Lets talk FFA strategy

[Dovekie]

Too much playing, too little talking. 
Need more talk to balance things out.
Come here and talk about FFA, whatever is on your mind!

Had more or less a 1.5 year on-and-off break from FFA. I played/watched solo games for about 3 months before going back into FFA this time, and learned enough things to change my opinions again. I've played ~50 games before season and ~30 games during season so far.

anyways, some thoughts:
-Strategies that give you a really good early game just seem best, even at the cost of late game strength (to a degree).  I will rush people out a lot earlier now, or even annoyingly creep jack them if I sense weakness.  Run at them with early triple orb, archer dryad hipporider bears-->Chippo for the early extra mines, mass foots + mercs and tower rush someone, whatever works. I've mostly been playing random, and this seems to apply for every race. Reminds me of the less-than-good Beastmaster strategy/guide that I did. Probably isn't that bad if you can kill 3 people within 18 minutes...everyone else is put on a short clock.  DH/BM/AM/DK are almost required with this mindset, with only Elf and to a small degree human having a little flexibility, but AM is best (x1000000 AM best).

-100 food army battles being a signature of FFA is a fallacy. This is a fair battle...and that is bad.  What wins games is not just running 100 food armies into 100 food armies, but taking unfair battles. This is obvious, I know, but the difference I feel from being so much more aggressive is everything is an unfair battle.  I'm hitting people just a little too early with heroes a little too high, and taking a little too many mines.

-"Favorable Trades"  This is something grubby says a lot while streaming, such as how blade / dh get very good trades due to high dps/armor.  Well, at least for Elf, the best way you get good trades is having tranquility and lots of staffs. I tried Kotg first quite a few times and really liked it.  He is strong early game, cause no one wants to lose units, and early tranquility is just nuts when fighting under-upgraded units. (would be kotg panda potm here)

anyways, those are just random thoughts

[zTsoso]

If we are doing this I think we should stick to themes and concrete situations (examples).

I would for example be interested to hear your thoughts on the differences between "ffarena ladder" and "FML" as a gametype.

Other than that it would be more interesting to talk strategies in relation to certain FFA playtypes: 4-way, 6-way, 8-way, 10-way, 12-way. The more specific it can get - like creeping patterns on certain maps for FML or ffarena - would be really helpful.

The big challenge question I have for the FFA strategists concerns how you can achieve succes in FML games or ladder? To me these two game types are so different that it does not make sense to talk as if they are the same. Moreover, I think a lot of players (like me) struggle with certain game types (my problem is 4-ways where it turns into a 3-way fast and teaming of strong players).

What does it take to be excellent ffa player that can win in both FML and ladder games? Take it away.

[Dovekie]

To me, the difference between FML and Ladder is some of the FML/cup games I prepared for (like planned out creep routes, base layout, when to be @ what food), I did really well, got triple 10 heroes, than got teamed out in a much more organized and efficient fashion than has ever happened to me on ladder.  Therein lies why I like ladder—you can plan and play to be the best and it usually pays off a lot better.

I don't want to rag on FML, cause the community strength, players, and seasons are pretty awesome, but I'm just not the biggest fan of the type of game + player mindset it promotes:
-Often very chat heavy games
-Consistent, organized teaming
-Long games, and sometimes very long games, longer than people should ever be required to dedicate to a sporting/esporting event.
-4-ways to me are kind of weird in that the second you kill someone it becomes a 3-way, which is woeful indeed.
-You can go down the list of the recent FML games and see often the least strong player winning, and the best player getting even last! So what do I have to aspire to? To be mediocre? To be good but look bad? To do everything correct but purposefully not micro to seem weaker?  Honestly, if you are a good player, you are supposed to play a hypocritical game. I'm all for giving the weaker player undeserved advantages, that's what make games interesting (item luck, timing pushes, unscouted expos, etc), but not as many as organized teaming presents.  I really enjoy watching the strongest player, with the best micro, map control, and most planned out creep route have the best chances.

All of these things happen in ladder as well, usually when you get a big map and two good players are on opposite sides, but much less frequently, and usually much shorter. Not all the time, so you get the same problems here.

I mean, my solution would be to either limit chat, hide player names, and just slap a time limit on a game, even so-far as including a referee.  Most players who've responded(few) to me don't like this idea, so I don't know if it's just me. If I ever find myself on a design team of a Warcraft game, however, you all are probably going to get a time-limit. No one should be required to invest this much time, in any sport, in any game. Hell, some of these games go longer than it takes me to run a marathon, and that's not okay. It takes a month to recover from a marathon because it's just so long, but at least they are interesting. The FFA games that take that long are usually the utmost boring games.

[Tleilaxu]

-You can go down the list of the recent FML games and see often the least strong player winning, and the best player getting even last! So what do I have to aspire to? To be mediocre? To be good but look bad? To do everything correct but purposefully not micro to seem weaker?  Honestly, if you are a good player, you are supposed to play a hypocritical game. I'm all for giving the weaker player undeserved advantages, that's what make games interesting (item luck, timing pushes, unscouted expos, etc), but not as many as organized teaming presents.  I really enjoy watching the strongest player, with the best micro, map control, and most planned out creep route have the best chances.

Not saying that people of lesser mechanical skill haven't gotten wins that are perhaps undeserved (I've gotten a few myself), but if you look at the top 10 at the moment, at least half of the players in there would wreck you in 1v1, so this argument isn't 100% in accordance with reality.

[Dovekie]

While what you say isn't true, it is irrelevant, as I could be terrible and the same argument applies. What do I aspire to? Mediocrity? You said only half of the "top" players could "wreck" in solo (and looking at them, the name I recognize as better than me in solo is dv, to be fair I don't know all the names super well, but even if I lost to dv-, I probably wouldn't get "wrecked", as you call it).  But even if they were 1v1 masters, solo-timings, build orders, creep routes, minute map-specific facts, item specific creeps, etc, has a 200+ hr wall to climb over and is actually almost entirely irrelevant in FFA, as its a different mode entirely.  Not that I am saying solo skill doesn't translate to FFA, a large amount of it does, but that is mostly APM, multitasking, micro, and learning favorable trades—things a good player would learn in FFA as well.  FFA skill is different, as evidenced by the large number of solo players from w3arena playing ladder that flat out suck in FFA.

[Peregrine]

From the dawn of humanity, what makes humans superior to other animals is the ability to organize, work together, and communicate. Intelligence.

So just because youre a tiger in FFA, doesnt mean you deserve to win. There can be only one winner and if one player is dominating the battlefield, it is in the interest of the other players to weaken him.

FFArena simply doesnt have the level of intelligence for good communication and coordination - so you are allowed to dominate

what you're really saying is: you like lower level FFA games.

[Dovekie]

Your missing it. I like more "chaotic" games.  Yes, you will less-often have higher skilled matches, but they come often enough, and its a surprise when it happens. You don't know who, anything about the person, where they spawn, which players are good and which are bad. It's different and boiling it down to "lower level FFA games" is uncategorically incorrect.

Like fighting 5 random people on the street, or 3 friends that you already practice fighting with. Yeah, your 3 friends are probably better than average because you know they regularly practice, but that doesn't mean fighting 5 random people on the street is always easier. One or two of them could be very strong, and you might not notice till you get punched in the face. It's just different.

[Peregrine]

The chaos is because FFArena has an influx of a lot of new players and a lot of random hero maps. Its brought FFA back to the jungle days of 2006 bnet ffa, but with 6player and 8player maps

FML takes usually the best players from the jungle and pits them together. The jungle has been missing recently because Bnet was deserted and then playffa died, but its back and as wild as ever - but eventually, with experience, this wildness will decrease and "chaotic" games will become less frequent, as players grow, adapt, communicate and learn how to play FFA to maximize their chance of winning. Out of chaos there will come order, the jungle will become civilized.

And tigers will be hunted.

[junkerzam]

It doesn't make sense to compare the two, obviously the reason that ladder games are more chaotic are the noobies playing on ladder as well as the big maps with 6, 8 or even more players.

Most players like to compete and FML (4 ways) is the only true competetive format of FFA from what I have seen. You know your opponents before the game so all players can formulate an overall strategy for the game, I can't think of any competetive e-sport or real sport where you would face one or several unknown opponents. It just makes the outcome of the game even more random than it already is. Sure it's fun, but only playing ladder is not very satisfying if you want to compete.

It's astonishing how many players complain about how the strongest player always gets teamed in 3 way and often lose as a result, as if the 3rd and 4th player in a game should just roll over whenever someone dominates the other 1v1. We see too many players crying their eyes out over teaming instead of looking at themselves and what they can do differently with their playstyles to avoid these scenarios. And the argument is not even remotely true, look at Maga who is an excellent micro player who often dominates early game but still manages to keep a high win ratio and has grabbed several titles in FML. The problem is players with high micro who lacks game sense and refuses to improve in that key factor of the game, they might want to stick to ladder.

[Dovekie]

It doesn't make sense to compare the two, obviously the reason that ladder games are more chaotic are the noobies playing on ladder as well as the big maps with 6, 8 or even more players.

I agree with most everything you say, however there aren't a lot of free for all sports out there, and the ones that do exist (mostly track and field stuff, or olympic style sports) require you to perform your absolute best irregardless of how other people perform. Their isn't really deceit.. The most similar to esports FFA type of game might be something like poker, which resembles a ladder experience considerably more-so than a tournament. Tons and tons of games with constantly changing people to ultimately decide who is on the top.

And Maga is an example that furthers my point. I have been wrong before, but from my experience of both play/viewing, maga is by-far the most manipping player I have ever seen, bar-none.  Because he plays a crappy race he gets stuck in these terrible circumstances when the game doesn't finish fast enough, so he literally pushes game times to 2hr + to get his win through chat—because Undead no longer is able to get the win another way.  You can call it skill, and it most certainly is skill—a different type of skill, but skill nonetheless—but as a player and a viewer, I don't give a rats ass about it. It's uninteresting, and not exciting to me in the slightest (not to mention cancerous as hell when you are in the same game). When you say "what can they do differently with their playstyles to avoid these scenarios", I know exactly what to do. Hoard. Lie. Manip. Don't piss people off with too much micro. Don't kill someone too early. Be nice (a Hypocrite), even though you are trying to kill everyone. Pretend you're dead. Etc.  What is exciting to me is watching LW 3v1'ing people on Silverpine or Market Square and winning.  Or Yaws playing flawlessly with Blizz/HazeFire + Mass slow on Orc armies. 

Don't get me wrong, there are great times to be had in both play modes.  But it feels almost hearthstone-esque when you put too much challenge seriously.  There are literally probably a good 80-150 players that could win the championship, and although some are a little better than others, it will boil down to lucky breaks.  Compare that to solo in War3. The 3-4 best players win consistently. In running, it's a total FFA, but Mo Farah's gonna win to long ones and Usain Bolt is gonna win the short ones, because the best player has the best chance.

[Ugrilainen]

its like comparing texas holdem and omaha. It's both poker yes, but those are different games. No need to despise one to state the other is better.

I understand both point of views, its just about which game you prefer.

But i dont think Dovekie plays FFArena because he likes weak games...
All past playffa season winners can win a 4 ways, can outmicro any regular fml player and did play there because they like THAT challenge too (Seksi, Greatwall, DV, htrt, noexxx etc...)

[Valefort]

Tiger and wrecking ball style is the simplest ffa strategy, but it's also a naive one. It often works regardless because the communication between players is not perfect, even in bot games though you can sometimes face organized effective teaming and it will be more frequent as the players will gain experience.

Your opponents are no mindless bots, games where one tiger is dominating and playing whack a mole for 30 minutes are absolutely uninteresting to me, sure it's fun to be in that position but let's be honest : those games are not very thrilling.

There is more depth in FFA strategy than being a tiger and roar, the funny part is that I think you know it perfectly and I feel your posts are more of a rant than anything 

Anyway talking about FFA strategy in broad terms I'd say there are 2 parts, first part is when players are merely aware of their immediate surroundings, their neighbours or lack thereof and then the second part when all the remaining players try to get an accurate picture of the game state and the relative power of -everyone- and not just their neighbors, in general it happens when it's 3 way but not always.

First part is about creeping and getting an advantage, ideally without putting yourself overly in danger. Rushing, stabbing a rusher, getting greedy expos, creeping risky spots are the usual ideas.

Second part is mainly about selling a false story while not being fooled yourself. Not being fooled is solved by scouting, game sense, and being able to discern the truth in the stories the other players are trying to sell you.

[Tleilaxu]

While what you say isn't true, it is irrelevant, as I could be terrible and the same argument applies. What do I aspire to? Mediocrity? You said only half of the "top" players could "wreck" in solo (and looking at them, the name I recognize as better than me in solo is dv, to be fair I don't know all the names super well, but even if I lost to dv-, I probably wouldn't get "wrecked", as you call it).  But even if they were 1v1 masters, solo-timings, build orders, creep routes, minute map-specific facts, item specific creeps, etc, has a 200+ hr wall to climb over and is actually almost entirely irrelevant in FFA, as its a different mode entirely.  Not that I am saying solo skill doesn't translate to FFA, a large amount of it does, but that is mostly APM, multitasking, micro, and learning favorable trades—things a good player would learn in FFA as well.  FFA skill is different, as evidenced by the large number of solo players from w3arena playing ladder that flat out suck in FFA.

First of all, I was talking about FFA 1v1, where you are allowed to macro up and creep, not solo games. I should have made this more clear.
Second, it is true. DV, Junker, Qwest, Cumulo and Noexxx are all stronger players than you, and I said at least, because I deliberately left out some players where I am not 100% sure.
None of these players deliberately play bad, except maybe Cumulo in ladder games, so the argument that you have to aspire to be mechanically weak just isn't really true.
Now, that doesn't mean that FFA doesn't have room for mechanically weaker, but at the same smart and well-scouting players. That's one of the things that makes it great IMO.

[DV-]

Nice discussion and a lot good points
Also you guys understimate Dovekie cuz he rarely played anything except ladder, he is good solo ffa player.
I remember losing fair late solo to him in ffa.

[zTsoso]

It is interesting to read this debate on the difference between FML and anonymous ladder. I have for a long time wanted to discuss the views on competitive FFA because there is a room of contestation between players that favor “anonymous ladder” and players that favor FML.

First of all, I find it interesting that we can all agree on certain things:

•   FML and ladder cannot be compared because the playstyle is very different.

•   Winning a FML game requires a different skill set than anonymous ladder games.
NOTE: IT is unclear what this different skill set encompasses. I personally think Dovekie gave some good points on the deceptive style a player has to adapt to win FML games.

•   Being dominate is not good enough to win FML games.

We disagree on:

•   If FML requires better FFA skills than anonymous ladder to win.

•   The viewpoint that 4-way games create the best competitive FFA games.


My analytical observations (viewpoints) from here on:

Breaking it down: What does it take to be an excellent FML and an excellent anonymous ladder player?
I would argue that you can divide FFA skills into three categories of FFA mechanics (basics), FFA sense (decision-making) and third: ability to take strategic advantage.

1.   I would say the basics (mechanics) of FFA is: micro, macro, timings, strategies for each race, gold management.

2.   On top of that we have skills of FFA sense (related to decision-making): Your decision-making depends on the information you get and how you can analyze it. This means Scouting, estimating gold of opponents, knowing who is ahead (in hero levels and gold) and who to hit in order to increase your chances of winning the game. This also means knowing how FFA is different in formats when you play FFA in 4-ways, 6-ways, 8-ways, 10-ways, 12-ways, and ofc also how you should play in 3-ways, 5-ways, 7-ways etc. here you will see someone is left alone or someone is getting teamed.

And then we have a third feature of FFA skills.
 
3.   This is the arts of manipulation and the ability to find strategic ways to win games. Often times you will see that the clever players with the best decision-making and strategic thinking wins competitive ffa games because they know how to avoid teaming, and when to take advantage of a given situation, when to play aggressive and when to play passive etc. In any case it is a huge task for a caster or outsider to see these aspects of FFA if you don’t have the player experience. These are the 3 central layers that translates into FFA player skills overall I think, but I continue to find new layers of FFA whenever I lose or learn something. This may lead to a fourth point of knowledge and anticipation, but I will leave these 3 for now as the central features of a skilled FFA player.

In my opinion FML games are often decided by what I would categorize as the 3rd state of a FFA skill set (the art of manipulation and taking strategic advantages).

The games consist often of manipulation (understood as deceiving other players into thinking that you are weaker than you actually are), coordination, chatting and teaming where players try to find strategic ways to fool their opponents and take the advantage at the final point of the game. FML games are truly about taking strategic advantage of the situation and manipulating your opponents in the 3-way, which requires a deep knowledge of FFA as well as an understanding of the other player’s playstyle. This is not to say that the 1st And 2nd feature of a strong FFA player does not matter in FML games, but they are often not sufficient to win games as other players will team and focus the player that is not aware of the art of manipulation.

Anonymous ladder
In the anonymous ladder there is more room for basic domination related to the 1st and 2nd feature of skilled FFA players. It is here where you can secure yourself a strong advantage, but you will also have to be able to scout and find out the skill level of the other players in the game and what they are up to. The anonymous ladder requires a high level of skill also, but it does (in my opinion) require a playstyle adoption to the 3rd feature of skilled FFA player (at least not as much). This is not to say that the art of manipulation and taking strategic advantages does not matter – it still matters a great deal. Recall for example htrt who would use his anonymity to pretend to be “weaker” than he actually is as a player, and then when the time was right punish the other good players for revealing their true skills.

The reason why the art of manipulation and taking strategic advantages does not apply so often to anonymous ladder games is because there is a lot of “FFA noobs” that may not be aware of the dynamics of FFA or speak English very well, so you have to be careful with using too much chat.

Some have argued that anonymous ladder is “easier than FML” because it requires less skills to win. I would contest this view based on the argument that it is not easy to become #1 rank winner when competing with other skilled FFA players. It is obviously easier to get a high win rate and dominate in some of the games, but the chaotic nature of anonymous ladder is very challenging because it requires excellent scouting and anticipation skills. There is less focus on teaming and chatting here, but coordination often happens in the 3-way where players will try manipulate and take strategic advantages to win. 

Personal preference: What are the best play formats 3-way, 4-way, 6-way, 8-way, 10-way 12-way etc.
I strongly disagree with the view that 4-ways create the best format for competitive FFA games. In my opinion it is a matter of preference and player style. If you like FML games where the art of manipulation and taking strategic advantage of the situation you will probably favor 4-ways. Most of the players that like to dominate and play strongly (like myself who do not like to play the “weak” card of manipulation) will often not find this format enjoyable as you get no advantage from winning your 1on1 (as my game with j33, tleilaxu and Jaod is a good example of). I therefore prefer 6-ways or 8-ways as a competitive format because these are more chaotic and less coordinated teaming will happen against stronger players that like to dominate.
4-way example: IF a player that is regarded as strong is matched up with 3 weak micro players it usually does not end well for him as their interest is to balance the dominate player and keep him in check. Thus, it will be harder for the strong player if he plays the best to his fullest and try to dominate - he is usually focused all the game and has therefore little to no room for hoarding, pretending weak or using other schemes to his advantage unless the other players do not scout well. These kind of games favor playstyles where a player loses fights on purpose, manipulate, make worse heroes on purpose or fool the other players to win.

Further Questions to the FFA strategists:

What does it take to be an excellent player at handling 3-ways? In my opinion this is the trickiest format to play because it is super complicated (theory-wise) as the 3-way often is a balance of powers and it is difficult to determine who is going to win it in the end (therefore also the most interesting final of FFA to watch in my opinion).

How do we stay on top of the 3-way game and the balance of powers? Should a player go for tricks to confuse players and switch the teaming on purpose (like losing army, bases and allowing ourselves to be weakened on purpose). Should we play patiently and passively or should we spent our gold on purpose? This is just an example of the theory behind FFA that makes it a great game.