Hi mates of Warlight,

I am making this thread to share my opinion about low cost coin games and to see what other think about the current situation. By low cost coin games, I refer specifically to 5 entry for 9 coins and 10 entry for 18 coins games.

I was wondering why there wasn't the possibility to make free custom low cost coin games (5 entry or 10 entry) in WL. I asked Fizzer about it few weeks ago and he told me that he wants custom games for coins to be "special events" that don't occur often...

I clearly don't understand Fizzer's logic on that subject as for any type of coin game, WL perceive 10% of the total entry fees. Low cost coin games would attract new players to coin games because let's face it, NLC Small Earth rely a lot on the speed of picks and it gets boring quite fast and Strat MME NLC can get tiresome eventually too (ok there is Turkey too). Yes 10% on low cost coin games wouldn't make Fizzer super richer, but it would still give an incentive to new guys to join
coin games.

Now you will say, just do custom games 50 entry coins for 90 coins games. I have seen that there is a huge difference in skills between guys that do low cost coin games and the few people who play for big coins and that almost always end up finishing top 5 of coin leaderboard. When you do 50 coins for 90 coins games, even thought it is not technically a big coin game, you usually get the top guys of people who play for coins. 50 coins aren't much when u have 10000 coins, but when u have only 100, it is a big amount of coins.

Now you will say, just get better at Warlight if you want to win big coin games! Even thought I consider myself a decent and reliable WL player, I have to admit that I am not yet the level of the monsters (top 5-10 coin leaders) that play for big amounts of coins. Other than theses monsters, you have some guys that play the infamous FFA castle and win a lot of coins in a questionable way but that is an other subject.

Hence, it can be quite discouraging for new guys to join coin games; on one side, you have a very limited selection of low cost coin games like small earth, turkey and earth that can get boring quite quick, while on the other, you have monsters (like top 5 on coins leaderboard each month) that are extremely hard to beat (they are not only the elite of WL but they are super specialised in their respective coin templates) or trolls that play FFA castle.

I don't think this thread can change anything about this but I wanted to share my opinion about that subject with the WL community and see the opinions of others on that subject.

Edited 9/25/2016 05:51:02

Hereby i must say that i completely agree, the top guys on the leaderboard are always going to be the same guys simply because they already have coins and can afford all the games, every new player who starts with 100 coins MUST win his first game if it costs 50 or more since most likely they will never be able to play coin games again.
Low-cost coin games (5-10 entry) should be the main focus on WL i think, not games that cost either 50, 80 or even 2k coins which summarizes all the leaderboard games with the specialized farmers. Most of the time all of those games have at least 1/2 player slots permanently full with a farmer.

i completely agree on boontjekoen! 10% are 10%, no matter what the costs for the games are. A big amount of low cost games bring income as well.

I imagine, a concern of fizzer could be that people would try to make tons of "rigged" coin games and rob coins from the newbies that way. But if he kept the Limitation on creating games with entry fees smaller than 50 coins for Players who have 1000 coins Overall coins that Problem could be reduced imo.

While I get the point that 10% is still 10%, it really isn't. At least not in reality. The majority of players who would be in those small-coin games are ones who are using the gifted 100 coins. Thus Fizzer/Warlight is not actually making any money, it is merely recapturing some of what it already gave away.

The only way the site is going to make money off of coins is if people DEPOSIT coins. Those who do so aren't very likely to be playing in the small-coin games, especially since most of the deposit options would put you outside the referenced 1000 coin limit.

I turned my initial 100 coins into 900 (haven't played coin games in ages) and I'd guarantee that the site didn't actually make any money off my games, it merely recouped some of the money it handed out since the majority of my opponents were also playing off their free 100 coins.

I really don't see any incentive to play any coin games. Yes, it would be nice to push a few coins over to Fizzer, but sorry.

Being that the players that are on the top have their specialties, they will keep winning. I would rather have a bit of variety in my games as it is more fun that way. I would get bored if I played the same template over and over just so I could stand a chance at competing.

The whole coin system is flawed in my opinion.

The rake is horribly high at high stakes when there are so few players playing anything above 180 coin entry. Also at high stakes you cant be sure you'll win enough games to cover the rake, so the leaderboard bonuses have to go to those players. And then on top of that you get screwed over on withdrawing if you're outside America.

@Sharpe I doubt many players playing high stakes deposit either. If you have played warlight enough and know what you're doing you can turn a 100 coins into thousands easy enough.

If there was more stuff to buy on warlight, then maybe it would be worth depositing a small amount to build up by winning games to buy whatever is on offer. Not more colours since even though the new ones look cool most players have played with their current colours for years, but maybe things like buying your username so nobody else can have it.

While i agree that most low cost games would be filled by people that got their 100 free coins, it's still a good way to introduce new players to play more coingames and eventually buy coins.

I recall saying that the rake was too high for these to be popular, and Mercer came back with a non-nonsensical argument that I couldn't have an opinion about coin games because I still have my 100 free coins.

With a 10% rake (just on the front, let alone on the back) you would need to win 60% of your games, to break even, a tall feat.

It's actually a tad lower at 55.56% but your point still stands. That said, playing on the 5 coin small Earth game it most definitely is not difficult to break even. I'm a mediocre player at best and I think I won about 80% of my coin games.

Of course, once you leave the 5 coin games for the bigger prizes I'm sure that percentage would plummet.

pm pics for coins

@MoD "While i agree that most low cost games would be filled by people that got their 100 free coins, it's still a good way to introduce new players to play more coingames and eventually buy coins." yes, very good point.

+1

I think it certainly couldn't hurt for fizzer to include 2-4 more low entry coin games. However I doubt fizzer will touch the coin system for a long time , only real chance of this is uservoice and still would be unlikely. :(

Still an idea I would like to see.

I would like to point out that free coins are no longer given. I started this account several monhs ago and did not received any.
I suppose that "cause Death" is the root.

@Tekzen

There are monthly 16 000 accounts created. In 2015 there were ~200 000 new accounts registered. Now obviously not all of them start playing actively, but even if you get 20% which is quite good turnover for PC-game account/activity ratio. Therefore Fizzer had to give away 40 000$ for last year to 40 000 accounts? Yes, a player can withdraw that money simply (minimum is 7 500 coins = 75$). But now assume half of them never plays and other half will end up trying coin games. So Fizzer ends up with 20 000$ his own cash on circulation - which some players may end up withdrawing one day.

*These numbers are just random example as we do not have data, so let everyone think what the real numbers may be, but sure is, it seems quite a lot!

I have seen much better solution for similar problem. I doubt Fizzer ends up reading it, but just to enlighten the community. Lets assume 100 coins for 1$ rate as it is here. Now to minimize the high cost for Developer what was described above and keep players playing for higher stakes to get the rake and encourage players depositing money - this is main objective. There should be "starter" coin games: meaning only players below X amount of coins can play there: whether custom or game-advertised. I have no idea what the threshold should be, (500-1000 maybe) but I would give maximum 50 coins to players, which is enough for a new player to play 10 5-coin or 5 10-coin games and get the grip or idea. This in my mind theoretically would encourage players to get started with coin games - question is whether it increases deposits as well.

The main problem as pointed above is outside-US Withdrawal drawbacks.

Mr tranquex there are already coingames with an entry fee of 5/10 coins for players that got less than 1000 coins.

What this thread is about, is the question, why no custom games with less than 50 coins can be created.

I knew about the 5/10 games, just not the threshold of 1000. And to me it seemed more than obvious why customs at that low-level are not allowed - for simple farming with rigged games as someone already stated above as well. I would even increase it over 100, but as for now the Free 100 coins seem to be removed, so it is quite irrelevant.