I think this newly introduced feature is willing to make players bored specially on multi day games, I do think that having it back to three at a time would be much better, at least for multi-day games.

Edited 12/13/2013 07:41:44

– The maximum number of open games that players can make at the same time was reduced. Non-member’s limit was reduced to 1 and member’s limit was reduced to 3. This will hopefully cause less clutter on the Open Games page, as some players were spamming lottery games.-

If you get bored, then don`t make an open game. Invite somebody you like to play with. If you want 3 games become a member. The lottery games where annoying to say the least, this is in fact a good solution. You can join all auto-games you want, and you can join as many games as you want. You yourself can only make one game with open seats though. I would say there is not a real bad thing about it. I used to see 5 games on the same settings made by the same person, this was also annoying. Limiting this to 1 (or 3 for members) is a good idea.

Sometimes it is kind of inconvenient though.. what if we want to play 2 games at the same time? (i mean the games we created at the same time)

Edited 12/13/2013 14:03:05

I went to create my three favorite template games this morning to find out I could only create one at a time. I was upset. What had happened? Then I came here, read these posts above, thought about it for a few minutes... now I'm alright. Because I too was annoyed by the massive amounts of spammed games on the lists. 20 open lottery games all created by the same guy, every day... got old seeing it. So yes, I'm on board with this limitation. I wasn't at first, but logic and understanding made me a believer! Besides, you're right... I could easily just pony up for a Membership if I want my three games back. :) Cheers!

if lottery games are the issue, why not just reduce the points for games played on certain maps, or even make them award no points at all
maps like duel etc. that are only good for farming, anyway

becuase you can create lottery games on most maps, it's just matter of configuration.

i think usually 3 is enough..

Back in the days we used to make 1 high-tier game whoch took an hour or two to gather players, 1 less restricted and sometimes some easy "chillout" game just to kill time before the others started.. you don't need more and spamming open games is more annoying than asking a friend to host another game...

on the other hand the same method makes it easy to abuse the system - all you need is an alt who will only host games with your main account and an open seat..

Much better, maybe not easier, but as fair as possible way to reduce the stupid lottery spam, is to MAKE A LOSS REDUCE POINTS! I will once again say: Making a loss reduce your points not only kills the nightmare of lottery games which would be obsolete, but also is a strong incentive to buy membership - since you will not inflate your level over time, and in some (many) cases you will actually LOCK what you previously UNlocked, because you will simply stop at a certain level more accurate in terms of your skill, and from time to time probably get enough points retracted, to reduce your level by one or two.

Lottery games rule.

#hatersgonnahate

1 is too strict, allowing 2 open games for non members would still eliminate the lotto spamming while allowing people with good map ideas and the ability to play fast to get a couple games going quicker.

maybe boot rate could be a factor in being allowed to create a second game? if you are under 10% or 5% then you get a second game that you can create.

i agree that the lottos have gotten annoying but i also believe that this is too strict of a response to that. hopefully we can find a middle ground

reducing points for every loss are the golden mean. those solve it all.

no i dont believe thats the answer... i am a fairly bad player but i haven't played in a lotto game sense like the week it came out... i am not a good player but i dont "cheat" so why is that fair to say me?

reducing points make it into a rating of sorts and with the way the system is set up, you could lose the ability to use certain maps and features if your level is decreased.

I agree with SNinja in that it's not the answer.

Master ree - remember how it used to be before warlight 2.0... I see your point and was thinking about it but did not mention.. what if you may re-lock all the features other than maps, huh? to leave you with a perk.. and maybe add a statistic of highest level achieved..

Remember that practically all features (except maps) you unlock by levelling were not available to non-members anyway..

Leon, I think that if Fizzer wanted it to be a grading system he would have set it up differently. The problem with being able to lose points is it makes it a competitive community for everyone and I don't think that was the goal of adding points. It's a way to make everyone feel like they are moving up and improving even though they actually might not be. Its a great marketing strategy because it makes new players more likely to stay and play WarLight longer which with the new system of ads, is the big goal. Reducing levels would make it become harder than it is already for new players to gain traction and desirability to stay and play.

I do remember when they were not available to non-members and I think that making them available retains customers as well because every time they unlock a new map or new feature they want to stay and test/try it out.

From what you said, I think what would best satisfy you is to have a global ELO for members only. It's a bonus "feature" that I know a lot of members want and for people who have paid for WarLight I think, generally speaking, they are more competitive with the game than non-members in the sense that almost all members want to be ranked as well as have fun with friends.

lets face it its all about selling those memberships! buy one or be fucked!!! like most games once they start getting money they become whores to the business.

The reason is like most games, they start out as an idea and then grow into something much bigger that requires work and time. I don't see you putting in endless hours of work and upkeep for free?

I must agree on the last part with Master Ree - still the idea with negative points for losses would probably make more money for Fizzer... you might for example balance the importance of a loss - for example loss when on lvl 0-5 would cost you 1/5th of how many points the winner gains, then the loss would gradually increase up to lvl 30 for example from which the loss would be equal to winner's gain, or in ffa's to your percentage of loss depending on your level compared to other losers.. just to make lottery games obsolete after some level - let's say lvl30..

PS: yes - most of the members bought the membership for 1) changing luck before 2.0 2) ladders - which is the nearest to elo on this site.. so i believe it's safe to assume majority of the people that actually spent real money on the site do want an global ELO.. (i do know of some who don't as well - and they are still one of the very top players so it's not like all members want it..)

I'm not saying that it couldn't work I am just saying I think there is a better option that promotes community and raises self-esteem. I know that might not be the point of ranked games in your mind. What might work better is needing a certain percentage of wins to be eligible to move on to the next level or unlock the next feature as well as accumulating enough points. Just an example but we have to just go with whatever Fizzer has in mind at the end of the day.

Yes i know not everyone wants it but I would say more do than don't, thats all I meant to say.

"lets face it its all about selling those memberships! buy one or be fucked!!! like most games once they start getting money they become whores to the business."

I never understand this attitude. You do know that people have bills to pay? Also that more money for the people running the show means better features for us? It's a crazy attitude that says that someone creating a game and putting it on the internet is honor bound to make no money.

Anyway, isn't the easy fix for lottery games to make it so that if you defeat an opponent too fast (or they surrender and get taken over by an ai too fast) the amount of points for defeating them goes way down. Say someone surrenders in the first turn, you only gain 10% of the points for defeating them. Second turn, 25%, third turn 50%, fourth turn 75%, fifth+, full value. I'm making up numbers, but it isn't important. Should kill lotteries.

it would take about one minute for someone to realize they can just deploy and sit for five turns and then eliminate everyone, some people just dont like to surrender in lottery games (to really solve it you can only gain points on autogames, also making an autogame with decent prereqs as well