I think this is just too radical and complicated to be used during a timed chess game.
Suggestion: Facilitate teaming with Contracts
Sort:
Yes, it is a bit complicated indeed. But if two players want to launch a coordinated attack against a third player of their choice, and they want to be assured that none of them will be benefited more than the other (in other words that the spoils of their victory will be shared evenly) how else can be done?
Oct 31, 2017
0
#4
This is just asking for backstabbing and the "enemy" excludes the other player? Basically not a good idea for the free for all mode.
@icystun I had in mind that a contract could be signed after one player is eliminated: A + B -> C
At the start of the game, a full fledged team mode could emerge with these four contracts:
1) Red + Yellow -> Green
2) Red + Yellow -> Blue
3) Green + Blue -> Red
4) Green + Blue -> Yellow
Not exactly full fledged really, since signing a contract does not prevent the partners from attacking each other. The deal refers only to the sharing of the points gained by damaging the enemy.
Btw as an afterthought, maybe deal would be a better term than contract.
Oct 31, 2017
0
#6
I think the ideas should keep coming and are very interesting/exciting what more can be done to this game. That said I hope the developers have a good storage vault for these ideas so down the road (probably year(s) ) they can dust them off and start adding them. For now I would guess that teams would be the closest thing to this happening in the foreseeable future at least until the player numbers get way up there (hopefully).
Oct 31, 2017
0
#7
This would just require an extra text box on the screen:
Deal to share points checkmating (Blue or Red or Yellow) against (Blue or Red or Yellow)
Deal to share points capturing (Blue or Red or Yellow) against (Blue or Red or Yellow)
You would need buttons for Offer a Deal, Refuse a Deal, Remove a Deal, and Accept Offer from (Blue or Red or Yellow) to share (Capture Points or Checkmate Points) against (Blue or Red or Yellow).
Not too bad, and I think after a bit people would get used to it. And oh yeah, a list of the deals that are in effect.
I think I like this idea 
@Omega60 yeap, this is the UI I had in mind too. Now I think that one more function is needed: Breaking a deal if both partners agree. Otherwise having a deal against you could become a huge advantage. If for some reason the partners start hating each other, no one of them will want to harm you, to avoid sharing the points with the other one!
Horrible idea. teaming should always be implicit and situational, and the players involved should always have their own interests in mind despite the teaming.
what this idea does is legitamize cheating. Its completely wrong, it goes entirely against the spirit of the game
It's absolutely essential to understand that when you team with a player, you can still be backstabbed at any moment. You have to keep that in mind. TTeaming IS the essence of 4 player chess. Teaming, but only up to a certain extent, understanding your interests and your tempoary ally's interests, and playing accordingly. You are never safe from a backstab, and rightly so! If you 'know' that your ally cant backtab you, than there is no game! You're cheating! It's unfair! it's wrong! And it's horribly frustrating for the player who is being cheated. I hope you understand what I'm trying to explain here, and that you never consider this type of suggestions ever again. You want to ally and not hve to worry about anything, to have an eady time. You're not going to have an easy time. 4Chess is stressful because you can never be sure of what the other players will do, you aren't in full control of your destiny. That IS the essence of the game, it's what makes it fun and exciting.
@Ne2willdo if all players agree beforehand to play a FFA game with teaming allowed, I have no problem with that. What bothers me about this suggestion is if it's practically applicable. I am not sure it makes sense to make a deal with another player to share your profits. There is no guarantee that your partner will contribute a fair share of the effort, so why agree in advance to give him a fair share of the profits?
@skeftomilos As previously stated, this is a horrible idea. I dont thin I need to elaborate any further than I already did. The team play option will be back, it will be 100% team play, and a completely different game. Then we will play team
@Ne2willdo here is a screenshot from the multiplayer strategy game "Age of Empires". During the game you can declare another player as an ally, neutral or enemy, anytime you want, and change your mind as many times as you want. Your units never attack allied units. They attack enemy units as soon as they see them, and they don't attack neutral units except if they are attacked first. This is just to give you an idea that teaming in a FFA game is not a new concept. Having the teams fixed at the start of the game is also an option, but it is a completely different story. When teams are fixed it is not Free-For-All any more.
I understand that you don't like the concept, and frankly I don't like it much either. But why object to people participating willingly in a game mode they find enjoyable?
This is a wacky suggestion for players who enjoy teaming, while still playing a Free-For-All game. It is inspired by @Omega60's score sharing idea.
My idea is to introduce contracts, agreements between two players (partners) regarding a third player (enemy). These contracts could be signed anytime during the game, could not be revoked after that, and will be visible by all players and spectators. Two types of contracts will be available:
1) Checkmate Contract: If any of the partners checkmate the enemy, or capture his dead king, the points earned are split between the two.
2) Material Contract: If any of the partners capture a piece of the enemy, the points earned are split between the two.
What do you think? Opinions are welcome!