I appreciate this well thought through post. I'm not as upset that Octavious did what he did, i'm more upset that he thought he won that game by basically sitting back while his two allies went toe to toe. Believe me, I have use that stockpile strategy as a lost resort. I have to once don't that to an ally. When i make an alliance i tend to keep it... otherwise game on! He plays in webdiplomacy and there way of winning is to backstab once you have the other persons trust. Octavious is one of many that is how i would define "a dirty player." But being proud of the win is just pathetic...

The never ending saga.

Wilfred it's slowing down and I think Octavious has given up

Its not about winning. you both lost this

Good Lord, is this still going on?

I feel I should clarify something to Maugrim. BigPie was never my ally. He could have been. I gave a genuine offer early in the game which he declined. After that point my strategy was to simply eliminate him and the 2nd offer of an alliance was a simple deception in order to achieve this. My only true ally in the game by my definition was Darica, who ironicly stabbed me at one point (which at the time was a good move and for which I congratualte him).

@ Wilf

Sorry, but I don't get your meaning. We had an enjoyable game followed up by this enjoyable debate. In what sense did we lose? It would have been nice if I could convert BigPie to my way of thinking, which I firmly believe leads to a more competitive, more complex, and more importantly a more entertaining game. BigPie calls me a dirty player, which as I break no rules, complete orders on time, and always play to the end seems a tad unfair... but this his right. As it is also his right to get upset over whatever he wishes. Ideally this would not be the case, but it is very much not my problem.

I may add a poem of my own to your thread later... It may not quite match the quality of Baldrick, but it will be original :)

I would rather suggest neutrality between the players. I mean, in a FFA game when two enemies make an alliance they can't commit orders like allies can (transfer, airlift,...) and (if there's fog) they can't see what's happening on each others borders so that you can have a view of some sort in which you can roughly estimate the situation of what's going on in the game so basically they're nothing but "allied enemies". And as for diplomacy cards, it's a good idea to use them if there are multiple enemies so that you can have "peace" for a while, but if used too often...well, that won't lead you anywhere, like I learned from my personal experience about diplomacy in FFA games.

"Good lord, is this still going on?"

Good lord... hes back

My policy on alliances in FFA:

Always set a limit on alliance. 5 turns, 10, 30. OR set a condition like once you have 'x' area. Whatever it is, you need terms or else someone will eventually break it. The terms can just be a 1 turn warning, but that needs to be in place.

I always stick to them because you will develop a reputation of being a backstabber. I have been backstabbed in FFA games and I will NEVER make deals with that person again in any other game, period.

@ Chris

This is an interesting concept. What I'm struggling to understand is how such alliances benefit a game. It seems to me that a game in which people stick like glue to their alliances is in danger of being reduced to a competition to see who can form the best alliance first followed by a tedious waiting game whilst the inferior alliance is eliminated. I can see the enjoyment of games in which the alliances end up evenly balanced, but surely this is what games in the style of 3v3 are for?

A game in which alliances are far more frail and can be broken an remade relatively easily has the potential, when played well, to be a highly enjoyable and dynamic affair. It doesn't matter if you start off on the losing team as there may well be the chance to join the other team later on. Power will ebb and flow from one player to the next and no one will be certain of victory until the single handedly dominate the board. Communication and negotiation will be vital skills a player will need throught the game, instead of the occasional few words or nothing at all that's all too common at the moment.

I will admit that my game of choice is Diplomacy rather than Risk, on a site called webdiplomacy, where negotiation and stabbing are the cornerstones of the game. This game is fun, but I can't help but feel that by overdoing the etiquette you're missing out on it's full potential.

Well, your scenario doesn't exist if you set the terms right. Set it for 5 turns and then just up it if both parties agree. Or if you want just do 1 turn notice.

If you want to just have an open ended truce with every intention to back stab later, that is fine. But don't expect someone to fall for it again. it isn't cheating, just doesn't make any friends. I've honored treaties in games and they have led to treaties in other games with the same people.

You might win the game with your style, but will lose the war.

It's a funny old thing, but over on the site where I play Diplomacy the idea you suggest with "I've honored treaties in games and they have led to treaties in other games with the same people" is considered cheating (we call it metagaming) and ultimately leads to being banned. To be clear I'm not accusing you of cheating (although I am surprised to find there are no rules against it here), but I have to admit to see this style of play being promoted as a good thing is more than a little disturbing to my ears.

It is however extremely fascinating to discover that two sites, each with games based on the idea of conquest via a combination of individual tactics and alliances, have such wildly different views on what counts as ethical play. Even the phrase "You might win the game with your style, but will lose the war" is almost repulsive to me as we are so used to the idea that the game is the war.

One thing that does bother me, more so even than the alien nature of your ethics, is that in each of the three games I've fought it has always been me doing most of the talking. I have only had another player talk to me before I to him on one occasion, and that was only a few words long. Have I just been unlucky, or are you generally quiet types?

I agree most people don't talk except in a couple role playing games I am in. Even then some people won't talk in a role playing specific game...odd.

I suppose it is metagaming but what else can you do? Have amnesia? I am in a game with a friend and I am not allied with him. I do what is best for me in game, not based on friendships. So I don't make allies with a person from a relationship outside that game, but I will trust them based on past experience. And I will not trust someone based on past experience too.

I haven't seen Fizzer's opinion on that, but I think it is up to the player anyway. I doubt he would discourage or encourage it either way. It is up to each player to determine that I think, and you can't fault a player for not liking that style.

In your world there is no recourse for back stabbing (unless you have the ability in that game to punish it), which is very frustrating for players because you cannot trust ANYONE (without meta-gaming).

In those role playing games we have rules against outside friendships playing a part in allying.

Beginning a game with prefabricated friendships, alliances and enemies, I think, is pretty wrong. However you can´t help about knowing of others reputations and acting upon them

is octavius he one who created a tourney and wrote a friggin paragraph on how to backstab ppl in the tourney

One can try to adopt a policy of amnesia :p

It helps that the stab is an accepted part of good play in Diplomacy. As such being stabbed rarely generates any kind of lasting resentment. Indeed, if it is a good stab the other players often gain added respect for the stabber. A person can gain a reputation for incompetent play, or overly competent play, that may harm his chances of forming an alliance, but even this form of mild metagaming is frowned upon by some.

We also have a popular feature, that I don't think I've seen here, called anonymous games in which no one knows who they're playing against. This makes avoiding meta play a lot easier.

Thinking about it a bit more, one major difference between Diplomacy and Ris... erm... Warlight is that wins in Diplomacy are far harder to come by. In the traditional 7 player varient a good player will only expect to win about 10% of the games, with average players around 5%. It is also generally considered impossible to win without at least one well executed stab. Wins are thus very highly prized and it goes a long way to instilling a win at all costs attitude amongst us.

That being said, the rules we have we keep, and those who break them can expect an appointment with the banhammer pretty sharpish.

Leaving these attitudes behind is not easy, especially when they appear so successful here.

thank you for that very obtuse answer did you or did you not create the tournament?

@ Chris

"In your world there is no recourse for back stabbing (unless you have the ability in that game to punish it), which is very frustrating for players because you cannot trust ANYONE (without meta-gaming)"

Trust is funny thing. You can certainly not trust someone to watch your back all game (that would be suicide) but you can trust good players to act in their best intrests, and you can trust yourself to convince them that their interests happen to be what you want them to do. Friendships very much exist, but don't impact significantly on individual games.

@Hell bender

No. I've only played 3 FFA games since recently joining. I won them, which was nice, and thought I was getting along ok. And then BigPie went off on one which came as something of a surprise.

@ Hell Bender

Kiss my shiny metal ass. That answer wasn't for you.

i asked a question yes or no?