I'm just wondering when this'll be an option? Perhaps there will be more depth such as changing allengence and such for interesting backstabs, but I'll be fine with regular alliances, I like to play more team games, but mate's hampering my economy for odd build decisions and such is a tad annoying.
Agreed. Nothing is worse than getting paired up with someone who doesn't know how to share, and makes some weird decision on what,when to build. Just a little while ago, I got stuck making all the metal/energy fabs because my partner wasn't making anything bot bot fabs. we were constantly in the red, and as much as I would build, he would use...Very annoying, indeed!
When? When it is ready. Uber doesn't provide hard deadlines. So we have no clue. :-( They haven't talked about working on this feature, so it may be a while. I would recommend getting involved with a clan. Playing army games while on teamspeak is a lot of fun. Here's some clans for you to check out: http://pamatches.com/clans/
well yes i know 'when it's ready' but still, my time doesn't sync with many of my mates and everyone seems to like team games for some reason, I guess less pressure or the like. Finding a good random is difficult, and usually ends up with lopsided games against a team with no synergy. This is fine, it's just many enjoy posting team games over FFA's so this interdependence almost feels forced.
I just hate team armies in general. The only real way to win as a "Team" in that is through voice communication. I like alliance since it will let me play as though I'm playing free for all but with certain things I just cant blow up. another thing that is bugging me however is nowadays people will crate free for alls with 3 or 4 or more people and if it isnt that then its 3-4 people on 12 planets. Seriously? not everyone has a gaming rig built by gods. I can play the game decently on a scale 3 planet and scale 4 is pushing it. 5 is doable but very annoying. but when you have a scale 3-4 with the other planet being a metal. nope, just nope.
The only way you can play as a team at the moment is via voice comms. I have played one, maybe two games with 'randoms' on my team and I ragequit because of how frustrating it was. It would be interesting from my (our, as a clan) perspective to allow 5 players as one army vs 5 'randoms' playing as an alliance, as it would allow individual players a greater chance generally versus organised team play. I'd be interested to know how far along Uber is with this.
One thing I'd change about team games, is letting the commanders only be controlled by the person that owns them. I mean unit and ressource sharing is nice and all, but the commanders shouldn't be shared imo. That aside, I'd still prefer playing the classic-version of team games where I don't have to share my units/ressources.
I think the difficulty of this, arachnis, is that Uber's long-term vision for team armies is drop-in / drop-out games. So if each commander is tied to one person, what happens when they log out?
You should be able to move other's commanders, you don't want to lose stuff because someone didnt't notice their comm was under attack in time. If you just have your name above your comm then I think people wouldn't interefere with each other unless necessary. This mode is all about teamwork after all.
This has happened so many times to me when paired with randoms... ends up being impossible to win or expand fast enough.
Have you suggested the 'name above your commander' idea as a possible feature? It's a good idea if done right.
Valid point, but I'd prefer not playing with people that can't keep track of their own commander if I can avoid it. Tbh I wouldn't ever interfere with another person's commander. If they're about to lose it, then it's their fault and I don't see that as my business. I'd rather enjoy watching them die. The only exception is when I know that the guy is afk, but that shouldn't happen to begin with. But that's just my opinion. Greetings
You would intentionally let a teammate's commander die? Sounds like you would be better suited to team alliances or just not teams!
Not intentionally, if I could prevent it I would. Just not by controlling his/her commander. If you can't even keep track of your "king", then you kinda deserve losing it is what I ment by that. Some people need to learn that the hard way.
I think you look at team armies the wrong way. You start your controlling the commander you spawn with initially, but after 1-3 minutes all commanders belong to all players (or perhaps to just one!). You are all in the same army with the same units after all. The remaining units are delegated to players in the roles those players serve - expansion, raiding, eco, main front, defensive line, naval, air, orbital etc. Sure, lots of people play this like a team alliance game where you each control your separate base and units, but that is not the way team armies should be played. I think this distinction will become more obvious when people have the choice between team armies and alliance and learn how to play the different game modes effectively.
Yeah maybe team armies is just not my thing. Yet I'd still prefer at least the commanders (because it's basically you, the head of the army) to be under separate control. I'd probably get along with it then. I'd even go as far as to take away control from a player who lost his commander. Because your commander is basically the remote control through which you operate your units. If it get's destroyed you should lose it. But I wouldn't go as far as to call for that implementation. It would maybe be a bit too drastic. Maybe the other game-mode will be like this, though. That another player takes control over your units when your commander dies, instead of them getting destroyed.
