| 1 |
I think it makes absolute sense that you try to destroy the side that has the most disproportionate win chance. In an individualist ffa that's the local purpler. This is pretty much common knowledge and requires very little overt coordination at this point.
|
1 |
I think it makes absolute sense that you try to destroy the side that has the most disproportionate win chance. In an individualist ffa that's the local purpler. This is pretty much common knowledge and requires very little overt coordination at this point.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
But if you know there's an alliance that can be treated as a team, same rules apply. Starting out with two players allied for life essentially means that the alliance "holds two spots" from the first second of the game.
|
3 |
But if you know there's an alliance that can be treated as a team, same rules apply. Starting out with two players allied for life essentially means that the alliance "holds two spots" from the first second of the game.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
And if the "we're a team" is written right on the player's nickname, just as the purple star would be, well then.
|
5 |
And if the "we're a team" is written right on the player's nickname, just as the purple star would be, well then.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
I don't think anyone really needs to "sign up" for the hunt, or whatever. This all becoming common knowledge is quite sufficient of itself, imo.
|
7 |
I don't think anyone really needs to "sign up" for the hunt, or whatever. This all becoming common knowledge is quite sufficient of itself, imo.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
FWIW
i
don't
think
"deescalation"
has
much
chance
against
unspoken
agreements,
either.
|
9 |
FWIW
i
don't
think
"deescalation"
has
much
chance
against
unspoken
agreements,
either.
It's
very
hard
to
undo
reputational
damage.
|
FFA: Calling for a systematic hunt for P1s.