Well, dictating teammates is always bad as the "i-know-everything" geeks never listen to what you say or what is good for team; if you do the same thing what they do, you will be named bad guy and blamed poor team guy.
0 prerequisites isn't bad; sometimes you put more prerequisites and wait for more time to fill the game. I do agree that no prereq. attracts bad players, but if I'm playing to kill time-i don't mind it.
Getting a good teammate who checks orders and tells what is wrong-sounds nice. maybe it is better than playing on 2 accounts.
Opinions about team games with 2 accounts: 2017-06-17 22:26:22
It is better to play with partner not only because he can check for mistakes, but - more importantly imo - you have different ideas and playstyles. Therefore, one can see options which the other don't consider. It is harder to predict their moves, too.
Opinions about team games with 2 accounts: 2017-06-18 22:58:43
I don't think it is wrong to play a 2v2 game as a single player controlling 2 accounts. But they aren't 'wrong' to boot you if you go over the time limit. Before each game begins you are able to see the game settings, and by playing a game you agree to those settings. Just like in speed chess, basketball, football, soccer there is a time limit you must play within. It is just as much a part of the game as your initial picks, or your turn order. If you want more time to play each turn, set up your own game with more time for each turn, or set up a game with a time bank. That being said, it might not have been ethical. But ethics are almost always relative to the individual. So you probably could make an argument that it was unfair for them to boot you, but I also think you could make an equally strong argument that it is unfair to make your opponents wait for you to formulate and create 2 sets of orders. I personally think once you agree to the rules in a game by joining said game, you should play by those rules and not be upset if they don't go your way. No one made you agree to join the game.
