on a more philosophical note, emp: must there be right and wrong? can't things just exist as is?

Woah, I didn't expect this.

First of all, it's hardly fair to draw conclusions based on my FFA stats, since I have only played 20 FFAs so far (not including 1v1s.)
Plus I am not so bad at FFAs at all. While you imply I've lost all of them, my win rates are about average, so there's no need to ridicule me. And as emgzapper said: stats are irrelevant.

I *am* curious what you concluded from my "so-so stats". You must be a real Sherlock if you now know my FFA style, let alone *my psyche*.

By the way, I replied to Seroslav ***before*** emgzapper, and Perrin and D&I didn't reply to Seroslav's third question, so I did add to the argument.

I don't see why you 1) needed to go all Grammar Nazi on me with the truce-treaty difference, then 2) use stats as an argument.
It's also inconsiderate to bring your final argument, then use *a philosophical note* to try and end the argument. Especially when you haze someone (i.e. me) and this someone hasn't had the chance to defend himself yet.

And now finally back to your point: we all know treaties need specifications. Treaties are a mere form. Like FFAs; how many players, what map, etc., there are many different treaties. That's an objective fact, so it's hard to argue about that...

By the way, Duke of Ben, I'm now rather curious what happened to the fourth player. :-)

If I recall correctly, he was booted. It doesn't really change the situation much, though, since a fourth player will frequently be killed off and leave three behind.

"moves are a window into one's psyche": we are not currently playing each other, dom, so there are no moves for me to even attempt to analyze. don't conflate this with what follows in that sentence to misquote me.

"how one talks on the forum *can imply* how someone might play in a game":

your words, together with your stats, make me think you have an aggressive nature and perhaps quick to overreact (or attack/defend/use strategies in the extreme).

also, the truce-treaty reply was a universal reply and was not directed at you. is that what set you off to begin with? if so, being your neighbor in an FFA might be my doom: if you misinterpret my moves and attack me, it could ruin my chances in the game.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1923998
they should hav truced against my ai because it led to the person the ai didn't kill fastest won

@ Ironheart --> You can't truce with an AI, you can only use diplomacy cards.

@ Gui --> Well, you did say that moves and words are intimately related, which means that, strictly speaking, my words are a window into my psyche as well.

Your conclusion concerning my moves is false, for starters. I am hardly an aggressive player. I typically lose because I try to have a decent defence everywhere and then my opponent rolls through the line with a 100+ Armada.

I admit I was a little suspicious about your truce-treaty reply, but then I reckoned it was just a universal reply, until you started stat-bashing.
It's true that I insist on good communication during non-aggression pacts, but I don't Blitzkrieg into someone's territory for making one weird move, I just ask what's going on and build some defence just in case.

Domenico, Ironheart diden`t said you shuld have truce whit the AI. He said the other players left shuld team up **against** the AI, then fight each other;) and he is correct.

i didn't say they should truce wit ai i said they should against domenico u are not getting the point of that post.

and henns understood me well.

My bad. Sorry for that, but I thought it *truced against* was more likely to mean *truce **with*** than ***team up** against*.

I interpret truce against as in 2+ people trucing until X player is defeated or removed as a threat to said trucing players

Truces are quite simple. They are active until a person gives 1 turn notice. That is a standard truce. Saying truces are cheating is idiotic. It's part of the game, and if you don't want to talk with people in a FFA go play single player.

Gui, semantics over what the definition of "truce" really is doesn't change the discussion, merely the concept that needs to be used. Point it out once in a quick sentence, you don't have to make a big deal out of it.

Don't think there's much discussion value here any way. Pacts are much harder to form when private messaging is turned off, but it cannot and should not be stopped in any way. It's a valid strategy. I complain a lot when I lose due to pure chance, and the same can be said over losing to a pact. It's part of what the game is like. It's not a puzzle, it's war. It can be unpredictable and unfair.

"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.."

No :) cause if non-standard are open seat settings then who cares? If U see the game it mean that U can play it.

If cards settings are non-standard and it's not so important for somebody and the rest is standard, then a person can fastly join without checking.

If number of troops for bonuses are changed U don't have to check them, but U will know to check them when choosing a place to start.

If attack/defend percentages are different U just have to check it after joining to change the stratego of attacking/defending and it does not block U from joining without checking.

But if I see that it's ffa with private messages or multi-attack I may not want to join. Everybody have his own preferences, so he could enable icons or disable them, and in more advanced option choose which will show up and which won't. If I would not like games of 3 teams and teams are randomized, so it does not look as a team game, when I see players joining, I would like to have icon to show it. I don't like 3 teams game, cause usually the team which fight the least wins, and it's often 2vs1.

If U don't like icons U could disable them :) easy.

So in other words, you want Fizzer to institute icons for all possible game types and setting type. And then, if that is not enough work, you want him to make those icons fully customizable on a per-user basis so that each player gets different icons?

Yea, I think there are FAR better uses for Fizzer's time than wasting it on such an ultimately trivial and timely modification. Just check the settings or make your own games more often.

In addition, if you do think such a modification would be worthwhile, make it into a [Uservoice](http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features) and watch the votes come rolling in!

If you're lucky, you'll get twenty...

http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/1088481-peace-treaties

Highest voted idea on UV, and it could solve out problem.

To some extent alliances are not cheating. Yes a 5v1 is not fair at all, however, **bold**its pretty crappy in FFA's when you just chose a starting position and theres someone right next to you. That is the only time there should have an aliance that is fair

I think alliances, truce, wathever you call it is OK to use since it is not forbiden. If PM is off you can use public chat (I have did that) to comunicate. So my suggestion is to not complain, as that won`t help. However what helps is to make truce etc. if you do that your chance of winning probly increase;)

@howboutemdawgs
To use **bold** text have to stars (**) on both sides of what you want to be bold;)

Guys, FFA alliances add a lot of realism. Alliances are allowed, yet not enforced. just like in reality. In world wars 1 and 2, plenty of alliances and side switches have been made.