first, i mentioned it's a possibility issue clearly. therefore i agree that game description is relevant, i disagree one needs to ask the host about it. once you joined the game without clarification about it, the host has no priority over any other player in the game. also, imo, if you take certain restrictions on yourself you can, but you don't have to or morally above others in that case.

If you don't ask host about it chances are you'll get blocklisted and unable to join their games.

Hmmm...from an etiquette perspective, I disagree with the host having no priority. Host should definitely be tiebreaker...and people should follow what the host says after answering a question, though if there was legitimate confusion because something was unclear, then no punishment for past wrongs...

Edited 5/25/2024 21:46:05

It seems we (the active responders on this thread) seem to all be agreeing on the fact that (A) if you don't document the rules clearly and thoroughly in the game desc, you're leaving it to interpretation of the players, and you should avoid using terms generic terms like FFA, diplo, etc, in isolation, and really need to document what you as the host want the game to be (alliances yes/no, gangbanging [this is a terrible term, is there a better term for this?], declarations yes/no, private chatting yes/no, etc), and (B) even with defined rules you still may encounter players who just won't follow the rules, and there's really no surefire way of dealing with these unruly folks in the game. Maybe the host can sway them, maybe the players can gang up on those folks, but maybe not & the best you can do is blocklist them from future games.

@Ethosys

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.

Don't get hung up on the word 'honourable', this is really just a way of saying "those who will abide by the rules" (honourable) and "those who won't abide by the rules" (dishonourable). Meaning that even if the rules are clearly stated, "dishonourable players" may break them anyhow if it benefits them, so we're not focusing on finding a surefire way to set rules that all must comply with, but rather a set of rules that for those "honourable players" who will follow rules if they are clearly defined. If the rules aren't clearly defined, then the host is effectively leaving the interpretation up to the players, and there are bound to be differences, and at that point it's not a matter of "honour", just a poorly created game that created ambiguity and chaos.

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

Totally agree with DanWL on this point. Disallowing private chat alone is still ambiguous. It's important to document in the game desc why the host wants no chatting & what players are meant to do/not do in lieu of it. This applies to several game settings actually. Whether surrenders need to be accepted or not (when someone surrenders, do you need to accept? Can you hold back your acceptance if it benefits you for that player to remain? If someone does, do the remaining players need to gang up on that person until he accepts?), manual boot (is it okay to boot someone once their time runs out? can anyone boot or just the host? do we need to wait until a certain turn # or certain # of hours after boot time, is it okay to boot someone if it's going to wildly affect the outcome of the game?), even banked time & turn time lead to arguments - is it okay to use up all your time each turn or is that stalling? And likely several more. Unfortunately it's exhaustive to write rules that cover every aspect of this, so I'd recommend to focus on the ones that have the most impact to the game you're creating.

@Random

Hmmm...from an etiquette perspective, I disagree with the host having no priority. Host should definitely be tiebreaker...and people should follow what the host says after answering a question

This is another facet which players often disagree on. Some treat the host as the DM, has final say in all matters. Others treat the game rules themselves as the master, and once the game has started, it doesn't matter what the host says, the game is the game. Others treat the consensus of the players in the game as having final say, and likely other variations. I do see more tendency to let the host have final say when the rules include "Host will decide in all other cases", esp when the games are specialized scenario games, diplos, etc, and not just straight up FFA-type affairs.

One thing I find really annoying are games where the host tried to list out the rules, wrote a bunch of text in the game desc but it's poorly written, and there's still ambiguity and chaos. Rules like "no backstabbing" (what is considered backstabbing? esp if it's supposed to be a non-alliance game?) or "no gangbanging" (same idea; if there's no teams, no collusion, it means players are just doing their own attacks as they see fit without coordinating with each other, so how to avoid gangbanging? They'd need to chat and coordinate in order to avoid it) or when 2 rules don't mesh well, like "1) no teaming up, 2) must declare alliances in public chat". Or even worse when rules include silly meaningless comments like "fairplay only, no cheating, no dishonourable plays". Once you've played here for about a year, you've probably seen all of these and more. I stay away from those games, b/c the rules are crap from t1.

Just saw this rule in a game. Good example of what I said above about hosts taking time to write out rules for a game but creating ineffective/ambiguous ones.

3. Declarations of war are not required, but it's seen as dishonorable to attack without it.

What is this rule trying to say? You should declare but it's okay if you don't, but you're "dishonourable" if you don't, but what happens once you are dishonourable? Presumably nothing. Or maybe the host will rally players against you as a common enemy. Who knows.

Don't make rules like that. (;

@krinid that's also a reason why the host should not have priority in calling what's right or wrong after the game begins. @random, the host could also interpret rules to advance his position over the others.. this should be mandatory, once the game begins everyone are equal. otherwise its like a judge giving a verdict at his own trial.

What is this rule trying to say?

That back-stabbing is ok but you aren't encouraged to do so.

It's just better to sick to NvN games to avoid the issue entirely.

It might be what they mean but no idea why it’s phased like that.

It's funny, but this highlights the point I was originally trying to make with this thread. I think it would be really cool if there were just some "default" assumptions you could assume if someone calls a game this or that or uses certain settings. This overcomes some of the obstacles of hosts not saying anything or not communicating clearly. IMO if someone makes it private chat, you should assume it's intended not to communicate, and not that "everyone who doesn't know people in RL should communicate, but if your buddy is in the game, yeah go ahead and communicate over beers". Technically does the host have to say it and say it clearly...sure, but if they don't what should you assume?

It would be cool to create a wiki page that has some of these assumptions clearly laid out, so the host doesn't have to type it out every time. That way, everyone would know the way it works UNLESS the host specifically wants to override something.

@ethosys, first I'd say almost all the hosts I've met are honest. Usually the dishonest ones are also too lazy to do the work to set up a game/tourney. I think if some question comes up and there is a clear majority, the host should cede to the general understanding. If there is no opinion (like "radio silence") or it's split 50/50, usually people just want to know what is intended so the host can divulge the intention and act as a tiebreaker. If there is one lone wolf who says "the rules didn't say this explicitly, so screw you guys I will do it anyway", I still say PE the guy and blocklist....all else set aside, this is still a social game and nobody wants to play with guys like that.

So to your specific point, if the host is using it to his advantage, call him out on it and he should get the PE....but I think it rarely happens that the questions have to do with the host....

@Ethosys, totally agree, when i first joined WZ, i believed that once a game starts, it has to stand on its own, the host is just another player in the game, he has no power/say/authority/ability to guide anything but his own play; so i was surprised to see people saying things like "let's ask host to decide" or "i thought it was like XXXXX but host has advised that it's actually YYYYYY"; and we've certainly seen a # of hosts who are jerks, have cheated via either obscure game settings/custom scenarios/etc or making rules on the fly to win games. Let's throw them in the 'dishonourable' category and blocklist them and avoid their games in the future as well. some of these cheating hosts get banned/suspensions/coin returns/etc, some got away with it but pretty much all of them got a bad rep in the community for being a jerk host

@Random, i think you've have a hard time getting agreement on (A) what the 'default' rules should be, (B) getting people to actually reference the wiki when creating games, (C) have players respect what's written on the wiki in the games they join. some hosts post links to Google Docs files with rules, but many players just skip it. for them, it's too much work to reference something outside of WZ itself

imo anything other than putting the rules you want in your own game desc is going to have issues of varying degrees for a variety of reasons (not necessary the same reason for each violator of the rules); if you're looking to avoid typing it in every time, think you just have to save it somewhere, and copy/paste, else you're opening yourself up to people just not agreeing to read or honour what the wiki says; just simply put you're going to get better results if the rules are directly in game desc

fyi ... this game is by a guy creates a lot of FFA games, and writes rules to enforce what would align to your definition of FFA is: https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=38007527

this time i'd say his desc is lacking a bit as it's a bit too short and 'Total war' is in fact not totally clear:

Message from host:
Normal fog. Please no teaming or alliances. Total war.

does 'total war' just mean do what you like outside of teams/alliances? does it mean you have to fight everyone you come across (even when it puts you at a disadvantage)? (and if so, what does it even mean to fight everyone you come across, make at least 1 attack each turn?) something else? he has disabled private chat so that likely helps a bit. either way, it is imo better than just saying "FFA" and disabling private chat and hoping players all behave the same way, he's more likely to get players who more often than not stick to FFA/no teams/no alliances; he also tends to invite the same core group to his games plus some open seats, so also more likely to get people who like & abide by his preferred style; when you have tons of open seats, you get a ton of different personalities and thus a ton of different interpretations/degrees of rule abidance/etc

here's another game by the same host: https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=38007331

FFA. No truces, no alliances no wimping out on turn 3 because you met 3 other players who are obviously much better than you!

this ruleset is interesting b/c he foregoes talking about 'teams' (imo covered by 'no alliances' but possible someone would argue the point) and adds some details on surrendering, so you aren't allowed to surrender even; of course this is unenforceable (other than future blocklist); so you need to fight to the end, which again is a fine rule, i get where he's coming from, surrendering can vastly change the outcome, as can continue to play and who you decide to fight - these players can become 'kingmakers' to decide the outcome even tho they can't win themselves; but people will still surrender; and some will still boot

side note ... i have seen someone try to make a rule about booting too! lol ... as if it makes any difference, people typically don't boot on purpose (:

Edited 5/28/2024 05:24:37

Well I have to admit "Please no teaming or alliances" is not a ton of verbiage and it gets the point across.

I know what you mean about kingmakers as well...another potential irritation. I know I personally struggle sometimes on whether to just quit because I would unintentionally steer the results or stay in because my quitting will hand victory to someone.

I'm happy I have never run into a cheating host...or maybe I was just too naive. lol

In terms of the definition, that would be the beauty of it. If someone says "I want a game where people to fight to the end and never surrender" you could give that version a name. But yeah I guessit probably isn't that hard to just say what you want, as in the example above.

That said, if people have crafted near foolproof language over time and experience, wouldn't it be great if we could all just borrow it :-)