Questionable ethics in FFA

I learned a long time ago that lying in strategy games is a bad idea. It leads people to mistrust you. Even worse, it can make them dislike you enough to be unwilling to play with you again.

However, people seem to be equally unhappy with my handling of multiplayer games in an honest way. Sharing the intel I get with all other players.

If I see two threats to me, I make them aware of each other by blatantly pointing out where they are. That way they are both aware of a larger threat than myself, which benefits them. And me. Everybody wins.

"So and so is building nukes"
"So and so is amassing an army at the south pole, mostly comprised of ground units vulnerable to air"
"So and so is halfway to holkins on the island at x position"

Is this fair? Is there a better way to conduct myself?

I'm honestly curious what other people on this forum think about this approach. While it can be considered douchey, I think it's significantly less douchey than asking people to team up with me and nuking them while they think I'm not a threat.

Sounds great to me. Part of playing well in an ffa is learning how to play your opponents against each other.

^ this

I do it to my friends all the time.

And they do it to me.

Really if anything it's just a part of the information warfare part of the game.

Awesome, I got called some nasty names the other day and I was wondering if it was some unspoken **** move.

Do you know what the definition of "meta-gaming" is? The game is supposed to manage who gets what information.

People come to play the game, not mind games with you. If you act in a manner that is hostile outside of the context of the mechanics, do not be surprised if they don't want to interact with you ever again.

Nope, its more like them being Russia and insulting the US.

It's all politics, and your goal is to win by any means.

So don't be afraid to leak information when it helps you, and be sure to leave out details when it's even better....like "Black player has nukes on his island!" But leave out the fact that he has them in all of his bases....and a lot of flak too!

And watch your enemy's desperately wipe each other out trying to survive, and waltz right on in and win the game.

It's Free For All and not Accept Your Fate for a reason.

If I was the target of the attack I would love you, if I was the person with army I would hate you It really depends on who you are in the situation.

You should be scouting all the time anyways though

Then agree to it before the game starts. Anything you agree to before you land your commander is part of the game's rules. Anything you agree to while the game is going is just part of the game.

I think it's fine as long as you're still in the game, makes games more interesting. Kinda sucks if someone who's already been annihilated starts giving people hints or commenting though, which I see fairly often by people who probably don't realize it can be unfair to say something as simple as "oh man, X has such a huge army of Y". (I'll be honest, sometimes I catch myself commenting on things that I shouldn't as well, e.g. when it's clear who will win the match, but I usually remember to make an effort not to.)

Meta can be both a positive and negative force.

In an environment where the focus is on the game itself, like in an RPG, it's almost always detrimental.
In a strategic environment, it's almost always beneficial.

I don't play mind games, I give my opponents all the information they need to make informed decisions. Informed decisions lead to far closer, more interesting, games.

I'm also more used to strategic board games that don't rely on fog of war for tactical depth. Outplaying somebody because they didn't scout at the right moment is far less satisfying than outplaying somebody because you put them in no-win situations by thinking further ahead.

It's politics, is all. Everyone hates politics.

i resent it. but my reasoning isn't the greatest.
if you lie to misdirect attention away from yourself then fair play to you, its a war game after all. but, and I cant quire reconcile this stance with the previous sentence, helping enemies out is to me against the point of the game. let them have their surprise attacks, just scout them so its not a surprise to you. telling everyone else ruins 1 persons plan, the aim is for all players to have fun (Fun For All), having someone tell everyone your plan is annoying, so counter to having fun. scout me, kill me, ignore me, but don't prevent me from enjoying the game.

I dno, it can obviously annoy whoever you do it to. It makes sense that against randoms you might get some abuse, but if they lose you'll likely get 'noob' abuse from them anyway. I'd prefer just pointing out threats to form temporary truces with others, mutual benefit.

This. Obviously some people haven't played Civ V multiplayer, it is standard practice to rat out any player who might have an advantage.. gotta love human nature.

Not to mention spreading misinformation.. priceless. All about the balance of terror.

If you are still in game and risk your butt being cooked, why not. Someone calls it *diplomacy*.

Otherwise, if you have been eliminated, it's more like *interfering*, and not everyone would appreciate it.

Diplomacy... I should try it myself.

Meta-gaming is using external mechanics to win in a game. Telling two opponents about your scouting information is not metagaming.

Meta-gaming would be convincing another player that you are a newb so they don't take you seriously. Or inviting someone over to play on a LAN and disconnecting their internet connection.

People that get annoyed about a 3rd player spoiling their plans should stick to 1v1 games.

Information is a resource you like to squander apparently. The only reasonable time to reveal it is to save your life.

If you're annihilated and stick around to tell the opponents exactly how said player beat you and what they need to watch out for and then continue to inform them of said player's moves, I'd consider that pretty poor sportsmanship and block you.

That said, FFA is more casual (at least compared to 1v1s and 2v2s), so people should be less inclined to freak out over stuff like sharing intel.