If there are more than two teams of players it's perfectly natural for teams to agree to focus on the team that is a bigger threat to them, and unless the game creator specified that this was not allowed it's very childish to get salty about it. A game with more than two teams is a "team free for all" as in each team looks out for their best interest, which may include forming alliances and NAPs.

@davidian the person who's played 25 games of warlight is going to lecture me on how warlight is normally played? You claim we have no experience? Also we don't self admit to being trolls because we aren't

the person who's played 25 games of warlight is going to lecture me on how warlight is normally played

well, looks like i could do it, but it's not worth time.

@Davidian - it's exactly like judeburger wrote;)

This reminds me of the insult about my level. I was here in 2010 but forgot my old account info so there you go.

When you have no argument, resort to attacking the supposed credentials. nicely done.

@Kryzchu, gotcha, That's what I thought but a lot has changed since I was last here, so I wasn't sure. thank you dude :)

The Poon squad members are hypocrites. As they've cheated many times in the past.

We have? Thats news to me.

Also @davidian you haven't provided any "evidence" either.

I can only think of the Rules of Risk 2250 (or something like that)

Alliances, Peace, BackStabs, and Betrayal are allowed.

one two three fawr i sense a flame wawr

Oh, when will people understand that this is one of those topics which needs to be, you know, discussed?

Some people want a gameplay style where alliances and non-aggression pacts are part of the changing strategic landscape.

Some people want a "clean" game which is purely strategic.

Both are correct.

You just need to talk to the people you're playing with and get on the same page.

The best way, if you don't know? Ask.

I'm playing in a 3-team game right now, and we're organizing an alliance against the third team. I've asked the third team if they're OK with this, for the sake of making the game more interesting. Why not?

If you're setting up a game, you might want to specify your preference, as well. It makes a big difference - those are almost two entirely different types of games.

Krzychu took davidian side, the conversation is over.

1. I'd like to point out that not one of the many well-used templates out there are for FFAs, if there was such a thing there'd be a ladder for it ('cause that's how everything works round here).

2. There was a 40 player FFA on edgeless square recently, nobody gave a speck of shit about people making alliances.

3. I thought you were going to make reference to the uservoice for peace treaty cards.

We won

Can we have the link of the game ?

Anyway why was vote not offered (and accepted) if boots happenned at turn 0 ? Or wasnt it at turn 0 ?

And alliances should not be allowed and regarded as cheats in FFA (or team games of more than 2 teams) unless clearly specified in the description. Otherwise it is just as unfair as a player having a secret alt in the FFA game. But thats just my 2c ;).

Agreed Mike

In this case it was a special edition game created to celebrate Patriot's Day so it wouldn't be right to end by vote. But even if it was a normal game I don't think vote to end is a good idea just cause someone got booted. It's not fair to the players that want to play and who take their turns in time

Plus its a 39 player team FFA, there is no way you are gonna get that many people to vote

Are you sure because in the OP he says his teammates got booted. In a 39 FFA for sure vote makes no sense.

Sure about what mike? The game was 13 teams of 3. His two teammates got booted pretty early i believe.

Well in true bozo fashion I challenged Davidian to a 3 vs 3. With Queefballs, Jamrod, and I vs. Davidian and two open seats (pre reqs on for people above level 13 and boot% below 20) with 3 day boots because he said we can't win a game without booting. Davidian declined so he is a wuss. The End. We Win. BOOM