I interpret truce against as in 2+ people trucing until X player is defeated or removed as a threat to said trucing players

Truces are quite simple. They are active until a person gives 1 turn notice. That is a standard truce. Saying truces are cheating is idiotic. It's part of the game, and if you don't want to talk with people in a FFA go play single player.

Gui, semantics over what the definition of "truce" really is doesn't change the discussion, merely the concept that needs to be used. Point it out once in a quick sentence, you don't have to make a big deal out of it.

Don't think there's much discussion value here any way. Pacts are much harder to form when private messaging is turned off, but it cannot and should not be stopped in any way. It's a valid strategy. I complain a lot when I lose due to pure chance, and the same can be said over losing to a pact. It's part of what the game is like. It's not a puzzle, it's war. It can be unpredictable and unfair.

"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.."

No :) cause if non-standard are open seat settings then who cares? If U see the game it mean that U can play it.

If cards settings are non-standard and it's not so important for somebody and the rest is standard, then a person can fastly join without checking.

If number of troops for bonuses are changed U don't have to check them, but U will know to check them when choosing a place to start.

If attack/defend percentages are different U just have to check it after joining to change the stratego of attacking/defending and it does not block U from joining without checking.

But if I see that it's ffa with private messages or multi-attack I may not want to join. Everybody have his own preferences, so he could enable icons or disable them, and in more advanced option choose which will show up and which won't. If I would not like games of 3 teams and teams are randomized, so it does not look as a team game, when I see players joining, I would like to have icon to show it. I don't like 3 teams game, cause usually the team which fight the least wins, and it's often 2vs1.

If U don't like icons U could disable them :) easy.

So in other words, you want Fizzer to institute icons for all possible game types and setting type. And then, if that is not enough work, you want him to make those icons fully customizable on a per-user basis so that each player gets different icons?

Yea, I think there are FAR better uses for Fizzer's time than wasting it on such an ultimately trivial and timely modification. Just check the settings or make your own games more often.

In addition, if you do think such a modification would be worthwhile, make it into a [Uservoice](http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features) and watch the votes come rolling in!

If you're lucky, you'll get twenty...

http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/1088481-peace-treaties

Highest voted idea on UV, and it could solve out problem.

To some extent alliances are not cheating. Yes a 5v1 is not fair at all, however, **bold**its pretty crappy in FFA's when you just chose a starting position and theres someone right next to you. That is the only time there should have an aliance that is fair

I think alliances, truce, wathever you call it is OK to use since it is not forbiden. If PM is off you can use public chat (I have did that) to comunicate. So my suggestion is to not complain, as that won`t help. However what helps is to make truce etc. if you do that your chance of winning probly increase;)

@howboutemdawgs
To use **bold** text have to stars (**) on both sides of what you want to be bold;)

Guys, FFA alliances add a lot of realism. Alliances are allowed, yet not enforced. just like in reality. In world wars 1 and 2, plenty of alliances and side switches have been made.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2160714

This is cheating - they have even commit it. Can I do something with it?

If they went into the game planning on one person alone winning regardless of the circumstances, then I consider that cheating. It's hard to say outside of Ares saying "he's my master" whether they planned on creating a single winner or not. Yes, friends join matches together, but it's generally known and assumed that even when they work together, there will come a time when they can no longer do so because they can't both win. When one person never plans on winning but only making the other win, then that's against the spirit of FFA.

Any treaties leading up to the end are fine in my view, so long as each member of the treaty has some intention of winning, at least in the beginning.

Blacklisting them seems like a fine option in this case, if only due to the "master" comment.

Oew, interesting case! The [rules](http://wiki.warlight.net/index.php/Rules) (the official, don't-break-these-or-face-consequences ones) say:
|> You shall not operate more than one WarLight account in a way that gives you an advantage in a game, tournament or ladder.

Now, there is of course the chance Ares is an alt account of batbat4, that would most definitely be against the rules. But what if Ares is actually a different person, who follows batbat4's orders so closely (as implied by "he is my master") that he is *effectively* an alt account...? In that case, *technically* neither of them would break any rules. However, in my opinion it's still very much against the spirit of the rules.

The best advice I can give you is to click his name in the "Players" box (you know, lower right corner of the screen) and report him. Even though I'm not sure if this counts as breaking the rules, I guess it's at least worthy of attention.

Thanks, your opinion makes me better - i reported Them.

One thing to keep in mind (copied from the [Rules page](http://wiki.warlight.net/index.php/Rules#Enforcement) on the Wiki):

|> Warnings are completely anonymous -- other players cannot tell that a player received a warning. However, suspensions and banning are revealed on a player's profile for the duration of the suspension.

Unless Fizzer considers this serious enough to suspend or ban them (him??), you will never receive confirmation what happened; just because you can't tell what was decided does NOT mean nothing happened, it also does NOT mean this case wasn't report-worthy.

There is a reason why FFA games are not popular among players who knows to play other type of games.

While it's true that even the best tactical and strategic players can lose in FFA due to no fault of their own, FFA is certainly a skill-based game. The skills needed to win just happen to be different than in 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc.

I'm 21/35 in FFA games, including 4/7 in 24 player FFA. It's absolutely possible to win fairly consistently with the right skillset.

You might look at FFA and say that victory is out of your control, and maybe you personally can't control whether you win or not. Other people are able to win quite consistently. The major difference is that you generally can't brute force a victory through purely tactical means, like you can in game sets with only two teams.

Some people happen to like that.

In an FFA game, many often play the "wait until the other players destroy each other" tactic, which sometimes succeeds. For it to succeed, you have to look harmless, especially in a fogless game like this one. There is a fine line to doing this until it's too late to win. Then the other losing combattants often get mad and make rude accusations. This doesn't necessarily mean there is "cheating" going on. The anger reflects the belief that everyone else has a duty to fight for a balance of power when you are committed to it.

Different games take on different characteristics, just like the old Risk game. In some games, everyone's cagey and no one wants to appear threatening, everyone gets their continent, with the first one to be aggressive the loser. In other games, everyone wants to pounce on their weakest neighbour.

What I find amusing is the psychological pressure and emotional heat that is generated, especially in the "no pm" chats. It reminds me of playing Risk as a kid, and your 12-year old buddy finally boils over and spills the board in a fit of rage and storms off home. Sometimes I'm glad I don't have to see my opponents face to face.

i use the waste men tactic

"I'm 21/35 in FFA games, including 4/7 in 24 player FFA. It's absolutely possible to win fairly consistently with the right skillset."

Sorry, but your implication here is bogus. The way I understand FFAs such as those with 24 players, the majority of times your win rate is based on effective truces. Of course, if your opponents are crappy, you're going to win with less truces required. My FFA wins were largely based on seeing the others beat on each other instead of me, weakening themselves, or having more truces than the rest and luckily have more income than my allies.

My 21-player FFA win, I'm not proud of it. It seemed largely luck. I would like to see one of your wins as a replay, and give me information on truces and such. I'll give my honest opinion about it.