Another game ruined by teaming in FFA

This kind of things are continue happening for quiet long now, but is there still no other way to prevent them except disables the chat? I think we should at least add a sentence like "teaming in FFA by using chat is cheating and if you do that you'll get banned" to the rules page.

why didn't you tell red?

Red seems sensible really

Yeah BROKENGLASSM8 should be AT LEAST warned.

Actually teaming in FFA through chat isn't cheating. As long as the team wasn't premade before entering FFA game.

Teaming in FFA is against the rules unless all the players agree. BattleMind24 said so.

why didn't you say anything

if you said  "No, it is illegal, and you can get banned" or something like that, red would probably not take the chance of doing something bad that game, and then look at the rules, especially with how red acts

Just mute the chat for all players.   The chat 9 times out of 10 just degenerates in one way or another

this a ffa weakers go on highers. Normal think. I dont know know why always someone tells about it

This. That feature is specifically designed to combat this situation.

wrong

btw you are free to say "no red, team with me against green"

I actually think teaming in FFA is good. It adds to the strategy and makes it more fun in my opinion. Shouldn't be discouraged or punished.

It should be an unspoken thing. We all make a decision on who to attack based on our current situation. So in a sense we are all guilty of teaming up. However that is only a short term thing. 

  It is diferent than setting out from the outset to tag team your way to victory. That is unacceptable and an abuse of the chat system.

I've seen 4 categories of dialog:

* Pleasantries/greetings/basic info exchange: "Good luck all!", "So where is everyone from?" etc 

* Commentary on play and status: "What was that red???" or "Nice move green!"

* Teaming requests/accusations or cooperation strategies

* Trolling & deliberate distraction

The first two could be easily attained by

1) allowing "canned comments"

2) the option to display public-profile information

3) the ability to join the "spectator chat" area after the game (at which time players can freely visit, discuss particular moves, strategies, etc.).

Disabling "free form" chatting would eliminate both the 3rd and 4th categories.  I think everyone can agree that nobody would miss the trolling, so that just leaves the 3rd category (teaming/cooperating).  Yes, this is the most contentious.  I get it; some players enjoy the "political maneuvering" element of the game, others do not.  But I don't think that equation is balanced: in a game where teaming occurs, I'd contend that the increase in "enjoyability" for those who like such maneuvering is *significantly* smaller than the decrease in "enjoyability" for those who do not like it.  

Case in point: Has there been a single complaint, ever, along the lines of "Player JohnDoe must be banned!  He always disables chat every time I try to engage in teaming!  He even admits to it:  <screen-cap of post-game commentary shows JohnDoe admitting to disabling chat>.  This completely ruins the game for me, 4PC is no fun without teaming!"  

I agree completely with Nc3always.

As someone who has played strategy games with open diplomacy/chat systems for quite a while, I can say that the teaming issue resolves itself in higher ranks, where gameplay is more competitive.

Allowing team strategy does work in theory, because a careful and smart player can't simply trust another player and will always look for an opportunity to betray his partner for considerable gain. (It also adds a pretty cool comeback mechanic to the game, since weaker players can team up against the stronger ones, making the later stages of the game more interesting)

In lower to mid-levels however (and that is where most players complaining about teaming are stuck, maybe even because of teaming) the whole strategy aspect just devolves to a question of who is better at finding a player who is not really interested in winning and convincing that player to gang up on the remaining two (or just one, since there is often one player who dies quickly).

I think it is fine the way it is, players being able to disable chat if they think others are getting an unfair advantage.

As for explicitly stating teaming as forbidden, I think it would just lead to massive amounts of complains and reports by anyone who is salty after being attacked by multiple players at once, which happens all the time in 4p chess.

I cant see why people keep complaining about this. I see it as part of the game. forming alliances.

Did some one said something about the connection between chess and war ?????

As I already pointed out, that level of strategic gameplay only works in high-level competitive games.

If the whole game just consists of one player resigning and two of the remaining ones teaming up on the third, the game loses all the elements that usually make it interesting.

An new temp employee, "Jim", shows up to the office wearing a really strong-smelling cologne.  Most people are not bothered by the fragrance; and a few really like it.  

However, there are several people who dislike the smell; and a couple who find it so abhorrent that they have a hard time concentrating on their work when Jim is around.   When they confront Jim, he (politely but firmly) tells them that he likes wearing it, and points out that there's no policy against using cologne (and that, besides, many people have told him they like his cologne).   When they complain to the boss, she compromises by allocating one of the two conference rooms for anyone who wants to escape the smell.

Jim doesn't wear his cologne every day.  On days that Jim doesn't wear the cologne, there are no complaints filed.  Though a couple of "cologne enthusiasts" lament the absence, nobody gives any indication that the lack of Jim's cologne is distracting them from their work. Both conference rooms remain available for meetings all day long.

The boss considers a new policy banning strong-smelling cologne/perfume.  However, she finds that whenever she proposes the idea, several employees argue that they really like the smell, and such a policy would be unfair to them (plus, it seems there are more employees who don't mind the smell than those who complain about it).

One day, Jim lathers his cologne on especially strong... around the lunch hour, two of the employees quit, saying "We just can't work around that smell any more."

Jim's contract ends after a few months.  Once he leaves, there are no more cologne complaints; no more arguments.  Both conference rooms are always available for meetings.  Every now and then one of the "enthusiasts" will muster, "Remember how good it used to smell when Jim was here?", a few others will roll their eyes, but otherwise, the topic of cologne just doesn't seem to come up. 

The week after, the boss sends a memo out with new office guideline restricting perfumes and colognes; it is met with a few shrugs and little else.

Did the boss make the right call here?  Was the original hesitation justified?