ffa ethics

[darksaurian]

Are there ethics in ffa? My take on it was there are no rules and if other guy is a jerk then it just something you have to deal with. What if 1v1v1 and guy tell you "Join me to defeat other guy or else I attack only you and we both lose!" And then say you ignore him and attack him and then he attack only you and you both lose.

Is the guy who ruined game by attacking only you breaking any code of conduct? I don't think so. I think it is just part of ffa game and goal is to threaten and manipulate. Maybe next time I play with him I know he really will be a jerk so I try working with him to defeat other guy and only then turn on each other. It just seem to me that dealing with irrational player and backstabber is part of ffa. Am I wrong?

[Sapient]

I find that having more than three teams cuts down on the potential impact of such tactics. If he starts off by suiciding himself then, he would not be handing the game to anyone in particular.

Three-teamed games are, in my opinion, some kind of unhappy arrangement that lies in limbo between 1v1 and a true FFA. It may seem balanced, but as you noted, it's not.

[Ken_Oh]

I can't find the quote now, but legendary strategist Zhuge Liang is cited to have said something along the lines of "a tripartite confrontation is the most unstable out of all possibilities."

[Caphriel]

There's a clan with an opinion on this.

Three team games are generally awkward because the first player to seriously attack loses, as does the person he attacked.

In your situation, what I suggest is to agree to what he says, but don't really make much of an effort against the third player and position yourself to betray your erstwhile ally and deal him a critical blow when the opportunity arises.

Alternatively, tell the third player about his threat and see if you can get the third player to attack him and leave you alone. You'll probably still lose, but you will probably come in second instead of third.

[darksaurian]

This good advice but this not what I mean. I mean say guy does this stuff, makes threat, then attacks only the one guy. Then guy who loses says, "No fair, no fair! This not a good game or test of skill!" Can he report to mods? Are any rules broke? I think that because it is ffa then anything goes and anyone who complain not understand ffa. But maybe I am wrong, that's why I ask. Maybe there is ethics that we supposed to follow.

[monochromatic]

Three team games are generally awkward because the first player to seriously attack loses, as does the person he attacked.

Right on.

[Caphriel]

This good advice but this not what I mean. I mean say guy does this stuff, makes threat, then attacks only the one guy. Then guy who loses says, "No fair, no fair! This not a good game or test of skill!" Can he report to mods? Are any rules broke? I think that because it is ffa then anything goes and anyone who complain not understand ffa. But maybe I am wrong, that's why I ask. Maybe there is ethics that we supposed to follow.

To the best of my knowledge, no he can't report anything to the mods, nor were server rules broken. Unless someone was verbally abusive. Three-sided free-for-alls are not good games or tests of skill, but by playing one, you've decided to play in spite of that, now haven't you?

[darksaurian]

Yes.

[AI]

So, join the N3T and convince the world of the evils of 3-team games!

[artisticdude]

I've had the same experience for most of my life... two brothers. Three guys want to play laser guns, no friends around... how do you do it? So I can agree that 3p matches aren't much fun (and yes, I have participated in a few).

*artisticdude joins the N3T

[darksaurian]

What? Last two posts not understand me at all. I LIKE 3 player ffa. I understand maybe not good test of skill, it more like politics. It about trying to be the guy who isn't attacked and taking advantage of situation or manipulating other guy with chat. Usually I like standard game but ffa is fun change now and then.

[Noy]

What? Last two posts not understand me at all. I LIKE 3 player ffa. I understand maybe not good test of skill, it more like politics. It about trying to be the guy who isn't attacked and taking advantage of situation or manipulating other guy with chat. Usually I like standard game but ffa is fun change now and then.

Its not about politics; its about pure simple luck or backhanded-ness. As stated above 3 player FFAs basically just follows the same pattern: player one attacks player two, and player three wins. It kinda sucks if you're player two, you're an idiot if you're player one, and its a cheap victory if you're player three. Not one player has anything to take pride in.

People who play with me know I LOVE politics in FFA games, this however is not that.

[darksaurian]

What wrong with taking pride in cheap victory?

[Velensk]

Taking pride in something you did not earn is neither tactful (if you talk about it in public) nor sensible (if you believe it for yourself).

[Yoyobuae]

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.