@ Gui --> Alright, then let's call the agreements treaties. Generally, if treaties are for an indefinite amount of time, you agree to warn each other before attacking.
But that's hardly the point. Seroslav's point is that these treaties are a form of cheating. The fact that you point out treaties need specifications has nothing to do with that.

@ Seroslav --> You know, people like you should just be playing the 1v1 Auto Game. Then you needn't read the settings and have no teammates. Or make your own non-PM games so you know your settings.
Not reading the settings is not an excuse for hating settings:

|> ***Joining a game without reading the settings is like applying for a job without knowing what job you're applying for.***

a wise man once said: when a question is not worth answering, answer the question you wish had been asked instead. the answer to the original question (a) had already been answered and (b) is obvious to anybody who understands the nature of FFAs.

i think war is, to some degree, a window into one's psyche. each move on the board expresses something about the player. likewise, how one talks on the forum can imply how someone might play in a game.

on wl, the only things that matter: moves, words, stats. from your response and your ffa stats, i have a pretty good idea how you'd play in an ffa, domenico.

Seroslav
"So if I see that some settings are not standard I would be more motivated to check the settings"

define non-standard settings..
what is non-standard for you, is standard for me..
this discussion has happened before..

Gui, nothing in that paragraph addresses the point he made. Domenico's point remains valid.

Also, not for nothing, but no one has pulled out their stats and epeens in this discussion but you. We know you're really really good, dude. That doesn't make you right.

i really dont see the problem in just checking the settings before you join a game. its just common sense. pretty icons are not going to make enough of a difference to warrent the change. if icons were to be implimented then where do you stop? different icons for different cards. how about the settings of the cards. boot times are important how about them? its just endless. icons or no icons i would still look at the settings before deciding to join or not.

I recall a four player FFA where my neighbor attacked me repeatedly and a third player became very powerful. Without treaties, that third person would have won the game with no skill required. As long as he was able to expand at a reasonable pace, he would have become unstoppable while the two of us beat our heads together for enough of an advantage to pull out a win.

We changed our plan, and were able to beat the third player, which was clearly in both of our interests to do.

On some level, we just replaced one winner with another, and that's not necessarily better. What was solved, though, was the fact that the third player's win would have only happened because he didn't start next to anyone else. The person who happens to have the biggest area to expand into should not always win.

If I wanted to watch semi-scripted games where everyone goes straight outward, then I would set the AI to fight itself. There'd be some variation, but really, starting positions would matter as much as skill, and that's never fun.

Perrin in reply to Your question "define non-standard settings.."

Non-standard are those, which have been changed, when creating game. When U create game, default settings is that turn income is 5. If it's not 5, then it's "non-standard", cause changed from standar (default) ones. This is what I meant.

Seroslav, what about templates?
that would mean that a fair percentage of the 1v1 strat template would be considered *non standard settings* and would have to show up as such, making your information relatively worthless.. if it doesn't show up as non-standard because it is a template, then you're information is effectively worthless

the problem with highlighting non-standard settings, or with icons for non-standard settings or anything.. is that there is so much that could be considered as non-standard in just about every game played, that there would be enough information conveyed to make it just about as convenient as clicking settings and scanning the page..

this thread had ceased to have any reason to have more arguments related to the original question once dazed, perrin, and you offered your replies.

dominic: "Seroslav's point is that these treaties are a form of cheating. The fact that you point out treaties need specifications has nothing to do with that."

me: "the answer to the original question [about cheating] (a) had already been answered [see dazed and confused's and perrin's replies] and (b) is obvious to anybody who understands the nature of FFAs [ie, the original question should be disregarded to begin with]."

there is really no need to talk about the question posed [see your first reply, emg]. so i branched off, based on the first thing that came to my mind. i read domenic's reply and thought "why does domenic want me to beat a dead horse?" i checked his profile to see if he was a good FFA player (ie, does he have any reason to want me to talk about a dead argument?). he has no experience in FFAs. and the few he has played he lost. so this begs the question: "why does a guy who doesn't understand FFAs and didn't seem to read dazed's, perrin's or emg's replies really want me to keep talking about this matter?" this made me think: "moves, words, and stats are intimately related." that's all.

emg, i didn't pull out my stats. i never said anything about myself. the only person to direct anybody's attention to my stats, emg, was you. i only mentioned dominic's.

on a more philosophical note, emp: must there be right and wrong? can't things just exist as is?

Woah, I didn't expect this.

First of all, it's hardly fair to draw conclusions based on my FFA stats, since I have only played 20 FFAs so far (not including 1v1s.)
Plus I am not so bad at FFAs at all. While you imply I've lost all of them, my win rates are about average, so there's no need to ridicule me. And as emgzapper said: stats are irrelevant.

I *am* curious what you concluded from my "so-so stats". You must be a real Sherlock if you now know my FFA style, let alone *my psyche*.

By the way, I replied to Seroslav ***before*** emgzapper, and Perrin and D&I didn't reply to Seroslav's third question, so I did add to the argument.

I don't see why you 1) needed to go all Grammar Nazi on me with the truce-treaty difference, then 2) use stats as an argument.
It's also inconsiderate to bring your final argument, then use *a philosophical note* to try and end the argument. Especially when you haze someone (i.e. me) and this someone hasn't had the chance to defend himself yet.

And now finally back to your point: we all know treaties need specifications. Treaties are a mere form. Like FFAs; how many players, what map, etc., there are many different treaties. That's an objective fact, so it's hard to argue about that...

By the way, Duke of Ben, I'm now rather curious what happened to the fourth player. :-)

If I recall correctly, he was booted. It doesn't really change the situation much, though, since a fourth player will frequently be killed off and leave three behind.

"moves are a window into one's psyche": we are not currently playing each other, dom, so there are no moves for me to even attempt to analyze. don't conflate this with what follows in that sentence to misquote me.

"how one talks on the forum *can imply* how someone might play in a game":

your words, together with your stats, make me think you have an aggressive nature and perhaps quick to overreact (or attack/defend/use strategies in the extreme).

also, the truce-treaty reply was a universal reply and was not directed at you. is that what set you off to begin with? if so, being your neighbor in an FFA might be my doom: if you misinterpret my moves and attack me, it could ruin my chances in the game.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1923998
they should hav truced against my ai because it led to the person the ai didn't kill fastest won

@ Ironheart --> You can't truce with an AI, you can only use diplomacy cards.

@ Gui --> Well, you did say that moves and words are intimately related, which means that, strictly speaking, my words are a window into my psyche as well.

Your conclusion concerning my moves is false, for starters. I am hardly an aggressive player. I typically lose because I try to have a decent defence everywhere and then my opponent rolls through the line with a 100+ Armada.

I admit I was a little suspicious about your truce-treaty reply, but then I reckoned it was just a universal reply, until you started stat-bashing.
It's true that I insist on good communication during non-aggression pacts, but I don't Blitzkrieg into someone's territory for making one weird move, I just ask what's going on and build some defence just in case.

Domenico, Ironheart diden`t said you shuld have truce whit the AI. He said the other players left shuld team up **against** the AI, then fight each other;) and he is correct.

i didn't say they should truce wit ai i said they should against domenico u are not getting the point of that post.

and henns understood me well.

My bad. Sorry for that, but I thought it *truced against* was more likely to mean *truce **with*** than ***team up** against*.