yeah but that does remove a lot of the fun of synergies (for example one military focus, one science or expansion focus). that was a lot of fun in civ4.

I would super love to have this feature! I've already played with friends and not realised we were fighting each other rather than saying "Oh hey there I want to be your friend!"



Also: It sucks having to spend so much time researching for those perks... Especially when they do not really give you that much edge over the AI (Who likely do not ever research it).

What tech do you need to exchange tech?

Steph'nie wrote:
Well, as already mentioned, that feature isn't planned for the game (starting as a team).



Technical director: it's not planned, but why not.

I guess technically its not hard....

Steph'nie wrote:
Game designer: this is not planned. That's part of the game: trying to arrange things with friends, working together, but eventually, there is only one winner.

Ok, this dude is either delusional (no offence intended) OR i and many others dont get something. Something, or better the effect of that something, this dude expressed quite nicely:

cooliwhip wrote:
The annoying no team victory end game is the first issue. The second and more pressing reason you NEED preset teams instead of ad-hoc teams is because the AI needs to know to work together against you. If I play with 2 other friends against 3 AI, it instantly is 3v1v1v1. That's not challenging. The team setup is essential for the AI to know to cooperate against us.

I would understand the Game designers View if he, at the same time, delivers an A.I. which actually realizes that the 2 human players formed an alliance. And the consqequences. Like, hey i want to win, but i cant against 2 players.. hmm... i'll go and search myself an ally too. And then we will attack and preogress together. And the A.I. also would have to be capable of matching the advantages human players get from temaing up, like coordinated attacks on different fronts, technological spcialization and so on.



Right now, the designer dude should tell the technical dude to implement it, untill he figured out the flawes in the current solution.

marvinish wrote:


Ok, this dude is either delusional (no offence intended) OR i and many others dont get something.

I don't see how calling somebody "delusional" can be taken as something other than an offense. I suggest you to avoid using similar qualifications in the future.

After checking witha translation programm, i want to apologize for this. Foreign Language Fail. What i wanted to say is more in line with missconceiveing something. I'll not try to act funny without checking before(want me to edit it out, i just didnt cause you quoted and everyting would loose sence, but i whited it) Not that he is dumb or crazy. Obviously, he designs what i think is an anwsome game



But still, what he says doesnt make sence in terms of what and why people argue for fixed teams. The games A.I. isnt up for the task of interacting with consistent allicances in multiplayer. Programming A.I. is among the hardest things to do, isnt it? Cause Steamrolling anything in a 2vs1vs... isnt fun in the long run and cant be intended in the way it was put in the comment, quoted by Steph. Thats part of the game? Really? Come on, its ok to miss a few things in such a complex enterprise, but go and tell this technical dude to get working

marvinish wrote:
After checking witha translation programm, i want to apologize for this. Foreign Language Fail. What i wanted to say is more in line with missconceiveing something. I'll not try to act funny without checking before(want me to edit it out, i just didnt cause you quoted and everyting would loose sence, but i whited it) Not that he is dumb or crazy. Obviously, he designs what i think is an anwsome game



But still, what he says doesnt make sence in terms of what and why people argue for fixed teams. The games A.I. isnt up for the task of interacting with consistent allicances in multiplayer. Programming A.I. is among the hardest things to do, isnt it? Cause Steamrolling anything in a 2vs1vs... isnt fun in the long run and cant be intended in the way it was put in the comment, quoted by Steph. Thats part of the game? Really? Come on, its ok to miss a few things in such a complex enterprise, but go and tell this technical dude to get working

So far the devs have shown, not on one occasion, that they are listening to the community and that they are interested in the different opinions originating from the community. As they have stated the release is not the end point in ES' life and the game will evolve through patches and additional content added post-release. What is being discussed in this thread is no doubt an important feature desired by many and reading what our lovely community manager posted I think adding it to the game hasn't been completely ruled out by the devs. So unless a dev comes by and tells you all: "No, we are not going to add this...", there is a chance to see it implemented, it's just that they have priorities as can be seen in the tracked suggestions list so don't expect everything the community wants to be added right with the next game update.

Hei Raptor, thanks for the input. Although i'd like to hear your opinion on the topic.



Btw, dont get me wrong i dont care to much how its done... i mabye even prefere to have it the way the devcomment indicated. An A.I. capable of dealing with the presented option. And im not talking about some rare to happen occasion. Friends teaming up in Galaxys full of A.I. will be/is one of the core "gameplaymodes". So its really not what the community or I or a set of individuals want. It's about the development of a coherent gaming experience. You cant close the gap between Multiplayer in a more easy to fix way then allow fixed Teams for the moment. Differently Scaling difficulties for MP could work to stop the gap from becoming to big, since synergies start to kick of a little later and continue to grow.

But even for singleplayer, programming A.I. is complicated! Having to account for the insane possibiliys mp brings with it ... thats something you could get delousional over

marvinish wrote:
Hei Raptor, thanks for the input. Although i'd like to hear your opinion on the topic.

Well my opinion on the topic is that this feature (to start a game with predefined teams) would be nice to have. I'm not playing MP actively, played a total of several MP matches so far, but nonetheless I understand the people who want to have the possibility to form teams before a match has started. I don't think this is the most important and urgent thing that has to be added, there are more important things IMO that should take priority over MP teams, but once again it would be nice to have it at some point in the future.

I would also love this option, I would love to be able to set 4 X AI agains my 3 friends and I.

Yeah myself and my friend also want this to be added.



To be clear, the issue is not so much that we are having trouble teaming up (very easy to rush to tech sharing and be effectively allied early game), the problem is there is no way of forcing the AI to do the same hence most games are very unbalanced.



We have just kept cranking up the difficulty but it looks like we will always win by teaming, the AI simply cannot compete.



So we need to set the AI and ourselves into teams before the start ala civ4. I can see issues with the different tech trees, but there must be some solution to this (perhaps simply not merging tech research in the same way as civ4).

The idea I had was forcing team members to be the same race. This way there would be no isues with sharing techs, a quick fix but one that could potentially work

@Steph'nie: if you have some news, can we get an update about this topic?

Adding one more voice in favor of allowing allied victories, my friends are certainly interested in this feature.

Steph'nie wrote:
Well, as already mentioned, that feature isn't planned for the game (starting as a team).



Technical director: it's not planned, but why not.

Game designer: this is not planned. That's part of the game: trying to arrange things with friends, working together, but eventually, there is only one winner.

This makes playing the game with my 11 year old nephew... difficult. Setting up an us vs. them environment is very helpful for enabling me to teach him 4x games.

registered just to chime in that I too want to at LEAST see an allied victory option during a supremacy victory. I don't care if this is a separate deal you make with the alliance...it should just be there. After my brother and I defeated 3 computer opponents we were just left wondering what was going on. For now we just exit the game after this, which technically makes us losers but it's just ridiculous i'm expected to turn on my alliance once everything else is done. For more than one ally perhaps there should be a "galactic alliance" that allies all players that are part of it.

Any news on this?





Edit: Oh jeez, just saw it's from 2012 =p Sorry for the necro =|

Luring wrote:
Any news on this?





Edit: Oh jeez, just saw it's from 2012 =p Sorry for the necro =|

Necro indeed but I would also still like to see an option of having preset alliances/teams and an allied victory option.

Agreed! Unfortunately not having the ability to set the AI as a "team" has reduced the challenge of the game immensely for our group. Would love to see an option to allow all the AI to team up from the start!

Just wondering if it wouldnt be possible to mod this in>? I understand this game is modable, anybody have any idea in how far we could just edit the ai to always form a aliance and just remove the ability to break the aliance. That might work ?



For the rest, i would love to see a predetermined team - if only to make the ai coop better with eachother.