@DanWL Ahh...interesting, so the term FFA really is meaningless. That's sad...

@Judge, I definitely agree with that....but I guess as creator/moderator, I'd have the same questions as I do with blocking someone....is it appropriate to call out someone if they create alliances outside the game? It sounds like we have to specify that too...

Anyway, FWIW, I generally play with the same players anyway, so it's not like this is a huge deal. Guess I will just have to be more careful with tournaments...

@Judge

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?

This is called PE (public enemy) but many believe PEs only exist in diplos and not FFAs.

@DanWL

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.

You're either misunderstanding the original question and also my response or intentionally being facetious. Your response indicates that there are only 3 classes of games (1v1, teams, FFAs; although in the actual game creation interface the 3 choices are actually No teams (free-for-all), Fixed team, Random teams), and the issue with this is that ignores what we're talking about which is the variation of games within the game creation category called 'FFA'. Point being, that setting is just a WZ frame work game classification and not the true game type (which the host defines in the game description). We all know there are many more types of games. 1v1, NvN, NvM, 3+ even/non-even team games (etc), diplos, lottos, historical, RP, lots of custom stuff, etc. Heck you can even have a team FFA game, meaning every team is trying to win (the usual team game) but it could also be a special custom team game with teams or teams (eg: several countries are 'axis' or 'allies', etc), or where 1 team is the 'bad guy' and the other teams are all trying to take that team down. Also keep in mind that some games aren't even meant to have winners, they just play in some setting and then VTE when some conditions are met, but these can still be of game type 'FFA' but clearly aren't what anyone would classify as an FFA.

But since Dan posted the WZ forum FFA link, let's take a look at what it says:

A free-for-all game, or a FFA, is a game where every player plays for himself, versus everyone else; however, temporary alliances might be allowed.

They usually require different strategy than duels: it is often beneficial not to immediately attack everyone you meet, as staying put for a few turns and building up armies is the best course of action.

So this article straight-up says "temporary alliances might be allowed" which immediately tells us 2 things. 1) Fizz believes that alliances come into play within the game category of 'FFA'. 2) He uses 'might' which further indicates that there's room for interpretation/variations/etc. But that's just Fizz's take on it, which really doesn't mean much for the greater community. FFA is just a game category to separate it from 1v1's and team games, it's just the WZ framework game type and not the true game type, which the host defines in the game description. Anyhow, point being that with even Fizz defining FFA as possibly having alliances, it's not reasonable to expect joining players to automatically understand and abide by a 'no alliance' rule.

@Random
I like the distinction of 'honourable'. Fair enough, do what we can for those who are honourable to the stipulated rules, and block those who aren't from future games.

FFA doesn't mean whatever your want, otherwise it doesn't mean anything.

This is indeed the issue. People interpret it differently. As stated above, Fizzer defines FFAs as possibly having alliances. Others have their own ideas. Point being, it's not obvious. You have to state the rules and not just simply say "FFA" and expect everyone to understand. What after all does Free For All mean anyhow? To many the "FREE" in "Free for All" means you're free to do what you want. It means you're free, not bound by rules. It's everyone for themselves, trying to win. I think most people agree that in an FFA that every individual is trying to win for themselves. But what is the best way to win? If you're in 2nd place regarding income & on-board armies and 1st place has 10x your income, do you still try to win or do you just give up? If you're still trying to win, it's fairly obvious that a solo front-on fight with the 1st place player won't be the winning strat, and unless you can beat several other players or expand to gain sufficient income, you have no way to win. So are you required to give up? Most people would say No you don't have to give up, and would ascertain that in order to win, you need many players to attack the 1st place player. Without even colluding or agreeing to do so, many would inherently do this b/c the weaker players attacking each other means you're helping the 1st place player secure the win, just making it easier to defeat the remnant players. This is a pretty natural next step for many players when 1 player takes a huge lead above the rest, to the extent where many players refrain from taking a huge lead too soon even if they have the ability to do so to avoid making themselves a target to many others.

Anyhow, the suggestion I made stands ... create a game and don't call it an FFA. Create it as game type FFA (not teams, not 1v1) but in the description, don't include the term "FFA" at all. Call it a custom game, no alliances, chat disabled, no collusion, etc. It's really only an issue if you just say "this is an FFA" and expect everyone to inherently play by the same ruleset you have in mind.

Worded differently, all you should really infer from the term "FFA" is that the game does not have pre-defined teams.

Edited 5/22/2024 06:53:06

FFA is just a general descriptor for games with aren’t 1v1, team games or uneven team games. You’re saying that FFA is a specific game type where there aren’t any rules (which isn’t completely true). Game types are a different thing.

How temporary alliances may be allowed is why this thread exists. If the FFA game has something against it, then you should respect that.

exactly. you can team up, just like in real wars. @random, i hope you understand FFA's definition is not saying nothing but a perfect definition of the standard war game.. the term 'temporary' in the definition is accurate to strength the notion of every player play for himself.. meaning that you don't play as a team with another player and sacrifice yourself for him to win and eventually fight each other .

@krinid, I really love the well intentioned and detailed write up!

I agree that through other verbage, we can create many other kinds of games....diplo, "just for fun", "beat the AI", etc. etc. So I do agree with your point toward DanWL there. However, I still feel left to conclude that saying FFA or not saying FFA, creates no distinction. Would you guys agree to that? In either case, you should assume you should do anything you want to win. With FFA it's a bit more explicit, but if it doesn't say FFA (for example a blank description), it's really exactly the same situation. This discussion has led me to this conclusion.

2nd point, I do think when the game creator turns off private chat, that means something to honorable players. You could argue they are just trying to make it harder to communicate directly with other players, but I think the "honorable" inference should be they also don't intend you to circumvent their game choice by talking in RL or through mail. Does the game creator really have to type "also please don't communicate outside the game"? That's the point I'm really trying to make here. (Please set aside that people will do it anyway, I concede that point)

@Ethosys, I think you bring up another common complaint, where 2 people agree before hand to cooperate in this game for the benefit of one and then in the next game they switch roles, thereby tending to win often but with an unfair advantage. This I would also say is not honorable (and again concede I know for sure it happens).

maybe you need to read my message again, you keep saying that ffa says nothing .. i did not bring any complain.. i explained why ffa solve this issue completely. you can't make alliances that aim to make someone else win intentionally.
and i gave another possible intention to disable private chat other than the only one you can think of obviously..

it's ok to disagree with me that the absence of private chat could simply mean that agreements should be transparent but you can't ignore this option.

Yes, I agree with your last point...you can still attempt to make agreements in Public Chat. At which point the person who started the game has an opportunity to clarify any intent/miscommunications.

So you are saying if you don't type "FFA" then it is fair game to make alliances where 2 people agree ahead of time to help each other? So that is a distinction between typing nothing at all?

Thanks Random for the clarification thread. I always thought FFA meant , no long term truces, and I would just use signaling by army deployment, or as I called it non- spoken truce, which can be broken any time with no hard feelings. I played a lot of games with strangers and newbies , many people don't know the etiquite, many people try to skirt the rules, just for a win. I believe in honorable play and try not to get mad any more about loosing one game. I suspected some players of joining FFA or no private chat games that had friends already signed up, they would not have to chat , just favor each other in the game. yes you can just block people you think are not honorable. Thanks also Krinid , good info

Imo FFAs that don’t discourage making alliances are just diplo games but with backstabbing allowed.

@random
regarding your last question the answer is NO.
you didn't understand ffa, the situation you described is allowed in ffa. there's no problem in making alliances, even planned ahead, it's just has to be temporary. in opposite of team play in which you are in the same team with another player until the end. i will try to give you an example of real life war situation:

we are in Ww2. many countries fight each other, many countries team up, the reality as happend was according to ffa rules.. without ffa rules Britain could decide at some point to give all its territories to usa and actually exist for usa.. that is not allowed by ffa rules.
team play is like 2 armies of the same country, you can sacrifice yourself for your country.
in team play you are a general, in ffa you are the ruler of the country.

Sorry I wasn't very clear in what I was saying, but then I think you disagreed with it anyway, so let me take another shot.

What do you mean by "it has to be temporary"?

FWIW, I feel like you have a more precise view of what FFA means than even what I was considering. :-)

I guess in the end I feel it is an unfair advantage for 2 players to be coordinating moves, when everyone else is just guessing what the others will do. If I ever knew that was allowed, I would choose not to play the game for sure. Real life is not fair, but I am looking for a fair game here to choose to participate...

And FWIW, I don't think WW2 was a FFA at all....it was definitely a diplo game that evolved into a 2 team game. I will also say that some players play team games like they are rulers of their own country without regard to the team (a vent for another topic) lol ... but I do understand your point regarding generals vs rulers.

you got me now, i got you also so now we can respectfully disagree lol. yet you raised up good interesting derivative issues . about this fair issue, u answered perfectly that war and life isn't fair but i got something to add.. it has an element of equality since all the players can team up, it's one more virtue you need to have to increase your winning chances, i like it. i hope you would see how much it adds to the game and it's complexity.

i agree it's not perfect, ppl will always bring their bad habits and unethical ways to the game.. for instance, im now playing 2x2 game with a bad player which is also probably racist hating jews.. i faced it before in some opponents, not many. but i must say it's much harder for me to accept it in my team . now, i know my ppl in Israel are good and wish to live in peace so his opinions are nothing to me.. still i like winning with persons i feel good about .. if you want to take it to the real world, maybe that's why democratic countries support other democratic countries. not always, but by default.

Edited 5/23/2024 17:12:26

just to be clear, i got no problem losing the game with this antisemitic player i think it's unethical to forfeit in this situation, but im not sure. once I'm convinced im going to win that game i will ask my opponents to vote end of game .

Edited 5/23/2024 16:56:48

@Random
Agree with you on both points, (1) that essentially "FFA" is a fairly meaningless term on its own, and (2) that turning off private chat is at least an indication that the host does not want discussions happening. The problem with the 2nd point is that it doesn't convey why the host wants no chats. Maybe he wants alliances/etc to still happen but just in public chat. I've seen a few games where that was the intent - so essentially just no secret alliances. Had to be announced so everywhere knew. So in addition to turning off chat, I'd still want to see "No alliances, no collusion, no private chats" (etc) in the game description. Anything that can be put in there to at least make the understanding of what the rules are consistent. Still can't stop the dishonourables, but at least it helps the honourables who otherwise might not be clear on what the rules.

i already raised this chat on public intention before. "disallowing private chat could also mean you can team up or make specific agreements which should be informed publicly" . i think in general this honourable no honourable issue is not honourable. in most cases it's used by ppl that tend to restrict themselves and expect others to do the same.

Disallowing private chat could also mean no alliances whatsoever. It's best to check game description or ask host in public chat.