When I open a match, i call it "ffa" and write additionally "no teamplay". Today again, 2 of the 4 paticipants in this "ffa" obviously think it´s funny to collude. This happens relatively often. For them, maybe this is their way to feel superior. I prefer a fair fight, so I call this behaviour guileful. You may say: ´watch the rules; this is ok!´ And I would answer: ´No, it is against the rules! I wrote it down in the headline: "no teamplay". Every player joining this game agreed to this declaration. So any other behaviour is a cheat towards the others! I do not have fun with those rats.´
The rules tell me: ´Send the rats to the Black List´.
This is not enough in my opinion!
So I decided to open this thread, giving other fair-play wishing members the opportunity for proposals.
My first callow idea is, to publish the numbers of getting blacklisted in the personal profile. Another also callow idea is the creation of sth. like an ´assessment´. It might increase by the amount of played matches and decrease with the number of getting blacklisted.
Please discuss and please change something!

First off, you should be more explicit in your rules. From the responses you're getting, it seems some people just didn't understand what you meant (or at least used that as an excuse).

Just saying "ffa" and "no teamplay" could be mis-understood -- for example, they might think you just mean that there are no pre-determined teams, or they might understand that they're not supposed to form teams but still think it's okay to collude in other ways (say, temporary treaties).

You should put the rules into the game description, so it's displayed right there when they click Join. When I've done these before, I find it's necessary to clearly define what is collusion and what isn't, since there's a lot of gray areas. It usually takes a couple paragraphs to explain. If you aren't explicit, you can't expect people to obey a vision in your head.

Lastly, trying to start a forum thread where you list everyone who disobeys is not likely to succeed given the size of the player base. Instead, you should ask for people who *do* want to play this way, and invite them to games. You're much more likely to identify people who will play by your rules rather than identify every single player out of tens of thousands who won't.

Unman yeah what he said^ ibagree though people never follow those rules

Look at this game, then you can clearly see, what I mean:

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=4592474


This is no temporarily collusion out of the gaming situation!

Look at that game, and you'll clearly see what I mean! You didn't outline the rules at all -- you left the game description completely blank. Even if I were joining that game, I wouldn't know what you intended.

name of the match:

"ffa; 4x5; no teamplay"


havn´t seen?!?

And furthermore: when a match setting is ffa, people want ffa. And no ´secret-diplomacy-team´ vs ffa.
What would you say, when in a match called 2vs2 your ´comrade´ would do everything to get you loose?! It´s the same conversely.
When there is ffa on the box, I really do not want to play an hour just to find out, that there is sth. else inside.

When a match setting is ffa, people want ffa. And no ´secret-diplomacy-team´ vs ffa.[/qote]
Not at all! Look at the hugely successful diplomacy games, hugely successful zombie games and the Dreaming of World Domination (though this isn't a template as such - cheers for it though Mac and make another one!!!). All those examples enable private messaging and all were/are hugely successful. The best arguement I hear for allowing truces, alliances and so on is that these games are free for alls. Surely this means anything goes!

If you disagree with me, fine. You cannot complain here though. If you don't want this truces/alliances/pacts than state clearly in the game description "Truces are banned here." or something similar. Also, disable private messaging! This eliminates the possibility of someone making a pact without you hearing about it.

[quoteWhen a match setting is ffa, people want ffa. And no ´secret-diplomacy-team´ vs ffa.[/quote]
Not at all! Look at the hugely successful diplomacy games, hugely successful zombie games and the Dreaming of World Domination (though this isn't a template as such - cheers for it though Mac and make another one!!!). All those examples enable private messaging and all were/are hugely successful. The best arguement I hear for allowing truces, alliances and so on is that these games are free for alls. Surely this means anything goes!

If you disagree with me, fine. You cannot complain here though. If you don't want this truces/alliances/pacts than state clearly in the game description "Truces are banned here." or something similar. Also, disable private messaging! This eliminates the possibility of someone making a pact without you hearing about it.


Sorry I messed up :/

When a match setting is ffa, people want ffa. And no ´secret-diplomacy-team´ vs ffa.

Not at all! Look at the hugely successful diplomacy games, hugely successful zombie games and the Dreaming of World Domination (though this isn't a template as such - cheers for it though Mac and make another one!!!). All those examples enable private messaging and all were/are hugely successful. The best arguement I hear for allowing truces, alliances and so on is that these games are free for alls. Surely this means anything goes!

If you disagree with me, fine. You cannot complain here though. If you don't want this truces/alliances/pacts than state clearly in the game description "Truces are banned here." or something similar. Also, disable private messaging! This eliminates the possibility of someone making a pact without you hearing about it.

Yeah, if you don't spell it out in the message from host/settings, can't blame people.

Exactly Chris. Fizzer hit the nail on the head with:

If you aren't explicit, you can't expect people to obey a vision in your head.

Sorry for failing twice with my earlier post :/