Originally Posted by Darvin
I think we have to distinguish between skirmish and the MMO game explicitly in all such threads as these. Naturally a certain degree of politics would add to the MMO experience, but in a skirmish match most people like alliances to be locked at the start of the game. It's not that you never want in-game alliance formings and breakings, it's that you usually want to know who is your enemy and who isn't.
With that said, I've found in the past that too often you'll get opportunists jumping teams. In theory, in most games only one player needs to lose if everyone else joins the same team. That kind of defeats the point of the game, seeing as everyone knows what the outcome of such a gangbeating will be.
I see your points, but Im fully against the "Locked teams" because what if its a 3v3 and something happens to one of your team partners? like a power outage or something bad happened or a lost connection? then it leaves it a 3v2 and what if your last team partner just ends up quiting? your stuck 3v1 then its a waste of a game. So I think locked teams is a no go on my view.
Because basically if its a 3v3 and 2 from the other team leave, the players can decide whether to do a 2v2 or keep doing a 3v1.