MArcomage

I'd really like to see a new country ranklist.

It should work like: Sum of all victorys of all players from the same country - Sum of all losses of all players from the same country.

The country with the highest result is rank nr.1
second highest is rank nr.2 and so forth

I think a little moe competition is good for everyones motivation :)

I don't know about the competitive aspect, but it would be useful in choosing opponents at the very least.

Ow, but I liked it badly
(and yes, I did get the chance to read it ;-))

You mean you agreed with me Progressor? Oki, I'll say it again then.

So, I said I didn't like the nationalist concept of pitching countries against each other. But that it would be actually a great idea to be able to make teams, with team-names and colors, with a limited number of players by team. But in this case let's teams be international.

But what he really said:
---
By country? Why not by age category, too? Or even by sex? Or perhaps by race or skin color?

... I dislike this nationalist idea, frankly.

But in the same spirit, it could be cool to create teams of a certain number of players, with names and colors, why not? But let the teams be international.
---
:-P

Has there been any additional word on 2v2 matches? It was mentioned long ago as being in the works.

That's severely of topic.

This is a discussion about forming and ranking teams. How is mention of team matches off topic?

If team matches are, indeed, still on the table for development, they would have a large influence on the shaping of guilds and the like, I imagine.

2 vs 2 is something completely different then a bunch of statistics of player's who formed a group together (or accidentally come from the same country).

... is not a good idea.. if you see there are not many from my country and from many other countries...

a good idea is to create new team flags or something like that.. like guilds :P

You don't think that teams would play matches as a team? I'm sorry, I honestly don't see why you believe it to be irrelevant. =\

irrelevant is not the same as of topic

though this discussion is both. ;-)

And aggain, read my previous post. (Your message that triggered my response was about 2vs2)

I see. You're suggesting that every post must refer to the "country" suggestion rather than all of the commentary that works to improve the suggestion. I disagree. This is a discussion forum, not a blog post. =P

People seem to like the idea as long as it is not arbitrarily tied to nationality but instead offered in a way that is fully customizable. The discussion goes from there.

You've completely missed the point.

This thread is basically about something like guilds. 2vs2 is a completely separate idea, to play Arcomage in a somewhat different way with 4 people instead of 2. If 2vs2 is implemented, and parallel to that they implement something like guilds, you can select to be on the same side as your team-mate, making it a team match yourself.

However 2vs2 is not specifically for that, you can do so to with 4 random people.

Something Id associate more with team matches more is that 1 "team captain" selects 4 players to play against 4 players of the other team. Most wins of those games is a team win or something.

Doing something like this is completely pointless outside the 'guild reference frame'.

Summarized:
The thread begun as Nation vs Nation in statistics.
The suggestion was improved to a Guild / Team system
You came in with a unrelated remark about 2vs2 (should ask about that in that priority topic or in a new one)

Discussion Forum means you don't randomly talk about all subjects there are to talk about, but one at the time (on at the topic ;-)).

Refer back to two of my posts ago. I simply don't see it as irrelevant in the way that you do, and clearly our opinions differ.

All that I meant was that, if 2v2 is indeed in the works, such a system as we are discussing here may very well be part of it anyway, and it's worth learning whether its development is still underway before carrying on.

Also, I always took 2v2 to mean co-op play, not tournament play. If people are building decks to work in conjunction against two simultaneous opponents, I'd think that they'd expect to be bound together somehow.

I'd appreciate you not suggesting that I think "discussion" means "add irrelevant things at will" thank you very much. Putting words into my mouth is not helping. There is no reason to turn this thread into a flame war, so for the sake of everyone, please desist. I am not attempting to attack you or your opinions in any way.

We will NOT create a ranking system based on criteria such as nationality, skin color, sex... Also, we will NOT split people into groups based on this criteria.

2v2 game and tournament games are off topic I think, so please maintain thread consistency.

"MArcomage guilds" is a good idea. We could provide a section where list of all guilds will be posted and you could select the guild details to see their memebers. Also we could provide some guild homepage - either external link or some internal one, made the same way as wikis are edited.

When we will have EXP based system implemented we could also add some interesting thing as a guild LVL. Players would tribute their guilds with their EXP (when gaining EXP). Gaining guild levels would add some extra benefits to all guild members, that cannot be gained as an individual player.

There could also be a guild based play mode - a modified version of 2v2, where members of 2 guild play against each other.

I also like the guild idea even more than my own. I just took countries as an example because I wanted to feel as a part of a team but had no other idea. I didn't want to harm anyone or create a feeling of bad nationalism or racism.

Other browsergames give lots of good examples how many things one could do with guilds, alliances, clans etc.
I feel really comfortable with this idea :) maybe we should just open a new thread about it or rename this one.

Possible Guild Feature:

Guild Decks:
A deck section accessible by all/selected guild members to construct and share decks. A guild member can use guild deck to challenge others & play. Number of deck slot available could = guild level.

Guild Logo:
Beside the flag in players filter list or beside avatar in game, not really important, just for fun.

Guild Level:
This probably depends on the new player ranking system. Guild level could be
a) Total guild member rank
b) Average guild member rank
c) Results from guild war only (See below)
d) A bit from all of the above

Guild War: (could be hard to implement)
a) 2 vs 2 team matches mentioned long ago and many many times by now
b) System randomly matches 1/3/5/7.... guild members from two guilds and the guild with more wins get the guild war victory
c) Elimination, system picks equal # of members from two guilds, continue to battle until one guild has all it's representatives defeated.
Say it's player 1,2,3 versus player x,y,z. 1 vs x, 2 vs y, 3 vs z.
If say 1 won against x, 2 and 3 both loses. 1 now has to win against both y & z (one at a time) to claim victory for the guild. I hope this makes sense.

---DPsycho said---
Also, I always took 2v2 to mean co-op play, not tournament play. If people are building decks to work in conjunction against two simultaneous opponents, I'd think that they'd expect to be bound together somehow.

I'd appreciate you not suggesting that I think "discussion" means "add irrelevant things at will" thank you very much. Putting words into my mouth is not helping. There is no reason to turn this thread into a flame war, so for the sake of everyone, please desist. I am not attempting to attack you or your opinions in any way.
---End quote---

Just a lil contradiction in this part. You complain that Id be putting words in your mouth, while doing so yourself in the earlier part. You suggest that I wasn't understanding where you were talking about, while if you read my post better, you'd see otherwise. I sugested a method to let the teams compete with each other that would obviously fit in the guild system only. 2vs2 for teammatches would be a minor application from something that has the right to exist outside guild-structures.

Of course, in plane typed text meanings can easily be lost in a way that your complaint is justifiable. It's good to keep in mind a bunch of letters is'nt always a vary satisfying way to comunicate.

Desist... Well, as you might know I'm not a native English speaker. Funny to know I actually looked up what it meant, though it was somewhat obvious from the context.

Well, since judge Mojko made my day, I can continue on topic. ;-)


Just thinking at loud here, the following statements do not necessarily resemble my actual opinion:

-Should there be a maximum of members? What always annoyed me at other games with teams and whatnot was the massiveness of some clan's. They where so big that it wouldn't really mean anything to be in it.

-The other way around: Should there be a minimum? Sometimes you meet players that form an alliance and whatnot, just because they think it's cool, not really caring about what they are originally meant for. (Possible) Result: You continuously get invites for alliances of one member big.

I like most things GarbageOnly sais. The Guild War part is somewhat fuzzy though, and not very likely to get priority anyway.

I really like garbageonly guild ideas.

The guild would have it's own level like a player, deck, game and players slots. With higher guild level the more players could be in it (maximum ammount of members would be limited). Guild decks would be accessible to all guild members. Maybe we could make some special guild cards?