|14/09/2009 17:16:41 Free For All Issues|
I am relatively new to this game, and I have an issue with a player in a 4 player FFA game (my first FFA in Weewar). A high ranked player Nanuk is claiming that he deserves peace because 2 players on the map did not fight each other enough. He claims that my advantage is not "honourable" and he is generously offering peace so that I would not get an undeserved victory.
Players that did not fight enough (according to Nanuk) are Austin_Powers and me. We have fought over a base, bombed each other, lost many tanks and troopers to each other. When I saw that Nanuk was profiting from our exhausting battle, I openly asked to defuse the situation between Austin and me and retreated my forces away from his base so that he would be able to defend against Nanuks offense. Austin never openly accepted my truce offer, but eventually started defending against Nanuk, pretty effectively. Is something really wrong with that? Isn't FFA supposed to give player a chance to pick his battles based on his interest?
I accused Nanuk that he is points obsessed and that his ego is bruised, because he has an impressive score (45 Victories, 34 Draws, and only 2 Losses) - maybe a mistake on my part. In return he started analyzing my personality, called me a liar and other stuff too. I will not link the game because it has already too much chat in it. Maybe I will later. Any opinions based on what I wrote?
|14/09/2009 18:07:38 Re:Free For All Issues|
|I was the 4th player in this game, so I know the issue. I guess that it was because I surrendered and Austin got my bases. Nanuk got into a bad position, and he started claiming peace. I guess that if Nanuk attacked you more than me, he wouldn't get into such a trouble.|
|14/09/2009 18:59:35 Re:Free For All Issues|
FFA games see a lot of imbalance as things progress. I don't care for two people not attacking each other, especially when they communicate it, but it's still a part of the game. If it develops into a situation where it's advantageous to not attack, you don't. You play defensively.
If you and the other guy started the game with the intent to work together and win and then peace out, that's one story. The development of your explained situation is just the game.
I'd keep playing, but that's me. I've been on the bad end of the hasty alliance.
|14/09/2009 23:12:22 Re:Free For All Issues|
Somar, you remember it wrong. I profited from your surrender. Here is the game.
Please dont post comments in chat there, there is too much already.
I also went from not attacking you enough to attacking you too much in 1 turn. Then you were unfairly punished because "we don't play FFA".
|15/09/2009 00:08:42 Re:Free For All Issues|
I don't really like it when there is an openly stated truce, if that happens, then I try to truce with another person.
I don't ask for truces unless in response to other people teaming up. Truces can be dangerous though. EXAMPLE: I had an unnoficial truce in a FFA and the person attacked me suddenly, took a base, and suddenly I had too much pressure on me and lost.
Don't listen to that guy about 'honor'. Honor is internal, you don't need to prove it to anyone.
|15/09/2009 04:11:57 Re:Free For All Issues|
|This is why people who care about their ranking don't play rated multiplayer or create a second account. Personally, I don't like to see a front with no fighting in a FFA but that's the way it happens.|
|15/09/2009 08:16:00 Re:Free For All Issues|
2 player games on fair maps are great. Both sides should have essentially an equal chance to win.
3 player games suck because someone is always going to get ganged up on. Elvanquero (red) and I (purple) were playing on the fortress, which is an asymmetric 3 player map. I had a bad result in one attack and I was blocked from hitting a newly built blue DFA. I lost my attack force and was pushed back and back and back because the terrain didn't suit me as well as it suited blue. If I had broken through then I would have had the terrain advantage on blue. Blue was defeating Elvan and I so Elvan and I fought less and less as we resisted blue. The layout was such that base proximity didn't encourage red and purple to fight each other as much as blue and blue was also driving a wedge between us. I guess you could say that blue had one front and we each had one and a half fronts. Elvan and I still had forces devoted to each other, but I for one couldn't afford to fight Elvan while blue was menacing. Eventually I launched a counter attack and cripled blue and kept pushing as hard as I could on blue to keep blue on his heals. As I kept going I positioned troops in case they both turned on me. It is typical in 3 player games to always gang up on the leader. It is typical no matter how many players there are. I eventually had enough going for me that even if they did gang up on me, I had enough military to take them both on and did so.
4 player games can suck because if the player in the far corner from you fails, then both your neighbors gain and you get nothing. Suddenly you are in a 3 player game with base counts of 17 and 17 vs your own 11. The natural course of events amongst equals of greater stature is to finish everyone else off and fight a 1v1 battle. 4 player games are fairly unstable. If one neighbor gets ganged up on and crushed, then you still end up in a game with a base count of 17 17 11. If that one neighbor makes a mistake or has very bad result and gets munched, same scenario. If one player drops or quits, same scenario. The ultimate game dynamic that figures into the 4 player game is simple. It is most common in any game that one player will fail first. It is uncommon or rare that 2 players will fail at the same time. In a 4 player game, the map generally gives each player a corner, which means that when one player fails (most common result), the opposite corner is the player who is cut out of the gains. In 6 player games, one person's failure might mean that 2 or 3 players split the remainder. For example, 10 bases for each of 6 players on average. 3 players have made an additional base so that the base count is 11 11 11 10 9 8. The player with 8 bases is likely to fail. By the time that happens one of the 11's has taken another of the 9's bases while the 8's bases are split evenly amongst 2 of the nearby players. The new base count could be 15 15 12 10 8. That is a common result. the player with 8 bases is the next to fail -> 15 15 17 13 could be a base count. In both the 15 15 12 10 8 and the 15 15 17 13 situations, the loss of a player does not throw the game out of balance in the same fashion as a 4 player game.
The Cruel Intentions map is similar to my Mini Map of Europe. Neither of them follows my general rule of map making that gives player a core position with most of their income safely away from other players to give them a chance to recover. Stirling's Aruba, Commando, the 6 player Europe maps, Stirling's Botanic, the Island map I made for GD all have sides although the Europe maps have an added feature that gives easy paths for players to attack each other by 'following the bases'. Maps like Cruel Intentions are relatively unstable because of the map design and because of 4 player dynamics where one person's bases are almost always gained by the 2 adjacent players. Want to do well in 4 player game? Be adjacent to the player that will fail first.
The nature of multi-player games among the top players eventually evolves to: everyone doing their own thing until one person starts to run away with it. Then depending on the map and number of players, the leader is brought into check by one or more players. Typically they continue fighting and definitely defending all fronts, but more resources are devoted to bringing the leader in check. It can even go so far as to leave the weakened player(s) alone to fight the leader. Oh yeah, it is certain that the weak player is going to die. But if you are after the overall victory, then it makes sense to wait until the weakened player can't defend against you so that you can gain as many bases for as little effort. Sometimes you can even grab more bases than the guy who did all the work. It is a matter of timing. Leaders should be targeted. Middle army strength players attacking the weaker players helps the leaders.
The nature of multi-player games among some players eventually evolves to: Everyone doing their own thing no matter what. If one player is running away with it, sometimes the others keep fighting amongst themselves. I'm not sure where they learned that form of code to play by. Other times someone starts complaining about violations of the Starways Wee Codes that prohibit certain actions except where permitted. Honestly there aren't as many code violations as there used to be.
It is ok to fight one player early on and then kind of back off each other and fight on a different front for a while. Deciding to fight one player until the death is admirably focused although usually not the best overall strategy.
You want advice? Play a couple team games with the player who was complaining and play each of those team games as the teammate of that player.
As for the game, the leader should be ganged up on. If you three are of equal skill, then it should be a fair 2v1 match up against the player with half the map income.
|15/09/2009 09:46:13 Re:Free For All Issues|
I too complained when I was fighting Austin_Powers and Somar while Nanuk was profiting on the situation. He took 2 bases from Somar and 1 base from Austin_Powers, with little to no resistance while I fought and barely gained 1 base from Austin. But I didn't call for peace, I suggested a temporary truce and kept playing.
Nanuk was halted and went on the run when Austin and me started attacking him, and he was the most powerful player at the time. As soon as he lost his advantage in troops, and I got equal number of bases as him, he called for peace and started talking about integrity and honor. Even when Somar surrendered, he did not profit on it (he was very close), he retreated to avoid conflict. Not a good match from player with 1770 points. Austin showed far better skill than him IMO.
The game could go either way still, because Austin could go after me this time and tilt the balance.
|15/09/2009 10:03:16 Re:Free For All Issues|
Here is a game chock full of reputable players. There is unspoken collusion going on here too. And as much as I'm complaining about it in game its all tongue-in-cheek since I know there's nothing truly wrong with what they're doing. In fact in that game blue and I did the same thing. Only white/green had better position and played better than we did.
FFA is just that, and put the emphasis on the first word FREE for all. The only thing taboo is officially creating teams.
|15/09/2009 16:43:49 Re:Free For All Issues|
Sorry, I messed up green and purple
|15/09/2009 21:07:48 Re:Free For All Issues|
Good evening everyone, prime time entertainment tonight, and I am even one of the main characters in this weedrama
There are always two sides to a story, Oxygen has already presented his view in epic detail, I’ll give you a summary of my side: Oxygen is a loud-mouthed individual who will bend the rules of the game in his favour when he fails to win by fair means.
Can she or I prove our point? No, no replay, no complete chat records, no hard evidence, no meaningful sollution to this problem.
So what am I going to do?
I’ll offer all my points to fellow players who I know to play fair and who happen to enjoy the game more than ranking points.
When I’m at ~1300 points, I’ll leave oxygen alone to the sweet taste of her victory, and hopefully to some future learning of game etiquette.
This way, no harm is done, everyone goes their ways and we can proceed to play the game. I for my part will continue to play in a fair and fun way, but whoever chooses to be a childish nag instead bawling their eyes out in some internet forum, be my guest.
I was asked why I’m in this noob game in the first place: I’ve been invited to it by TomBrady, he invited good players such as VTT Truck that I wanted to challenge. Due to internet lag, I didn’t see they rejected the offer and other players filled the spot.
Darkbee? Lucian? I hope it’s fine when I distribute my points among my fellow WeeWarriors. If you have any objections (ranking imbalance?), I will respect that.
Thanks for the moral support I received in the game chat, but please stop to bully oxygen and austin, I am here to play weewar and not for childish forum chitchat.
|15/09/2009 22:21:18 Re:Free For All Issues|
|When you think of me as a girl, that actually makes you feel better about yourself? Then you must be right, right?|
|15/09/2009 22:46:22 Re:Free For All Issues|
|Try breathing deeply|
|15/09/2009 23:21:29 Re:Free For All Issues|
As you are behaving like a drama queen, I thought it would be adequate to address you this way?
Why so serious? It's only a game! You win, wasn't that what you wanted?
Anyways, why don't we both go our ways? This discussion is not getting anywhere and we'll both look like idiots if we continue to fill up good internet space with stupid nonsense.
Have a good day, Nanuk
|16/09/2009 00:17:10 Re:Free For All Issues|
had I only known that turning down that game was going to cause sooo much wee-drama. i feel responsible now.
Nanuk - if you drop all your points down to 1300 - RockyDog will give you all these points to get you back up again.
then i can join all the fun games with the 1400 crowd.