Benefits of Open Diplomacy Policy-NAP Agreements in FFA Game

[tabanli]

In one of our FFA games we had sour discussions about diplomacy, who was ally with who, for how long etc. Why can't we open the diplomacy for all to see. Now I can only see who is ally with me, but I should know who are ganging up against me (not that it would matter much is a 4 player FFA ) But in a 6 player FFA game, If I see 3 of my opponents are allies, than I will try to ally with the others.

[KGB]

Tabanli,

Why would you be able to see an agreement between 2 other players? In the real world if 2 countries make a secret alliance there is no way to know that without deducing it from observations.

The easiest way to tell who is allied against you in an FFA game is to open discussions about an NAP with other players. As the bible says "He that is not with me, is against me". So anyone who doesn't reply / isn't interested is already allied against you (or doesn't speak English - LOL). Anyone not already allied would be stupid not to take an NAP since it reduces the number of threats they face in the short term.

KGB

[strach]

First of all, in FFA there should be no hidden stats. Stats are an essential tool in FFA since they tell you who is the strongest and what alliances are most profitable. Other way it is a guessing game, which results in the win of the one who developed quicker. The greates thing about FFA is that you have to team up against the strongest one, but then - change your alliances, before killing him, and start to fight the next leader. It is impossible to do without stats.

[Lykurgos]

I disagree that stats are essential in FFA and that teaming up against the strongest is impossible without stats.

~ I base my disagreement on having played multiple medium-large map 6-8 player FFAs including on the Illuria, Midgard, Game of Thrones & Desert Maps, some with & some without stats
~ In multiple games of the first two of these, and once of the 3rd, I have actively formed NAPs & formed or accepted the formation of informal coalitions against the strongest, or perceived strongest player.
~ In these instances, "intelligence" was based on personal scouting & reports from other players
~ Stat visibility certainly makes assessment easier & means that a player with an early advantage can potentially exploit this under-the-radar for long enough to become dominant, but it does not transform countering emerging dominance from impossible to possible

[Chazar]

I agree with Lykurgos, scouting is an essential factor of the game, as is trading such information through messages. Tricking people into the wrong alliances is an essential part of the fun in FFAs for me.

That said, maybe the game could offer a mechanism to gather information besides direct scouting. E.g. sages, or trading gold for stats. So you can pay X gold to obtain one stat for one player (e.g. number of cities). Depending on how much you pay, you get the true number +/- some random error. So if you pay often or a lot, you get more accurate information. Maybe a certain hero ability ("scrying"?) or an item might then lower this cost, similar to the construciton ability. A player with such a hero may then offer to sell information to other players at a discount (if they trust the selling player).

[newton]

First of all, in FFA there should be no hidden stats. Stats are an essential tool in FFA since they tell you who is the strongest and what alliances are most profitable. Other way it is a guessing game, which results in the win of the one who developed quicker. The greates thing about FFA is that you have to team up against the strongest one, but then - change your alliances, before killing him, and start to fight the next leader. It is impossible to do without stats.

I agree with Strach - stats should be visible in 8 players games.

Now they are hidden, so instead focus on strategy and tactics we are wasting our time writing messages and waiting for replies regarding how many cities and where given opponent has got.

8 players game is the best mode of Warbarons (as it was in Warlords), but it is spoiled by childish chatting.

Fix it, please.

[strach]

Tabanli,
Why would you be able to see an agreement between 2 other players? In the real world if 2 countries make a secret alliance there is no way to know that without deducing it from observations.

The easiest way to tell who is allied against you in an FFA game is to open discussions about an NAP with other players. As the bible says "He that is not with me, is against me". So anyone who doesn't reply / isn't interested is already allied against you (or doesn't speak English - LOL). Anyone not already allied would be stupid not to take an NAP since it reduces the number of threats they face in the short term.

KGB

First of all, as a player, who openly admits that he doesn't find FFA games as important, you shouldn't be arguing with people who think they're the heart and soul of Warlords/Warbarons game. If you don't have a dog (or at least a unicorn) in this race, you shouldn't care whose dog is going to win

But kidding aside, "open discussions about an NAP" aren't by any means "easiest way" or at least an easy way. We are now finishing a FFA game in which the amount of messages send to each other was huge, and it didn't give us almost any knowledge about who is the strongest and who has NAP with whom.

There are two great problems here. First of all, it is virtually impossible to scout the whole map to get all necessary information on a large-sized map in 8-person game. Second of all - even if you manage to scout the whole map, it is only you who get this information and you can't share it because other players may not believe you. This is due to a simple fact, that everyone is claiming that the other players are very powerful and we should team up against them. This two factors make this whole idea of scouting and sharing information useless. The other thing is - as Newton said - is that this info-sharing through chat is very tedious and makes the game boring. I dont really want to spend my evenings sending 7 message to 7 players every turn to collect necessary information about who has more castles.

Of course having a system with open stats and diplomacy wouldn't in any way diminish the role of scouting - it would still be crucial to know where are your opponents units, and what these units are.

If stats and diplomacy were open the game would become much more interesting in terms of strategy. You would have to wiegh the benefits of quick expansion against the risk of being attacked by a gang of other players worried about your power. This would transform FFA into a different type of game. Right now it is all about being fast or being first to talk other players into teaming up against the strongest one.

[SnotlinG]

Interesting discussion.
So do you propose that statistics should be open only in FFA games, but hidden in TEAM and 1v1 games?
Or only open statistics in FFA games with a certain number of participants?
Or open for all types of games?

[piranha]

I think it's a interesting idea too.

Simplest solution would be that all FFA games have public information but not TEAM games (including 2v2v2+) and I think normal FFA is where it matters the most.

[Igor]

Some seasons ago I played FFA with open face. Then some players was organizing an alliance specially against me, explaining this so: you are the best player, we need be united to win.
Thus a strong player should be ready very often to play vs big alliances.
One time 2 players played with hidden face, me and one else player. Then third player told me: black player is Igor, let's unite togever before Igor won us. I said ok, let's to unite against black. In the end of the game, when the mistake was clear, we all be funny