A Theory of FFA

[FML|red7z7]

So I was talking with Eshan and Malboy and some others a couple days ago about a race-independent theory of 4-player FFA that focuses on the timing and flow of the game.

Prelude
Before I go into the theory, I want to categorize what I believe to be the two main ways of winning a game.

• Base race. You win because you have the better building-destructive power, mobility, or scouting that enables you to finish the final opponents bases before he/they finish yours.
• Dominance. You have surpassed an amount of "value" that is insurmountable by other players in the game.

A note on the word "value" as I will use it in this post: Value consists of army, heroes, gold, items, and base. Value rises and falls for each player throughout the game as gold is mined and spent, units die, heroes level up, and buildings are constructed and destroyed.

I'm sure there is a tremendous amount that can be said base-racing such as when to do it, how to make it work, etc. But the theory I want to discuss in this thread is about winning games through dominance, as I believe this approach is closest to optimal play, whereas base-racing is a tool that can be used only under certain late game conditions that cannot be reliably predicted.

The theory
What are the different ways a game can be won through dominance? I think there are just a few categories of ways.

• The balance of power has shifted around in a 3 way. On each rotation of the balance of power, you have lost less value than your opponents have, or you have succeeded in concealing your value such that your opponents cross the threshold of critical weakness before you do.
• You dominate outright from the beginning, and maintain highest value throughout the entire game. There are two sub-categories here.
  
  -The solo-series. There are two 1v1s followed by another 1v1. You win your 1v1 in a convincing manner (toming potentially) with just the right timing such that you can also win the final 1v1 before that final opponent has higher value than you. This is what great players are able to do -- they win their 1v1 with excellence skills, and time it so that they enter the second phase of the game way ahead of their opponents.
  
  -The snowball. You win your 1v1 convincingly, and by the time the two opponents realize they need to team you, your value is high enough that you can defeat them despite the teaming.

A final word: it should be noted that "value" is really a measure of potential. A great player can reach higher into that potential with exceptional micro and decision making, and it's the reason why the greatest players often win, because they can tap into more potential from a lower-value situation.

I'm curious what other players think of these ideas, and if they have observed any truth to it in their games.

Cheers

[zTsoso]

@Red i think your theory is really good, but I it needs some extra points added to it.

These are some reflections that I found useful - essentially about the difference between skilled ffa games and bot games.

Bot games:
The main difference between bot games and FML games is that in anonymous bot games skill levels vary, and you are as a result less likely discover the good players until the mid-late stages. I think the "theory of dominance" suits the typical bot game best. Mainly because players in bot games do not have the "map awareness" (the ability to analyze the game and base correct decisions on this intel). This is mostly because they lack the ability to scout and use the information effectively, which makes it more likely that a situation of "dominance" can occur. Often times the player who best secure himself in a dominant position, and stays out of the "loop" of other players will win these games. This is because inexperienced ffa players focus on one player at a time, and are not accustomed to the FFA logic of securing advantages in later stages of the game or “balancing”, that is, combining against a dominant player. I noticed that many good ffa players do not scout in bot games, but i always do it because often times you can gather intel that will greatly increase your chances of winning the game.

FML games
However, in FML games FFA is quite different. This is because the most skilled ffa players are aware of what is going in the game through their abilities to analyze the game. They know “the strongest” ffa players and are aware of who is hoarding, who has strong levels, who is attacking who and so forth. In contradiction to bot games, great ffa players almost always want to increase their chances coming into the mid-late game stages, and are therefore less inclined to engage in battles before they have their infrastructure and timing in order.
In these games, teaming is more likely to occur when a situation of domanance occur. Especially on 4-player maps where a typical game would be that one player gets tomed, and the others combine against the dominant player.

So, in contradiction to bot games, The intelligence in FML games and non-anonymous inhouse games will often times be used to keep the status quo (balance of power situation) that creates long games. Especially if the dominant player is spotted early in the game (with one players exit), which ends up in a long boring balance of power 3-way situation, where no player wants to attack the other because that is likely to make the player lose.

So, what defines a great FFA player is the ability to analyze the game and capitalize on any opportunity that optimalizes the players chances of winning the game. This includes abilities to "coordinate teaming”, “staying under the radar”, “manipulating”, “toming someone” or “hoarding”, "micro", "decision-making".

If you apply these points to your theory I think you can also account for why orcs often times get teamed early on before they become “dominant”. This explains why orcs have not been able to win so many seasons even though they are considered the strongest in later stages of the game. UDīs on the other hand have great scouting abilities and are therefore better at exploiting “push” timings and teaming among other things.

[FML|red7z7]

Those are good points, soso. Yeah, the theory only applies to FML type games and not bot games. I agree in FML games players are more skilled so they play more conservatively, and have much more awareness of the map through scouting. However, 90% of strategy discussion is on hero choices and army composition. I believe that tactics type of discussion is very important, but winning a single battle doesn't necessarily translate into victory as we all know, due to teaming and the balance of power. That's why I'd like to try to look at the bigger picture and understand what kind of basic principles lead to winning, and more importantly if any of those factors can be controlled by a player who is aware of them.

I think the most promising idea is that a player can set up a double 1v1 situation (and some maps are certainly more set up for this than others). If that player is in control of the pace of his 1v1, he should be able to decide when to tighten the noose and end it. If he is fully aware of the pace of the 1v1 with the other two players, by scouting and gaining info through chat, he can decide whether to continue toming or to finish his opponent. And if he's doing this right, he will leave his opponent with just enough hope that he doesn't call for help. The idea is, the player will end the 1v1 at the perfect moment so that he is able to dominate the other 1 or 2 players when they are still vulberable from their own 1v1. Of course, this seems like a lot of variables to control, but if I am discussing a theoretical optimal form of play in which the player is truly able to win his battles and control the pace of his 1v1. I think this optimal form of play is a straightforward path to victory. Lots of small things can be done by a player to control the pace of the other 1v1 as well. Such as if a player calls for help, you can help him for a short time to make sure they are fighting evenly while you continue to tome. Or stealing someone's creeps cross map to make them take certain creep routes, or destroying someones lumber trees to make them have to mine lumber somewhere else.

If this fails, then the phase of the game likely moves into the more chaotic 3-way phase which I believe is a lot more difficult to control, and there are only techniques to avoid sustaining damages, but no techniques that are clear paths to victory.

[ins]

How often do important FML matches become chaotic 3-ways?  Because that seems to be more of the natural progression to me.