MArcomage

This idea was introduced long ago, but there has been little progress, since there were other priorities. Now, I would like to make some progress on this matter. See links below for more detailed information.

http://helppage.3dfx.sk/fendek/new_game.html
https://netvor.sk/trac/arcomage/ticket/73

Also, since this kind of game requires team cards, some team card concepts would be really appreciated ;). Such game would be probably created with our new host/join system, since sending challenges to 3 other players could be inconvenient.

Please let me know your opinion on this.

This looks really interesting. However, the part about not being able to see your ally's cards is kind of weird, and as you say, it does invite cheating. I think the whole chat thing needs to be changed for team games, really, because there are more ways you could "cheat" than just telling your opponent about your hand and your opponent's hand. You'll probably want to be strategizing with your partner during the game (i.e. "let's try to focus on taking out opponent X's tower", or "let's try to get a tower victory by you building up your tower"), and being able to carry out that communication without your opponent's seeing would obviously be a huge advantage.
.
My suggestion would be to have a "public chat", like how chat is currently, and a "private chat" for each team that only they can see. And all four hands should be visible to all four players. Other than that though, I think it's a really cool, and very ambitious idea.
.
Is there any chance we'll get the player level system before that though? It seems like it would be much easier to implement, and I still want my extra game slots :(

I think it would be a good idea to let the starting player choose if you want to play a game with or without seeing opponent's cards via game mode (similar to standard game).

The new player rating system has still some unfinished design issues, so don't expect it to be ready very soon.

Sounds very interesting. Definitely gonna need new deck-slots for this tho' ;)

Isn't it too complicated?

I'd prefer united tower/wall for team, but different cards and stock.

I polished the design and created a new version of the tac-team game draft.

Compared to previous version, it was simplified and some design issues were resolved. Any feedback is appreciated.

if the teams are AB and CD I suggest a "ACBD" turn pattern.
Will team cards have a different border's color? or they will simply have a "team" keyword?
How many team cards there will be?
It would be nice to have a button (like "history") that let you see the situation on your ally's battlefield.
the probability to draw a team card is too high (1/3) compared to the probability to draw an uncommon (29%) if they are powerful in the same way. I suggest to lower it to 25 or 20%

Well the idea behind the current turn order is the fact that it will allow you to pass a card to your ally and he will be able to use it right away, without the enemy team to have a chance to interfere. Also player slots will predetermine who will go first within the team every time, so there is room for many nice combos. The idea behind it is to promote team play - I don't want the tac-team game to be just two simultaneous games in one package.

Team cards will have different border color. Their power level will be roughly as uncommons. Note that 33% draw chance is not that large, because you can get a team card only by standard drawing (so you can't get a team card by using militia for example).

There will be 15 team cards in a side deck.

Game history will be available the same way as in normal games. Also note that you will be able to see the full empire info of your ally and his opponent.

Mojko wrote:

There will be 15 team cards in a side deck.

But I suppose there will be many team cards avaible, like 40/50 to begin with.
And cards like divine intervention will target a player of my field or could also target players from my ally's field?
And wich terminology should we use? e.g.: "ally's enemy tower:-10" or "enemy ally's tower" or "second enemy tower:-10" or "that man's tower:-10"?

Fithz wrote:
But I suppose there will be many team cards avaible, like 40/50 to begin with.

Well, I was thinking about a bit less like 20 to 30.

Fithz wrote:
And cards like divine intervention will target a player of my field or could also target players from my ally's field?

No. Only team cards will be able to effect your ally or your opponent.

Fithz wrote:
And wich terminology should we use? e.g.: "ally's enemy tower:-10" or "enemy ally's tower" or "second enemy tower:-10" or "that man's tower:-10"?

The terminology is not clear yet, but I have some draft version:

Your ally will be referenced by "Ally". I think this one is good, because it's clear and short.

Your ally's opponent will be referenced by "Flanker". Now by this one, I'm not quite sure. I would like to keep the word short as possible (5 characters at most would be the best). Feel free to suggest some ideas.