As it stands currently, everyone is probably aware that members may only host one free game per week for non-members... as someone who wants to host many diplos or team games per week that may use mods, I find this ridiculous. If someone is paying a monthly subscription, they shouldn't still be stuck behind a paywall regarding the number of games hosted to the whole community and not just other members.

It is not uncommon for members with features to continuously host for members missing features freely in other games, even paradox allows this on all of their games).

If anything, I feel it would encourage more people to want to become members to make and utilize the mods freely in their own games they make if they are more exposed to it. This current situation makes me want to cancel the subscription altogether as I got it intending to host large-scale games for everyone using mods freely, not at a limit due to my wallet stats.

If it can be explained to me in a respectful way why the current system is more practical, I will totally be open ear.

This has been raised a few times, and the response is:

Mods are meant to be free to play for members only. The ability to host 1 game per week that non-members can join for free is meat to provide non-members some exposure to mods to decide if they want to become a member to play them more often.

Obviously we mod game makers know that in practicality, member-only games don't fill quickly at all, so we need to allow non-members to join. Thus all this does is limit the use of mods to smaller circles.

I don't know where the figure "1" per week came from. It could probably be 2 per week and most people wouldn't change their playing/game creation patterns. Most members don't even use the the 1/week allocation. Would be nice if I could donate my 1/week to someone who could use it w/o having to need me to actually create the game.

Tbh, I don't even know what the real risk of just letting members create unlimited modded games is. You can still only post 4 at any given time, so worst case scenario is that someone keeps making new modded games as soon as the posted ones fill.

But also consider that a frequent response for new game functionality requests is "make a mod for that". So if new functionality is primarily going to be driven by mods, would be nice to be able to create more of them without paying to allow non-members to join.

I agree with basically everything you said. Seems you are agreeing with me too regarding the practicality of the current 1 free a week too

For sure, I definitely agree with you. Nevermind the matter of whether we deserve it as members or not, I think it would be better for the community if we were able to create more modded games.

Btw, in case you didn't know, you don't even have to play the game you created to use the allocation. You could create a modded game, then delete it before anyone joins, and it still uses the allocation, so be careful. It is logical to think it would behave like a coin game which refund the coins spent on it if you delete before the game starts, but not the case. So don't make that error. (;

Imho the rules as they stand just make it awkward to create modded games.

One game a week is fair if you ask me. It takes longer than a week on average to complete a game.

I made one game every week for awhile then phased it out. I still make them every now and then. In one year you can create 52 games. Players can't really keep up with 52 at once without ignoring chat messages etc. It also encourages you to make the right template. You can make unlimited single player games to test your templates on.

Mod games are harder on the server according to Fizzer. One a week is plenty but if Fizzer updated it I wouldn't complain of course.

Once per week isn't plenty, especially if the games are short games. Some players create and play tens of games in a single day. Only one of those can be a modded game, then you're done for the week.

More importantly, most players would never even use it (most don't even use their 1 game/week) so I doubt it'd be material on the server.

Once a week has mostly felt fair to me. Understandable that it might feel different when on a monthly membership, versus a lifetime one.


My big annoyance with once a week, is when making a new mod, it makes it harder to make rapid fire test games. But it's totally possible to work around that.

Mod testing is hell.

Edited 6/8/2022 09:54:46

It might help if Fizzer added a countdown to when members can create their next free modded games.

What would really help would be if games with mods in development were free for certain people.

It resets at the same time every week, which is probably 00:00 PST ... I forget the exact time but I think it's sometime Sunday afternoon for me (in EST)? Don't recall exactly.

It might help if Fizzer added a countdown to when members can create their next free modded games.

So you can create one 1 sec before that time and immediately right after, then wait 1 week for the next.

OP, I agree with you 100%. I think its important that the talking points in these efforts remain consistent, so I offer you my argument that I made in Just_A_Dutchman_'s thread "Project Big E".

https://www.warzone.com/Forum/625010-project-big-e

The TLDR:

- New players are generally unaware mods exist
- New players tend to struggle hard or quit out of unfamiliar games/setups (such as everyone's first 20/80 game)
- New and old players are unwilling to pay to have access to these mods, especially given the two aforementioned points
- If the mod system is resource intensive, it needs to be put in a sandbox with limitations to reduce overhead leaving the resource intensive mods to be approved on a case by case basis by a community manager or Fizzer
- If the mod system allows the game to crash, then the mod system is poorly optimized. Regardless, this is fixed by releasing mods that are 100% functional into the wild as a selectable option in match creation and making the beta testing of mods opt-in.
- The mod system being locked up behind all these hurdles is probably one of the largest limiting factors to Warzone's growth as it introduces the greatest amount of versatility in how a game works while simultaneously being the most obscure feature of the game.

That last point is a chefs kiss

I've answered your message now @burner1, and closed the argument cos we'll just start saying the same things over and over. i already did xD