Do you guys consider truces in private messaging in large ffas cheating? If so, why?

Sorry for incomplete title

Nope. Part of the game.

i agree

perople always complain about it but if it helps you win and it isnt illegal (as stated by the rules) then its fine

why else would there be private messaging

No, Truces is about the only way to win in FFA's and it's completely legal on Warlight...The only problem i have is when someone breaks a truce without warning...I like to always have a one turn warning before they break the truce.

alliences are part of the game in FFAs

and dispite what JSA11111 says so is breaking them

Its all about what you agree when you start the truces. if you dont agree to a 1 turn warning then no need to give it.

getting into a position to break the truths first is all part of it. the allience is there while it is benifitial to both of you. if you hold it too long you could end up losing. but also a strong allience will undoubtably help you win. its about balance


if however the ffa doesnt have private messaging enabled then thats a diffent story. i consider that a no spoken alliences allowed

Truces, whether discussed or not (putting 10 armies on each other's borders and then never attacking again is a truce), is part of the game and pretty much the only way to win large FFAs.

I agree. If private msg. enabled, it is intended as part of the game. It is when there is no private msg. and some players do it on the public chat that annoys me.

Yea. I hear people complaining about truces in FFA games, how it's unfair for them.
I had a truce with anither player once where we both agreed to have a truce and leave 15 armies at the border. I did that and left extra troops in the areas next to the border. So when we decided the truce was over, I'd transfer those armies to the actual border and he callede cheating ;P

Like everyone else has said, I consider it to be part of the game. As long as private messaging is enabled, it is expected. This doesn't mean that it doesn't make me kind of upset when I get eliminated by two players whose bonuses are basically sleeping with each other, but its part of the game, and I respect that. I do, however, think it is immoral although not illegal to make truces in games with private chat disabled, by inviting the intended player to a 1v1. Clearly, if private chat is disabled, no truces are intended, and I feel that it is almost cheating to go out of your way to make an alliance with another player via this system.

The area I get most frustrated by truces are in four player FFAs. In many of them someone always ends up booted from the game and that means two players team up against the more powerful one, even if its only by a few armies. I have been on the winning side of this more often than not though, so I can't complain too much :)

I don't like people who make truces on 3 player FFA, and like jsa11111 I also like a warning before a truce is broken. Also, could there be a feature where the A1 would uphold the truce instead of attacking you after the player you had a truce surrenders/ gets booted? I sometimes have this happen to me when I play FFA... And always, if you don't like how they play you can always blacklist them.

No, But I don't play in FFA's with Private Messaging. So I decide if it's cheating wether or not PM is on/off. Off = Don't alliance. On = Alliance as you please

The only problem i have is when someone breaks a truce without warning...

Just for the record, even that is not cheating (might be against your moral rules, but it's not against the actual WL rules).

---

Two more thoughts:

If PMs are disabled I think it's still okay to have truces; you'll just have to deal with the fact your opponents can read along. (I do have a problem with people talking in private in another game.)

While I've never actually done this, it is possible to discuss privately in public chat, Google "public key cryptography". While technically not cheating, in practice I would consider it as such.

@RvW I pity the fool who would actually do that..

i agree with g. mac about the truces made publicly unless it is intended in the game (for example in my World Domination games)

Another version of this that i dont like is when they speak publicly about something, but in another language they are both fluent at.

@Mylor, what if they struggle, mix up prepositions and don't conjugate the verbs correctly?

Another version of this that i dont like is when they speak publicly about something, but in another language they are both fluent at.

Let them, Google Translate is pretty powerful. ;)

I`ve personally used public chat in a ffa, where pms is disabled. And used it to win a game I otherwise`d`ve lost. And that is not cheating.

Useing pms when it`s enabled is defently not cheating.If it is, then using multi-atacc when it is enabled is cheating too, which it isn`T. So obiusly pms isn`t cheating when it`s allowed.

However creating "chat"-games in an ffa whitout pms is cheating, no matter how you put it.