Diplomacy?

Would be cool with an option that would allow Diplomacy in the game.
Creating an Alliance between players would be really cool in a game like this,
Maybe Somthing like Empire Earth 2 ware you can send a letter asking Another player for a non aggression pact or send them an strategy, Or even demanding a player to give you somthing or you will declare war agianst them.

breakable and makable alliances is surely a feature to come

it wont be the ladder version of alliances though ^_^ ladder version needs fixed teams.

yea ... that's ..obvious.

It's currently greyed out, and I can only assume that the current "team games" are as such because they were easier to code than having friend/foe tags between multiple commanders? I dunno.

The greyed out alliance is a game type. It's the traditional RTS team game where you only control your units and economy but you have shared vision with the rest of your team. If they die, you keep playing.

Uh... no ****?

I only know of diplomacy by nuke

I don't think diplomacy will be a thing.
It doesn't really fit to the style of an E-Sports oriented game.
You don't see someone playing a football game with his team against another team, then suddenly saying: "I'm going to the other team now". It would be too unfair and abusable.
Like in a 6 player FFA, where 5 guys could just make an alliance against the 6th guy and "win" easily.

Please, no.

Don't talk again

I'd like to see alliances in really huge matches, like the galactic warfare, but not little FFA's

I think in the multiplayer galactic-war you'll be able to select a faction, and fight for it. I think that's what the devs have hinted at. But I'm like 99% sure that 2 factions won't be able to make an alliance together. It's very unlikely. But there may be different versions of the galactic-war gamemode. So one never knows.

Diplomacy in terms of changing sides mid game just seems silly for a competitive RTS like this.

I think it's a good idea, but it would only really be viable if you were playing against the AI, but it doesn't really fit in this sort of game, that sort of thing belongs in games that are turn based like civilization or Total War:Rome II as you can already pre-determin the teams and alliances before you start a match anyway, doesn't really fit or seem that logical.

Agian i said optional game mode/setting meaning in defult its turned off
In a 6 player ffa game ware players for example:
starts on diffrent planets, this would absolutly be somthing really cool to have. if the game has no shared victory meaning only 1 Player can win the match in the end, then you really have to be strategic, If you send an non aggression pact to the strongest guys you will most likley fate Annihilation as soon as he/they dont need you anymore. And you can never be completely sure they wont brake thier Alliance with you.

This would also make the future "40 Players in a single match" so that the game wont be so messy

This sounds cool but after all isnt it same to play without diplomacy? Or in another case its not, but thats not the case I'd like to see.

First case. You made an alliance with someone and you both pretend to not attack. Another can just bluff and make a huge army and attack you as soon as he finds an opportunity. Just like now, but it would have the twist of being safe. After all, the alliance would be pointless as you really couldnt trust him and therefore you should play like he is an enemy too.

Second case. You made an alliance with someone and you both dont attack unless everyone else have defeated. In this case this would make FFA matches very annoying and force everyone to team up to not lose. FFA matches arent meant to win (winning isnt always fun if its too easy), they are meant for fun and thats definitely not fun if some people just team up and play together. There is team mode if you want to team up.

There should be clear disadvantage to break your alliance and being in alliance. Also everyone should get a notification of alliances. It just shouldnt be the must thing to do to win and being dominated by united people isnt fun.
Lets say if you make an alliance, you are forced to share your economy, units and vision for 10 minutes with the another player. If you break it too early, you will get -10% or -20% metal and energy production penalty for 10 minutes. When in alliance, you couldnt attack units/buildings made by your teammate or delete any units. Now you would have a risk to alliance with someone who dont actually want to co-operate with you, but just to harass and it would ruin your match immediately. You should have a risk to take.

no because it was absolutly vital to test this new game mode type. This couldn't have been done later as it could have made a bunch of problems arise.

glad it's in and functional, though. team armies is the way of the future and a genius idea to me.

And yet its an immense turn off for a great deal of people.
It only takes one idiot who doesnt know how to build an economy to waste everybody elses effort X_x
I wouldn't half mind playing a team game as much since I know I could carry.
But playing with a noob, and its essentially a burden.

yes, though this bit supprises me immensely, unless it's a simple fear of the unknown manifesting itself.

I can't understand why people are deliberately making this a bad time.

everything requires predisposition, everything. You don't go into an RTS with the intention of controlling one unit and one unit only. same applies to team armies. either you don't use voice chat and the person you play with is one you know so well and play so syncronously with that worlds are not needed or you use voice chat.

but you most certainly don't at the same time refuse to use voice chat AND play with someone you don't know on team armies, that's just plain begging for trouble.


On alliances people would complain that a teamate was bringing nothing to the team. this is basically the exact same except the impression is more vivid because now the teamate can drain your eco.

@tatsujb
I feel that new players generally enter a team game because they don't know what to do.
"1v1" generally has an onus of "be good or suffer" about it. Nobody to help you out, as it were - and as a newbie, you probably want some help/pointers.


I feel that its currently:
newbie: "Oh, i can just spam factories and bots this is great"
Other guy: "JEsus christ will he build some eco already?"
Whereas in "alliances" mode it would be
Newbie: "I'll just copy what that guy who seems to know what he's doing is doing".
Other guy: "He's new I guess, but I'll try to carry him."
I mean, yes, people could look up on youtube etc buildorders and stuff. I know I do, but thats because of mentality.
(And yeah, in most cases people would spam/swear instead of thinking that nicely. I CAN DREAMMMMMmm...

Theoretically, having X amount of people share an army and eco isn't a bad concept. But that assumes they're competent.

Urgh.

TLDR, imo:

Having shared eco means one person can make the team a misery through incompetence or otherwise far easier than if everybody were allied but had their own eco.
Having shared eco makes it harder for people to understand how to properly manage themselves... which can't be a good thing for the future of the game?