Some people would agree to the title, some won't. I will write why do I consider treaties in FFA as cheating and what can be done in Warlight to have fair play.

Warlight is a game, it can be considered e-sport, cause as athletes do compete physically, here we compete intelectually. And in all sport worldwide it's popular to have same size teams or individual competitions. Personally I don't know the sport where 2 or more guys compete against one or few individuals and in Warlight it often happens in FFA (which stands for free-for-all) that some people make treaties and that way make it harder for others, lower chances of others.

Some would call it diplomacy, especially those who team-up together ;)

But in the eyes of those who loses cause of somebody else teaming up, it's not fair, it's cheating.

U don't agree?
Then think of a game, FFA with 6 players. Let it be that all of them join the game, knowing it's FFA but somehow 5 of them team up and anihilate the sixth one together. He had no chance and was eaten by the rest. Is it nice, is it ok, is it fair? Would U like to be the sixth one? It's not fair, cause the game suppose to be free-for-all, and not 5vs1.

So the same would be if only two guys team up and it would be 2vs1vs1vs1vs1. The difference is only in the number of guys in the team.

So is the diplomacy bad?

No, if people joining would know that diplomacy/treaties/truces are not prohibited in this game, that it's ok, it's allowed and it's part of the game. Then they agree for that if from 6 people FFA would happen 2vs2vs1vs1 or 3vs2vs1 or whatever other way.

But if he join 6 people FFA and two or three of his neighbours do treaties on private messages and eat him, is that fair? Maybe he even don't know English so well to talk with others and do the treaties? So is the game equal then for him? No! Of course not!

So what do I propose?

Real FFA's could be taged as FFA. When it's ffa without private messages.
FFA's with diplomacy allowed could be taged with "FFA with diplomacy". when it's ffa with private messages.

Then: 1) there would be no argues or naming cheaters if somebody do treaty in diplomacy game 2) people would feel that it's fair playing 3) we would see which games are FFA's and which are team games, cause sometimes it's not written in title, and not always we check in setting so it happen that there are random teams, suprisingly, and since all FFA's (with PM's or without) would be taged, then it would be seen which games are team games, cause those would not have tags

I mean that such a sign of "FFA" or "FFA with diplomacy" would be on the screen where we can choose the games to join.

That would solve the problem of unfair treaties (teams) in games which suppose to be FFA.

it's the player's responsibility to check if private messaging is enabled or disabled. when private messaging is enabled on an ffa, you know what to expect. the majority have private messaging enabled so i think its an uncommon opinion that truces = cheating.

Well then since you want to talk fairness.
I'm in a game 2v2v2v2v2v2 or around that on quad earth with multi attack.
Now all but 4 people started in northeast asia, thats like 6 people or more in one asia, so now the people who started in Asia HAVE A CHANCE, if, and only if they agree to split the Bonus stop squabbling, and gang up on the people with Superior starting spots.
Which didn't happen by the way, were in the process of everyone dieing ATM.

But now lets take that scenario and put it in a fictional game.
Double earth, light fog, 4 player free for all 2 starting spot.
So player 1-3 pick places in the southern worlds Africa.
Player 4 is in the northern worlds Africa.
So two ways this can pan out, either players 1 - 3 fight until player 4 expands into them, or they can a have a truce expand in different directions and splitting up Africa, until the player 4 threat is gone.

There is no way this game can be fair, it's not fair for it to be a 1V3 but it's not fair the starting spots, either way it's not fair.

Now mostly what I'm ranting about is your use of the word fair, which is not going to happen without 0% luck on preset symmetrical maps. <-- I realize you probably didn't mean it in this extreme.

I do agree that more obvious settings could help.
Maybe have a some basic things you can see without looking at the settings.
random teams and how many
custom distribution yes or no
Bonus changes yes or no (this wouldn't list the changed bonuses just if there were changed bonuses)
PM on or off

Now please Seroslav.PL do not take this as me attacking you, I think you make a good point in some areas, like understanding English or this helping there be less arguments.
But your use of fair, was a bad choice of words and your calling diplomacy in FFA cheating I disagree with strongly.

Diplomacy is a part of the game, I am obviously of that mindset..
the kind of people that will use diplomacy in a way intending to cheat, *will do so whether you have PM's enabled or not*. by marking a game as FFA will not prevent teams..
and as many other posts have shown, and my previous statements in other games has shown.. Failing to execute MAD, is not teaming, but will appear like it in history...

5 player FFA, M.earth, start W.Af Mex Indo Scand S.Am..
in a complete lack of diplmacy game, W.af Mex and S.Am have already lost.. Scand and Indo have time to expand and W.af Mex and S.am, no matter who wins their little feud, will be too depleted to take on Scand/Indo when they arrive.. this is a game that simulates wars.. Diplomacy is of Paramount important in war.. WWII-Germany Assaulting Poland and telling everyone they wouldn't go any further.. an Act of Diplomacy.. and FYI, not all communications are global in war..

Imho, cheating = full game truces..
treaties are temporary.. two enemies not fighting because if they do they are both going to most assuredly die..
full game truces are cowardly.. when your ally is worth more as extra armies under your control, then he is as an ally, then you eliminate him.. because only one person can win..

when I was more of a newb, I would talk alot more in treaties, but it really isn't worth the time, except in special circumstances, I find.. \*or perhaps I just don't join as many good ffa matches anymore..* I instead prefer to make my actions show that I have no intention of assault, and hope my enemy who is not my current enemy notices and accepts

uhm.. I got sidetracked with something and forgot where I was going.. so /rant:off

All of my ffa games come with a description dictating the rules of the game. It can be fun having games where PMing/treaties are allowed, which can make a game very interesting. When you don't want treaties, turn off the pming, and hope 2 friends don't join and decide to team up anyway. This is war people will often do anything they can to win, and to hell with the rules. I find most on WL are good at following the rules(provided they actually read them,) laid down by the host. We have a pretty good community here :) Always a few bad apples though.

I just got screwed by [DJ_MAYO](http://warlight.net/Profile.aspx?p=828327490) on a truce. I don't think it should be illegal, but it is indeed a dick move. I will remember him for the rest of my time playing and I will gladly tell anyone about it

It's ffa, you make treaties at your own risk. Always keep an eye on people you are working with, this is why you have spy cards. Always play smart, if he won then he played it smart, sometimes being an asshole is how you win.

This is a game of war! in war leaders team up against other leaders. thats a fact! is teaming up fair... YES! because at the start all players have the same oportunity to make teams if you dont make a team when your probably should have then you didnt lose because of cheats you lost because of a poor strategy.

if i lose a game when im on my own fighting againt 3 or 4 (which by the way only really happens when 1 player gets very powerful) then i dont think i was cheated i think the others out played me and deserved to win

the bottom line is if you dont like people teaming up then only join games without PM

It really is as simple as that!

I'm now in a game with a lot of players, and when I met someone the second turn, I immediately asked for peace. Is that so bad? Would it be fair to be annihilated in the 3rd turn by someone who has had a better starting position than you?
In that game, it went on, and I first asked all players I meet for a truce, and when they accept, we can't really promise not to attack, but at least we tell if we're going to attack, so the other player has time to prepare. And now I'm having a really long border with someone and we don't want to fight yet, so we agreed to keep 10 armies on both sides of the border. That way, we can focus on attacking one player, which is way more fun than dealing with attacks from 3 players at the same time.

"And what about the poor player standing alone?!?"
Well, that poor player shouldn't have attacked everyone they see, like a barbarian. He should have made a deal with someone sooner, just as you can't complain about low income because you should have completed a bonus sooner. Diplomacy is part of the game, and if dramatically you want to avoid it, check the settings before you play, instead of yelling on the forum and telling people how they should name their games.

|> Is making truces cheating?

No. It would be cheating if there were a rule against truces, which there isn't.
Allowing PM'ing implies truces are endorsed. If you don't want truces, don't play PM Games.

|> Why do people make truces?

Because when you're fighting in a 24-player game, it makes no sense to bash each other's brains in right from the start. That would be suicide. Making a truce grants at least one of the negotiators a chance of winning.

|> What can we do about it?

Play games without Private Messaging, play games where the allainces have been predetermined, i.e. team games, or play 1v1 games. I hardly ever get backstabbed by allies in a 1v1... ;)

Hooray! This argument again!

Look, you may hate the 3 point shot line in basketball, but it's there. People use it. If you don't that's fine but don't sit there and bitch because someone used something that was meant to be part of the game.

Why do you think that private messaging is even an option if this is not the case?

Play fisticuffs on the Harvard quad all you want. The rest of us are playing a wargame.

Truces can be very risky u can get backstabbed so if someone truced against u then just wish they back stab each other i hav played many games in which i hav been back stabbed.But still play truce.Maybe fizzer should put a button in which we can truce without any worries when both players hav agreed and people will be awared of who is truced.

That could be interesting ironheart, a truce that everyone knows about and the duration of it would be set, or a truce through private messaging that would be secret, but you could get backstabbed.

that idea is one of the highest-rated ones on uservoice.

i think 50%+ of all players don't know the meaning of the word truce.

truce = agreement to stop attacking each other (ie, you have already attacked each other)

non-aggression pact = agreement (likely before any attacking has taken place) to not attack each other

alliance = agreement to cooperate (to some extent)

if you meet somebody for the first time, it is impossible for you to ask him for a truce, unless he is using the computer next to you and punching you while you play...

^^ Lol

truces must have conditions too (eg, duration). if you bump into someone for the first time and say in a private message "yo, truce?" and the enemy responds "peace, yeah," then you do two things:

- you ask for a truce without first attacking the enemy. i'd say such a truce is null and void, since you can't have a truce until you attack or are attacked.
- if you overlook the first problem: then you are entering into an open-ended truce. this means either of you can attack the other guy whenever you want, since an open-ended truce's duration is up in the air, it is open to both sides to interpret when the truce expires and war recommences.

alot of people ask for NAT's early on

the problem with FFA w/o diplomacy, is that the majority of the game is decided by your starting locations.. which is partially strategy, but mostly luck.. since say 10 people, if 5 start in the same bonus range, then they have already lost.. could be a good bonus range for many reasons, but they lost because they were unlucky in to not be the only ones having chosen on it.. early game NAT's reduces the amount that luck will affect the game, and returns the ability of players to win by skill..

What is true, out of discussion is that "FFA with diplomacy" is very different game from "FFA", in one writting and making treaties is almost needed to win, in other it's not so needed, cause only way to do so is to write on general chat, what everybody sees.

I guess those changes in games, which changes much, could have some small icons IN GAMES VIEW, so fastly we could see if:
- it's multi-attack
- FFA with diplomacy/FFA/team game
- changed army settings
- cards/no cards
- type of territory distribution

If an icon is intuitive and takes not much space, there would be a space for them.

So if I see that some settings are not standard I would be more motivated to check the settings, cause sometimes when it's last place You just don't check everything but don't want the game to run away, so just click to join and then check, it's commong, and such icons would make faster to know if it's standard game or what's changed. Details would be without change, as now, and icons just give additional information.

This topic isn't only to talk about it, but to work out an idea, which might be implemented.

I personally prefer to play in games, when my decisions mostly make me win or lose. I don't like to play with stupid teammates, which make me lose or play in team games where there are reinforcement cards and the fastes take them, not the one who needs them the most. Same I prefer to play in FFA's without diplomacy, cause it's of of my decisions and if 3 of my neighbours team up, I have small chances to win. Such info if there are PM's would be great for me personally. I know that many people don't like multi-attack as well, so they would see if it's multi or not. Some don't like cards in teamgames, so they would see it. Some prefer manual distribution.

And author of the game write, what he choice in topic. It's bad seen what it's multi and not written in topic. So why not to put simple and intuitive icons for such "making difference" settings if there's a space for it?

Only reasons not to do it, I see is:
- more server transfer
- making game look more complicated for newbies

I don't know how much more transfer would it usu, but seems to be a marginal problem.
About newbies, such a setting to see the icons or not, could be a choice in personal account settings and could be automaticly disabled, so if somebody want, he can enable it.

In future in advanced settings it could be possible to decide in settings, what kind of icons would be showed. If somebody don't car if it's FFA or FFA with PM, then he could check to see such icons or not. If he don't like multi, then he can see and icon in multi-attack games :)

I just had a game, when it was multi-attack game, with the text "multi-attack" in the game title and after few turns of playing (with light fog - U see moves of opponent) the guy I played with, noticed that it's multi-attack :) when he already lost. So it's not exceptions when people don't read settings and then just are suprised, I think it's common and happen often.

Here is the game http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1921212