Hi all,

I've been playing this game for 5 (very intensive...) months now, and I really, really love it. I've been playing all kinds of games, from very strategic templates to lotteries, but my favorite after all are the FFA games. I like the chaos, fighting many players at once and the amount of experience you get from it :-).
Now is there a big problem with FFA games, especially with those which have a big player count. There is a lot of luck involved in these games, due to surrenders, boots, alliances, NAP's, etc... The main reason I stopped playing FFA was because in the end most players who made a lot of alliances won, mostly cos they decided when they would attack their allies giving them 1 free turn, while they had at least 4 of them to prepare for war.

I've been thinking about this for a while now, but when I joined a bunch of ladders I came to the conclusion there has to be a FFA competition / league where every player respects the rules, giving all players equal chances to win. These rules, which will apply for all games that will be holded in the competition / league, must knock out as much luck factors as possible to make sure the games gives a equal chance to everyone. Down below I've created some rules and required settings to accomplish this.

In concern with alliances, teaming and NAP's:
1. Private messaging will always be off. This option is the biggest threat towards teaming, alliances and NAP's. Of course there are many other ways to private message someone, but with this option switched off the easiest way is gone.
2. All players who wants to join this competition / league has to agree to not make alliances, NAP's and teams. after all, all the games will still be FFA games where only 1 player can win. When every player is only playing for themselves without other players giving them advantages FFA games can be fair

In concern with surrenders and boots:
3. All players who wants to join this competition / league must try by all means to do their turn before the boot timer runs out. Auto boot will be off (not sure about it tho), but other players are allowed to boot someone 1 day after the boot timer ran out unless the player gave a specific reason. This reason must be respected by all players.
4. Vacations will be honored, but players must try to avoid using vacations because the game can be on stand by for a very long time. (another setting idk yet if I will keep it)
5. All players who wants to join this competition / league must be willing to play a game until either he gets eliminated or when the all the remaining players agree on a winner. This will prevend AI's and neutrals containing 0 / 1 armies which will only give an advantage to some players and not all

In concern with other luck factors:
6. All templates will use the manual distribution setting, with the exception when every start is equal (example: a template using the 12 bases map can use the automatic distribution when it gives every player 1 entire base)
7. All templates will not use a luck modifier, unless the template isn't as fun to play without a luck modifier
8. All templates will not use the random move order setting.
9. All players who wants to join this competition / league must be willing to invest time in a game.

In concern with violation of the rules:
10. Not following any of the rules above can turn into a kick from the competition. This does apply to every rule above, so even surrendering to often can result into a kick. Players are allowed to let me know if there are players not following these rules. Of course this also applies to abusing the rules.

I'm sure this list will be modified in the following days, so you might want to keep track of any changes made to them. i'll reply on this post if I made modifications. If you think I forgot a setting / rule or made a mistake writing them reply on this thread or send me a mail.


Now back to the competition / league. The templates will be containing from 3 up to 40 players. For the first few weeks I'll organise some single games until we have enough players to create a ranking system and good competition. When the competition / league starts I want to host 1 game for everyone every 2 weeks. This will make sure you won't have endless games to play, I can tell how stressful it is... The boot timer will at least have 3 days, this might be adjusted depending on feedback and depending on template. Some templates just requires some more time, I do want to give that time.
When you don't play a game you will automatically get last place, together with all the other players who declined or didn't join in time. I'm still thinking of a good ranking system, suggestions are welcome.

I want to cycle through many templates, all with various settings. I really like variety and it will ensure you play some templates you like. Of course you'll also have to play on template you don't like, but this is something you have to do. Everyone can submit templates, only requirement is they have to be from 3 up to 40 players. So far you actually can't submit any templates unless you mail them to me, but I might create a discord server for news and stuff like this ;-).

To join this competition / league you have to fill in this form, so I can quickly check things and stuff. So far I'm not planning on automating all of this, but I kinda hope I have to xD.
https://forms.gle/JDrUG65w3ZQMaoPA7

Some last things:
I don't know what should be a good name for the competition, pls help me out. I'm terrible with names xD
I call the rules and settings above the 'Just_A_Dutchman_ fair FFA rules', if this competition gets viral and all that I believe I can claim credits for them :)
pls note rule number 5, this is a big factor in FFA games. Of course you get more points the longer you survive, but surrendering still has a big impact on the game. I've started playing with the #noSurrender mindset 3 months ago, and it's actually kinda fun to blockade your last stack of armies, leaving a wasteland behind that almost no one will break through. But seriously, when every player fights till the end the game will be so much even.

and as very last, a short summary for everyone who doesn't want to read all above xD:
I'm creating a competition / league with FFA templates, you have to read the settings and rules stated above. The games will be from 3 to 40 players, with all kinds of templates and settings. To join fill in the form above, but do read the form pls

thank y'all for reading this, and consider joining. The more players, the more fun we all can have!

Just_A_Dutchman_

Auto boot will be off (not sure about it tho), but other players are allowed to boot someone 1 day after the boot timer ran out

I'd recommend instead you simply raise the boot time by 1 day and use auto boot. This will accomplish the same thing but save you a lot of headache when one person decides not to obey the "don't click the boot button until it's 1 day over" rule.

that's true, but I prefer playing with all players with a bit more wait time than certain players getting a boost from a boot. I'll for sure try this out in the games before hosting the actual competition, this way we can optimize the settings and all of that

Good idea. Even if all you do is get a group of people who like playing FFAs and are less likely to get booted from games, it's already a success imho.

Great idea. I recommend you don't honor vacations, but you can give like 5 days banked time to allow for longer time away. 3 days boot would work in this case, and autoboot.

Did you consider that people who surrender would turn into AI? This would allow people to surrender when they think the game is over for them instead of being forced to play a game they already lost for possibly a long time.

EDIT: 2 weeks might feel like a long time now, but big FFAs usually take long time, so monthly might be better than every 2 weeks.

Edited 4/28/2021 07:46:21

@Naviiso
The point of what he's doing is to attract people who agree to fight to the end, and not surrender. Turning to AI is better than going to neutral in that it's not totally free land for neighbours, but it's terrible if you had alliances with people, you then get attacked by the AI not honouring those agreements. However, this league would have people who also agree to not make alliances. So maybe AI is a better option after all, just to have that additional layer of protection in the case that someone does end up getting booted or surrenders despite agreeing not to.

Other issues to consider:
- How to deal with non-blatant alliances?
- How do you even define an "alliance"? Or "NAP"?
- If there is a clear leader in the game, clearly it is foolish for the weaker parties to war and let the leader clean up after their fight, so the natural tendency will be for many players to focus on the leader. Is this an alliance?
- Also keep in mind that "good strategy" means to do whatever it takes to win. I've seen some FFAs which ban alliances, etc, before, and others that declare that you "must fight everyone" - but this isn't good strategy. Outside of specific scenarios, fighting everyone means you half ass every battle, which means you lose. And the more enemies you encounter, the quicker you lose.
- Does someone declaring (in public) that player X is by far in the lead and will win if players don't gang up on him = alliance or NAP? Or is it good FFA strategy? If you don't gang up on a leader who has a massive lead, then you basically just let him win, so may as well just agree to surrender instead.

In the end ... I recommend not creating so many rules that they are difficult to understand and/or difficult follow and/or difficult to enforce and/or (perhaps the most important one) difficult for others to be able to ascertain if someone is abiding by them or not. Keep in mind that some things you won't know for certain if a rule was broken or not until after the game finishes (esp if using fog), and sometimes you may never know, it's a matter of that player's intent, etc. And if the rules result in excessive mid-game discussion about whether player X is in violation or not rather than focusing on the game (not dissimilar to PE debates in diplo games), it's just going to result in arguments instead of satisfying game play.

Yeah Krinid I was thinking that AI won't ruin any alliances if they are forbidden to start with.

Simple rule would be that it is not allowed to make any peace agreements, but if you just decide not to attack each other its fair game. Similarly ganging up on someone with an agreement in chat would be forbidden, but if players realize it on their own its obviously allowed. From my personal experience, it sucks when you have an FFA with private chat disabled and you gain an income lead by playing better than others, just to see them gang up on you in public chat.

As an example, here me and Traco had best picks, which led to everyone ganging up on us in public chat:
https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=25823757
In this case it was even worse because of the sanction cards, without them we had enough income to crush the opposition despite them ganging up on us. One could argue that we did in fact not play it best and should not have expanded that fast, but where is the fun in that.

E: As a simple rule, talking about the game in any form is forbidden?

Edited 4/28/2021 07:58:52

As a simple rule, talking about the game in any form is forbidden?

as long as you don't give away information about other players it's fine, you're free to tell everyone about your own situation in the game. But you must be careful about what you say. Example, saying how you only have 1 territory won't harm other players, but saying you're getting wrecked by a player can be troublesome for this player cos you let your neighbours know there's a player stronger than you, which might turn their attention towards this player. I don't consider this as teaming but I won't allow this to happen, because it can totally shift a game.

of course I'll use the setting that turns surrendered players into AI, I mainly wanted to state how big of an advantage this is for bordering players. Not really because the AI is bad, but mostly we players use better strategy and all of that.

- How to deal with non-blatant alliances?
- How do you even define an "alliance"? Or "NAP"?
- If there is a clear leader in the game, clearly it is foolish for the weaker parties to war and let the leader clean up after their fight, so the natural tendency will be for many players to focus on the leader. Is this an alliance?

I speak of an alliance or NAP when there is or was active communication between the parties. This communication can be done both inside and outside the game. When there is a clear leader in the game it's obviously that your focus will be on defending him, and less on other players you border. But as long as this happens without communication with other players it will be fine. This is one of the risks of growing strong in every FFA game, but will be less risky because there won't be alliances or NAP's.

- Does someone declaring (in public) that player X is by far in the lead and will win if players don't gang up on him = alliance or NAP? Or is it good FFA strategy? If you don't gang up on a leader who has a massive lead, then you basically just let him win, so may as well just agree to surrender instead.

First off, I consider this as a dirty strategy. Telling every player in the game who's most likely going to win will result in a massive team fight agains a solo player. This player has his reasons to be the strongest, and imo this has to be respected. The player probably had a lot of luck and played it smart. So yes, I do consider this as teaming / making alliances. Of course it's a good FFA strategy, but this strategy will not be allowed in any of my games, unless I say so.

The 10 rules I stated above mostly tell how the game settings imo should be set to create a fair game for everyone, together with some rules for the players playing it. The most important rules are the no surrender rule (number 5) and the no alliances / NAP's / teams rule (number 2).

My first idea was indeed to just have a group of players willing to play with these rules / settings, but when there are enough players I do want to make it into a competition. Just like ladders, you will be playing against players similar to your skill level, which ensures the game will be more even.

I already got some really helpful suggestions in the form, I'll keep the thread up to date if I see something really important pops up. In about a week I'll try to finalize everything and at least start creating games with the players interested in this

Edited 4/28/2021 09:19:26

I really like the idea and I'll sign up. I expect the early sign-ups are really just beta testers as there have been a lot of good points raised here that may result in some rule modifications.

I've never seen a big FFA that didn't contain some level of participation out of necessity to survive. And attacking everyone equally is impractical and bad strategy, as has been pointed out.

So, the trick is to live by the spirit of the competition, but not have everyone freak out if one of the rules gets violated in a minor way.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to giving this a test drive. Good job, Dutch!

First off, I consider this as a dirty strategy. Telling every player in the game who's most likely going to win will result in a massive team fight agains a solo player. This player has his reasons to be the strongest, and imo this has to be respected. The player probably had a lot of luck and played it smart. So yes, I do consider this as teaming / making alliances. Of course it's a good FFA strategy, but this strategy will not be allowed in any of my games, unless I say so.

Fair, and an important guideline to set going into the games. Let's take it further . . .

However ... instead of someone declaring in public chat, how about multiple players come to the same realization without actively colluding and achieve the same result? Simple example ... 3 person FFA, Dutch, Zazzle & krinid. k runs away with 2/3 the map and will beat both D & Z (doesn't matter how we got here, maybe k played expertly, maybe k had lucky starting positions, maybe it was a 10 player FFA and 7 players all got booted and only k gained their lands, not important), and b/c of k's deployments and land gains, both D & Z realize that k is the real concern and not each other (both D & Z realize that k has a huge lead over both of them and they will 100% lose if they fight each other), so there is an unspoken peace along the D-Z borders, but D-k and Z-k continue battling fiercely, and together D & Z can quell the k advance and remove him as a threat, even eliminate him, then make it a 1v1 DvZ. Is this still dirty/disallowed?

@Zazzle
Good points! Agree, can't fixate on the rules, yet what's the point of rules if they're not enforced and the winner is the first person to break them and reap the benefits of doing so? (;

Edited 4/28/2021 15:58:04

@krinid

however... ...disallowed?

In my opinion D and Z are totally allowed to do so. They both recognise the threat by themself, and there's no comminucation between eachother in terms of using the chat or private mail. The only problem is how far both players want to go before they will attack eachother. fully eliminating K will take a lot of turns and in the meantime both D and Z are allowed to attack eachother; the NAP / truce was never officially made (and of course this is not allowed). I do see this scenario happen, but not with an complete cease fire on the borders of D and Z. I think in reality players D and Z will reduce K's income to almost the base income, but not without little skirmishes on their borders.

It's of course a risk of getting strong, players will recognise the threat and react to this. But at the same time there can / will be players that either doesn't recognise the threat or don't border this player. Here's a little example:
Players Z, K and D all have 1 big part of the map. D has the entire right side, K is stuck in the middle and Z has the entire left side of the map and is slowly taking territories from K. K reacts on this by deploying more troops on the borders with Z, leaving some holes for D to break through K's defence. D of course doesn't recognise the threat on the other side of the map and will take as many territories from K as possible. K loses his entire income and eventually gets eliminated leaving D and Z in a 1v1. Both D and Z were playing correctly, K had either bad luck or picked bad. You can consider this as teaming, but again since there was no comminucation between D and Z no one broke the rules.

It will always be hard to tell if players are teaming or not, but assuming every player follows the rules this won't be the case in these games. Of course we do have take into consideration that there are always players who don't really care about the rules, but if possible I want to keep them out of this competition. So far I know from all the players signed up that they do care about these rules, and I'm looking forward to the games we'll be playing together.

Sounds good ... and glad you didn't say that it's unfair/illegal and that Z & D need to attack each other, b/c that means they give the win to K which means enforcing bad (losing) strategy in order to abide by rules. Agree, it's unlikely to occur to fully eliminate K before Z & D have skirmishes, nor is it good strategy to do so.

I've seen this case happen a number of times, where you need to decide where the biggest threat is, where the Bigger Fire is, and which Small Fires you can ignore. And after 3-4 turns of two players not deploying troops onto the Small Fire borders they have with each other, an unspoken NAP is achieved. There is no NAP of course, never any guarantee your border will be safe, but yet it is a cease fire all the same b/c strategically it makes sense, and b/c there are Bigger Fires elsewhere. And typically the player that gets eliminated in this case is player X who goes all-in on the Bigger Fire, but his Up-Until-Now Friendly-Cease-Firing Neighbour player Y decides to go half-in on the Bigger Fire and half-in on the Smaller Fire, thus player X gets wrecked on 2 sides. In this case, player Y stays in the game and may still have a chance. BUT if both X & Y use player Y's strat, X & Y definitely both lose and the Bigger Fire rolls over both of them easily.

And that is what an FFA is. lol

Sign me up, thanks. Cool, we can edit posts on Mobile now.


You can also make 20 v 20 Strategy games like this https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=26460222

Edited 4/30/2021 12:52:27

i will join!

I'm game to try it out ^_^

I created the first game, with a total of 16 players so far. Here's the link to it if you want to check it out :)
https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=26761185

Edited 5/2/2021 12:52:34

I tried to advertise the league to all the FFA fans i know. hopefully they see it and flock. The Illuminatti clan is rife with them.

nice! I myself have created some open games with the same template for the first game, trying to some random players interested in it. of course there some high seat requirements on it, don't want trolls and stuff to join xD

I personally don't like luck factor involved in my games because in ways as well as it helps strategy, is also ruins it.