Actual "teams"

[MachJacob]

This is a bad idea, in the Hunger games if someone accidentally hit their teammate full swing they would get hit and probably die, so the same rules would apply here.

 

[CrimsonRed]

No, because in the scenario where one of the teammates is being a Feminine Hygene Product, such as hogging all the items and annoying you, and you want to kill them; or using a fishing rod to push your teammate in the water during water chases, or even extremely huge teams like teams of 5, or in some scenarios, teams of 8 can be overpowered.

The point is, there's friendly fire for a reason, and that is so only one person can win.

 

[Zerukai]

Please don't Necro...

 

[you90tpwn3d]

Teams already ruin the survival games enough. The survival games is based off "The Hunger Games" where everything is unpredictable and teams are overpowered and ruin the "survival" part of the Survival Games. It's bad enough we have to bear with these teams. And it's kid of fun when you shoot an arrow at a team and then they kill eachother because they think there is betrayal. And lastly, two winners is a bad implantation, One winner and only one winner can win the Survival Games.

 

[Darlo2k4]

What i mean is sorta like a faction, you cant hurt your team and they cant hurt you, and in the end you all can win

Simply put? No. What your basicaly describing is a faction server, survival games style. This would change everything we about so, again, no.

 

[Vaangel]

Because if that happen we can't betray.

I love to betray...

 

[CrimsonRed]

And it's kind of fun when you shoot an arrow at a team and then they kill eachother because they think there is betrayal.

I've actually never did this before, but it sounds like a pretty good idea. And besides, teams are part of the survival games. While there is no way to prevent them, and it provides a challenge to try to kill teams, which can be rewarding. Depending on the scenario.