My idea of a 2vs2 duel and related aspects

[Muklas]

You misunderstand me, I'm looking forward to it.

[AqvasFire2]

Well no duh AoE effects will be more powerful. Also, global effects such as Zu open will rock hard. 1v1 cards will matter less (EG Bringer GTFO). How would BKR work? Only your units or allies?

Etc...

AKA I don't think Alteil is built for this.

[Peralisc9001]

Bkr buffs team units obv.
You can see zu from a mile away. So why do you see it as stronger 2vs2.

I wonder if assa ss should be able to sac ally unit.


Alteil is also not ready for the 1vs1, in fact far less ready for it.


Also imagine bringer with refess support on the field, nearly immortal.
Entirely different meta for sure and it will take weeks to establish the top dogs.

[EvilTomato]

Hi, I don't know about shared SP/Spheres, technically you can play a lvl 5 turn 1, also 9 slots for both players makes subtype based files hard to play.
This got me thinking, here is my idea of 2vs2:

The fields are 3 rows by 5 columns, for ab vs cd, the field for ab is

1a 2a 3ab 2b 1b
4a 5a 6ab 5b 4b
7a 8a 9ab 8b 7b

We have side_a=1a-2a-4a-5a-7a-8a , side_b=1b-2b-4b-5b-7b-8b and shared_ab=3ab-6ab-9ab, so field_a=side_a+shared_ab and field_b=side_b+shared_ab.
- player "a" can place units only in field_a (side_a + shared column);
- the SP and Sphere Levels are not shared;
- all damage abilities are limited to 1 field, so any damage (target or AOE) directed at field_a doesn't affect side_b (the shared area is affected);
- all buffs from side_a affect field_a, all buffs from side_b affect field_b, the buffs from shared_ab affect both field_a and field_b. So any unit in the shared area can receive(and give) buffs from both the fields (but also receive damage from c and d);
- all offensive abilities from side_a can normally only attack field_c (side_c+shared_cd), if there are no unit in field_c, "a" can iczer attack player c or attack the units in side_d, units in shared_ab can choose which field to attack, the same rules apply to soul and open skills, so Fierte SS will only work on the a and c players(I'm still thinking about how 1 time buffs will work on the partner)
- player a can switch positions with b so he can attack field_d using special abilities (lets call them gambits to avoid confusion, i'll talk about them later);
- units in shared_ab can be used by both players, the sp from the player that selects the ability is used, so player a plays samurai girl and b can consume his sp for slash, this is only valid for units in the shared area; if samurai girl dies player a takes the LP hit, this can be avoided by moving samurai girl into side_b (possible with normal move or a gambit);
- partners can play the same card without backlash, except characters;

Now lets talk about gambits: both groups have a set of shared abilities with different cool-downs. A single gambits is selected at the beginning of the turn, at the same time as the cards are played. The gambits activate before the open skills. Here are some examples:
- Trade Places: player a trades places with b, now a with his units fights d and b fights c, note that only the sides change (the field is just mirrored);
example: player a uses archer pixy, normally he can lock c's file, now with the switch he can lock d, but he must fight d's file until he can reuse the gambit again, of course c and d can foresee this move and also play Trade Places to cancel the effect
- Mirror field: if played by "a" the columns 1a-4a-7a and 3ab-6ab-9ab are switched, ownership of the units in the shared column passes to a (can be used to trigger SS and to share sp on skills from the new shared units);
- Switch SP (long cool-down): switches sp between a and b, note that this effect only happens after you selected a card to play, so if you have 5 sp, you can not raise lawtia to 5, switch sp and play Bellus in the same turn;
example: both a and b have 3 sp each, a plays Ball of Flame, b plays a lvl 2 and uses switch sp, the gambit is activated before the open skills so both effect of Ball of Flame are activated.

Of course the rules must be properly balanced. (Like finding a solution for Zugateroza in the shared column).

[Scientiafide]

I'm not sure about sharing spheres. That allows for ridiculous opening setups like playing a lvl 5 on turn 1 (like what eviltomato said), or having both players each play a lvl 4 on turn 2. I say each player has their own sp and sphere levels as normal. For lvl 3 rushes, both players will be able to more easily chain together lvl 3s without even needing lvl 1s.

I'd say that with 2 vs 2, the teams that will do the best will be those that either share the same tribe or deck type. Something worth considering.

Anyway, how would backlash work? Will a team be able to play the same type of card on the same turn, or will doing so cause them to backlash with each other? What about cards with opens or abilities that affect players (like shade?). I'm guessing the wording for these types of abilities would have to be changed accordingly.

I also agree that 3 x 3 might be a bit too crowded, especially at the pace players can play units. I say maybe expanding it to 5x3 on each side ( I think that's what DG meant by 3 x 3).

I also propose keeping the cemeteries separate. It can be really useful to see, say, which player has the last copy of x card on the field if both opponents are playing that card (for LP purposes).

Anyway if we're going to talk about multiplayer, I think it'd also be cool to have coop games where players have to work together to fight either an alteil boss of sorts, or to try and defeat a super-powered player.

[Peralisc9001]

Backlashes should affect teammates to enforce variety.

I presented cemeteries as being separated. They are displayed side by side for a quicker view.

[Pikeru]

This got me thinking, here is my idea of 2vs2:

I see a few too many problems with this idea that makes things unnecessarily complicated. There may be a few bits worth using, but overall I felt the original suggestion was better. And what's up with trying to add some brand new game function altogether, gambits? We're just trying to make a tag-team format, not completely rework the entire battle system from its base.

[EvilTomato]

I see a few too many problems with this idea that makes things unnecessarily complicated.

My reasoning is as fallowing: 3x3 is to small so I expanded to 3x5, but now the damage for some skills (like slash or AOE) is to much, so limit it to a maximum of 3x3, but how do you do that without requiring to target every skill ? My solution is to split the fields in to sub-field, so the AOE from player a goes automatically to player c, but now there is practicably no interaction between player a and d, to correct that I added the rule: the units from the shared column can target the sub-field, so there is additional targeting, but is limited to a maximum of 3, and the shared control awards coordination. But I still thought that the interaction between a and d is to limited. The additional mechanic fixes this, that was my solution and I somewhat agree that is sub-optimal.

I also think that there must be a limit on buffs, again splitting the field limiting the total number of buffs on a unit.

So that is how I ended up from a to b, from b to c,...to z and z seems needlessly complicated.

[Pikeru]

Restricting the interactions of opponents is something I do see as a major problem. Making A' unable to target or affect D' removes a large layer of strategy and essentially makes this little more than 2 regular games played next to each other. If we were designing a 3 on 3 style format, I could much more easily see a distance restriction being applied. However, even a 3 by 5 board remains still within a reasonable sized field making such a thing unnecessary and unreasonable. This also includes AoE attacks, which may be stronger, but that too is just part of the difference in formats and again shouldn't have distance restrictions until you start reaching 6 players. The exception would have to be Cyclone, but that's more to do with its overall existence rather than its interaction with multiplayer.

[Peralisc9001]

The 4 players should get full interaction. That's what a team vs team is all about.

Slash is mostly garbage in 1vs1. Nobody includes units because of slash alone. But in 2vs2 they finally become worth considering.

Same goes for holy light which nobody uses. It can be godly with more units on the team.
So all these skills create different meta in different modes which is normal! It is supposed to be different and offer variety, something other than what you usually keep seeing in 1vs1.


5 starting sp might seem much, so what about 3 starting sp for each player?