Questionable ethics in FFA

It's a bit evil, but not unethical. You're just using intelligence warfare.

Really, why couldn't you just give them information on the informant?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if he is... my enemy...

Look, trying to justify it with "but they do it in real life!" is meaningless. This isn't real life, this is a game and people are trying to have fun. Taking the war outside of the game is not fun and attacks the person rather than his virtual army.

That's a case of pot calling the kettle black.

@arseface has his own metagame in place - why should his be of any less value that the other player's?

Player agency is king here. Agency separates games from scripted acts. Players have choices to make. There's not a lot of difference between giving away someone else's secrets and going and shooting their stuff.

Getting your panties in a knot because you bombed someone is irrational. Getting your panties in a knot because someone told your enemies where your super-sekrit-base is irrational too. Nobody in their right mind should be concerned about being on the receiving-end of hate because you've attacked someone. Don't be concerned about the same when you share information.

Most people have fun by winning.

And there will be quarter given, no line uncrossed, you win or lose.

If having your opponents fall for your traps and intrigue causes you to win, then congrats. Otherwise you are never really using the game fully provided arsenal.

I not suggesting you go out to berate an opponent, or to insult them, defiantly not.

But if I can trick you into doing something stupid in order to get me to win, then THAT is strategy. My strategy of tricks and lies forces you to make a move I could predict, and thus gave me the advantage I needed to exploit it ahead of time.

I have had opponents attack each other for me, attack my strong points and ignore my weak points, hell I have had friends worked up so much in fear and suspicion about an impending attack they outright surrendered to the inevitable without me having to even lift a finger.

This level of gameplay can and more often is more fun then the games themselves, especially between players of equal skill.

I don't know what to tell you, learn to respect other people's experience too.

Personal attacks, etc. are not acceptable regardless of being in a game or otherwise.

Once PMs and such are implemented ingame like in TA, it'll be even better. Politics are great. I recall I posted something about this before, let me dig it up:

"Oh, and when playing FFAs with friends - Wheedle. Whine. Complain. Bargain. Confuse. Offer alliances. Give away intel on your enemies. Downplay your own situation. Hide your strength if you can. Manipulate your friends (you know them, right?). Don't attack them carelessly. Know their habits, their favorite strategies and units, their weaknesses. Playing the psychological/political game is one of the more important things to do in a FFA."

All this stuff is much more effective and fun when you know who you're playing with. There's nothing wrong with using information warfare, though. All chat's in the game for a reason.

whoops

Exactly. Those inconsiderate people harassing @arseface for just playing the game how he likes to.

I am all for mindgames and playing players out against each other ... in love and war anything is allowed ... thats another reason why scouting and informationgathering is ALWAYS important ... you dont trust your "allies"?
Then see for yourself and judge...
If you cant handle that part of politics you should not play ffa's ... the only thing that shouldnt be is when a player is out that he's still able to chat with the players ..

“If you know the enemy and know yourself,
you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle.” -Sun Tzu

The meta game in FFA's is almost as important as building metal extractors.

Sharing intel with your enemies to unite against a common enemy is a product of war and is completely fair in FFAs.

The key is, sharing intel when you're playing.

If you're sharing intel after you died and have full vision, then that's unethical.

That gets into the thread we had on what cheating is. Using a tool others can't have, like spectator view, is obviously cheating. Everyone in an FFA can play politics though, so it's all fair.

There is still nothing wrong with agreeing to special rules before a game and expecting everyone to stick to them. If people agree in the lobby to not share intel, don't.

I recently had a game where the other player asked if we could agree to stay on the main planet. I agreed, the game started, and we both followed the rules. I was less accomodating a few minutes later, when his response to my aggressive commander was to demand that we not use our commanders. If he had asked that before the game, I would have agreed.

So basically, the meta-game rules are simple. Follow the game rules, follow any rules agreed to before the game, and do everything else within the rules in order to win.

Intelligence and false intelligence in the spirit of the game is fine.

As stated, doing it as a spectator is not cool.

Another example of not cool would be if you were playing against somebody still learning the game and started feeding them false information about the mechanics of the game. eg. telling somebody a unit that only attacks air units also attacks ground units, just to march in with ground units and destroy everything would not be cool either..

Finally, if you lie during the game, don't expect people to trust you any more either, but hey, if it makes for a great game, then why not

Sub Rosa is a game entirely based around the bluff/double bluff/trust of players communicating, and it's really exciting. It means you're playing against people, not just people operating a machine.

Like boardgames with traitor/hidden card mechanics.

I don't reveal information usually unless its to my direct benefit and i have no other choice. Often I see no reason for saving a weaker army in FFA if a player is about to destroy them, other than if it leaves me at a disadvantage.

The reason is that, if the ire of another team is directed elesewhere, thats time i can use to build up an array of T2 infrastructure to pull ahead in the game, or even better, expand orbital and claim the majority of the system which often leaves me in an unbeatable position.

This time gained is usually way more important to me. If I am on the backfoot, revealing information would only be done if i couldnt capitalise on it and it was vital the situation was addressed immediately. For example, if I am behind and someone is building a massive blob of bombers that have a good chance of steamrolling the entire planet.

In FFA psychological manipulation and social engineering strats are important. I think what you're doing is fine. However if you started giving intel away about me I would prioritise killing you

Bet you think you're being real clever right now. Grow up.

There's a reason I'm a very good player of cards and board games, but no more than mediocre at most strategy games, and that's because I'm very good at lying and manipulating my opponents.

This is the only place I feel video games lose out to more traditional forms of strategy - you can't see your opponents, and they can't see you. A single intake of breath, a raised eyebrow is all you need to make yourself or another player appear more or less threatening than they are.

Unfortunately, we cannot go into such depth or subtlety in PA so we have to make do with leaking information, real and false, through the chat. This is still the reason FFA is my favourite game mode though, the ability to play opponents off against eachother using only your wits is what makes strategy games fun for me.

Onwards @arseface , lie, wheedle, complain and persuade your way to victory. I'll be waiting to outwit you somewhere down the line