Alliances

[SPARROW94]

when your playing in an online match and while your teching up your castle you should make strategic choices for your empire. like who should i join with that is good in my situiation.or you clearly dont like who your partnered with.

[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.

[SPARROW94]

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.

In skirmish it would make more sense to have the host to choose if there were to be an Alliance mode with that said there would be disadvantages and advantages.

And to add more detail to what i mean it wont be like Halo2 were you just switch just like that. Its more like sending them a request for them to join you.

And for the gangbeating thing, If you know the people you are up agaist will just team up and beat you bring some friends to back you up.

[The Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by SPARROW94

In skirmish it would make more sense to have the host to choose if there were to be an Alliance mode with that said there would be disadvantages and advantages.

And to add more detail to what i mean it wont be like Halo2 were you just switch just like that. Its more like sending them a request for them to join you.

And for the gangbeating thing, If you know the people you are up agaist will just team up and beat you bring some friends to back you up.

Could you bring friends into the game? I really don't understand the alliances. Is it with other players in the game? And if so that defeats the purpose of 2vs2 or 3vs3 matches. Can someone please explain them to me?

Thanks

[SPARROW94]

Originally Posted by The Witch King of Angmar

Could you bring friends into the game? I really don't understand the alliances. Is it with other players in the game? And if so that defeats the purpose of 2vs2 or 3vs3 matches. Can someone please explain them to me?

Thanks

Well on the xbox360 you have a friends list wich you can send game invites and private chat invite. and what i mean by alliances is that in game play you can team with some one or betray some one.and yes it does defeat the purpose of 2v2 and 3v3 but there can be ups and downs to this mode. hope i made it clearer

[The Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by SPARROW94

Well on the xbox360 you have a friends list wich you can send game invites and private chat invite. and what i mean by alliances is that in game play you can team with some one or betray some one.and yes it does defeat the purpose of 2v2 and 3v3 but there can be ups and downs to this mode. hope i made it clearer

Thanks so for instance can 1 map hold up to like 8 players and it could be free for all or 2vs2vs2vs2? And one more thing, can you break alliances?

Thanks

[Axal01]

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.

[LordSlayer]

Locked teams killed W3, and if they enforce them here, well they might as well not let you see who your're playing with for all it matters then.