Let me explain in more detail why this feature is not yet suitable to be ranked. This earned me a lot of flack on one of your streams for some reason; maybe a FAF lobby was simply the wrong place to talk about this. No offense taken, obviously.

• No indication of who is controlling your units (critical).
• There is a bug that causes all of your engineers to be labeled 'idle' when switching armies. I am not sure if this has been fixed by now.
• The UI lies to you. The game indicates that you are playing against player x. This does not necessarily have to be the case however, you could also be playing against player y, or even against players x, y, z. This is not game-breaking, but it would obviously make more sense if player names were hidden entirely.
• Essentially, most of what Dorset mentioned.

If you want to decrease the chance of it getting forgotten, you can make an issue on GitHub. Again, keeping it ranked to spread awareness of the issues with the feature should not be the modus operandi here. It cannot be compared to shared armies either, as that setting looks to be feature-complete.

I think this could happen faster if this was actually brought some attention instead.

Your point is valid, but I philosophically disagree with keeping it ranked as a means to raise awareness of the problem.

I believe SSB2 or some variations of it allow players to change armies by simply clicking on the respective names (at least when cheating is enabled). This is a good feature and perhaps something to consider.

I agree it should be unranked as long as there is no proper UI to support the feature (e.g., you have no way of knowing who is controlling your units). Additionally, being forced to use the cheat menu or the console to switch perspectives might not be a problem for players who know their way around the game, but it is not acceptable for newer or casual players.

Signing up

Signing up with Foley

@Syndicus Exselsior and I would like to team up, would that be possible?

Signing up
2200

Signing up
1997