Removing the alliances option?

[Per]

I have recently fixed some bugs in the alliances code that would only have been seen by players who played with the 'Allowed alliances' option selected. Those were not small bugs, either, but none reported them. This leads me to suspect that nobody actually plays with this option. If we removed this option, we could remove the entire alliances choice in the pre-game dialog, since 'No alliances' and 'Fixed teams' with one team per player are identical options. This would simplify the pre-game GUI, free up some valuable real estate for other, future game options, and allow us to simplify the game code and AI scripts somewhat.

So please take your time to answer the poll

wz2100_shot_007.png

[Raem_Lylar]

The only reason i don't use that option is because... well i got used to locked teams
But i would like for it to stay, or you could remove it now and rewrite it again for 3.0+.

[Mysteryem]

I find that it's just useless if you want to play a game with any AIs. I think I've said before that they're backstabing @$!%&£!s. xD

Aside from that it can become unfair with people teaming up on others to kill off an individual. But it does make for some intersting options and game play choices.

[Per]

The only reason i don't use that option is because... well i got used to locked teams
But i would like for it to stay, or you could remove it now and rewrite it again for 3.0+.

If you do not use it, if people generally do not use it, why do you want it to stay?

[TVR]

Flexibility is paramount in an open-source game.

[Terminator]

I voted for 3rd option. I don't use it for a long time, but not because it useless or something, but that this mode have to much difference from locked teams, like sensor visibility was not shareable in ally, like it is in locked teams.
Also don't like that "old sh*t" with tech. transfer...its like back to 1999 retail 1.0. I should every time to press that button in MP menu.

IMHO the main feature of "Allowed alliances'" mode Is that you make and break alliances at any time. It simplify the game for example if HOST - noob (sorry for my french ) and haven't look at locked teams.(or even didn't think about, that happens too =) )

This is a good mode if it designed well (in a right way).

In my vision - perfect solution would be if to make those buttons ("transfer Sensors visibility" and "transfer Tech.") - togglable, and of course if Sensors visibility would work like it works in locked teams like I said before.

And if all I mentioned would be done - Make this mode by default would be good too =) ("fool proof")

I think if to make it right - this mode could become more popular in public games than locked teams.

tnx

[KenAlcock]

'No alliances' and 'Fixed teams' with one team per player are identical options.

Not exactly. The first is enforceable by the host in multiplayer games. The second is not. However, Zarel just added the ability for the host to choose players teams, so this should alleviate that issue. However, I'm pretty sure that I've seen a player choose the wrong or different team just before the host starts the game. Perhaps only the host should be able to configure teams in multiplayer games? Then this statement would be correct.

it can become unfair with people teaming up on others to kill off an individual. But it does make for some intersting options and game play choices.

This is true, but it is the very reason why someone makes an alliance. I've only played with alliances once in multiplayer and I got killed off like you describe above. It was also when I was first trying out multiplayer games, and I didn't know about alliances, so I was a little naive.

I find that it's just useless if you want to play a game with any AIs. I think I've said before that they're backstabing @$!%&£!s. xD

This is also the very nature of an alliance, they are fluid arrangements and they change along with strategic circumstances. Historically, you can look at England versus France and The United States (as the 13 original colonies) who now are all allies (except the French seem to have lot their stomach for fighting). Better yet, look at Nazi Germany and Russia, who Germany backstabbed. Then Russia allied with the United States and the United Kingdom. But eventually Russia (as the Soviet Union) became the enemy of the United States and the United Kingdom after World War II. How about the Roman Empire and all the various tribes they conquered? In the movie Attila, they first show the Romans allying with the Huns against the Visigoths. But at the end of the movie, the Romans ally with the Visigoths against the Huns.

When you make an alliance, you have to expect that the backstab is going to come. So prepare for it, or be the backstabber yourself.

[Per]

Flexibility is paramount in an open-source game.

No.

(Awesome conversation, right? Next time try posting something more than a slogan.)

[Zarel]

I use it. Not often, but I do use it. It should stay.

Where did you get that screenshot, anyway? It looks like you're using a really old version of Warzone, with that font.

[XboxJosh]

I haven't noticed any bugs, but I do use it a lot. It's fun to ally with someone, win the game, then backstab them