Sure is frustrating when you don't get to play the game, isn't it?

Sure, attacking me in general isn't insane. However his entire gameplay is optimal for making me lose but useless for making him win.

Jostling for spots is required for good FFA play, but you need to have enough on hand to make a viable play for a spot AND it needs to not be a game losing move for the other player. The northern three mexes would possibly be a viable push, destroying 7 mexes (3 unreachable in ocean) to get 4 really isn't. He knew his army was greatly outmassed (he scouts an army at 5 mins in that's bigger than what he has at any point in the game) and that he could not hold the 4 mexes and that they would not be conceded to him within the first 8 minutes.

His entire Cerb setup and defence building queue implies it's clearly for area denial, NOT for actually taking the area (it's too far to defend it and he's building defences next to cerbs, not waiting for the mexes to be taken). This makes sense in a teams or 1v1 situation, but definitely NOT in FFA when every other player in the game (and the fact of two resignations) is telling you that a particular player is dominating.

I think the mockery in game is fairly strong evidence that there was some resentment there.


There are plenty of viable FFA strats n0ddz could have used. Turtle and super wouldn't have been too bad (a bit of a stretch, but possible). Build up, make athenas and then try a sneak attack when everyone has ganged up on the biggest player would have been quite strong. Ally and coordinate with Chomolungma for coordinated attack and divide the spoils. Heck, build up swarm and rush would have at least had some logic to it! (and would have been less bad for my win chances then staying just at the annoyance threshold)

I don't think it's a clear enough case for modaction, but do think it's fairly clear from a "what was his most likely goal?" perspective.

I think there is something inherently wrong with a game mode where you can be potentially punished for using your units against an enemy, without risking harm to anyone but yourself or your enemy.

It's like trying to get someone kicked in town of salem because they voted against you with someone else. Lol.

I don't know about Town of Salem specifically, but the games of Mafia/Werewolf from which it is derived can be an incredibly toxic experience within the bounds of "trying to convince other people to vote the way you want".

So yes, there is something wrong with FFA, and it's probably similar to the thing that is wrong with Town of Salem - the structure of the game itself encourages abusive and manipulative behaviour.