ffa strategies

User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: ffa strategies

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

yep... happens a lot, but usually by people who rush and still want to play the game, that's all fun and good.
User avatar
Canada dansil92
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2231
Joined: Nov 3, 2018
ESO: dansil92

Re: ffa strategies

Post by dansil92 »

@TheNameDaniel thank you for being the voice of reason here. Ffa is chaos, and everything is possible
Image
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: ffa strategies

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

dansil92 wrote:@TheNameDaniel thank you for being the voice of reason here. Ffa is chaos, and everything is possible



This is why I think its the best most dynamic game mode and the funnest way to play. Why I have been part of a clan based around it, and played thousands of games to gain all the insights.
Germany agrondergermane
Skirmisher
Donator 01
Posts: 130
Joined: Aug 20, 2015

Re: ffa strategies

Post by agrondergermane »

RefluxSemantic wrote:
agrondergermane wrote:
RefluxSemantic wrote: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?

u need empathy to have a somewhat productive discussion. hard to get, i know.
-Deep down I know it's me, and deep down I know you are so jealous :).- Sir_Musket 2018
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Gendarme
Posts: 5996
Joined: Jun 4, 2019

Re: ffa strategies

Post by RefluxSemantic »

agrondergermane wrote:
RefluxSemantic wrote:
Show hidden quotes

How does anyone of this related to empathy?

u need empathy to have a somewhat productive discussion. hard to get, i know.

??????? What the fuck are you going on about dude?
Germany qwixs
Crossbow
Posts: 6
Joined: Aug 24, 2019
ESO: qwixs

Re: ffa strategies

Post by qwixs »

Well i don't play FFA cause it's lame. But i would just be rushing the French player and then resign
User avatar
Canada dansil92
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2231
Joined: Nov 3, 2018
ESO: dansil92

Re: ffa strategies

Post by dansil92 »

i'd honestly say the one true uncalled for strat in FFA is to do a petard rush as dutch, nuke a russian/french/otto tc and resign...
Image
Germany agrondergermane
Skirmisher
Donator 01
Posts: 130
Joined: Aug 20, 2015

Re: ffa strategies

Post by agrondergermane »

RefluxSemantic wrote:
agrondergermane wrote:
Show hidden quotes

u need empathy to have a somewhat productive discussion. hard to get, i know.

??????? What the fuck are you going on about dude?

hello internet kid. how many questionmarks do you need? if u dont try to understand goodspeeds arguments don't waste ur time. its about the intention of a player. but i guess ur just a bit angry. i dont have a problem with what ur doing. i wish u a lot of success :).
-Deep down I know it's me, and deep down I know you are so jealous :).- Sir_Musket 2018
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ffa strategies

  • Quote

Post by Goodspeed »

Rushing can be a legitimate though very risky strategy if you're not going all in and feel like you need to (not necessarily decisively) hurt one particular player before he outscales you, but what we're talking about is the "strategy" where you are going for mutual destruction. This is very common in FFAs because people don't always play them to win, rather to rush one other player and call it a day.

Those of you who really don't understand why playing for mutual destruction is a dick move in FFA games clearly don't have much experience playing them or other FFA style (board)games like Risk or Diplomacy. The assumption that everyone plays to win is extra important in such games. Let me paint you a scenario with 3 teams that hopefully makes this clear:

Player A, B, C start out equal. Because there are 3 teams, every one team has the power to let any other one win. After all if A decides he wants C to win, all he needs to do is all in rush B. So what if A doesn't want C to win necessarily, he just wants to test some builds and doesn't care who wins, but B and C wanted to play a real FFA game. They don't get to play a real FFA game now, because A decided he doesn't play to win. Player A rushes someone and the third one wins the game, without having done anything. Player A illegitimized the game result because he didn't want to play the game in the first place. The other players rehost and hope everyone plays to win this time, so that they can have a real game.

Similarly, I can join a 3v3 random and wall off my teammates. I ruined my own chances, decided the game, illegitimized it, and will probably be pested. I enjoyed myself though, so what's wrong with it? What's wrong is that it's assumed that in a teamgame everyone plays to win. Not only my teammates expect me to play to win, my opponents as well. If you don't play to win, you ruin the game for everyone else. The same is true for FFAs. Understandable though it may be that people view them as inherently casual, that doesn't mean it's okay to ruin the game for people who don't see it that way.
dansil92 wrote:i'd honestly say the one true uncalled for strat in FFA is to do a petard rush as dutch, nuke a russian/french/otto tc and resign...
How is that different from pike rushing someone and leaving, or doing anything else that assures mutual destruction? The result is the same.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: ffa strategies

  • Quote

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Hard rushing in ffa is of course a dick move.
Going for some light musk pressure is fine though as it doesn't hurt you that much with a fre or brit semi but it can be painful if someone goes full treaty.
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Kawapasaka »

Goodspeed wrote:Rushing can be a legitimate though very risky strategy if you're not going all in and feel like you need to (not necessarily decisively) hurt one particular player before he outscales you, but what we're talking about is the "strategy" where you are going for mutual destruction. This is very common in FFAs because people don't always play them to win, rather to rush one other player and call it a day.


In a large map FFA the only real way to lastingly hurt someone before they outscale (without outright wiping them out) is killing factories. These games last for hours, and in the past I've had my entire base destroyed in colonial, escaped with 10 vills and my explorer to a different corner of the map, and won an hour later because my deck has nothing but treaty cards in it. Killing a few vills is completely meaningless in the long run. You either go for the throat or not at all.
User avatar
Italy Mosx
Dragoon
Posts: 399
Joined: Dec 12, 2018
ESO: Mosx
Location: Viareggio,Italy

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Mosx »

wall a lot ,fight french player at the last(or focus on him as first target cause him french,french lategame is op) , attack first the lowest score in game,defend ur city from nearby enemy.
op mechanics, op build order :export: :coin: :ugly: :uglylol: :maniac:

Image

https://www.twitch.tv/mosxgr
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Goodspeed »

Kawapasaka wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:Rushing can be a legitimate though very risky strategy if you're not going all in and feel like you need to (not necessarily decisively) hurt one particular player before he outscales you, but what we're talking about is the "strategy" where you are going for mutual destruction. This is very common in FFAs because people don't always play them to win, rather to rush one other player and call it a day.


In a large map FFA the only real way to lastingly hurt someone before they outscale (without outright wiping them out) is killing factories. These games last for hours, and in the past I've had my entire base destroyed in colonial, escaped with 10 vills and my explorer to a different corner of the map, and won an hour later because my deck has nothing but treaty cards in it. Killing a few vills is completely meaningless in the long run. You either go for the throat or not at all.
Disagree. A great way to kill someone in an FFA is to do some early damage and then do a timing push when you reach FU units and eco before he does. If you're imp with capitol upgrades and imperial units and he's only just on his way to imp, you can wipe him out at relatively low cost. Strong early raids can easily put you ahead that far.
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Kawapasaka »

Goodspeed wrote:
Kawapasaka wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:Rushing can be a legitimate though very risky strategy if you're not going all in and feel like you need to (not necessarily decisively) hurt one particular player before he outscales you, but what we're talking about is the "strategy" where you are going for mutual destruction. This is very common in FFAs because people don't always play them to win, rather to rush one other player and call it a day.


In a large map FFA the only real way to lastingly hurt someone before they outscale (without outright wiping them out) is killing factories. These games last for hours, and in the past I've had my entire base destroyed in colonial, escaped with 10 vills and my explorer to a different corner of the map, and won an hour later because my deck has nothing but treaty cards in it. Killing a few vills is completely meaningless in the long run. You either go for the throat or not at all.
Disagree. A great way to kill someone in an FFA is to do some early damage and then do a timing push when you reach FU units and eco before he does. If you're imp with capitol upgrades and imperial units and he's only just on his way to imp, you can pretty easily wipe him out with relatively low cost. Strong early raids can easily put you ahead that far.


I'm not sure this is effectively different than simply wiping someone off the map in the early game. To do early damage, be that rushing or just killing vills and going back, you have to sacrifice deck space for short-term cards. Sacrificing deck space for short-term cards puts you at a permanent disadvantage against the player who has nothing but long-term cards. It might be slightly less extreme, but in the end it is pretty much just as mutually destructive. I've been in games where people play (what I think is) along the lines of what you're describing. They don't go all-in, but they put some fairly early pressure on their neighbours, with a faster, more sup-style boom to back it up - even getting so far as completely dominating their entire half of the map with a solid eco behind them. Then they come up against a player who got away with an untouched full treaty boom and they just die. What ultimate difference was there between that and making 40 pikes, right clicking someone's TC, then resigning? It just takes longer.

That's why I don't think it's worthwhile to care if someone rushes or not. Too much is out of your control in FFA. If two players decide to gang up on you, you lose. There was nothing you could have ever done about that. I don't see the point blaming someone for not "playing to win" in a game mode where you don't win by playing to win - you win by getting lucky.
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Gendarme
Posts: 5996
Joined: Jun 4, 2019

Re: ffa strategies

  • Quote

Post by RefluxSemantic »

I don't think for example a pike rush is necessarily bad. If you're in a 4 player FFA and 1 players decide to do so against 1 other players booming then I'd argue you killing the other guy with a pike rush is actually the optimal play. So it seems like a metagame call. If everyone thinks that rushing is bad then it will probably be bad, but if more people want to rush you will increase your chances by also playing more aggressively because
a) you probably get a shot at taking out one more guy - this increases your chances to win
b) booming is probably going to get you killed, whereas building up units will mean you'll be safe and you can go looking for some greedy victims together with the other aggressive players

I actually think it's incorrect to just assume that the booming style logically has to be superior. It's a very complex metagame where the optimal style depends also on what other players consider the optimal style. I mean, just imagine if everyone is rushing eachother, then booming is actually straight up the worst thing you can do.
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Kawapasaka »

Also, to add to @RefluxSemantic 's (very valid!) point, remember that you are committed entirely to your game plan within the first few minutes. You live and die by your deck. The highest level of strategy in FFA (assuming it's not a foregone conclusion that everyone will just boom) might just be delaying your first card for as long as possible so you can check everyone else's deck before you decide on yours :uglylol:
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Goodspeed »

Look at you guys strategizing. Now consider your strategy doesn't matter when one guy decides that he's going to kill himself to take you out. Do you now understand how much more fun the game mode is when you can rely on everyone to play to win?
I'm not sure this is effectively different than simply wiping someone off the map in the early game.
It's different in that you don't have to invest a lot in a cav or musk force to raid, but you do have to invest a lot in an army that can potentially kill someone outright. For example the investment of 10 hussars in colonial (let's say an eco cav semi-FF) doesn't put you behind other booming players that much and it allows you to damage one full boomer enough so that you can finish him in early imp. It also serves as defense against pressure from other players. Your point about the deck doesn't apply because you don't actually need any shipments you wouldn't otherwise have in your deck to make this work. For French, 3v 4v 700w will do fine. Another great time to make some army is in fortress after getting 3 TCs up. You can either go IV or delay it a bit to make some raiding units. People who went straight FI will be very sad to see cav in their base.

The game-ruining stuff we're talking about is an all in colonial rush, unit shipments and all. That'll put you behind significantly not only because you're investing a lot, but also because you are likely going to lose (most of) your army and will be easy prey for raids. Long term you'll be even easier prety for the people who reach FU first.
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Kawapasaka »

Goodspeed wrote: For French, 3v 4v 700w will do fine.


That was my point. I wouldn't otherwise have those cards. They could be a cavalry upgrade, a mill upgrade, a plantation upgrade. That IS relevant because the game will drag out for hours. Any deck commitment to early damage will mean an automatic loss in a 1v1 against the one player who inevitably got away with a full treaty boom.
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Howdah
Posts: 1899
Joined: Apr 26, 2017
ESO: gamevideo113

Re: ffa strategies

Post by gamevideo113 »

Scouting should help you a lot. Ideally if you want to poke someone a bit and do some damage, you should try to go for the player who is doing the greediest setup. Ultimately it depends on how many players are in the match, obviously you won't be able to scout what everyone is going in an 8p FFA, but if you are playing against 3 other players it shouldn't be too hard to get a grasp on what everyone is doing.

It'd also be really interesting to see the dynamics of a 2v2v2v2 team-FFA game.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019 Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Goodspeed »

Kawapasaka wrote:
Goodspeed wrote: For French, 3v 4v 700w will do fine.
That was my point. Those 3 cards could be a cavalry upgrade, a mill upgrade, a plantation upgrade. That IS relevant because the game will drag out for hours. Any deck commitment to early damage will mean an automatic loss in a 1v1 against the one player who inevitably got away with a full treaty boom.
Playing without vital early tempo cards like 3v is going to get you killed. People will see your deck and raid you to death. Also, missing a cav upgrade and 2 eco cards isn't an auto loss. In late game, diplomacy and civ scaling are both bigger deciders than a couple of extra cards. Full treaty booming is simply not worth the risk.
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Kawapasaka »

Goodspeed wrote:
Kawapasaka wrote:
Goodspeed wrote: For French, 3v 4v 700w will do fine.
That was my point. Those 3 cards could be a cavalry upgrade, a mill upgrade, a plantation upgrade. That IS relevant because the game will drag out for hours. Any deck commitment to early damage will mean an automatic loss in a 1v1 against the one player who inevitably got away with a full treaty boom.
Playing without vital early tempo cards like 3v is going to get you killed. People will see your deck and raid you to death.


Well I think you're approaching this far too theoretically. All I can say is I've played my fair share of FFAs, and there is always, without exception, someone who gets away with a full treaty deck (often me :kinggreen:) and the player who crams in more long-term cards will beat the player that didn't. Maybe someone would like to punish him but the treaty guy got a good spawn with only one direct neighbour who got tied up fighting someone else. Again, it's all luck.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Goodspeed »

You can get away with it obviously, if no one is smart enough to punish you. But it's very easy to check people's decks and send some cav their way if they're missing vill cards.
If you play with a set of people who know the game mode well and are playing to win (and not getting distracted by fools all in rushing), it's not worth the risk. The advantage you get from it is minimal anyway. You can even find yourself targeted by temporary alliances in imp just because you have a better deck than everyone else.
User avatar
Great Britain TheNameDaniel
Advanced Player
Donator 01
Posts: 726
Joined: Sep 13, 2016
ESO: danielek
Location: UK

Re: ffa strategies

Post by TheNameDaniel »

Goodspeed wrote:Rushing can be a legitimate though very risky strategy if you're not going all in and feel like you need to (not necessarily decisively) hurt one particular player before he outscales you, but what we're talking about is the "strategy" where you are going for mutual destruction. This is very common in FFAs because people don't always play them to win, rather to rush one other player and call it a day.

Those of you who really don't understand why playing for mutual destruction is a dick move in FFA games clearly don't have much experience playing them or other FFA style (board)games like Risk or Diplomacy. The assumption that everyone plays to win is extra important in such games. Let me paint you a scenario with 3 teams that hopefully makes this clear:

Player A, B, C start out equal. Because there are 3 teams, every one team has the power to let any other one win. After all if A decides he wants C to win, all he needs to do is all in rush B. So what if A doesn't want C to win necessarily, he just wants to test some builds and doesn't care who wins, but B and C wanted to play a real FFA game. They don't get to play a real FFA game now, because A decided he doesn't play to win. Player A rushes someone and the third one wins the game, without having done anything. Player A illegitimized the game result because he didn't want to play the game in the first place. The other players rehost and hope everyone plays to win this time, so that they can have a real game.

Similarly, I can join a 3v3 random and wall off my teammates. I ruined my own chances, decided the game, illegitimized it, and will probably be pested. I enjoyed myself though, so what's wrong with it? What's wrong is that it's assumed that in a teamgame everyone plays to win. Not only my teammates expect me to play to win, my opponents as well. If you don't play to win, you ruin the game for everyone else. The same is true for FFAs. Understandable though it may be that people view them as inherently casual, that doesn't mean it's okay to ruin the game for people who don't see it that way.
dansil92 wrote:i'd honestly say the one true uncalled for strat in FFA is to do a petard rush as dutch, nuke a russian/french/otto tc and resign...
How is that different from pike rushing someone and leaving, or doing anything else that assures mutual destruction? The result is the same.

Your comparison of FFA to team doesnt make any sense, also by rushing a player it doesnt automatically mean that the others get a free win.
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: ffa strategies

Post by Kawapasaka »

Goodspeed wrote:You can get away with it obviously, if no one is smart enough to punish you. But it's very easy to check people's decks and send some cav their way if they're missing vill cards.
If you play with a set of people who know the game mode well and are playing to win (and not getting distracted by fools all in rushing), it's not worth the risk. The advantage you get from it is minimal anyway. You can even find yourself targeted by temporary alliances in imp just because you have a better deck than everyone else.


Your idea of "playing to win" is meaningless though because it's entirely dependent on how everyone else is "playing to win". Suicide rushing isn't suicide rushing if everyone else is suicide rushing. You think picking a full treaty deck is bad, but I do it when I'm playing to win just off the assumption that I won't get rushed. Which is, as always, just luck. There is no right or wrong strategy, just a passive meta because FFA players like being passive.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: ffa strategies

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Goodspeed wrote:You can get away with it obviously, if no one is smart enough to punish you. But it's very easy to check people's decks and send some cav their way if they're missing vill cards.
If you play with a set of people who know the game mode well and are playing to win (and not getting distracted by fools all in rushing), it's not worth the risk. The advantage you get from it is minimal anyway. You can even find yourself targeted by temporary alliances in imp just because you have a better deck than everyone else.

I'm not sure honestly, that's a tough call. Going eco theory/mill upgrade sounds bad as you will indeed get raided and you won't be able to gather food/gold in the middle of the map, but going 3cdb/4cdb/700w sounds bad too. Two late game cards is a big deal frankly, that's like -10v for hours.

I guess the optimal play is something in between like 3v/eco theory/cav HP or wood upgrades. That way you can get full huss batches to defend raids/punish the greedy guys and you only miss one late game card (worth 5v), which is less important than getting rekt in early game.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV