People would only ally to the larger side, the idea is flawed.
The idea is flawed only if the game is set to end when a "team" wins. I acknowledge that ColorGrayHam endorses this condition ("@Number836 Yes! That's exactly what I mean.
") - but if we think that an FFA should end when one player wins (that is, if we conserve the current finishing conditions of FFA's), the main idea is a good one to consider.
Because it would let alliances become official, and disallow in-team fights.
What's to stop 6 people allying against 4?
Absolutely nothing. But so what? Isn't it how we're playing in FFA's, that is, by accepting that there could be numerically unequal alliances, or e.g. 3 player working together against 1?
~edit. I saw Number836's post after I posted mine. Where he writes
But another aspect of this idea that I like for diplomacy is actually being able to see what the current teams are on the sidebar.
I share the same thought with him: that letting alliances become official and visible should be a good thing.
Edited 7/17/2015 00:35:59