FFA vs 1on1 vs team game

[strach]

so which kind of game do you like the most?
I am a big fan o FFA games - I think they're the essence of Warlords. I know that a lot of good players doesn't like to play it. The reason is simple - in FFA there's a lot of randomness and chance involved, and even the best player can suffer a terrible defeat. but that's what I like about it - you may be a great player, but if everyone teams against you you have no chance. vert often if you get ahead of everybody, the rest joins their forces to get you down. this is the most exciting part of the game, when your empire is on the verge of fall, but you still has some chance to win. enemies' armies are surrounding you from three or four sides. if only you could win this castle... great feeling... so there's this strategy to be the second best and to invest in powerful stacks rather than in a lot of castles, and armies... and then when everyone joins against the strongest one and his empire is ripped apart, you will benefit the most.
the other thing is diplomacy. you have to convince everyone that you dont pose any threat to them and handle your NAPs wisely. you dont want to have an NAP with everybody, because you will not have anyone to fight with (the best way is to fight one or two at the time). in FFA everyone should always fight the strongest one. in ideal case the game would never end, but players make mistakes, and very often change their allies and strategies too late. that's when you step in - and till they realize that you have become the most powerful, you are strong enough to fight them all at the same time...

[KGB]

1) 1V1 - The only true evaluator of a players skills.
2) Team Games - TONS of fun for the co-operation between team members and for smack talking other teams.
3) FFA Games - For experimenting only.

My biggest problem with FFA is the issue you didn't address. I've played a few hundred now since Beta1 onward and I can say that 98% if not more have at least 1 or more drop outs (player who just stop playing). Dropouts are the single biggest factor in determining who wins and loses an FFA. I can't count the number of times I've won simply because the player next to me dropped out and I doubled my cities or the opposite happened. For example right now I'm in a test game on Midguard and there have been 3 drops leaving the remaining 4 players badly unbalanced (3 fighting on 1 continent, the other by himself acquiring 2 empty continents).

So I just use FFA games as a way to experiment with hero/unit combinations and to evaluate the skill level of players I might not know. They are good for nothing else especially once Team games became available.

KGB

[ptGamer]

I like team game the most, thanks to the great teammates I have

I am proud of the commitments and fighting spirit in my current team. We don't win every single game, but we try different things, help each other out, chit-chat, exchange findings, bs, and enjoy! We don't blame each other or finger-point. We sit for each other as needed, and we don't sign up for a 1-day turn game when there's no intention to make it. We also don't give up easily.

FFA game is great too, especially for the diplomacy aspect. Having the best units and skill isn't enough all the time, you also need to work some relationships. Of course, in the end, there's only one winner. But hey, the process maybe just a s enjoyable as victory.

1on1 is fun. Sometimes I just find it not as appealing to me because with small maps, sometimes losing a key battles or two by odds determines the game. With large maps, sometimes I find there's too much to manage per turn.

I think dropouts are more discouraging in non-ladder team games over FFA games. In team games you have to plan a strategy assuming your ally will keep doing his/her best, otherwise you're playing a handicap game to start with. In an FFA game, it's fair to assume your "ally" will turn against you at some point, just a matter of when.

[smursh]

I find myself playing fewer and fewer FFA games for two reasons. The first is the one KGB mentioned, the second is that if you have players who are friends and/or team members in a FFA they often form an immediate alliance regardless of game situation. In a 4 player FFA where two players immediately join forces, they get a huge advantage if the other two players don't immediately NAP, but instead attack each-other.

Because of this I expect to play very few FFA games next season, and will concentrate on 1 vs. 1 and Team games.

[Argammon]

I stopped playing FFA games due to the reasons KGB and Smursh mentioned. When I first came here I mainly played FFA games and most of them have been a very bad experience.

[Igor]

Really, FFA game can start to go different way when one or two players stop playing. And hard when 2 players joined their forces against 1. I got these both enough this season. But it's interesting anyway.
As for me, I probably like all 3 types equally, especially when game are dynamic. I played all 3 types this season.
One difference, I like, is that 1 vs 1 game goes faster than team game or FFA.

[strach]

KGB
I guess there's a simple solution that could help with the problem you are talking about. I think If some one drops out, half of his cities - preferably his least defended should be automatically razed. I guess it would be unfair to raze all his cities, because that would punish a person for making a quick and effective raid at the begining of the game.

I don't think that the fact that some players quit early distorts (or even destroys) the game. you mean that if there only were posibility to play FFA you wouldnt play it? when it comes to 8 player game the fact that one player quits and some one gets his castle doesnt give the latter winning advantage. I played a lot of game when I gained an early advantage and the rest of players attacked me simultanously and I was quickly send to the other side. when we talk about an 8 player game with good players such advantage doesnt mean anything.

I think that a lot of good players doesnt like FFA simply because they dont have as great control of the situation as in 1vs1 or team games. but this is what I love about FFA (and about warbarons since I only play FFA). you got a tough situation and suddelny out of blue you get a chance to take oer 10 castles. in FFA anything can happen

the other thing is that it is a great advantage to start the game as a 1st one, so I suggest that in 8 player game you should get additional 50gold for a every place in the order (I dont think its a correct English phrase). co the second player gets 50, third 100, fourth 150, 5th 200, 6th 250, 7th 300 and 8th - 350. I guess thats better idea than bidding. in four player game it could be 200.

[KGB]

Strach,

I guess there's a simple solution that could help with the problem you are talking about. I think If some one drops out, half of his cities - preferably his least defended should be automatically razed.

There are 2 types of drop outs:
1) Player feels they are defeated so they resign.
2) Player just never takes more than 1-3 turns before they quit playing for no apparent reason.

I am perfectly OK with #1. That's something that you earn by beating another player. There is no need for some kind of penalty of razing their cities or anything like that. The problem is that #2 happens way too often. I am pretty sure that #2 happens at least 1-2 times in a typical 8 player game (just played an 8 player Bullrun FFA with players who were all regular players and yet by the time the game was 10 turns old 2 players had dropped out from #2). Those are the ones that really ruin the game/game experience. There is no good solution for #2.

you mean that if there only were posibility to play FFA you wouldnt play it?

Obviously not since I do play some FFA games. Just as if I am starving to death I'll eat whatever food is placed in front of me. But if I get a choice I get picky and eat (or play) what I like. So when I am looking for a new game to join I tend to select 1v1 or team games and only join FFA games if there is nothing else to join / someone is asking for help balancing a new map.

I played a lot of game when I gained an early advantage and the rest of players attacked me simultanously and I was quickly send to the other side. when we talk about an 8 player game with good players such advantage doesnt mean anything.

Which of course you can't know in Ladder FFA games since you can't tell who is winning and you have no idea who benefited when someone drops out. So you are really talking about non-ladder FFA games when players try to take down the leader.

Also as Smursh mentioned many times players just always ally together against other players because they are friends/team mates in team games etc so that you always end up playing 2v1 against them. That is a big turn off as well.

he other thing is that it is a great advantage to start the game as a 1st one, so I suggest that in 8 player game you should get additional 50gold for a every place in the order (I dont think its a correct English phrase). co the second player gets 50, third 100, fourth 150, 5th 200, 6th 250, 7th 300 and 8th - 350. I guess thats better idea than bidding. in four player game it could be 200.

In this thread about bidding for turn order I mentioned why this is a bad idea. Bidding is the superior way to do it.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1599

KGB

[ezras]

To address KGB's Problem #2 players dropping out for no good reasons. I see 2 types here.

1) Experienced and seemingly reliable players dropping out for no good reason will be especially hard to avoid unless we adjust the ranking system and add an incentive, like a power ranking that takes in more than just win/lose in ladder games. (Total games played, diversity of maps, ave. turn time, units killed, cities captured, times surrendered in less than 20 turns etc. in all games and types.)

2) New players join the site, and then join a FFA, the turn time between 1 and 2 is too long and they don't come back. This is a tough one. You can't bar a new player from FFA for fear they will drop but this can be annoying. If plan #1 is implemented it could be used as a setting when opening up an FFA game. So only players with an ave. turn time of >12 hours can join, or power ranking above x, etc. The problem here is then there would be fewer FFA games to introduce newbies. Perhaps willingness to play with newbies can be factored into the power ranking.

[Moonknight]

Team Games are top for me...not only playing ladder games with my kick-ass compadres, but also teaming up with new random people (even if it is to get a peak into their brain).

FFA is probably next for me, but mainly b/c i'm not good at 1v1