A potential idea to radically improve 4pc

Recently I have been playing Settlers of Catan online. As I have been climbing through the ranks and playing more high-level games, I noticed that games became much more cooperative, with players being incredibly active in the chat with advice and deal making with other players being commonplace. Players who got lucky with the dice would be actively restrained by the other three, stopping him from running away with the game. This got me thinking: Why isn’t this same free communication allowed in 4pc?

4pc has become very boring as of late. Game after game of mind-numbing 3p stages that last forever and are often decided by dumb luck. Also, with this garbage modern setup it is very easy to get screwed over by your opposite. The beauty of 4pc lies in the 4p stage, and the longer this stage lasts, the more enjoyable the game. Allow free chat during games, and the 4p stages will last longer and become far more interesting. Players will advise each other, tell each other moves, and determine who is the strongest player. Now you might think that this would cause the game to become more like teams, but the thing is, checkmate should not be the goal. There are so many scenarios, at least in my games, where I am hesitant to let my opposite mate someone, allowing them to be in a very strong position to win, and I wish that I could turn against them without pushback from him and the other players. With free chat, the goal would be to bring the strongest player down to the other player’s level. Instead of instantly mating players, the goal would be to weaken one player, and then move on to another. For example, red and yellow take blues material without mating him, then they move onto green and do the same, and then all three players attack either red or yellow depending on who is stronger. This is just one possibility – there could be games where rg teams up on by because of the circumstances. These scenarios can only happen with free chat because players are allowed to propose to team on another player without making actual chess moves. And the 3p stage will become more interesting and will take less time, as players will actively take down the strongest player. There will also be times where it is not entirely clear who is the strongest player, and that will lead to discussions about who to target, adding yet another level to the game.

The pros to me with this idea highly outweigh the cons if there any cons. I think this should at least be tested. Obviously, we can still have anon games with no chat allowed. Anyways, I’d love to know your thoughts!

Here is a game were it was clearly advantageous for all 3 players to target the strongest player, but because chatting is considered cheating, this was not possible. https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/78553959/226/1

if only diplomacy was a rated variant...

I personally think the free chat idea would be a great implementation. It should be added at least as an option, with the other formats still available for those who want to use it.

Experience of designing modern board games is definitely worth using in 4pc, but I doubt that diplomacy is what is needed, it's more of a feature of offline games. I also support idea that FFA variants, where the emphasis is on 4-way phase, should be promoted.

so wait this is actually a thing...?

right now it's casual-only but yes it is a thing

Hey hey we can make Diplomacy rated (with its dedicated rating)!

How about not with its own rating? Could it be FFA rated?

I just wish this could be standard, or a standard

It will simply be thrown into the pile of unplayed variants if it becomes its own rated variant

so your saying players should be able to coordinate attacks with other players and basically team??

Not before it becomes more popular (as its own rated variant) than regular FFA.

Diplomacy should be only casual. You can still make a leaderboard for diplomacy blitz. The only way to play diplomacy rated is through arenas. Four tournament a day 1 | 3 or 1 | 5 blitz diplomacy and that's it. No other time controls, leaderboards...nothing. Otherwise, it will never get popular let alone getting more popular than standard FFA

maybe we should make it semi-anonymous, I think when it comes to tournaments, blocking doesn't work

Modern did not recieve this treatment but whatevs

Interesting idea. I haven't given it much thought, but I agree with the proposal. A few thoughts below:

1) Diplomacy is a little different from Darksquareman's (hereinafter "D") proposal. In the Diplomacy variant, you can initiate private conversations with each player (correct me if I'm wrong, please). For example, red can ask blue in a private chat to team up to checkmate yellow, without yellow or green knowing. In this way, I believe that the Diplomacy variant goes a bit further than D's proposal. I think D simply wants the ability to collaborate in a big group chat, rather than the option to initiate private conversations with other individuals. In its simplest terms, I think D proposes simply to eliminate the "chatting about the game = cheating" policy and NOT to also allow private chats among the players.

2) There may be some unintended consequences with 3 lower-rated players teaming up against the singular high-rated player, although, admittedly, this already happens. It'll also be easier for players who are friends to team up, but I guess the potential for abuse will always be there with a game like FFA. It honestly seems like a tradeoff between additional opportunities for players and potential for abuse. When in doubt (at the highest level, at the very least), I would support the additional flexibility top-level players would enjoy with open chat discourse.

3) The comparison with Catan is interesting. In Catan, the game can sometimes be heavily dependent on the dice rolls, and one dumb player making indiscriminate trades can really ruin the game for everyone else. This can be quite similar to FFA, as there is a huge luck component and each player's decisions can potentially ruin the game for everyone. I don't play much FFA these days, but I can imagine how shuffling pieces back and forth in perpetuity can be quite dull. When you initiate action, you probably have to hope that someone else goes along with your plan. It'll add an additional layer of skill, where players can brainstorm/discuss complex ideas and take turns placing the target on another player. Seems to me like implementing this proposal would make games more fun to watch and to play.

Personally, I know I would enjoy FFA more. As a decent chess player, I find FFA wayyyyyyy too boring at the 3-player stage. I stopped playing FFA because too much was outside of my control. I, and many others, play chess (and 4pc teams) because there is no luck (unless your partner challenges every suggestion you have, but perhaps that is a conversation for another day). If you lose, you lose because you played poorly. With an open chat in FFA, at least I'll have a little more freedom in deciding my fate. These are just my thoughts, though. Happy to hear from others. All I know is that Diplomacy has been around for a while (~5+ years?), so keeping Diplomacy as a variant, or even adding a new rating system for Diplomacy, will definitely not encourage players to switch over to Diplomacy.

it's /all chat and arrows are visible to everyone

My proposal would be NOT DIPLOMACY, but R&G vs B&Y variant, but it's only available for teams so idk about FFA, how to make it more interesting...chess 960 works I guess

Diplomacy used to be a rated variant if i remember correctly, and although it wasn't nearly as popular as standard ffa it still had quite a lot of players

That being said, of course, nobody is going to "switch over", they are probably just going to play the two games in tandem

Yes!! I much appreciate the clarification. No private chats would be allowed, just one large chat where everyone can see what is going on.

Can we not just make this variant a standard of FFA among the 5 or so other standards? I just do not see how it would be a bad thing. The issue with making it it's own variant would be that no one has a rating for it, thereby disencentivizing playing it, whereas if you make it FFA this is another option to grind your rating higher. I want to be clear: The goal is to make FFA and 4pc a better game, and this idea to me is a homerun.

My ask @qlip, is that it at least be tested as a standard, and if there any issues, we can adjust from there.

One of the issues with this idea is the highest rated player will give their best advice for moves to two other players and not to give move advice to the other player. This evens out the playing field for three players in total but leaves the other player at a disadvantage.

Although this may seem like targeting, giving moves is a positive, kind act and it isn't necessary to equally distribute them to each player.

If I understand this diplomatic variant correctly, maybe we should add a rule to regulate this issue?

Also, wouldn't it be unfair since lower rated players may be able to rely on higher rated players' move suggestions and so skill wouldn't matter as much? Rating should reflect one's skill more.