Experimental "serious" FFA-games

[mowhar]

As an experiment, I created 4 password-protected FFA games.

I will take the first watch, so if you want in the games, just send me a message, and I will send the password that is good for all the four games, and it will then be more your responsibility than mine, to send the password on to whomever you want.

The ultimate goal, is that everybody that likes “serious” FFA games should learn the password, but all the brand new players that have played one tutorial, is talking to nobody, and then forgets about the games they signed up for, is locked out.

Only a small amount of the effort , has to do with the players that have made an habit out of quitting slow, or repeatedly taking such stupid risks in the beginning of the game that they almost always give up within 6 turns. You should be ashamed of yourselves!

As punishment you will be locked out of a handful of games, if I get to decide!

Which I will not, since everybody getting the password is supposed to send it on to whomever they want, and so on…

Don’t worry Seraad, you are most welcome. One fly does not make a summer!;)

But let’s try to get a few games going where the number of players does not go down by two before turn 5.
It makes the game totally unbalanced, when a couple of people fight neutrals, while the rest of us fight each other for every square of the map.

Let’s get some good and balanced games going!

Remember, the goal is to lock out the players that know nothing, does not care, and will never know, not to discriminate among the players that play the game!

As soon as the newbies care enough to ask, we let them into the ladder games, is the way this should go.

Pointing fingers at the annoying quitters...
Well, I guess we will just have to grow up, and let it go.
But let’s taunt them first, for a little while, so that they feel they have sinned!

I have been a sinner myself, so this feels a bit awkward. A good compromise is to lock out the players that really do not care if we lock them out, because they are unaware that we do it.
That would be the new account holders that show no interest.

[Qube]

Well, even in the short while I've been playing, I have noticed that power vacuums (created by players dropping out early), decide most FFA games. It is a sad state of affairs really.

In ladder FFA only the winner gets points, right? This "If you're not first you're last" points system encourages players with bad starts to drop. This game is all about snowballing, and early losses can really slow down expansion, and hero progression. Total risk avoidance can be impossible, or requires too much of a time investment. And a bad roll of the dice early doesn't just mean you failed to take the city or ruin, it also means you have lost the ability to take the objective. That kind of setback is extremely punishing, so I understand why many players just cut their losses and quit.

I think early game risk can be mitigated somewhat by careful map design. But the random city production and the random starting units currently decide a lot of games before they even start.

[KGB]

I think early game risk can be mitigated somewhat by careful map design. But the random city production and the random starting units currently decide a lot of games before they even start.

The only way to truly mitigate early game risk is to increase the number of starting units. Nothing else is going to work or change things in any manner.

For example if the starting units are scout,scout,elf,spider and you are unlucky on your first city and lose all 4 of those units (but still win with just your hero left) you are severely disadvantaged compared to someone who wins their first city and still has their hero + spider and you are crippled compared to someone who wins losing none of their starting units. In large FFA games (6-8 players) it's very normal for this to happen because a 15% chance to lose all but hero and 15% chance to lose 0 armies means roughly 1 player falls in each category.

If the game was changed to hand out double or triple the number of starting units then a bad first battle where you lost 3-4 units still hurts but doesn't cripple your expansion and essentially end your chances of winning.


As it stands right now in large FFA games you should take as big a risk on turn 1 as you can (ie fight strongest / best neutral production you can find). If it pays off you get a huge jump on all the other players and if it doesn't you just quit and enter another FFA game because you have 0 time invested.

KGB

[Moonknight]

I'm game for this...

[Qube]

The only way to truly mitigate early game risk is to increase the number of starting units. Nothing else is going to work or change things in any manner.

Well, I agree that more starting units would be a good way to address the issue in a broadband way. However, I can think of another way to make the first few turns a bit less of a crap shoot. If the nearest 2-3 cities to your capital are un-walled and garrisoned by scouts, crows or light inf, it should reduce the chances of losing everything off the bat. Once you control a handful of cities, the impact of losses would be less punishing.

Anyway, srry about straying off topic Mowhar. Please continue your elitist agenda.

[mowhar]

It is not an elitist agenda.

It is about not playing 8 player FFA games where you are only five players left after a few turns.
It is a huge advantage on a 8 player map to not have to fight a player, but just be able to take over neutral castles.
If you beat your neighbor in battle, you deserve this advantage because you did the work needed.
But if you do not...

Well, then it is like finding a 1 000 dollar on your way home.
Sure, that feels great.
Never mind the dead neighbor next to the 1000 dollars, this is your chance to really enjoy yourself!

The games could be better than that.

[KGB]

I already mentioned above why your dream is impossible to achieve under the current rules.

There will always be 1-2 players 'eliminated' in an 8 player game by turn 2-3 simply by bad luck against neutrals/ruins. Even if they don't resign they are essentially dead men walking with no chance of winning themselves.

KGB

[Qube]

Is it a requirement that your FFA master-race also has no concept of humor?

[mowhar]

Yes, Qube.
I signed the agreement, and can not get out of it now.

KGB, i agree that you are on to something. Just not sure how to exactly do it, without giving further advantage to the experienced players.

And according to me, it is the same few players that always lose in the first few turns, time after time.
Really, fuck these assholes! I do not want to start a witch-hunt here, so no need for name-calling.
Them and the totally unknown players that sign up for warbarons, but never play their first game, just sign up for it.

[KGB]

KGB, i agree that you are on to something. Just not sure how to exactly do it, without giving further advantage to the experienced players.

Since newbie players don't stick around and play what does it matter? Doubling or ideally tripling the number of starting units isn't going to make the game harder for them.

KGB

P.S. If Hunter's Folly is one of your elite games you might want to consider re-creating it. You are using an outdated version of that map that's been re-balanced.