I am sure this has come up before, but I could not find it explicitly through searching, so would like to throw it out there.

IMO if a game is a FFA and shows no private chat, then the DEFAULT interpretation should be that any collusion only takes place through A) Public Chat or B) signaling by army deployments and movement. That is, the game creator should not have to type this every time, it should be the general assumption.

In particular, I think the intention should be that no strategic messages (i.e. references to territories etc. or an agreement to work together should be sent through warzone mail, chat, FTF in the real world, etc.

Note I understand this is not explicitly against the rules (https://www.warzone.com/wiki/Rules). However, the top of thie rules page says "Players sometimes invent their own etiquette", and I would like to take "the pulse" on the community. This has come up explicitly in one of my games and I have seen heated arguments over it before.

Thoughts?

Agreed but if someone breaks that then you can use my mod "Host spies on and can eliminate players" when creating a game. You won't be able to play the game but it will become an actual FFA game.

I have played FFA games (not the one you mentioned Random), where someone contacted me via Warzone Mail and I have just ignored them. I guess I should have responded and refer to the etiquette, but I was a rookie (still am, really) and the other player had a level at least 10 above mine.
FFA means to me that you can communicate, but it should only be used to negotiate minor neighbourhood border alignments, rather than major strategic alliances or calls to focus on fighting a particular player.

indeed, if you want to cooperate, however large or small he topic, it should be the chat belonging to the game. Which in such cases is the public chat.

Mailing is a tool you have available. If you ignore this tool your enemies will have an advantage. I know in diplo winning is most important and being sneaky may be poor decision long term, but I imagine ignoring useful tools is also harmful. Imo

I hardly ever play games where private chat is allowed, but I know that it simply makes private communication a little cumbersome. For example, you can't reference a territory or bonus in your external communication.

So now, for games that I host, I say "No private chat, please." That way, players should understand that I didn't simply turn off private chat. I am requesting that they don't chat using other means as well.

It always bugs me when I'm approached by someone saying something like, "SoAndSo is going to win if you and I don't gang up on him." It's especially annoying if private chat is off and they are doing this using WZ mail.

Many people who are winning up to this point will simply surrender when they realize that this is happening. If I am a second or third place player being approached this way, I might surrender immediately.

Do people who want to crab-bucket the leader expect that once he's tamped down a little that alliances will shift and we'll crab-bucket the new leader? What's the point?

Can we get a game settings option to have anonymous players and no chat of any kind? You won't know who you are playing until the game is over, and for chat you only have a drop down with choices like "Good move!" and "Peace?"

Personally I completely agree with Random, either go through game chat or army signaling, imo army signaling is pretty fun too

@DanWL Interesting Mod...looks like it is only a few months old (https://www.warzone.com/Forum/737782-new-mod-host-spies-eliminate-players). I guess the burden is the game creator can't play.

@Tread, I've always called it "gang-banging", and I think it's a slightly different question, but FWIW I agree with you here too. If someone is winning and someone puts in chat (hey if we don't gang up they will win or says "BTW player X has 1000 income", it turns the game into a popularity contest. Personally, I don't like this either, though I am 100% ok with someone saying "hey let's play that out just to see if they can survive but all agree to surrender to the player". This can make a game interesting a bit longer.

I honestly thought this would have more controversy. It seems like @Tactique is the only player who thinks it is ok...in what sounds like a machiavellian kind of way. I guess if you feel that way then cheating is ok in any kind of sport right? :-)

FWIW, the intent of my original post was to make sure I was not being unreasonable when I block people who do this, i.e. effectively excluding them from games I create, and also that it would not surprise people if I call them on it. I'd say 6 replies is limited feedback, but sounds like I'm in the majority.

BTW I think a third major ettiquette question (in addition to ganging up and using mail inappropriately) is the idea of when you stretch a game out too long. My personal feeling is you give the benefit of the doubt to the guy losing...I mean, I always have fun continuing to thrash some poor sod who hasn't realized the game is over. But I do know some people have limited time...and in those cases, I think you should be willing to share your income and army count as a way to convince the other player it's time to surrender.

And maybe #4 would be playing in a team game but not being willing to discuss/coordinate strategy with your teammates.

Just curious if anyone is still reading, do you have other ettiquette ideas?

I agree with you Random. But, I do admit in a couple games, to joining forces against an individual who is winning a FFA. It was not enjoyable, and I haven't done it since.

Isn't FFA = no rules?

Yes and no.

For diplomacies and role-play games there are rules (which aren’t enforceable by Warzone rules), most of which allow making alliances.

For other FFA games, it depends on description or if private messaging is allowed. If they say no making teams or alliances or if private messaging is disabled, you shouldn’t make alliances or teams (isn’t enforceable by Warzone rules). If there isn’t anything else that indicates teaming up should be discouraged, then should be fine to make teams (but some players might have an issue with this).

warzone is all about war, a game that kind of emulates the act of war and as such, teaming should be allowed by default, just like in real wars.. saying that, this is also a game for fun and as such it's ok to make wars here with different rules. those must be specified explicitly in the description of the game or by it's defined rules. i know ppl tend to restrict others and themselves in life.. but wars got no rules.. that's why it's great as a game..

ya'll trippin
if it disallows private chat, that rule is given implicitly. It obviously is meant to extend to all private chat, it just cant technically prevent the other options.
What else is the point of that option? make things a little less convenient?

καλλιστηι is right, FFA = no rules, so if you're putting rules onto a game you've made, you're not really making an FFA. And the more players slots there are in your game = higher # of players that won't give a damn and will break whatever rules you make. And you probably won't even know it, and even if you did, you probably can't prove it, and even if you did, you can't do anything about it in the current game (but go ahead & block them for future games, it's your account, your game, you can block whoever you like for whatever reason you like).

Several WZ players have declared that for them the entire fun and point of FFAs and thus their core tactic, is to be a jerk, bait people into false hopes, backstab them & benefit from it. They say that if that's not the kind of game you want, don't call it an FFA. I know others who just try and win and surrender if they can no longer win. Others play with 'honour' and give enemies a heads up if they're going to attack them. I know others who basically play it as a diplo without having the burden of public declarations. You're not going to get consensus on how to play.

Question for you - do you need to call your game an FFA? You could make a game with rules that forbids alliances, collusion, teaming up, etc. Once you veer away from calling it your game FFA, people are generally more likely to follow the rules you apply.

FFA = no rules, so if you're putting rules onto a game you've made, you're not really making an FFA. […] Question for you - do you need to call your game an FFA?

On profile it always calls games which aren’t NvN games FFAs (games with uneven teams aren’t listed). What I said earlier counts for all types of FFA. Some have rules against teaming, others don’t.

in my opinion rules must be clear and explicit. disallowing private chat could also mean you can team up or make specific agreements which should be informed publicly. it's up for the players to decide and if they choose to restrict themselves to that's their problem.

Interesting, the contention I expected finally comes out a bit.

Question, if a FFA doesn't mean "no alliances", then what does it mean? It sounds like we have a disagreement over what saying nothing at all means.

IMO if you say nothing, you can do whatever you want and if you say FFA, it's 100% intended to mean "no alliances". FFA doesn't mean whatever your want, otherwise it doesn't mean anything.

We are all busy and whoever sets up a game is doing a service for the rest of us. To make it easy on them, it would be more efficient if we had consensus on what these terms mean....a default definition.

I'd also key on the word "honorable". I'm not trying to suggest we can ever control what people will do in reality. In the end the only recourse is blocking people and publicly calling them out. But IMO if someone says "no alliances" and you create an alliance in RL, offline or through chat, that is dis-honorable and therefore worth a bucket blocklist by everyone in the game....we can separate the honorable and dis-honorable without dragging official rules into it.

Edited 5/21/2024 20:18:21

All games which aren't 1v1s, team games or uneven team games are FFA based on initial starting player/teams. krinid essentially says FFAs with rules aren't FFAs, which is factually false.

https://www.warzone.com/wiki/FFA

Also, whatever happened to the game creator, during a game, declaring that a player is breaking the rules, and calls for an all out, attack on that individual? I have seen that, haven't I?