So I'm playing a FFA with 3 other individuals with fog, and after about 8-9 turns, I notice that red is on every border of my main expansion, and is fielding very large armies. On the other expansion, I'm surrounded by the other two, who have been hitting each other continually with no real progress. So I state in chat, "Red is getting ridiculous."

Red starts typing about how I'm cheating, there's no alliances allowed, and that because he made good "tactical" decisions he deserves to win.

Was I wrong? Is that cheating? I might have taken this more seriously, but red just came across as 4 year-old who thought he had a "right" to win.

I don't mind you using my name. I'm the "4-year old", I guess.

Ok, so you're playing poker: Do you look at the hand of the guy next to you and tell everyone else he's got a good hand? Kinda comprimises any strategy the guy's got going, doesn't it? Would that be cheating?

I was upset not because I had a "right" to win. I was upset because an FFA (Free For All) means every man for themselves. You're not supposed to give away hidden information to your opponents. Why else would there be fog?

By letting the others know that I was the heavy-hitter you pointed both of them at me. No one can compete against 3 players who are only attacking the one. Doesn't matter how good they are. The numbers just don't allow it.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no hard feelings. If you are unable to keep yourself from giving away hidden information in the future, please be sure not to join my games. Thank you. I hope we can move forward without any more issues. See you on the battlefield.

Yeah your analogy is pretty terrible. Mainly because no one is supposed to be able to see the cards of any other player. I can't really help seeing your armies on every border attacking me. The only difference is that the other players weren't able to see the threat.

And not one of the other players said they were going to attack you exclusively. Heck, both of them hit me the next turn. Some alliance that is where your allies attack you. But by letting them know who the "heavy-hitter" was, it made the game much more interesting than a game where you just got lucky and proceeded to take everyone out one by one. Look at other examples of FFA's posted on these forums. People do that all the time.

True that you can see my numbers, but the other players can't. It's not public knowledge. And you didn't answer the question: If you saw the hand of the guy next to you and he's got you beat, do you fold your hand and keep your mouth shut or do you let everyone else know what he's got?

Any knowledge that I have in a game, I reserve the right to distribute it freely to whomsoever I please. If you're not willing to use all the legitimate tools at your disposal to win the game, including free exchange of information, that's your own albatross by choice. Anything that shouldn't be allowed in the game needs to be disallowed through the game mechanics, not social enforcement. That's why I think that booting should be system automated. There's simply no reasonable way to enforce a no-collusion game, so there's no reason to even try.

In most poker games there are strict rules about sharing information with the other players, even information about your own hand, regardless of whether you see your opponent's hand or not. It can take hours to set up a big hand in poker, and if someone blurts out "I folded the other 3", it is certainly unfair to the person who earned the advantage of secrecy. And in poker, it will get you kicked out of a tournament.

In this game I don't think the rules are as clear. I like to go into a game on the assumption that my opponents won't be colluding and sharing information that they can't come by on their own. In my mind, the player that obtains an advantage through superior play, or through luck, is entitled to that advantage.

Others feel differently about what's fair and what's not, so in the absence of a clear code of conduct, I regard multiplayer games as intrinsically flawed.

I routinely try to use information I have on other players to rally and coordinate support among other players in public and private messages in FFA games. Joboo is entirely wrong -- unless you view his bitching about it in the game as an attempt to persuade you to stop revealing information about his position and trying to convince other players he's the real threat, which is also a strategy. But if it was strategic bitching then he should admit it now rather than trying to argue it's somehow against the rules because it's a FFA game (which just means there's only one winner). Anything can be said in the public chat within the rules and if private chat is enabled anything can be done there as well. If that means alliances form -- welcome to WL.

As for the stupid hypothetical, OC is right, it only makes sense in a different game with different rules (a.k.a. a false analogy). If I were playing POKER and it's a friendly game, I'd tell the guy I saw his cards because it's polite (assuming I saw them because he accidently angled them at me and not because I furtively snuck behind him or used mirrors or something) and play the hand accordingly. If I could gain more of an advantage by announcing his cards, I might do that too (although it's hard to see how that woudl be the case in a POKER game). There's nothing unfair or against the rules of WL to say Joboo has a huge stack on my border in a FFA public chat.

The anything goes philosophy is fair, assuming it is understood equally by all the players, and the scope of "anything" is limited to the game at hand (which is frequently not the case). I personally am not interested in playing such a game online, which is why I'm losing interest in Warlight. I would prefer to play in a game where the rules of engagement are clear and simple and people that violate them are considered to be bad players. There are always going to be people who cheat. But whether or not they are cheating doesn't have to be a gray area. Until there is a rule that says you can't share information under the table, it's not cheating; and until such a time I'm not interested in playing. Ok, not as interested.

Having read everyone's comments I feel I should leave a statement before I leave for the weekend:

I agree that the information is there for the player and therefor can be used against the any player in the game. I admit that I am incorrect only due to the fact that there is no rule on this matter. Because there is no way to eliminate chat entirely, there is no way to keep people from using non-public information against another player. I feel it's wrong, but the rules don't provide any control on this matter.

I believe my biggest mistake is expecting for people to want a fair contest. It's become painfully obvious that this means different things to different people.

I apologize for inciting dissent among the WL players with this matter. I apologize to OrangeCommander for my behavior and ask that he forgives me. I hope we can continue to enjoy this site and the competition within together.

Ok, you really don't have to apologize, but I'll accept it anyway. Plus, don't apologize, and then stick "I believe my biggest mistake is expecting for people to want a fair contest" in there. It kind of negates the apology.

I appreciate everyone's opinions, and hope to see you all in some games in the future.

Since collusion is inevitable, the only way for it to be a fair contest is for everyone to be equally willing to collude. You can't limit yourself in your fashion, and then say it's the colluder's fault that it's unfair - you had the exact same tools available to you, so really it's just you being stupid and then trying to pin the blame on someone else. In general though, if you title the game with a "no collusion", most of the better players will honor that.

The poker analogy is very flawed - There is very little to be gained by sharing any information you possess with any of your opponents in poker. Like, the only thing would be if you wanted to work together to the disadvantage of someone that has a big stack of chips in front of them so they can't muscle you out of a hand in the future. That's pretty minimal gain for collusion, so there's pretty much no reason to do it. The advantages of diplomacy, extortion, bribery, and the like in warlight AND on the world stage of alliances and conflicts that warlight emulates are undeniable.

I prefer a straight up game myself Braveheart with minimal elements of chance. My preferred settings are:

World map
1x1
Manual picks
Luck = 0%
Reinforcement cards (4 parts) for +5

I find that these settings give you the least amount of luck factor in the game. Challenge me anytime and I'll play you with these settings (or others if you prefer).

i've been on both sides of this before and totally understand both points of view. seeing as there are no game rules as such, we wont know if its cheating unless randy makes some rules which i doubt he will. Everybody has a different style of play. Personally, i find it interesting and encouraging the number of different types of games we play.

games like this cant just have good honourable players. it would get very boring if everybody played the same. The diversity of playing styles is what makes this fun.
i'll admit, i've acted like an asshole in a few games but the vast majority i honour any agreements and dont try and make the game unfair.

you'll never get everybody agreeing on this. fairness is an opinion not a fact. On the one hand telling other players the positions of somebody and their armies goes against the spirit of free for all but on the other hand, if its a good game and people are having fun i can see why people wouldn't want to be taken out one by one.

it's pure luck if 2 players get placed in say.. england, portugal, and italy and the 4th gets placed in russia. having the best starting position doesn't give you the "right" to win. making alliances and sharing information is one of the best parts of the game, in my opinion. sure, it stinks when it works against you, but hey, losing sucks no matter what.

you did nothing wrong. the other guy should quit complaining.

Way to comment on only the 1st post, Hedonism. Try reading a little more next time.

We have all come the realization that I was wrong on this matter and I apologized. I felt that disabling the PM function and calling the game an FFA implied that there would be no collusion between players and the other players didn't think of it that way. What we had was a lack of communication and I've admitted that.

There are no rules regarding this matter nor the ability to stop ALL communication between players. Because of that, collusion is inevitable and will be utilized by players to try to gain the upper hand.

I prefer a contest where you work with the hand you're delt. Stand on your own. If you get a crappy position, so what. That's the way the cookie crumbles. I've won games from crappy positions and lost horribly in the same situation.

Again, I am sorry for the dissent that was created due to my misunderstanding of the rules. I hope that we can all understand that the rules system on this matter is incomplete and we should be more clear with our intentions from now on.

In the future, I will include "no collusion" in game titles and in the information boxes. Hopefully, all players who join the game after reading that will have a similar view on the distribution of in-game information and these issues will not exist.

Just as Dave said...fairness is an opinion and not a fact. We are never going to completely agree on this one, so let's move on peacefully.

http://www.jayofteror.com/uploads/1246295960/gallery_1_5_6996.jpg

hahaha, that is a funny pic