Idea: Add "non-cooperation FFA" game mode

The thing is, there are 4 players on the board. To win, you have to take the other 3 out, therefore every player is gonna aim to win hypothetically, and they will each if given the chance to, attack someone. If two players or even three players happen to attack the same person, it is teaming, regardless of "strategy" or whatever. To say eliminate teaming because you think it is somehow unfair is childish and I implore whoever thinks that way to reconsider, because whether you like it or not, teaming will occur even if the high level strategy of expecting teaming from opposites changes.

I, the OP, agree that teaming is here to stay, and the best strategy, and not "wrong", but the problem is, a lot of players don't, and that can't really be changed. We can lose them, do nothing, or try to fix the problem somewhat, which is the purpose of the thread. But anyway, I don't think the idea will be adopted, which is fine. I will add, whatever the case, the fact of cooperation in ffa needs to be more widely known

I agree with HSCCCalebBrown (which agrees with you)

Opp coop is best, but if we want to keep more players who dont like, we need to do this

I'm glad that we still have the people, who can do something against this hypocrisy.
If admins aren't able to take measures and change the rules, then why don't they change the name?
It is not Free For All. 

So basically the people who are against have no understanding of the game and its winning strategy, so educate them not cater to them? Is this not better as the game will not change, nor will the strategic advantage of cooperation

In the first place, it contradicts the name of the game. I do not understand how one can argue on this score.

We need to educate them; I agree completely. Maybe I should've made a forum post about that! But I don't think even educating people will solve the issue(it may help, perhaps a lot):Because already playing people are likely set in their opinions, and because half of the new players wont even pay attention to what we're trying to say!

best idea in this case is to make a new gamemode for FFA in which it is truly a free-for-all, rename Solo to WTA and the already-existing FFA to Duo or something (ik it sounds stupid, but I couldn't think of anything else), then specify the rules in both the chat area and the rules section of the 4pc page (which, by the way, needs a lot of updates)

Guys, you speak about details but forget something important I believe. No rule nor new system or whatever will work without CLARITY and ENFORCEMENT. And visibly you do not realise that here there is no clarity possible because of plenty of marginal cases about which there will be a lot of argument. And it's not feasible for admins/modos to spend their time reacting to this (they already struggle with all the hassle due to MANY unnecessary reports, I know that the vast majority of reports are made without reason, simply because people do not know the rules in-depth). So with no real enforcement feasible (because it's impossible to make a CLEAR AND UNDISPUTABLE definition of what is "bad" teaming and because there cannot be enough controllers), such an idea is anyway a programmed failure. 

As somebody that studies psychology, a lot of the same people that "complain" about teaming in FFA would probably just find something else to "complain" about or find a way to accuse a person of teaming when he or she is not because in reality, this "complaining" is likely a language game to reject accepting what in their eyes is an attribution of shame (i.e., 4th place). The issue is probably entirely with people that "complain" about teaming and thus not at all with those that are accused of teaming. As you have noted, there is no refuting JCrossover's logic in this matter either

its free-for-all. in 3 player stage you constantly change partner. you are free not to team. the only thing is that if you dont team, you will have more probability of losing.

Indi/Liquid: That is probably the biggest hurdle: Guidelines, perhaps more points for mate, would help combat that, but I don't know how much.

Repeating myself, but since this wont be adopted, rules and such desperately need to be fixed

It doesn't contradict the name at all. Every person is free to do what he wants to do, and if he believes opposite cooperation is the best way to win so be it.

Well, but how about 4 players?
Let's be clear. It's the most important stage and there's no way to avoid teaming. They will destroy my position, using their queens and call me a 'noob'. What an interesting trip!

In 3 player stage, many players continue working together with their 'opposites'. At least, when I played FFA, I noticed this fact.

I believe that it isn't possible to change the rules. But I'm certain that we should change the misleading name.

Again, simply with the way the board is designed, it is harder to attack your opposite than a side player. Whether in the 3 player stage or the 4 player stage, that is just a fact.

As for the 2nd stage (3 players), I do not agree with you at all. NO, people do not tend to cooperate anymore (well, in low-rated games maybe). Because in most cases it's counterproductive, you play for 2nd.

I agree; changing the rules would have a drastic effect on the game. Even the small rule change made on the prioritizing of king captures/checkmates confused a LOT of people, myself being one of them. However, there is always the option to delete the entire game type and create a new one rather than changing the rules. Doing this would give players an understanding of how to play the game well, but it would also eliminate confusion. Don't understand what I'm saying? Here's a hypothetical example.

Pretend you are a 2700 rated FFA player. You just learned that the rules for checkmates have changed. Points for checkmate are now evenly distributed between the players based on how many squares around the king a player holds (including the one the king was standing on). If the king had 3 escape squares available, then each player would receive 5 points for each square around the king that they cover.

You just noticed that this new rule was put into place, which completely changes the way you need to play in order to win. You could be the one delivering the checkmate and still only receive 5 points because your opposite covers all 3 of the escape squares around the king. This would not only drastically change the game, but it would also make all good players effectively back to the 1500 level again (maybe I'm exaggerating this, and I'm probably not experienced enough to talk about this, but it's just my view on this issue). Instead of causing all this confusion, why not simply start fresh by keeping the existing game mode how it is and making a new game rule (the rules listed at the top of the screen) called +20/E or something, where +20 is the number of points received for checkmate, and "E" stands for the number of escape squares (not very creative, just an example).

That was just my take on this issue. Many will agree or disagree with me here, but starting over, in my opinion, is better than changing the rules. 

How is the name "free for all" misleading when part of being "free" is being free to temporarily team? Look at any space in nature, where things are about as "free for all" as it gets, and you will find temporary teams and symbiotic relationships left and right (as well as those that try to manipulate them).

Read my comment on education rather than trying to fight a lost battle, its the way forward to end this debate