Please anyone tell me the meaning of a NAP

[Legator]

i would like to hear what a NAP is. what it means.

i always had the impression it mean´t "non agression pack". This non angression means that the ppl who are napped to each dont attack each other right ? - but not more right. or has "NAP" another meaning i dont know about ?

Please enlight a newbie like me.

[Razorback]

The meaning of a nap is a very trciky story since it only covers a whole bunch of agreements with a name. Basically, like an alliance, the word itself can differ in use of different ppl and/or between different parties. Furthermore in relationship to the general way of gameplay the meaning changed over the rounds.

While a nap can mean purely a non agression pact between even hostile sides (a chase fire agreement i.e.) it can also mean a similar thing between neutrals (general ignorance of each other but still hitting randomly) and also it can be used in a friendly relationship to protect someone (WEET of r9, ToT was the ally of EE but in the start only a nap-partner of wp).
Generally it is neccessary to exchange coords to prevent friendly fire incidents. (This is one of the corepoints of a solid agreement).
On the otherhand due to ingame changes it became harder to actually differenciate between alliance and nap. Down to the fact that a defenceagreement is nearly impossible due to allianceeta and an attackagreement is due to the low playerbase more likely.
While the original Nap itself had not neccessarily included an attackagreement for both partners (apart from the consens to not hit each other), the low playerbase of the current round(s) basically forces this into the meaning of nap. As a result, if you nap someone (i.e. a double alliance group) its already 200-300 players who are napped to your own 100-150 players. With a total of 2k paid planets this would already give you 15-23% napped planets in total (including your own).
While the original nap didnt include such a feature (imagine this on a playerbase of 50k players) the small playerbase changes the nap more and more into a fullscale alliance or atleast into a mutual attackagreement to hit "the other side".

[Forest]

I thought a NAP was a small sleep

[ParraCida]

NAP is a Non Agression Pact.

It means you don't attack eachother, this does not include exchanging coordinates, coordinating attacks and cross defending. The problem is that with private galaxies alliances had to fill their galaxies up with reliable players, but since they didn't want to ally everyone in their galaxies they simply napped them. But because the alliances were so rigidly intertwined exchanging of coords and all that other stuff almost had to happen. With battlegroups and galaxies attacking out of alliance's direct control shared attacks and defense happened naturally and the coordinates were obviously known already because you shared galaxies. From those first private rounds on a NAP lost its meaning and became an alliance without so many words.

In the end a NAP turned out to be an alliance. Generally, if you like eachother you ally, if you want to work together you NAP.

[Lerxst]

Originally Posted by Forest

I thought a NAP was a small sleep

Same here...

[Jackal2112]

i thought nap meant Nerds At Planetarion

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Just worked out the difference between being allied to NoS and being napped. If you're allied, they don't attack you.

Alliance/nap is atm the same, just a further proof how good friends the alliances are. Best friends then Alliance it is. Regulare friends then nap.

[dabult]

NAP - Do not attack each other.
Alliance - Attack and defend together.

But...It obviously comes down to whom you talk to, it should be black and white, but it is not.

[Legator]

then i was very good with my observations over the past 8 rounds.

and i thought i missed a part of that.

thank you all for underlining my knowledge. i will use this for my own good

[xtothez]

Originally Posted by Rumad

its all a bit pathetic really when they can't stand alone.

Oh?

And here's me thinking politics was part of PA. 'A bit pathetic' of me, no?

[xtothez]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I didn't realise politics was hiding behind agreements.

my bad I guess.

In all seriousness though politics could be so much more cloak and dagger if bpeople had more fluid agreements. People need there security blankets I guess though.

Politics are far more fluid when not in private rounds. If you want to be picky, things are far more dynamic now than they ever were (my mind is wandering back to officially drawn up contracts between alliances with notification periods and weeks of AD whinging on stagnation). Notice the lack of these things now? There's your fluid politics.

But hey, AD is strictly coded.

if (cheaters > blockers) {
whine_about = cheaters;
} else {
whine_about = blockers;
}

[Shadow1980]

NAPs in PA are overrated. =)

-=!CHOAS!=-

[ComradeRob]

The problem is simply that if you are going to bother making a NAP with an alliance, it would make that NAP a lot easier to enforce if you also coordinated in other ways. Coordinated target booking prevents piggybacking incidents or attacks on NAP'ed galaxies/planets, for example. Whilst these are not part of the 'NAP', they are useful to both alliances, so it makes perfect sense for them to do these things.

[lokken]

NAP means you don't attack each other, but expect yourself to be dropped more easily than an ally.

giggle

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by lokken

NAP means you don't attack each other, but expect yourself to be dropped more easily than an ally.

giggle

...unless you were Fury or Legion which then you do what the fk you wanted...

[Kjeldoran]

Ally = I want to finish the round with you (80% true)
NAP = I want to use you so I get strong enough, but expect to be wasted in the end cause we want to win the round without you

Sadly that's how I've seen it happen quite a few times. To me receiving of getting offered a NAP means nothing. It means you'll avoid eachother yes, but it also means you cannot trust the other party cause there is a fair chance that it'll end up bad.

rgds Kj

[BigJoe]

NAP=is the agreement you and yr alliance(vision) have with FAng, Dragons, Seraphim and Vgn and probably others? While you may have only officially naped with 1 or 2 of those in your block, the nap with the others in yr block is pretty much extended to them as well since your all fighting against the so called "other" side. I am assumming u were not part of the negociating of the nap ageements since u asked the question here .

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by BigJoe

NAP=is the agreement you and yr alliance(vision) have with FAng, Dragons, Seraphim and Vgn and probably others? While you may have only officially naped with 1 or 2 of those in your block, the nap with the others in yr block is pretty much extended to them as well since your all fighting against the so called "other" side. I am assumming u were not part of the negociating of the nap ageements since u asked the question here .

Why don't you mention EET and company?

[^AvengeR^]

in my n00bie alliance days NAP was used like this:
Alliance: being the highest 'honour' if you like.
Nap was just somthing u gave smaller n00bier n00b alliances, like a smaller ALLY pact

[Morca]

Originally Posted by ^AvengeR^

in my n00bie alliance days NAP was used like this:
Alliance: being the highest 'honour' if you like.
Nap was just somthing u gave smaller n00bier n00b alliances, like a smaller ALLY pact

yes, that sounds like rounds 3-5.
i remember being the MoC (!) of my alliance seeking for some naps. damn... we were proud that NRK even considered napping us (r5).

[General Martok]

Hehe I saved the R3 SL allie/nap list:

http://members.lycos.nl/generalmartok/nap.htm

[Judge]

Originally Posted by BigJoe

NAP=is the agreement you and yr alliance(vision) have with FAng, Dragons, Seraphim and Vgn and probably others? While you may have only officially naped with 1 or 2 of those in your block, the nap with the others in yr block is pretty much extended to them as well since your all fighting against the so called "other" side. I am assumming u were not part of the negociating of the nap ageements since u asked the question here .

Your assumptions are just that..............

The original question was so obviously tongue in cheek, and a ploy to provoke a response (probably due to a breach of the NaP) that I find it difficult to understand your ignorance.