FFA Ceasefire discussion

I'd like the FFA community to come together and decide what the ceasefire should do and their expectations from it. Input from GoogleFrog and Sprung would also be nice. Some major points to be discussed:

- Should ceasefires be announced?
- Should breaking ceasefire be announced?
- Should ceasefires be required to be mutual?
- Any other point of feedback you want to add.

Currently I am hunting down a nasty OOM plaguing fw (which is my usual testbed), but I am also looking for the next big project. I personally do not have any interest in FFA, so I thought I'd open this thread to get some feedback.

I'd also like to set the expectation here: the initial pr will likely be barebones (ie: hey you can set a ceasefire, nothing fancy). A test mutator will be release at some point that has all the modified code that you can play on (likely will ask admins to set up an autohost for me with this).

quote: So you want to make a mode where you can ask another player for a ceasefire, that he can "officially" reject or accept?

I want to add onto base something that satisfies the current need for a ceasefire add-on (I consider the upvotes on the one post by someone wishing it was back in to be 'i want this'). A similar system to commshare is in mind (in fact I could reuse a lot of its code for invites and such) at the moment, though I'd want to get more information before starting up.

I'm considering making it a modoption similar to the old system. Perhaps it can be turned off by default, if you fear teaming.

My stance is 'if this is what people want, might as well give them it'. Whether this is a good or bad idea, the code can always live in the collection of tech I have.

quote: - Should ceasefires be announced? - Should breaking ceasefire be announced? - Should ceasefires be required to be mutual?

The default is 'no' for all these questions, just as a result of the ZK design philosophy and the following two facts:

• Whisper exists.
• Ceasefires are purely about weapon targeting, which is in the realm of unit AI.

To spell it out, if two players privately agree to not shoot each other and their units shoot each other anyway, then the units are being stupid.

FFA might be better with open ceasefires, but doing so would be incoherent.

ALSO Shaman, JUST SO YOU SEE THIS. LOOK AT ENGINE CEASEFIRES BEFORE REINVENTING THE WHEEL IN LUARULES.

If there were more types resources in the zk, for example, about 50, where 6-12 are basic, and the rest is a system of powerful production and crafting, then trade would appear in ffa, and then diplomacy would go to another level. It would matter where the basic resources are located, who can extract them, on what terms. There could also be a technology tree and so on and so forth.

zk is very simple in terms of economics, one resource, all for the sake of the battle that will take place now, so zk diplomacy is simple, just a non-aggression mode.

What would happen in a FFA if only people in the same ceasefire agreement are left? Would the game end or would the ceasefire end?

is there any way to have 2 teams win in a ffa?

not that is a good/bad idea just is it even possible with engine or whatever?

it would allow players to not betray each-other and you could have a separate game type coop-ffa and this might solve heaps of problems with all those recent flame wars because normal ffa could be a sudo 'no alliance' ffa