Thread of the N3T clan

Tux2B · Post by **Tux2B** » March 2nd, 2007, 2:07 pm

Sapient wrote:
Fangir wrote:Hm...Mp name is my personal name,isn't it?
Your MP name is the name you use when you join the Official Multiplayer Server.

Works with unofficial servers too. It's just that you probably won't ever use them.

Tony Almeida · Post by **Tony Almeida** » March 2nd, 2007, 2:08 pm

Does the N3t oppose 3-player board games? A 3p game of Settlers of Catan, for example.

Also, it seems quite unusual to me that one of your most vocal members has created a 9 player FFA. Seems inevitable that some players would be given an unfair match, though of course the ratios aren't as harsh.

Post by **Baufo** » March 2nd, 2007, 2:30 pm

Tony Almeida wrote:Does the N3t oppose 3-player board games? A 3p game of Settlers of Catan, for example.

I don't know the official position of the clan but I personally do.

PS: Is your inbox full? You seem not to receive PMs.

Fangir · Post by **Fangir** » March 2nd, 2007, 5:33 pm

Hm.........I guess my Mp name is the same:Fangir.

Post by **F8 Binds...** » March 2nd, 2007, 11:05 pm

Tony Almeida wrote:Does the N3t oppose 3-player board games? A 3p game of Settlers of Catan, for example.

Also, it seems quite unusual to me that one of your most vocal members has created a 9 player FFA. Seems inevitable that some players would be given an unfair match, though of course the ratios aren't as harsh.

to be played 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, not 3v3v3

Fangir · Post by **Fangir** » March 3rd, 2007, 5:48 pm

What the hell?....Sapient,why don't you answer?Could you make new list with members of the n3t clan?

Post by **turin** » March 3rd, 2007, 5:55 pm

BTW, there is an argument to be made that FFAs of any variety are just as bad as 3T FFAs... after all, in a 4T FFA, once one of the teams is eliminated, you have yourself a 3T FFA. And how is arriving at a 3T FFA halfway through the game any better than starting out with one?

Post by **zookeeper** » March 3rd, 2007, 6:04 pm

Your clan ain't cool.

3p FFA absolutely rocks.

Post by **F8 Binds...** » March 3rd, 2007, 7:03 pm

Fangir wrote:What the hell?....Sapient,why don't you answer?Could you make new list with members of the n3t clan?

he put your name in the list on the front page, he won't re-post it for there's no reason to. Turin, Sapient already made a point stating why a 4 team FFA is better than a 3 team FFA.

Website · Post by **Sapient** » March 3rd, 2007, 7:49 pm

Fangir- welcome aboard, I added you to the roster on the front page. See you in MP sometime soon.

turin - yes, there are several of our members who don't like *any* FFA, in addition to their dislike of three-teamed games. Personally, I like most types of FFA's, as I explained earlier in the thread.

zookeeper wrote:Your clan ain't cool.

3p FFA absolutely rocks.

Heretic!!! I hereby challenge you to a WML duel. First one to code a neural network wins.

Post by **Blarumyrran** » March 3rd, 2007, 8:41 pm

Sapient wrote:Heretic!!! I hereby challenge you to a WML duel. First one to code a neural network wins.

yes, make a unit called "neural network"

Post by **Doc Paterson** » March 3rd, 2007, 8:57 pm

turin wrote:... after all, in a 4T FFA, once one of the teams is eliminated, you have yourself a 3T FFA.

This is a good point, and I'd like to hear the n3t's response.

Post by **F8 Binds...** » March 3rd, 2007, 9:18 pm

Sapient wrote:Here's a three team game dynamic: Player A attacks Player B. Player C is now winning by virtue of doing nothing. Player A has attained second place. Player B is now losing by virtue of a random choice made by Player A.

Here's a far more interesting four team FFA (a real FFA, since three teams is just not enough for FFA!): Player A attacks Player B. Player C now faces a stretegic choice. He may try to assist Player A by defeating Player B, but this strategy may backfire and give Player D an advantage. Or he can attack Player D, thus hoping that he finishes D before A finished B. At that time, he hopes to face A. An interesting game ensues.

By the time competitors have been eliminated from a FFA, there would already be an imbalance of power and thus informal alliances creating a temporary 2v1. Three equal players composing three different teams starting equidistant from each another is an entirely different situation that encourages "Chicken Play."

Perhaps this helps y'all? (page 6 of this thread) My personal opinion is that the players would be of different powers. (one player may have more units, more L2's, etc) This makes it so 2 players would try to eliminate the strong one, so it's a 2v1, NOT 1v1v1.

Post by **turin** » March 4th, 2007, 12:47 am

I don't think Sapient's answer is really valid. Yes, once one player in a 4T FFA is eliminated, you get an initial stage of 2v1 during which the 1 gets whittled down to the level of the 2. At that point, unless the 2 for some reason decide to continue attacking the 1 even when it is in their best interest to turn on each other, it becomes a standard 3T FFA.

But note that this causes me not to side against the N3T clan, but to have it for me imply a 2T-only clan.

Website · Post by **Sapient** » March 4th, 2007, 1:08 am

Well, you raise a good point, Turin, but in practice it's just a really rare situation. How often does a four-person FFA result in three equally powerful sides that are equidistant with equal holdings and resources? Not that often, I'd wager. Plus, you can't discount the enjoyable play that led up to that unfortunate and unhappy predicament.