Ethics in a multiplayer game

Recent

Hottest

Forum Index » General Discussion
1 2 3 ► Go Go to page...

Author

Message

Jul 21, 2010 12:57

Subject: Ethics in a multiplayer game

lawhawk

Messages: 17,
Joined: May 13, 2010,
Offline

Lately I have been getting a guilt trip for teaming up on someone. This strikes me as strange. So I have a few game-ethics questions. Please help me find out if I'm the only one or if this is how everyone plays. I assume everyone is using the same strategies as me, and it's just the victims bitching about their luck, but if I'm the only one I will stop.

1. Is it acceptable to team up, right from the start, against the player with the highest rating? This makes sense for everyone except the highest rated. I figure it does discourage higher-rated players from joining multiplayer games if they know this is going to happen.

2. If you use the chat to talk about who to team up with, does that make it better or worse? I assume it makes it better since they at least know the attack/team-up is coming. But I get yelled at in chat for suggesting it. Some of the victims seem to think it's only appropriate to team up where it happens "naturally."

3. Doesn't it make sense to team up when it is down to 3 players left? I get yelled at for suggesting it sometimes. But of course you want to team up, right? Is there anyone who thinks we all just have a moral obligation to fight a two-front war once it's down to 3 players left?

Jul 24, 2010 09:15

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

jeremiad

Messages: 23,
Joined: Jul 04, 2010,
Location: USA
Offline

Lawhawk, let me guess; you're a lawyer? I'm just sayin'

Jul 24, 2010 11:25

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

asdf

Messages: 78,
Joined: May 20, 2010,
Offline

No such thing as ethics in multiplayer. It is a free-for-all. Do whatever it takes to win. If that means ganging up on the best player, then that's what you do.

Jul 26, 2010 05:30

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

lawhawk

Messages: 17,
Joined: May 13, 2010,
Offline

Why yes, I am a lawyer.

Jul 26, 2010 07:29

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

Nixflix

Messages: 238,
Joined: Apr 09, 2010,
Location: j
Offline

Coolll nice observation
Don't listen to asdf...he has a one star rating for a reason...in my opinion
I don't play ffa's
But if I did...
I would refrain from teaming up quitee often
I would only teamup if I already knew someone was already teaming up
I really don't like team up on the highest rating
Unless he twothousand plus, Rating doesn't always judge correctly...you can always just play bots, be good at one map and only play tht one, they could setup 3 min games...

Sorry if i offended you

Jul 26, 2010 07:39

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

Nixflix

Messages: 238,
Joined: Apr 09, 2010,
Location: j
Offline

Okay I have to post again just so I can see my words(the other post went into the checklist and I couldn't see what i was typing)
Then again, even if they are twothousand plus there is still a chance they aren't a very good player, I think
Once again, asking to team up in chat- in my opinion there's nothing wrong with tht if someone already did it
If there's 3 players left, then I would stay in my corner an amass a big a army as I can, but make sure to attack right before the one player is about to beat the other player, so you can take the bases
These are my opinions, and they may change if I ever do start playing ffa's...but that is unlikely

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Jul 26, 2010 07:40

Sorry if i offended you

Jul 26, 2010 08:06

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

asdf

Messages: 78,
Joined: May 20, 2010,
Offline

lol. In a ffa, the goal is to win. There is no such thing as an ethical way to win. You win by any means necessary.

Also, in my opinion, ffa proves nothing as to how good of a player you are. Anybody can be ganged up on at any time. No matter how great you are, you can't defend against a gang.

Jul 26, 2010 10:06

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

nfong

Messages: 576,
Joined: Mar 07, 2010,
Location: where it's fun
Offline

basically agree with nixflix...
but I guess it does make it better if you warn the person in chat before you gang up on them...
but you still shouldn't. It makes the game un-fun for the player...
I haven't played an ffa in a while, but the last time I did it was fair...no ganging up or anything.
To show if you're really a good player, I mostly stick with one-on-ones...with the occasional team matches.
Ffa doesn't reflect your skill lvl...it reflects the whole "gang's" skill lvl.

I see people who gangup on the highest rated person as noobs who want free points...just my opinion.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Jul 26, 2010 12:27

When life gives you lemons...

"TAKE YOUR DAMN LEMONS BACK, LIFE. I DON'T WANT YOUR STINKIN' LEMONS."

Aug 07, 2010 21:42

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

sonepper

Messages: 6,
Joined: Jul 30, 2010,
Offline

Your personal ethical issues that come into play only makes the game that much more interesting. As a strategy, I try to keep an eye on the balance of power among the players and will shift my attack accordingly to make sure no opponent gains such an advantage that cannot be overcome by my forces. Especially when the game comes down to 3 players, logically the 2 weaker players should gang and gank the one with the greatest force. Unless you are the strongest of the three, you are either going to be eliminated first or second.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Aug 07, 2010 21:50

Aug 07, 2010 22:05

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

Sphink

Messages: 120,
Joined: Dec 22, 2009,
Location: USA, Arkansas
Offline

Well as being the highest ranked player in a few FFA matches I have this to say. I think "team-up" is the wrong term. Do you mean team up to where you only attack the higher ranked players units while ignoring your "team mates" units? Or attacking anything that you are strong against showing favor to the highest ranked player?

When I'm playing and I see one person going for another, I will come in and attack both players units with whatever I'm strong against regardless of player. I also attack whoever makes the first misstake. I think going only for the highest ranked player right from the start is a sign of cowardness. It says we are intimidated by you and we cannot beat you without teaming up (biased opinion). Of corse this is from the standpoint of being the highest ranked player in the game.

In one game me and the other highest ranked player teamed up vs the rest because they were talking about taking us out first. So we teamed up took em all out and had a 1vs1 (I lost)

so in conclusion, I believe yes it is bad to team up from the START to take out the highest ranked player. Plane and simple it is a free for all. If you want a team mate to play with, play a team game. In a free for all you should attack what you are strong against and avoid what your weak against, regardless of player. I think people who team up in a FFA are weak players.

This is all my biased opinion.

Good luck, Have fun!

My biased opinions are open-minded.
-Sphink

Aug 22, 2010 21:23

Subject: Ethics in a multiplayer game

Britannia

Messages: 21,
Joined: Jul 24, 2010,
Offline

I don't think it's wrong, but take that with a grain of salt. It is a FFA, and you are trying to win. Because most people try to gang up on the highest rated player, I always ask the highest rated player if they want to team with me in FFA. I typically just explain that either everyone else is going to gang up to bring them down, or he and I can team up and hash it out later. On the off chance I'm playing FFA and on the off chance I get an alliance, I usually only keep it for 2-3 turns (typically long enough for our offensive to halt the other players offensive and for me to get in a good position in order to backstab

my "teammate") Once, and I say once because it only happened ONCE, I switched teams mid-game because it was to my advantage.

What I'm getting at, is I see no problem with forming temporary alliances in FFA, as long as its done in Global Chat so opposing players can see and potentially form their own alliances. I see this as most realistic to real-life, nations will work together temporarily but are always struggling to get an edge, even over their allies.

What I do hate is people joining with two accounts (main and a dupe) in order to have the dupe quit (so main can swoop in for its bases) or have dupe rush early (let main build up) or fight together and have dupe quit in the end.

Aug 23, 2010 07:02

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

Sphink

Messages: 120,
Joined: Dec 22, 2009,
Location: USA, Arkansas
Offline

Yeah another point is when your in a higher ranked game, (2000+) the game is pretty equal. When there is around 150 points difference between most players, you can't just attack the player with the highest points because the others are just waiting for someone to make a misstake.

But if your ranked 2000+ and you join a rated FFA with players ranked 1700-1800, then you should expect to get attacked simply for your points.

Good luck, Have fun!

My biased opinions are open-minded.
-Sphink

Aug 27, 2010 12:36

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline

Sigh, I'm in my first two ranked FFA games, I'm in Octal War fighting 1 vs. a 4-way alliance against me and in a Quintus fighting 1 vs. an emerging 3-way alliance.

Not a great strategy for winning in the end, but it is fun. Maybe I will learn not to be too aggressive in the beginning and play the wait-and-see balance-of-power thing. Or maybe not.

Aug 30, 2010 16:51

Subject: Ethics in a multiplayer game

Britannia

Messages: 21,
Joined: Jul 24, 2010,
Offline

Just a quick thought here, but how many of you guys have played on crossroads recently? I was khrals against 2 titans, so I got the middle base easily, but then they HAVE to go through me to fight. It's a pretty interesting situation where an alliance is actually forced through the map structure. I've pretty much given up on holding it. I'm gonna let one of the other two take it, build up troops, then take one of them out and use the resources to finish off the other one. Any similar situations where the maps actually force an alliance in a FFA?

Oct 08, 2010 23:46

Subject: Re:Ethics in a multiplayer game

RobRoy

Messages: 1,
Joined: Oct 08, 2010,
Offline

I'm just having the following situation in a 4 player ffa game with 3 players remaining:
2 weaker players (one of them is me) one bigger dude, who erased the 4th player and now ownes 50% of the bases of the map.
I thought it would be better for the balance of the game to stop attacking the weaker guy and concentrate on the big one, because else the game would have been over for all soon (and not with me as winner). So i wrote my strategy into gamechat.

The second weaker guy kept neutral, but the bigger guy started rude flaming and complained that we are teamplayers violating the rules of the ffa.

I don't think so. It was a tactical decision in this game. I could have attacked two players all the time since it's a close ranged map, and as long as all 4 players were in the game i concentrated one one opponent. Fine for all.
Then the game situation changed: one player became bigger, stroke down one player and was on his way to win the map.

For me, in that situation it is absolutely OK to concentrate on the bigger one. This is no teamplaying in a bad way i think, it's just keeping the balance of the game for while by choosing a common target and leaving out other possible opportunities.

I must admit, that i maybe should not have written down this "strategy"-plan into the chat (it was anyway obivious for all to do so) , but it this already bad teamplaying in a ffa?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Oct 08, 2010 23:47

Forum Index » General Discussion
1 2 3 ► Go Go to page...