Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Lobby option to mute players from allchat

9 posts, 321 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
30 days ago
This isn't an option I've found. I think it could be an interesting option for FFA lobbies to hinder diplomacy and possibly push for more aggressive play, and have a less social aspect to it.
+0 / -0
Funny how people want diametrically opposed things. Some want a diplomacy system to declare and manage alliances.

My 2c is I take FFA quite literally: every person for themselves. Truth is most participants don't seem to treat it like that, even if only inderectly.

Direct way is just true? Truce, and some understanding on how to split resources on border. Or worse yet, friends agreeing out of match to gang on others.
Inderect is this player wins more, so even if we don't plan around it, we simultaneously pressure them.
+0 / -0


30 days ago
There are many ways to play FFA.
Your suggestion is what I would call "Lone wolf FFA".

The way that game handles communication and alliances can prod people towards a certain playstyle.
However, I think this kind of stuff has to be agreed upon by the players in each individual game of FFA.
Particularly, I don't think you can really enforce "Lone wolf FFA", it has to basically be a gentlemen's agreement to play and act this way.
I wrote up some of these gameplay modes for FFA some years ago when we had some drama about alleged teaming.
https://zero-k.info/Forum/Post/239831#239831
+0 / -0
I guess I'm trying to say that "lone wolf ffa" is not humanly possible, simply because we're not CAI. We can see beyond simple numbers. If we're in a FFA, I am aware of who you are and what I think my chances are against you. Even if I didn't mean to, I will take the chance to jump on you directly or not jump on a neighbor that is targeting you if either serve my purpose.

CAI on the other hand is the only true lone wolf and they just attack what they think is the weakest position. In fact, CAI specifically is what board game players would call kingmaker. All the participants gang on the weakest, one is made strong in the process who is then further not targeted by the remaining participants. The stronger the king becomes, the less he is targeted and the more others fight among themselves. I don't think players would ever behave this way unless they lack so much information they effectively play blind to anything but their direct neighbors (see ramparts).

I guess what I'm really saying is I, even if unintentionally, play diplomacy. I just prefer to engage in it as little as possible and don't wish for any system to be added on top of it.

I think fully muting a FFA match plays to kingmaker. If you can't truthfully declare a player controls significantly more resources than the pack, you end up acting like CAI. The only way to not play kingmaker is to make sure all players have as much vision as possible at all times and make rational decisions.
+2 / -0
i can make a mod so that it costs metal to talk?
or you explode if you talk?..
+0 / -0


28 days ago
Full mute sounds like a fine option.
+0 / -0


28 days ago
Ceasefire option when? :-D

Maybe that deserves a new thread.
+0 / -0

28 days ago
Full mute or no, you can't stop me from spelling words out with nanoframes, you just make the process slower.

Most FFA communication doesn't need to be that explicit, though. A lone Dart is a friendly hello. A Picket is a "keep out" sign. Artillery harassment is an objection to you building in a particular spot. And so forth.
+1 / -0
It is like in the cardgame Bridge.
You are not allowed to say what cards you hold.
But you are still supposed to explain your cards by how you bid.

Edit: or the opposite where you show the intent with the cards/units you show.
+0 / -0