ffa ethics

[artisticdude]

What wrong with taking pride in cheap victory?

The fact that you did nothing or extremely little to earn it. Things that cost more are naturally more valuable. Are you going to list your HP Touchsmart Laptop in the same category as that freebie FM radio you got from meeting a certain purchase requirement at Target? I don't think so. Likewise, if all you had to do is sit there and watch the other players beat themselves to death, you'd value that victory much less than a victory in a 4p game in which you had to put forth everything you had.

Cost is what makes value. If it doesn't cost much, there is very little value.

[Sapient]

While I see what you're saying, there's no need to belabor the point. He's made it clear now that he likes the play format and only wanted to ask if any MP conduct guidelines were being violated. To each his own.

[darksaurian]

Yes.

[joshudson]

I've been the player 3 when player 2 decided to play pass the ball. I stood my ground on that side and rushed player 1 on the other side (not for his keep just the villages) and got half the map really quickly.

[Elvish_Conquerer]

If you're player 2, you might as well play "pass the ball". Tell player 3 that he'll have to attack player 1 or else you'll just give player 1 all your villages without fighting and attack player 3 instead, thus giving the advantage to player 1.

Dunno if it would work, but seems better than defending vs player 1 and allowing player 3 to just sit there and finish whichever remains.

That's a really interesting concept. I'm N3T because i see that obvious flaws that good wo/men like Sapient and Noy point out, but you're tactic is interesting, it could create a real political struggle with backstabbing. As a Member of N3T I won't play one, but I might watch ONE game with that.

Elvish Conquerer

[IPS]

Is ethical to let your 2 opponents defeat themselves and you grown and grown and after blow both? I do that a lot of times and I have a good percent of winning games with that strategy (if both dont make an aliance to defeat me before is to late)

Well, I think, it is not a cheat, only thing of dark strategies and patience... in 1vs1 games is more easy to crush the enemy, overall, the one who do the first stable atacks frequently wins. But in ffa games of 3 players, I wait only :/

[sur.nhm]

There's a difference, I think, between playing "ethically" and playing to win.
@IPS: sitting there and turtling isn't very ethical. It makes the game rubbish to play (that's why I, like e_s, am of the N3T). But as a tactic/strategy, it is indeed sometimes a way to win.

[monochromatic]

Think about most battles in this world. Most take place during the day, are in an 'open field' (using that to describe frontline tactics), and a good number of casualties on not sides, of course more the losing side. Why? What if you instead ambushed them at night when they didn't expect you? You would have much less losses and annihilated the enemy.

Why don't most armies fight that way? Well, speaking from an Asian's perspective, that's cowardly. It's not an 'ethical' victory, you cheated to the top. There's a certain pride in marching in frontlines in the open to an all-out war with the enemy and somehow winning. Only bandits ambush you like that; I don't think it feels good for armies to act like bandits. Yes I know some of the world's greatest battles are large ambushes, but I am speaking for the majority of the rest.

Although I am speaking for the Far East, I bet there is a similar sense of honor in the West as well.

How all this crap relates to 3p FFAs? The ambushers/'bandits' is Player C. After Player A attacks Player B, Player C 'ambushes' both of them. That is not an ethical victory. Though you win, but you don't get the feeling you've really worked for it.