http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2160714

This is cheating - they have even commit it. Can I do something with it?

If they went into the game planning on one person alone winning regardless of the circumstances, then I consider that cheating. It's hard to say outside of Ares saying "he's my master" whether they planned on creating a single winner or not. Yes, friends join matches together, but it's generally known and assumed that even when they work together, there will come a time when they can no longer do so because they can't both win. When one person never plans on winning but only making the other win, then that's against the spirit of FFA.

Any treaties leading up to the end are fine in my view, so long as each member of the treaty has some intention of winning, at least in the beginning.

Blacklisting them seems like a fine option in this case, if only due to the "master" comment.

Oew, interesting case! The [rules](http://wiki.warlight.net/index.php/Rules) (the official, don't-break-these-or-face-consequences ones) say:
|> You shall not operate more than one WarLight account in a way that gives you an advantage in a game, tournament or ladder.

Now, there is of course the chance Ares is an alt account of batbat4, that would most definitely be against the rules. But what if Ares is actually a different person, who follows batbat4's orders so closely (as implied by "he is my master") that he is *effectively* an alt account...? In that case, *technically* neither of them would break any rules. However, in my opinion it's still very much against the spirit of the rules.

The best advice I can give you is to click his name in the "Players" box (you know, lower right corner of the screen) and report him. Even though I'm not sure if this counts as breaking the rules, I guess it's at least worthy of attention.

Thanks, your opinion makes me better - i reported Them.

One thing to keep in mind (copied from the [Rules page](http://wiki.warlight.net/index.php/Rules#Enforcement) on the Wiki):

|> Warnings are completely anonymous -- other players cannot tell that a player received a warning. However, suspensions and banning are revealed on a player's profile for the duration of the suspension.

Unless Fizzer considers this serious enough to suspend or ban them (him??), you will never receive confirmation what happened; just because you can't tell what was decided does NOT mean nothing happened, it also does NOT mean this case wasn't report-worthy.

There is a reason why FFA games are not popular among players who knows to play other type of games.

While it's true that even the best tactical and strategic players can lose in FFA due to no fault of their own, FFA is certainly a skill-based game. The skills needed to win just happen to be different than in 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc.

I'm 21/35 in FFA games, including 4/7 in 24 player FFA. It's absolutely possible to win fairly consistently with the right skillset.

You might look at FFA and say that victory is out of your control, and maybe you personally can't control whether you win or not. Other people are able to win quite consistently. The major difference is that you generally can't brute force a victory through purely tactical means, like you can in game sets with only two teams.

Some people happen to like that.

In an FFA game, many often play the "wait until the other players destroy each other" tactic, which sometimes succeeds. For it to succeed, you have to look harmless, especially in a fogless game like this one. There is a fine line to doing this until it's too late to win. Then the other losing combattants often get mad and make rude accusations. This doesn't necessarily mean there is "cheating" going on. The anger reflects the belief that everyone else has a duty to fight for a balance of power when you are committed to it.

Different games take on different characteristics, just like the old Risk game. In some games, everyone's cagey and no one wants to appear threatening, everyone gets their continent, with the first one to be aggressive the loser. In other games, everyone wants to pounce on their weakest neighbour.

What I find amusing is the psychological pressure and emotional heat that is generated, especially in the "no pm" chats. It reminds me of playing Risk as a kid, and your 12-year old buddy finally boils over and spills the board in a fit of rage and storms off home. Sometimes I'm glad I don't have to see my opponents face to face.

i use the waste men tactic

"I'm 21/35 in FFA games, including 4/7 in 24 player FFA. It's absolutely possible to win fairly consistently with the right skillset."

Sorry, but your implication here is bogus. The way I understand FFAs such as those with 24 players, the majority of times your win rate is based on effective truces. Of course, if your opponents are crappy, you're going to win with less truces required. My FFA wins were largely based on seeing the others beat on each other instead of me, weakening themselves, or having more truces than the rest and luckily have more income than my allies.

My 21-player FFA win, I'm not proud of it. It seemed largely luck. I would like to see one of your wins as a replay, and give me information on truces and such. I'll give my honest opinion about it.

Can you describe to me how "effective truces" is a bogus way to win, or doesn't involve a skillset?

Picking the right people to attack and the right people to truce is an incredibly valuable set of skills for large games. Truces also tend to happen organically between decent players. There's a huge amount of skill involved in presenting a strong border (that would be hard to attack), while not appearing aggressive. You have to say the right things at the right time to influence board position and alliances. You have to be prepared to truce out a war and give up concessions in order to capitalize elsewhere.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1657983

This game involved zero official truces between myself and anyone else until fairly late in the game when I truced with red. Other times when it looks like a truce, it's simply a point when we have other things to worry about and have managed to appear non-threatening.

complete aggression all the time is a mindset for failure.. unless you are exorbantly lucky in relative starting location.

This is slightly similar to the debate that's going on right now.
Some (crazy) people think cameras should be banned from Parliament, because it means politicians are not focussed enough on their ideology, but too much on their debating skills.
However, most of us here think debating is simply a skill a politician needs to have.
Similarly, trucing is a skill an FFA'er needs to win. It's as simple as that.

iam playing 8 teams of 3 i lost all my team mates and 2 teams are attacking me both truced they even betrayed my truce

Unfortunately that has more to due with being a team game than with truces in general. It's a game where teams start with three players each, and you are alone. Even if you are individually strong, it makes you look weak and attackable.

I'd give advice on how to win, but I am in the same game so...

no different game nl physicus made it and his team and gile's team are attacking me even though am strong alone
ttp://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2044040
ben am playing 2 8x3 quad earth where am alone

an d attually it was 2 from each team

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2044040

Weird bad luck on the teams there Iron. Two games, created by two different people, with Quad Earth 8x3, and you find yourself alone both times.

Unfortunately, it's a team game more than an FFA game, so people breaking truces still has more to do with you being alone than anything else.

I had the same problem with a previous team game with the same settings, so I invited people I knew that wouldn't flake out on the game. I really don't like playing team games with strangers anymore. I'll still play a 12v12 without knowing people, but the smaller teams it really matters who is on your side.

i have never been booted in a multiday check warlight at least twice a day so and i don't think i would never go on vacation so you can trust me