Hooray! This argument again!

Look, you may hate the 3 point shot line in basketball, but it's there. People use it. If you don't that's fine but don't sit there and bitch because someone used something that was meant to be part of the game.

Why do you think that private messaging is even an option if this is not the case?

Play fisticuffs on the Harvard quad all you want. The rest of us are playing a wargame.

Truces can be very risky u can get backstabbed so if someone truced against u then just wish they back stab each other i hav played many games in which i hav been back stabbed.But still play truce.Maybe fizzer should put a button in which we can truce without any worries when both players hav agreed and people will be awared of who is truced.

That could be interesting ironheart, a truce that everyone knows about and the duration of it would be set, or a truce through private messaging that would be secret, but you could get backstabbed.

that idea is one of the highest-rated ones on uservoice.

i think 50%+ of all players don't know the meaning of the word truce.

truce = agreement to stop attacking each other (ie, you have already attacked each other)

non-aggression pact = agreement (likely before any attacking has taken place) to not attack each other

alliance = agreement to cooperate (to some extent)

if you meet somebody for the first time, it is impossible for you to ask him for a truce, unless he is using the computer next to you and punching you while you play...

^^ Lol

truces must have conditions too (eg, duration). if you bump into someone for the first time and say in a private message "yo, truce?" and the enemy responds "peace, yeah," then you do two things:

- you ask for a truce without first attacking the enemy. i'd say such a truce is null and void, since you can't have a truce until you attack or are attacked.
- if you overlook the first problem: then you are entering into an open-ended truce. this means either of you can attack the other guy whenever you want, since an open-ended truce's duration is up in the air, it is open to both sides to interpret when the truce expires and war recommences.

alot of people ask for NAT's early on

the problem with FFA w/o diplomacy, is that the majority of the game is decided by your starting locations.. which is partially strategy, but mostly luck.. since say 10 people, if 5 start in the same bonus range, then they have already lost.. could be a good bonus range for many reasons, but they lost because they were unlucky in to not be the only ones having chosen on it.. early game NAT's reduces the amount that luck will affect the game, and returns the ability of players to win by skill..

What is true, out of discussion is that "FFA with diplomacy" is very different game from "FFA", in one writting and making treaties is almost needed to win, in other it's not so needed, cause only way to do so is to write on general chat, what everybody sees.

I guess those changes in games, which changes much, could have some small icons IN GAMES VIEW, so fastly we could see if:
- it's multi-attack
- FFA with diplomacy/FFA/team game
- changed army settings
- cards/no cards
- type of territory distribution

If an icon is intuitive and takes not much space, there would be a space for them.

So if I see that some settings are not standard I would be more motivated to check the settings, cause sometimes when it's last place You just don't check everything but don't want the game to run away, so just click to join and then check, it's commong, and such icons would make faster to know if it's standard game or what's changed. Details would be without change, as now, and icons just give additional information.

This topic isn't only to talk about it, but to work out an idea, which might be implemented.

I personally prefer to play in games, when my decisions mostly make me win or lose. I don't like to play with stupid teammates, which make me lose or play in team games where there are reinforcement cards and the fastes take them, not the one who needs them the most. Same I prefer to play in FFA's without diplomacy, cause it's of of my decisions and if 3 of my neighbours team up, I have small chances to win. Such info if there are PM's would be great for me personally. I know that many people don't like multi-attack as well, so they would see if it's multi or not. Some don't like cards in teamgames, so they would see it. Some prefer manual distribution.

And author of the game write, what he choice in topic. It's bad seen what it's multi and not written in topic. So why not to put simple and intuitive icons for such "making difference" settings if there's a space for it?

Only reasons not to do it, I see is:
- more server transfer
- making game look more complicated for newbies

I don't know how much more transfer would it usu, but seems to be a marginal problem.
About newbies, such a setting to see the icons or not, could be a choice in personal account settings and could be automaticly disabled, so if somebody want, he can enable it.

In future in advanced settings it could be possible to decide in settings, what kind of icons would be showed. If somebody don't car if it's FFA or FFA with PM, then he could check to see such icons or not. If he don't like multi, then he can see and icon in multi-attack games :)

I just had a game, when it was multi-attack game, with the text "multi-attack" in the game title and after few turns of playing (with light fog - U see moves of opponent) the guy I played with, noticed that it's multi-attack :) when he already lost. So it's not exceptions when people don't read settings and then just are suprised, I think it's common and happen often.

Here is the game http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1921212

@ Gui --> Alright, then let's call the agreements treaties. Generally, if treaties are for an indefinite amount of time, you agree to warn each other before attacking.
But that's hardly the point. Seroslav's point is that these treaties are a form of cheating. The fact that you point out treaties need specifications has nothing to do with that.

@ Seroslav --> You know, people like you should just be playing the 1v1 Auto Game. Then you needn't read the settings and have no teammates. Or make your own non-PM games so you know your settings.
Not reading the settings is not an excuse for hating settings:

|> ***Joining a game without reading the settings is like applying for a job without knowing what job you're applying for.***

a wise man once said: when a question is not worth answering, answer the question you wish had been asked instead. the answer to the original question (a) had already been answered and (b) is obvious to anybody who understands the nature of FFAs.

i think war is, to some degree, a window into one's psyche. each move on the board expresses something about the player. likewise, how one talks on the forum can imply how someone might play in a game.

on wl, the only things that matter: moves, words, stats. from your response and your ffa stats, i have a pretty good idea how you'd play in an ffa, domenico.

Seroslav
"So if I see that some settings are not standard I would be more motivated to check the settings"

define non-standard settings..
what is non-standard for you, is standard for me..
this discussion has happened before..

Gui, nothing in that paragraph addresses the point he made. Domenico's point remains valid.

Also, not for nothing, but no one has pulled out their stats and epeens in this discussion but you. We know you're really really good, dude. That doesn't make you right.

i really dont see the problem in just checking the settings before you join a game. its just common sense. pretty icons are not going to make enough of a difference to warrent the change. if icons were to be implimented then where do you stop? different icons for different cards. how about the settings of the cards. boot times are important how about them? its just endless. icons or no icons i would still look at the settings before deciding to join or not.

I recall a four player FFA where my neighbor attacked me repeatedly and a third player became very powerful. Without treaties, that third person would have won the game with no skill required. As long as he was able to expand at a reasonable pace, he would have become unstoppable while the two of us beat our heads together for enough of an advantage to pull out a win.

We changed our plan, and were able to beat the third player, which was clearly in both of our interests to do.

On some level, we just replaced one winner with another, and that's not necessarily better. What was solved, though, was the fact that the third player's win would have only happened because he didn't start next to anyone else. The person who happens to have the biggest area to expand into should not always win.

If I wanted to watch semi-scripted games where everyone goes straight outward, then I would set the AI to fight itself. There'd be some variation, but really, starting positions would matter as much as skill, and that's never fun.

Perrin in reply to Your question "define non-standard settings.."

Non-standard are those, which have been changed, when creating game. When U create game, default settings is that turn income is 5. If it's not 5, then it's "non-standard", cause changed from standar (default) ones. This is what I meant.

Seroslav, what about templates?
that would mean that a fair percentage of the 1v1 strat template would be considered *non standard settings* and would have to show up as such, making your information relatively worthless.. if it doesn't show up as non-standard because it is a template, then you're information is effectively worthless

the problem with highlighting non-standard settings, or with icons for non-standard settings or anything.. is that there is so much that could be considered as non-standard in just about every game played, that there would be enough information conveyed to make it just about as convenient as clicking settings and scanning the page..

this thread had ceased to have any reason to have more arguments related to the original question once dazed, perrin, and you offered your replies.

dominic: "Seroslav's point is that these treaties are a form of cheating. The fact that you point out treaties need specifications has nothing to do with that."

me: "the answer to the original question [about cheating] (a) had already been answered [see dazed and confused's and perrin's replies] and (b) is obvious to anybody who understands the nature of FFAs [ie, the original question should be disregarded to begin with]."

there is really no need to talk about the question posed [see your first reply, emg]. so i branched off, based on the first thing that came to my mind. i read domenic's reply and thought "why does domenic want me to beat a dead horse?" i checked his profile to see if he was a good FFA player (ie, does he have any reason to want me to talk about a dead argument?). he has no experience in FFAs. and the few he has played he lost. so this begs the question: "why does a guy who doesn't understand FFAs and didn't seem to read dazed's, perrin's or emg's replies really want me to keep talking about this matter?" this made me think: "moves, words, and stats are intimately related." that's all.

emg, i didn't pull out my stats. i never said anything about myself. the only person to direct anybody's attention to my stats, emg, was you. i only mentioned dominic's.