the REASON why it is named FFA is because its "free for all", meaning that its not teams. But cooperation can result in a "somewhat" form of teaming. Should we change solo as well? Name it "solo haha nvm its actually teaming and then play normal at 3 person stage"?
Idea: Add "non-cooperation FFA" game mode
Sort:
Jun 12, 2021
0
#63
> the REASON why it is named FFA is because its "free for all", meaning that its not teams.
Please take a look at a topic I created in 2018: Let's rename FFA to eliminate ambiguity
People use "FFA" acronym in games in at least 3 different meanings:
1. Open to anyone.
2. Everyone plays against everyone.
3. Do what you want, no rules, no limitations.
There is simply no way to come up with a well defined objective definition of what "teaming" and "cooperation" looks like, this is immediately obvious if you try to come up with one. All moves can be subjectively said to exist on a gradient between "non teaming" and "complete teaming" but it's completely open to personal interpretation. Is attacking someone's queen ok? Is attacking their rook ok? Is attacking their queen while they are in check ok? What about if you don't capture it later? Is moving a knight towards them acceptable while they are in check, or is that too aggressive and teamy? Is developing my knight ok when the player across the board from me is in check, even though I'm moving my knight in their direction, which can be interpreted as a form of aggression? There is simply no way to quantify a move as either neutral or "teamy" in any natural way, despite some people's desperate need for this to exist. Moves don't ever exist in a vacuum without affecting the rest of the players on the board, no matter how innocuous they might seem. No matter how hard you will try to find a place to draw the line to only include the types of scenarios you want to avoid, you will find there is no natural place to draw the line. Ever. You cannot change how the game is played without coming up with an altogether different game by completely altering the gameplay rules; changing the name of something is just about the most irrelevant way of trying to change something, in all walks of life, so I don't see the point of it. Cooperation is just a natural part of the game as it exists with its current rules as @neoserbian said.
You could play a different game where you are forced to capture someone's queen if you happen to be attacking it, but it sounds like a boring and inferior game in my book.
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
The contradiction of name is based purely on your own opinion. FFA free to play however you wish. I wish to team to gain advantage. How can you argue with that