A way to make Free-For-All games work?

This sounds pretty cool, It would allow you to hide on some faraway planet and then jump in and destroy everyone without them knowing you were even in the game.

I'd envision it as being like the 1v1 matchmaker in GPGNet/FAF - you'd see a “connecting” screen and then once the game had filled the criteria it would launch. Or there could be a standard preset of options (e.g. Always 6-10 players, always 4-8 planets, always give 5 minutes maximum wait time), so that games could be arranged quicker.

Perhaps you could have a progress bar that was intentionally a bit vague/random so that you know something's happening without being able to accurately infer anything you should need to scout to find out.

The thing I like most about this is that you haven't a choice about selecting the lobby or selecting the players you play with. It removes the whole scenario of you playing a FFA only to find ten minutes into the game you're playing against two guys who secretly joined the lobby as a 'team' who then proceed to kick your *** in tandem. It was the main reason I avoided FFA.

I really think this concept could work. It might come under something that could be modded into the game post-release, but it's definitely a sound concept and Uber needs to make sure the code is accessible for the community to make game modes like this.

It does bring a new subject to the fore: Diplomacy and how alliances will be made and broken in the game. Particularly as part of the UI. We've already talked about an improved system for resource sharing. The old system was certainly inadequate at best. The diplomacy system needs to be addressed also. IMO I think perhaps there is a requirement for two such game types with regard to diplomacy. Fixed - where the teams are decided before the game and live, where they are changeable throughout the game. I think resource sharing and giving units to allied players already existed in SC:FA but that was about it. A game mode like this really would require some form of live diplomacy.

On that note, would diplomacy be a factor in, say, Galactic War? Either with/against the AI or with/against buddies.
I mean, holy tapdancing messiah is diplomatic AI hard to write properly, so I'd imagine GW would be more of a all-out clustercopulation than a 4x or something, but I would like to have allied AI.

As for diplomacy, I was thinking there could be 4 stages that players could agree upon.

1: War - Obviously
2: Cease Fire - Cannot target each other for a certain amount of time and cannot be around each others units/buildings. Once time runs out they either progress to war or peace. (depending on the stage they were at previously)
3: Peace - Will not engage each other but can freely mingle together/ pass through each others bases.
4: Allies - Can share resources (maybe units/buildings too?) and fight together.

When players reach either peace or allied status then declaring war would trigger a short cease fire period to avoid teaming up then suddenly backstabing your ally to win the game... or maybe the allies share the win if they are the last factions standing.

It would be easier to make the stages of diplomacy a simple at-war versus not-at-war.
In terms of AI allies I would think something like defeat = friendship, something like the FFA to Team Warfare idea posted elsewhere in the forum, but on the galactic scale.

Because, you know, they're AI in-universe. No mercy. No surrender.

I agree that there should only be two stages of diplomacy. Basically you are on the same team or you aren't. It's a very binary kind of option and I think it suits the tone of the game. Even in a game where you have set teams the rules are basically the same.

On a side note, if you want your units to hold fire outside of an alliance then you have that option in the UI anyway. You obviously share the benefits of shared intel and such like if you are on the same team. But as far as the game is concerned, all an alliance amounts to is you just aren't shooting each other. It's up to you and your ally to communicate with each other (or not) and sort out how the alliance will actually work.

I'm not even sure how alliances really sit with the concept of super efficient war fighting automatons, unwaveringly acting upon an infinitely old command... But I think from a gameplay aspect it's an important part of the game. Perhaps an alliance is just a means to accomplish an end. Common goals and logic code would decide an alliance to a machine. Not emotion or pride.

Now I have to object. FFA do take skill. It is not all random in a well designed game. FFA was almost the only thing I played in Command and Conquer: Generals and my winning percentage was well above 80% which is way above the 16-33% range you expect to see in a game detriment purely by chance (33% being wining a 3rd of the matches in a 1vs1vs1 FFA. The worst kind of FFA in by book btw.)

Some games do tend to be more random however. I felt Warcraft 3 was very random when it came to FFA. But that may be simply because I was never that good at it. Though I liked to blame it on the fact that i feel you lock you self down to much on a single strategic path in that game.

Now there are several things that factor in in winning a FFA game. Things that often you do not find in regular games. (And why I love FFA)

Its impotent to be able to hide your strength. This plays a roll in regular game to vs players but not to the same degree. In a regular game the main focus is to hide your forces and your buildings just to make it harder to counter your troops. In FFA you need to hide them just to make sure you do not become a target.

On the other side of the spectrum is naturally impotent to scout. Again not unique to FFA but here the focus is less about finding counters (which is still impotent) and more to judge the strength of the enemy and making sure you can acquire those resource need to win the game.

Also you do not fight to defeat others but to survive the game. So you need to focus more on acquiring resource which in turn makes it harder to hide your strength. The challenge raises with the more power you have in a organic way. which is a lot better then the many games that try to use some mechanics to force this dynamic in to the game. (One more reason why FFA might not work as well in WC3)

And then we have the very impotent dynamic of Diplomacy. Diplomacy is a skill you have great use off in FFA. A few view this is dishonourable. That pacts ruins the spirit of FFA. I say is a part of the FFA experience that is essential. Pacts will happen with or without any formal chatting. Silent diplomacy will ensure that. Skilled players will go after the biggest treats (Which usually is the strongest player) if they can.

But with no limits to the diplomacy you get the most interesting dynamics out of the game. People try to size up each other, conspire with each other, inform each other and lie to each other. And how you play this part may very well win you the game.

I find FFA to be the most fun because it involves to many aspects. Its a game type that promotes long term planning and being well rounded. So I really hope that the game designers do take a good look at making the FFA experience great because I have yet to see a game that was ruined by good FFA. But I have seen games ruined (For me) by bad FFA.

(Disclaimer: There might be a lot more aspects in FFA that makes it stand out from non-FFA games. But I have not made a full analyses off FFA and only picked what I felt was some of the most important factors that makes FFA stick out.)

i like your idea. it should at least be a game option if not built in.

That is a good point about technically implemented alliances. Players new to FFA often attribute more meaning to alliance game mechanics than exist.

Here is an example. ZK has a ceasefire option which can make two sides not automatically shoot each other. I see people agree over chat to be allies (which is a good thing to do in FFA) but then they "seal" this by enabling ceasefires. I think people should treat ceasefires simply as a micro tool to enable joint troop movements.

Though I cannot say what I thought of the original FFA (considering I have never actually played any RTS online or offline until a month ago (I got TA recently through GOG, and I can see why everybody loves it)), I can see how this removes any potential problems with abandoning a match due to players who look dangerous.

I don't think that it will stop people who were teaming up before the match started. Unless there is a way to stop friends from joining other friends' matchmaking lobbies, said 'teams' can roam around until they find each other and join forces (they would have to stop firing at will, though).

It might be a fun idea to allow people to join for a certain amount of time after the match starts. Obviously the endgame would be compromised if you could just join up at the last second, but maybe have a no-rush time at the beginning where people can still join. It would be a slight disadvantage to anyone who joined late, but is absolute fairness something we care all that much about?

people joining late could just take a portion of the currently playing armies... Late game it might get difficult to command everything across various planets - it would be a cool dynamic to allow someone else to control a portion of your army (but still only one "side"). I think this has been hinted at and sounds really fun.

Just to clarify, the problem I was talking about wasn't with FFA as a game type. It's the issue of players. Mainly the disingenuous sort that join a game as a team from the get go. It makes a huge difference to a game when two players in four way FFA are working together from the start. My point was that in that case it's not a FFA but a 2v1v1.

That aside, the idea of trusting a new player with a portion of my game makes me somewhat uneasy after being paired with someone in matchmaking who has just started playing the game. It's like handing a child your months wage and watching, powerless, as they blow it all on sweets. It'll be really interesting to see how Uber implement such an idea.

To make it work, they'd need to have some kind of way to limit what a player could do when joining. Otherwise, a player could join a game and see a friend on the opposite team and sabotage their allies to help their buddy on the other team win. It's sad that we have to think that way, but if it's possible it will happen. I know it would really annoy me and I am sure that there aren't many folks who would want their 2 hour game ruined by that. The trouble is that if you limited it that much, who would want to join a game and have such limited control over someone else's units anyway? It would suck!

IIRC, it's more likely based on what Uber have said that you would have a prearranged kind of schedule in which you and some predefined other players on your team would play using the same commanders and units in a kind of relay race type of game. This would allow for players to complete a game of say, 12 or 24 hours without actually playing for the full duration by handing over control of their stuff to their team mate at a predetermined time. Assuming they haven't been eliminated from the game, of course.

EDITED: For clarity.

I love it!

An addition would be if player "Harry" notices player "Jim" but Jim hasn't noticed Harry. If Harry were to talk to Jim it would just show "Player #1"(Depending on how many players Jim has made contact with) so that chat wouldn't give away the opponent.

An interesting point. You'd need to define what counts as contact though. My initial thought would be that seeing a building, shooting at an enemy or being shot at by an enemy would count as contact. This would allow unarmed scouts to have a look around without their first spot counting as contact for both players.

Although this does have a logical flaw: clearly all units are in constant contact with and constantly reporting to the commander, so even if a metal extractor sees a spy plane whilst the player's attention is elsewhere, it should count as contact. But perhaps that could be ignored for the sake of gameplay? After all in this example any AA fire would immediately mean both players were aware of each other, and successful stealthy behaviour should always be rewarded.

Scout units should have a much larger visual range then buildings and ordinary units. Or they could add cloak to them. Logic flaw fixed.

I like the idea.. One thing though:

Didnt know you needed skills to lose? :mrgreen:

It might work better if you could only allow your "clan" members tot take control of your side. There would be a bit more trust there i'm assuming. Else you boot them from clan