Personally, I really hate playing FFA just to discover there is an alliance arranged before the game or at the very start, leaving me playing against a team, and if there is someone anywhere near me at start, without a chance of winning - without even knowing it, wasting my time and energy on it.

One such incident: FFA with alex and tomtom, where one of the guys even accidentally public chatted something they were disputing obviously, then excusing himself with "wrong chat".

I can only assume they do this to push their stats in FFA, but it seems like cheating to me and it really takes the fun out of the game.

So if you do not feel like playing an ffa against a team, do not join their games.

I think you have completely missed the point of FFAs

in my opinion The idea of FFAs is to form alliences with others in order to form an advantage to help you win the game


for the record as a general rule of thumb if Private messages are allowed in game then i would expect people to chat and plot stratagies with other players. if private messages are not allowed this generally means that no alliences are allowed in game


if private messages are on then its generally a good stratagy to team up with the first person you come up against because fighting so early on will probably lose you both the game

If teaming up isnt your thing just create games without private messaging and state in the settings that you dont want people to form alliences

i just wrote all of that thinking you were a new player but just looked at your profile and realised you have played 2000+ games

surely you would know all this by now :)

the only thing i deslike is when they team up and one of them surrenders at the end of it, or they vote to end after killing the other players. If alliances are just their way to rise being safe from one side its just natural

2 things about the FFA-s:

Diplomacy is just as important as fighting direct battles, if not even more important.
All alliances are temporary, as there could be only one winner.

bonus protip: real man don't backstab, they end their truces with a warning in advance.

to be fair ive never seen people vote to end when 2 people remain. This is obviously pretty pointless

However quite a lot of the time the game does end 1-2 turns after the 3rd person has gone. Its usually quite clear after the first turn if you actually have a shot at winning for a variaty of reasons. The player you have been teaming up with may be larger than you think, he may have been building armies behind the front line. he may just break a few good bonuses of your first move without you breaking any back. In most of these case its usual for one to surrender within 1-2 turns knowing he cant win.

The biggest challenge of FFAs isn’t deciding who to team up with its deciding when to break the alliance. If you leave it too long your “buddy” may get too powerful. You need to stick the knife in before that happens ;-)

i agree with most of what you say Aper however...

if no terms where agreed at the begining of the truces then its fair game how you end the truces :)

that being said...if you agree to a 1 turn warning before breaking the truces then its pretty low to attack without warning

I agree with everything aper said real men don't stab to be honest declaring wars has saved me playing a another turn of some games because they realize they stand no chance and they surrender and i just have to change to taking their neutrals.However if more people don't think people think the way mac does.

lol it makes me laugh that you say that Ironheart because you play with some real dirty tactics sometimes :-) especially in games with no private messaging. thats why i blacklisted you after playing with you a couple of times.

i have since taken you off due to how active you are on warlight. its just annoying when your messages dont pop up lol

to be fair though i do now enjoy playing with you Iron :D