I've see a lot more complaining and arguments pop up recently about the forum and trolls. I'd like to suggest that the recent major updates last year had an impact on this. Im not saying these things were a bad idea, because it's made a lot of improvements towards the games.

Points: Good impacts
The point system has increased the amount of things you can do on the game. You can now work your way up the levels and unlock new features. Not necessarily a good thing if you don't want to become addictive. You can compete for the most active player award, you can show that you are not just a farmer or stats pumper. But are you!

Bad impacts:
1.Levelling up requires you to earn points, some players can only earn points by types of games (Farming and point pumping) the main reason why there is constantly lottery game clogging up the open games tab. Wiping any normal game off the face of earth. Creating a normal games, requires you waiting a good 5-10 mins for it to fill. As players are so fixed to lottery games, normal games are un-heard of.

2.unlocking certain things aren't fair for long term investors (members). Making ladders open for 48's wasn't a good idea, since the points system. The amount of ladder players has increased by about 200+. Not saying I don't like the competition, but I think I perfered the old ladder. I'm ok with the other unlocked things but not the ladders, bad mistake. I thought you would gain more money through no points system?

Clan: Good impacts
1.I was quite exited when I first heard of this being a clan leader especially. A chance to make your creation official, a way of bonding the community more. Geting a chance to at more in teams and take part in clan leagues etc.This has had a great impact I'm sure it's been good for Fizzer also with the amount of clans.

Bad impacts:
1.The dawn of the trolling Role playing clans (except {rp} of course) and the chaotic forums. The clan system has pulled in a lot of players into the community, Great! But not entirely, sinse clans more players have been aware of the public forum. There you go complaints about the forum solved.

"unlocking certain things aren't fair for long term investors (members). Making ladders open for 48's wasn't a good idea, since the points system." Just making the M by my name just a letter... Warlight your killing me.

Edited 2/5/2014 22:32:03

Opening up the ladders leads the way to MORE ladders. 3v3 perhaps, or additional seasonal ones? The more base players the better!

I think not seeing ads is a pretty good payoff for not having exclusive rites to certain features anymore.

But I agree with the other points.

Edited 2/5/2014 23:05:10

yes opening up these was smart because he was adding Advertisements unfortunately he should have made some more member only features, there are just too many things for fizzer to do and not enough time to do them

I an so sick of this......Why doesn't fizzer just make YOU a forum? That way you can all have "respected" players and no "troll rp" clans.

Lawlz, relax. Yours isn't the first, and wont be the last drama on here.

The Clan system is just begging for drama to pop up, it's not you or your clan specifically. What happened, happened. It's not the end of the world. If you care it's even halfway interesting to watch it unfold.

Infact, it might actually be a good sign, all this heat just shows people care, and what is better for Warlight than a devoted playerbase that cares about silly ingame drama?

Idk, I think my debut on forums was "fuck you". Obviously the wrong thing to say, but being a devoted roleplayer, I can't stand to hear that "it doesn't count as part of warlight". But continually hearing it, pisses me off. I have COMPLETE respect for you, Napoleon, and your whole clan, but I don't respect the people that defend you and bash the rest of us. I'm not a troll, I'm just touchy. I apologize if I ever said anything bad about your clan, because that just isn't true. You guys are just so original and innovators of warlight as a whole, and that makes it a whole lot more difficult for the rest of us. Probably why I feel the need to defend it :p

-Best regards, Lawlz

My only complaints about the points system...
1: No penalty for losing, allowing lottery games to take place. (Perhaps a "safety" so you don't lose a level and FFA's give less points.)
2: Members and non-members really should have had two different leveling benefits - Non-members would still get the thrill of unlocking everything except for new 2.0 features, while members would be able to unlock everything new in 2.0.
3: Name-changes :(

Between #1 and #2, most of the complaints about the point system wouldn't really be there. Members wouldn't have long lists of "You've already unlocked the thing at this level", while still having benefits that non-members do not have. Non-members would get a lot of benefits they didn't have before, while still having incentive to get membership for more players. If you lost points for losing, then lottery games wouldn't be useful.

---

As for all this clan drama, fighting fire with fire isn't very effective - even Pokemon will tell you that! Instead of fighting the trolls' fire with fire, why not try burying the argument and ignoring them with Ground? Or, you can use a rock-solid stoicness to not be affected by the fire. If you must respond, let it be with the calm, but unyielding water.

- A Normal Type

Edited 2/6/2014 02:18:00

Why block people from 2.0 features? I'm all for losing points, but not blocking features.

My only complaints about points- for you grandfathered members, did it not kind of nullify the point that $30 you paid to see that many membership privileges are now availible to all players who play enough. Knowing how skilled some of you are at 1v1s, it probably would not have taken long for you to get to the ladder unlock levels. I personally would have been a little bit mad if I were one of you, but it's all done now. So I guess we should not complain about it.

However I think this would be a good policy to reinstate membership rights that are now grandfathered like maybe if you buy a membership you can get all level unlocks, this would help Fizzer sell more memberships nowadays although I know they aren't the primary source of his income, atleast it puts in some point for members.

Also, I agree with Riyamitie, the best solution to get rid of clan drama is ignoring it. The more you debate about the issue with roleplayers the more roleplaying patriots come rushing in to defend their ideas about roleplayering. While I am a roleplayer, I can see that they have ruined ypur 'order' on the forums. Ignore them and hopefully they die down or more don't join. Maybe somebody can make a uservoice for clan forums?

I think interclan forums would be great, but some people would hope to ban rp from general forums. This shouldn't be so.

POINTS: I think that the system should subtract 25% points of the winner's points from the particular game. If you were to surrender, and the remaining players voted, the end result should be -500 points(maybe?).

MEMBERSHIP: I think the offer of complete access to everything sounds good. I also think the levels should be increased by 2 for ladder access. Making 1v1 (level 50), 2v2 (level 52), and seasonal (level 54). This is only a couple levels, but definitely harder to attain. And if the lost points was a factor, lottery games may be eliminated or greatly diminished. This leads, hopefully, to only dedicated and skillful players :)

Role-play has nothing to do with it, you can share what you want on rp on the forum. It's just when you do you ever talk about role-play, all you guys do is try defending yourself from the forum trolls. You guys are the ones that need to ignore. So first of all stop creating all those pointless threads.

I'm not against you here at all, you can just ignore me if you want. Just take the advise and don't feed anything stupid to the trolls.

Should there be a difference in points between surrenders and eliminations? Like 10% for elimination, 25% for surrender?

Edited 2/6/2014 08:57:49

no. there should be no penalty for voting or surrending/elimination. The points should be given to the winner and taken from the losers. no other rules, or the people will stall the games, force people to vote or not vote at all regardles of situation because of points..

Every system Fizzer could come up with could be abused in some way, this is just to promote players becoming more skillful, and to deny the constant lottery games.

Should there be a difference in points between surrenders and eliminations? Like 10% for elimination, 25% for surrender?

If Fizzer ever were to implement losing points (which I highly doubt) this would be the complete wrong way to go. This would make people drag out games and force them to be eliminated instead of them surrendering.

No, it's the other way around, 25% of the points for surrendering is more then 10% of the points for elimination. So Players will faster surrender.

Dutch is right, it would encourage surrenders when you are losing. One issue I see there is if you play with some random teammate (say an auto game), they will bail on you to reduce the point hit when the game might not be over yet. Another issue is they will just wait to surrender until the turn before elimination. Another issue is what if you require acceptance of the surrender and the other people do not accept? You get hit with a %15 penalty that is not your fault.

I don't think a scaled point loss would work. It would open lots of ways to abuse it.

you guys can't read.. 25% is worse than 10% since they would have 25% of the amount TAKEN FROM them not given.

or - in another interpretation - he would reduce the whole points pot by 25% for surrender and by 10% for elimination, which would lead to winners never accepting surrenders, since they would then get less points..

either way it's a stupid idea.

points taken from losers - YES, but gradual differences in different scenarios - NOOOOO!!

Edited 2/6/2014 20:05:43

Well, he wasn't clear which way his math was (and even edited his post). But like I said, even if the numbers were reversed it would be a bad idea.