So Ive been thinking about pacts in general of late, and think they need some redefining.

Why for example, should an alliance be given an FDP if they are never actually going to come to your aid, or help you out in any way in a war? Whether it be because they don't want to be involved, or because they are pacted out is irrelevant. (I'm not saying that they have to help you every time, but a reasonable, MUTUAL level of participation is required)

What is even the point of an LDP at all?
It seems to be a pact of convenience, along the lines of "we kinda like you, but we're not going to help you unless we're bored and you'll definitely win".

NAPs: originally a pact of "you don't hit us, and we won't hit you". Now, it's almost never used.

uNAPs: a pact supposedly meant to be unbreakable, and seemingly originally conceived solely to prevent an alliance from coming to the aid of a DP in a wartime situation. These days though, they are so fullof void clauses as to again, make them pointless.


I feel FDP's need to be given to alliances which demonstrate their loyalty and mutual commitment to you alliance. IE you both willingly go to the other's aid in times of war if one or the other is attacked, and the other requests it.

LDP's should perhaps be a proving/last chance ground. eg, former FDP alliance a) left your alliance hanging several times in a row, or generally acted like a douche, gets moved down to LDP. on the other hand, new alliance c) has been making positive steps and relations, and although you've not been friends for too long, an upgrade from a basic nap is justified. if alliance relations with alliance c) continue to be positive, then alliance c) would be upgraded to an FDP, while if former FDP alliance a) continues to srting your alliance along, they will get downgraded further to a NAP or non pacted status.

NAP: these would be alliances that you want to have pacted so they don't attack you personally, whilst not being particularly close to.
In all cases, a higher level pact would supercede a lower level one, ie, your alliance should not put an LDP or NAP'd alliance above an FDP alliance.

Just my thoughts. it may be far from perfect, but I think a core is there, and with some communal effort, we may get somewhere by changing the way we look at relations.

you said nap twice

where were you? this is old news... your like a set or two behind imag.


I'm playin' but great move! Imag also thinks the pact system in its current state sux moose nuts as well

Im about to take a nap right now

years ago there was just

DP's and NAP's.

As times grew that became DP's, LDP's, and NAP's.


The function of the LDP originally was it put a limited scope on "if this group of alliance attacks you we fight together, if not we don't fight"

Then UNAP's came into being for Really Friendly alliances that knew that they never wanted to fight. Sometimes those alliances would still end up helping eachother as thouth they were DP"s due to their close relationships.



It's changed quite a bit now. Now EVERY single pact pretty much is called "UNAP" and have break clauses, which makes the whole "U" kinda silly.

LDP's never fight for eachtoehr and instead are police'ers

NAP because it doesn't have a "U" people think that you'll want to hit them.

pacts have sort of evolved over time.
When there were more tags in the game I treated pacts as the following
FDP: will never help any of their enemies in war directly/indirectly. Will come to aid as long as it doesn't inolve breaking another pact (although sometimes I did break em)
Will call on tag for aid if it makes sense to. Friendly, will share intel.

LDP: Might help enemies in war indirectly (ie hit someone hitting along with the LDP who isn't pacted). No solid promises of help unless it's convenient in some way to do so. Will prioritize and FDP request over an LDP request. Friendly, but won't go out on an edge. Could have void clauses regarding FDPs but typically not. Typically an agreement not to FA any tag that pacted is at war with as well.

UNAP: status neutral: Basically garunteeing we won't hit/grab the tag. Basically was a comfort thing. Does not imply any kind of aid/support. Often used to de-escalate a situation or to calm down a netting tag. Towards the end of SLIT tended to add void clauses in the event of the UNAP interfering directly/indirectly in a war that pacted was involved in.

NAP: status neutral: We don't promise not to war you (but you probably aren't on our target list) but have arrangements in terms of grabbing/reps. Used to prevent farming/overfarming or unwanted escalation of events. Also often used as a cease fire pact. The set after Sol decided to FS sof after giving us a NAP I wasn't a big fan of them :P


At least that was partially my view.

Not all FDPs were always seen as equal either tbh:P

*disclaimer*: this was my view during my time in leadership of sof. I have no real idea what sof's views are now, nor do I speak for that tag (but I will make fun of them :P)

i remember some people claiming fop outranked fdp and could let you auto cancel, and others signing fdp+ then claiming the same thing

i think that was ffa where people didnt always write terms up

I remember ICN breaking a uNap with IX because they had a aFDP with SoL lol.

I was merely observing what I see in terms of how alliances in earth in general treat pacts these days.
If we wish to change this, then all alliances need to work together to do so.

again we started last set - get on board

How different alliance value pacts should be down to the individual alliances. Pact terms should reflect that.