ffa strategies

[Goodspeed]

The goal is to have fun in an ffa. I am playing the game to have fun, first and foremost. Usually that includes winning, yes. But there are plenty of people out there who have fun not playing competitively, i.e. not trying to win hard. If i play FFA i do that to casually have fun and try some cheese strategies that are not viable in 1v1.

Not playing to win in FFA games, whether it's AoE3, Risk or any other dudes on a map (board) game, is generally considered bad manners for the reason I explained. Other people do want to actually play the game, and you are not just ruining your own chances but theirs too. If your goal is to test cheese strategies, just play an unrated 1v1. It's not like you're learning anything from rushing an unsuspecting FFA player who is unlikely to be prepared anyway.

There is literally nothing forcing me to tryhard and try to win a 3h treaty FFA by booming and turtling.

There's certainly no law against it, but there's always that pesky sportsmanship. Again, have you played Risk? Can you imagine the scenario I described? Would that be a fun game to you?

The salt is just a nice sideeffect of that.

Uh huh, I call bullshit. It's the main thing you're going for. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be playing FFA. You would be playing unrated 1v1s.

If you don't want to be attacked early, why not just play an actual treaty FFA?

There's a lot between mutual destruction and full boom. Early raids to punish full booms are strong, for example, and early coordinated efforts can be a good way to mitigate differences in player strength and civ strength. For example if you pick France in any FFA I'm in, you can be sure I'm going to train some cav to raid you and attempt to convince others to join me because I don't want to be fighting FU Gendarmes later, and neither does anyone else probably.
Also, treaty doesn't allow you to build far from your TC. Taking as much map control as you can is a core part of FFAs, as well.

[Kawapasaka]

[spoiler="playing to win" FFAs ][/spoiler]

[Goodspeed]

Yep. And if you don't like that, then play a different game mode... Nobody is saying you have to like it. Just if you don't, stay out.
You could always test your 1v1 cheese strats in teamgames, too. Just rush one of your opponents really hard.

[Kawapasaka]

I did like it! And if someone wants to balls to the wall rush me, then I either desperately try to relocate and survive or just quit. It's part and parcel of the experience. It's anarchy.

[scarm]

This reminds me a lot of Dark Souls. People play a game that literally is advertised to be a ruleless free for all shithole, where anything can happen, but instead of actually trying to adapt to that they wine about someone not adhering to an arbitrary honorcode. Rushing is playing the game as much as booming and turtling is, you just think your way of playing FFA is the right way for some reason. You won't believe me but i genuinely enjoy being ganked on in DS for example, the same as i do being ganked on in FFAs, because it actually is the thrill of the game(mode) to me. Unless you actively make rules (again there is treaty for that), rushing is as good of a way to play FFA as any other.

No its not, but yes i enjoy the salt, exactly because i find that sense of entitlement that others play by their rules that they didn't even state amusing. I recently played a FFA where i went Dutch FI and spammed infinite fusiliers and petards, so i didn't "rush" at all. Yet i was flamed because i sniped factories with that. Also just to make that clear, i rarely do play FFA, so its not like i am sniping some rando Sergeants on a daily basis lol.

As far as the risk analogy goes: Yes, i do play risk sometimes and yes i literally can imagine that scenario because it happened often enough to me as well as others i play with. So what? It is the "risk" you take when playing the game. You can't assume everyone is playing optimally or fairly. I often am playing with people that lack the sense for strategical plays and therefore do shit like that, and it is fine that they do.

[dansil92]

Rushing in ffa is still a good way to win as long as you dont use more than like 3 cards for it- knocking out an opponent early and taking their map section can be huge- especially on low wood maps. You could be the only one who can afford imperial howitzers before the 90 minute mark, etc.

If you get salty about people rushing in ffa set it to treaty FFA before the game starts. Honestly just rushing a player at 7 minutes with like, 19 cossacks or 25 pikes is part of ffa and just as valid of a way to win. Especially if that player diesnt go full princess mode and whine to everyone in the chat exactly who and where dared to produce a military unit before 60 minutes

[Goodspeed]

This reminds me a lot of Dark Souls. People play a game that literally is advertised to be a ruleless free for all shithole, where anything can happen, but instead of actually trying to adapt to that they wine about someone not adhering to an arbitrary honorcode. Rushing is playing the game as much as booming and turtling is, you just think your way of playing FFA is the right way for some reason. You won't believe me but i genuinely enjoy being ganked on in DS for example, the same as i do being ganked on in FFAs, because it actually is the thrill of the game(mode) to me. Unless you actively make rules (again there is treaty for that), rushing is as good of a way to play FFA as any other.

By that reasoning, walling your ally's town is as good a way to play teamgames as any other.
Rushing is a game losing strategy in FFA. If you genuinely think it's a good way to play, then sure, you're forgiven, but most people who do it just do it because they enjoy making other people mad.

No its not, but yes i enjoy the salt, exactly because i find that sense of entitlement that others play by their rules that they didn't even state amusing. I recently played a FFA where i went Dutch FI and spammed infinite fusiliers and petards, so i didn't "rush" at all. Yet i was flamed because i sniped factories with that. Also just to make that clear, i rarely do play FFA, so its not like i am sniping some rando Sergeants on a daily basis lol.

Nothing wrong with sniping factories. If you improved your own chances with that strategy, then your opponents are just being salty because they lost which is on them. Of course it's still risky because putting everyone else up against you makes it likely that they'll team up on you later. Not exactly a legitimate strategy either but if it worked at the time who am I to judge? You have to play the table, too, not just your cards.

Yes, i do play risk sometimes and yes i literally can imagine that scenario because it happened often enough to me as well as others i play with. So what? It is the "risk" you take when playing the game. You can't assume everyone is playing optimally or fairly. I often am playing with people that lack the sense for strategical plays and therefore do shit like that, and it is fine that they do.

Yes, if they lack the strategic insight not to kill themselves and someone else on the first turn, I suppose it's not their fault, rather yours for failing to convince them they're throwing the game by doing it. The difference is that, in a game of Risk, people don't typically want to throw the game. They sat down for a game and they want to play it to the best of their ability. AoE3 FFA's on the other hand are used as testing grounds and salt farms for people who don't actually care about the game itself. That kind of attitude is very destructive in FFA games because the game mode inherently relies on people playing to win for it to be fun for everyone. Imagining that kind of attitude in games like Risk and Diplomacy should clarify how it's destructive.

[Goodspeed]

Rushing in ffa is still a good way to win as long as you dont use more than like 3 cards for it- knocking out an opponent early and taking their map section can be huge- especially on low wood maps. You could be the only one who can afford imperial howitzers before the 90 minute mark, etc.

If you get salty about people rushing in ffa set it to treaty FFA before the game starts. Honestly just rushing a player at 7 minutes with like, 19 cossacks or 25 pikes is part of ffa and just as valid of a way to win. Especially if that player diesnt go full princess mode and whine to everyone in the chat exactly who and where dared to produce a military unit before 60 minutes

This might be true at corporal level

[dansil92]

Lol Goodsalt confirmed

[TheNameDaniel]

why should there be rules in ffa, just do whatever you want.

[RefluxSemantic]

ffa is inherently an uncompetitive mode, so when people don't play it the way you think is optimal doesn't mean that they're being dickheads. They're trying to enjoy a gamemode and have some fun. If you want people to not make units and attack, just put it on treaty 40?

Your idea of how the game is supposed to be played is flawed anyways. If half of the players will rush and half of the players will treaty boom, it's possibly optimal to actually be the one rushing. If everyone were to think rushing was optimal, then actually treaty booming is the least optimal. If you think the majority will boom then yes booming will probably be the strongest. However if there's multiple people who prefer rushing, then suddenly rushing or more suplike build orders will be optimal. So imposing that there is just one way to play is silly to start with, and saying that people's way of playing the game is wrong because of some beliefs you have is even more silly.

[agrondergermane]

ffa is inherently an uncompetitive mode, so when people don't play it the way you think is optimal doesn't mean that they're being dickheads. They're trying to enjoy a gamemode and have some fun. If you want people to not make units and attack, just put it on treaty 40?

Your idea of how the game is supposed to be played is flawed anyways. If half of the players will rush and half of the players will treaty boom, it's possibly optimal to actually be the one rushing. If everyone were to think rushing was optimal, then actually treaty booming is the least optimal. If you think the majority will boom then yes booming will probably be the strongest. However if there's multiple people who prefer rushing, then suddenly rushing or more suplike build orders will be optimal. So imposing that there is just one way to play is silly to start with, and saying that people's way of playing the game is wrong because of some beliefs you have is even more silly.

wow u didnt get a single of his arguments. empathy isnt teached in school right?

[amiggo1999]

this is getting ridiculous, empathy for playing aoe3??!

[RefluxSemantic]

ffa is inherently an uncompetitive mode, so when people don't play it the way you think is optimal doesn't mean that they're being dickheads. They're trying to enjoy a gamemode and have some fun. If you want people to not make units and attack, just put it on treaty 40?

Your idea of how the game is supposed to be played is flawed anyways. If half of the players will rush and half of the players will treaty boom, it's possibly optimal to actually be the one rushing. If everyone were to think rushing was optimal, then actually treaty booming is the least optimal. If you think the majority will boom then yes booming will probably be the strongest. However if there's multiple people who prefer rushing, then suddenly rushing or more suplike build orders will be optimal. So imposing that there is just one way to play is silly to start with, and saying that people's way of playing the game is wrong because of some beliefs you have is even more silly.

wow u didnt get a single of his arguments. empathy isnt teached in school right?

How does anyone of this related to empathy?

[Kawapasaka]

ffa is inherently an uncompetitive mode, so when people don't play it the way you think is optimal doesn't mean that they're being dickheads. They're trying to enjoy a gamemode and have some fun. If you want people to not make units and attack, just put it on treaty 40?

Your idea of how the game is supposed to be played is flawed anyways. If half of the players will rush and half of the players will treaty boom, it's possibly optimal to actually be the one rushing. If everyone were to think rushing was optimal, then actually treaty booming is the least optimal. If you think the majority will boom then yes booming will probably be the strongest. However if there's multiple people who prefer rushing, then suddenly rushing or more suplike build orders will be optimal. So imposing that there is just one way to play is silly to start with, and saying that people's way of playing the game is wrong because of some beliefs you have is even more silly.

wow u didnt get a single of his arguments. empathy isnt teached in school right?

He's absolutely right though. Passive booming is only optimal for winning if you assume that most players will also passively boom. This conversation is kinda dumb. It's an inherently chaotic game-mode in which winning depends largely on factors outside of your control.

[TheNameDaniel]

mind games win ffa's !

[dansil92]

A bit of luck, a bit of diplomacy, a bit of scouting, lots of walls, lots of goons, lots of artillery. Rushing french and russia players, keeping to the sides, its not just passive booming, especially if you want it to be fun. I play aztec 80% of the time in ffa and have a blast with town dance, infinite coin crates, eagle runner spam, invisible coyotes... its not 100% serious but i do win fairly frequently

[howlingwolfpaw]

FFAs should always turn to late game, treaty-like fights where differences in civ strength and player strength are somewhat mitigated by diplomacy. I don't mind 'em.
What I dislike about them is players like @deleted_user4 who feel the need to join the game just to ruin it by pike rushing people. Leave the game mode to people who actually enjoy it, maybe

Yes, its equivalent as to someone making a fake account, then point trading to a high rank to get into games, and then resigning at 2:01 just to punk someone out. Its poor form. There are many FFA players that I know will want to attack me first but they are cool because they also have intentions to win the game mode.

For some reason Sir callen doesn't like me, I haven't been here in a while but I barely remember him so I do not know why. Other than that I love a game mode that gets little respect. Which takes thinking skills and strategy to win a high percentage of games. Its not based on singular build orders knowing who your enemies are. It takes one to read the board and be prepared for anything.

[howlingwolfpaw]

why should there be rules in ffa, just do whatever you want.

Yes that is the point of FFA, but people who really love it, respect that 2v1 with decent players is totally lame and lacks any skill to win and cheapens the game mode. People blockade, but if you do it early you have totally wasted all your eco, and usually the room takes that person out. These are just lessons to make really fun FFA's

[scarm]

It takes one to read the board and be prepared for anything.

Does'nt being prepared for ANYTHING literally encompass being prepared to getting your face rushed off by the 6 minute mark?

I genuinely don't understand, you claim the gamemode is about being prepared for anything, yet you stigmatize half the viable strategies and want it to always get to an extremely lategame state. Anyways, i should probably leave this discussion.

[howlingwolfpaw]

I dont understand how. It is a gamemode that encourages ruthless fighting in any direction you want, without any rules whatsoever. Could as well say that rushing in 1v1 or teamgames makes you a douche then, it is just another supremacy gamemode with X 1-player Teams. As a result i don't understand how any legitimate inagme strategy makes you a douche. Treaty is a thing.

Rushing is fine, what I think we are talking about here are the players that will join my games just to rush me and leave. Without actually wanting to play a FFA. That's a secret 1v1 and that is very poor sportsmanship. It sometimes takes a long time to get a FFA going.

A 6 min rush for ffa is not a very good strategy to win.

[TheNameDaniel]

I dont understand how. It is a gamemode that encourages ruthless fighting in any direction you want, without any rules whatsoever. Could as well say that rushing in 1v1 or teamgames makes you a douche then, it is just another supremacy gamemode with X 1-player Teams. As a result i don't understand how any legitimate inagme strategy makes you a douche. Treaty is a thing.

Rushing is fine, what I think we are talking about here are the players that will join my games just to rush me and leave. Without actually wanting to play a FFA. That's a secret 1v1 and that is very poor sportsmanship. It sometimes takes a long time to get a FFA going.

A 6 min rush for ffa is not a very good strategy to win.

why is it poor sportsmanship, maybe thats the way they like and enjoy to play FFA.

[howlingwolfpaw]

It takes one to read the board and be prepared for anything.

Does'nt being prepared for ANYTHING literally encompass being prepared to getting your face rushed off by the 6 minute mark?

I genuinely don't understand, you claim the gamemode is about being prepared for anything, yet you stigmatize half the viable strategies and want it to always get to an extremely lategame state. Anyways, i should probably leave this discussion.

if someone has perfected a rush to be able to take out the room and win, im all for it. I think many of you misread and only focused on my comments to players like Callen who join FFA just to target a certain player with a all in rush build that would have to be defended by another all in rush deck which aren't good for FFA. Only a couple players are able to do that, and even they they are relying on people choosing boomy styles. But once a person or 2 drops from a strong rusher before 10 minutes other players tend to change gears. Then the strong rush deck is out of cards and someone is left with a mediocre economy and few tech cards. Brits, ottos, and Sioux are pretty good at this.

Waiting to boom big isn't always the greatest because people will wall up and abuse cheap walls. So there is a fine line between attacking when your economy is stable enough and have a military to do the job. There is no singular way to play it. though I do find having more late game cards is better in the long run. I tend to go for things like trade routes to make up the difference.

[howlingwolfpaw]

I dont understand how. It is a gamemode that encourages ruthless fighting in any direction you want, without any rules whatsoever. Could as well say that rushing in 1v1 or teamgames makes you a douche then, it is just another supremacy gamemode with X 1-player Teams. As a result i don't understand how any legitimate inagme strategy makes you a douche. Treaty is a thing.

Rushing is fine, what I think we are talking about here are the players that will join my games just to rush me and leave. Without actually wanting to play a FFA. That's a secret 1v1 and that is very poor sportsmanship. It sometimes takes a long time to get a FFA going.

A 6 min rush for ffa is not a very good strategy to win.

why is it poor sportsmanship, maybe thats the way they like and enjoy to play FFA.

imagine hosting a game.... with 6 people.... but one of them secretly only wants to fight YOU and cares not to win or fight anyone else. That is some vile contempt, and that does not reflect good sportsmanship....

[TheNameDaniel]

Show hidden quotes

I dont understand how. It is a gamemode that encourages ruthless fighting in any direction you want, without any rules whatsoever. Could as well say that rushing in 1v1 or teamgames makes you a douche then, it is just another supremacy gamemode with X 1-player Teams. As a result i don't understand how any legitimate inagme strategy makes you a douche. Treaty is a thing.

Rushing is fine, what I think we are talking about here are the players that will join my games just to rush me and leave. Without actually wanting to play a FFA. That's a secret 1v1 and that is very poor sportsmanship. It sometimes takes a long time to get a FFA going.

A 6 min rush for ffa is not a very good strategy to win.

why is it poor sportsmanship, maybe thats the way they like and enjoy to play FFA.

imagine hosting a game.... with 6 people.... but one of them secretly only wants to fight YOU and cares not to win or fight anyone else. That is some vile contempt, and that does not reflect good sportsmanship....

so what, you just defend and if you cant you lose its as simple as that.