a good player when I played a game with him much later after I left the Scholars. He told me he did it on purpose just to put some spice in the game. Some people are like that and the rest of the world had better get used to the idea that their are people who will say and do anything to get what they want.
(I understand that the little maniac from North Korea is agreeing to shut down his nuclear program as long as the US will give him more oil and other stuff. How much do you want to bet he re-starts his reactors as soon as he gets what he wants?)
Life imitates art? or vice versa?
There's no need to fear...........
Underdog is here

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:10 am

Agree with Underdog's sentiments, although TK was a NAP breaker! :flamer:

We can't force players to stick to a NAP, especially when (as has been recently demonstrated) two players may have different interpretations on what the NAP means.

However, players who frequently break NAPs will get a reputation quite quickly and so the system should balance itslef out. (Always used to anyway...)

On a related subject, I've been considering turning the aborted WoK Encyclopedia into a WoK wiki (which would allow users to edit entries). Do I have some volunteers to help get it set up? - No coding skills required just provide some simple explanations of common WoK terms...


Chris.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Egbert
Commander
Commander
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Scholars' Library (dusty section)
Contact:

Post by Egbert » Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:10 am

I did a WOK Glossary a long time ago. Isn't there still a link for that? That should provide a good start.
"Fairy tales can come true,
They can happen to you,
If you're young at heart."

User avatar
Donut
Warlord
Warlord
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Brew Town, WI; USA - BoV
Contact:

Post by Donut » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:27 am

I agree 100% with UD.
The scars remind us that the past is real.

User avatar
Calidus
Commander
Commander
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Clan Head, CoN
Contact:

Post by Calidus » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:40 am

I tend to agree with UD on his posted statements above. I do not believe that you should "mandate" adherence to NAPs. Sometimes, it's just a hell of a lot of fun to break them. :twisted:

I too remember and used to play games against/with Piebald. He was actually a really good player, but was very prone to break his naps early. I allied with him one time, and just knew that he would break our agreement. When his armies can calling, I had a very massive force sitting waiting on them. He was absolutely incredulous to find such a force waiting on him. *shrugs*

Teach the new players to honor their agreements, and not split hairs when it comes to the wording of their agreements. And remember a couple of things, this is a war GAME, and all is fair in love and war. If my memory serves me, didn't Hitler say he would not invade Poland?

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:10 pm

Hey, great debate, well worth having I reckon, thanks.
Saladin wrote:Well it's not a written rule (or should never be a written rule) that you have to honour your naps.
I have to agree with you, Sal. In some ways, if we WANT naps not to be routinely broken, causing frequent aggro, it really would be nice if we COULD make it a written rule ... I seem to recall Al's colleague Hamster suggesting that we should have "forms" for signing up to naps, implying that the engine could read them and automatically enforce them ... That was pie in the sky. Agreements can be so various, that it would be impossible to draw up a form for them, much less build them into the engine and police them automatically!

No, it can't be mandated and policed, it has to be a matter of choice.

But remember that I said that lots of newbies will arrive assuming that it's just diplomacy-before-backstabbing, from other games, so won't know at all that we regard naps as inviolable by convention ... And it's not just that the NEWBIE might HIMSELF might want to treat a nap as mere diplomatic guff ... even more importantly, it's that he might take for granted that other, veteran, players are out to bluff HIM with their naps ....

So he, the newbie, thinks he's doing right by trying to exclude spying from the nap ... so that he can CHECK by spying that his nap-mate has not built up "there" in order to attack despite the nap.

Personally i find honouring your naps and alliances essential to building up a good relationship with your fellow players. But there have been players who would now and then break a nap if it suited them and still did well in the vast world of Kaomaris.
That's only true if you play several games and gain a reputation, and learn from it, and come towards the better norm of sticking by your naps, and are still then a player with us.

We are mainly talking about newbies. Theystay or abandon mainly after their FIRST game ...
Last edited by Hannibal on Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
Aussie Gaz
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Thursday Island, Australia. Clan : Valn Ohtar

Post by Aussie Gaz » Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:32 pm

Korexus will kill me for suggesting this but here goes anyway.

Why can't standard WOK impliment a variation of the NAP levels used in advanced Wok?

Both players place a N+ order and the level increase. Either player (or both) give a N- order and the level drops.

NAP Level Effects

0 - Everyone starts here
1 -20% PATT
2 -40% PATT, -10% aiming with GCAs
3 -60% PATT, -20% aiming with GCAs
4 No attacks allowed at all ?

Maybe simplify it to 2 levels (delete maybe 1 & 2 above).

Just a thought.

User avatar
Saladin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Saladin » Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:17 pm

It's funny how you seem to have replied to everything except the actual point i was making.

If new players just join a game and don't have anybody to help them understand the game dynamics and player interaction better they will most likely not like it.

That's why we have clans and that's why new players should be in a clan or at least have a 'mentor'.

And that was the point i was making. New players should have someone to turn to with questions and such.

It would also be good if some of these 'assumptions' were put in a (newbie) FAQ so that new players can learn such things. Same goes for nap confirmations. It might even be wise to write a little how to get through the first couple of turns manual. I know we have one in the Scholars Library but something like that should also be made available on the kaomaris site.

So with these things new players won't feel like they're dropped in to the deep end and left to drown. Personal guidance is very important and that's why you see that some of the better clans like for instance the Scholars tend to keep a lot of their new recruits and they do really well. Because they get all the help and advise they might need.

So changing the rules is not the way to go and won't solve anything for new players. They need to get more help and advise from both the manual, faq and 'how to's' as well as as personal guidance from a clan.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."

"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."

User avatar
Donut
Warlord
Warlord
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Brew Town, WI; USA - BoV
Contact:

Post by Donut » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:52 pm

I agree with Sal that changing the rules of the game doesn't fix the problem, only masks the symptoms. I think if you make NAPs enforcable, you lose a large part of the charm of WOK. You also can't make enforcable NAPs enforcable. What I mean is as AG suggested a NAP level system similar to WOK V... nobody ever used it. Most would go about making deals as they do now.

I don't want to sound like the a-hole here... but if a new player cannot make it through a defeat and realize that it takes experience to acheive victory... we may not want that guy here. I've played in games before where new players continually ask for concessions. Once you give them something, they will ask for more. You start getting to the point where you are affecting the gameplay to try and make the game more user-friendly.

That said, WOK has a decent learning curve. Usually after a few turns you're past the point of not nowing how to do orders and are on to learning strategy (which can take years). The problem is that the learning curve is magnified by the close proximity to vets in the game. There is not enough demand for beginner games to warrant holding one. Back when all of us started we were able to start playing against players of similar skill level. With the current flow of new players, that is not the case. They are forced to try and compete against players with a lot of experience. The few new players that we've had recently have been people I have brought in, but I have been able to guide them.

As Sal said, the best thing for a new player to do is to get 1 on 1 help from an experienced player. But, I think its important for that player to take the initiative to ask for help. Often times players who don't actively ask for help, are not all that interested in the game anyway.

And I wouldn't worry about Masjwar leaving... He'll be here for a while.

Also, what the crap does Aggro mean? You've used it like 5 times now and I have no idea what it means...
The scars remind us that the past is real.

User avatar
Underdog
Commander
Commander
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Indiana, USA---Mercenary(for now)
Contact:

Post by Underdog » Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:59 am

and he wonders about hannibabble?

aggro=AGGRIVATION.

At least that has been my interpretation from the context he has used it in. Aren't you supposed to be some kind of teacher? it wasn't that hard for me to figure that out and I am just a stupid maintenance man.

WOW I can use my apostrophe key again.''''''''''''''''
There's no need to fear...........
Underdog is here

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:31 am

Han, I know you care a lot about WoK and you're trying to improve it. And I know that you have a lot of ideas for things that could drive away newbies which you want to be changed, but please don't assume that things are happening the way you imagine without any sort of evidence, it makes reading your posts very irritating.

Specifics to this case: Masjwar is a friend of Donut so he has had an introduction to the game and does know what a standard NAP looks like. He's also spoken to me on messenger and seems to have a good idea of what to expect.

Not saying that your scenario couldn't happen, but even if it did it would be easy enough to fix with a decent glossary (I'll dig out Egbert's copy), a system allowing newbies to ask experienced players (e.g. clans) or a question on the boards.

NAP levels lend a legitimacy to NAP breaking. - You can do it, but your PATT suffers, I personally feel that in the culture we have where people rarely break NAPs it's not worth the added complication. I'm open to suggestions though.

We could make NAPs enforced by the engine, but again, why bother? People will look bad if they don't agree to enter the settings, but all you're doing is restricting the play options (and there'd always be problems for allowed attack throughs which players could easily arrange in a non-enforced system).

I'd happily set up a NAP request form which players could use, to be copied to the GM so they have a) a standardised setup so they know no one is trying to mess them around and b) an independant witness if the other player breaks te NAP.

Anyway, enough from me for tonight.

Chris.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:03 pm

OK. Sorry about the rant. And it certainly wasn't meant to be personal at anyone, just about helping newbies generally. So I deleted the particular example I used. I got carried away ... A glossary or FAQ sounds good.
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:10 pm

The other convention I was going to mention was about cancelling naps at least a day or two before the next turn runs, not deliberately half an hour before deadline. Again, you can't really rule for it, but state a convention?
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:23 pm

Another tricky one. I believe part of the reasoning behind 2 turn notification is so people don't get too messed around by these suprise notifications (at least you get a turn to prepare).

Personally I often do cancel with plenty of time - to give the other person time to beg! :twisted: But then there have been times when I haven't thought to cancel until I'm sending orders (20 minutes before the deadline...)

So as a convention, great. By the way, if you want to write a wiki entry for NAPs, go for it. As a rule though I'd be very uncomfortable with this.


korexus.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Donut
Warlord
Warlord
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Brew Town, WI; USA - BoV
Contact:

Post by Donut » Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:04 am

Aye... I agree with Chris here, 2 turn notification is your warning. If you want 2 turns and 2 hours, so note it.

And UD... I ain't no teacher. I assumed it was aggrivation too... but with all that he types I thought maybe there was another word floating out there I don't know about. Just didn't seem Han's style to shorten a word, and I know he knows more words than I do.
The scars remind us that the past is real.

User avatar
Saladin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Saladin » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:22 am

I guess he's just trying to fit in with the WoW crowd. :)
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."

"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."

Post Reply