Theoretically, if Mythbusters and Python and Neets and Excel and ... were all truly competitive, and winning a season here or there, Masters Clan would be more likely to still be competing?

Excel is capped @ 40. It gets to 41 using the creator leaves/rejoins trick.

As for clan cap and whether large clans MH/etc support increasing clan cap or not, no one in the player base _likes_ the clan cap at all, including players in big clans not directly impacted by it. The real discussion point is on the participation cap on CW. Is 40 the right number? Tbh, it's so high that no one ever gets 40 players playing consistently even 5 days/week. 30 seems to be the realistic max with the current community, and that's only achievable by 2-3 clans in any season.

Masters doesn't play CW b/c they proved they can win if they want, and it's simply too much work to bother with**, and they don't care about the Idle rewards.

Theoretically, if Mythbusters and Python and Neets and Excel and ... were all truly competitive, and winning a season here or there, Masters Clan would be more likely to still be competing?

Relates back to "it's too much work to bother with", this is a common opinion, rallying players for the timeslots, not getting templates you like, not getting games, ineffective rating matchups, etc. It shouldn't be this much effort, but alas, that's the way it is and doesn't look like it's going to change. :(

And b/c CW doesn't appeal to most players (a problem that imho needs to be addressed, see "it's too much work to bother with" above), as stated earlier, the players interested in CW from Masters & Python (and other clans) have joined MB (most with alts) and are thriving there. So technically Masters & Python _are_ truly competitive in CW, just not in their native clans. For Masters & Python to be competitive, they'd first have to claim back their players from MB in addition to garnering more interest internally, then MB would falter.

Instead we next look to Blitz, ONE!, Hawks, GG, FCC, Harmony to step it up, and for Excel, NEETs, TLA, Le Furie to continue playing. Blitz is knocking on the door this season . . . 7th place, but if they actually wanted to compete, they would certainly be top 3, and also compete for top spot.

Edited 7/18/2022 18:50:12

I work shift work, and the Clan Wars Daily Limit of one CW game per day is... crummy... kinda like my schedule in life...
I think 14 per calendar week per player would be a much better fit for students, shift workers, parents... everyone?

I dont think anyone really opposes expanding the limit. Maybe not to infinity, but 40 is just way too little. Especially if you look at CW: Getting 30 active members from a 100 member clan is a lot easier than getting 30 active members from a 40 member clan.

As for why some are not playing CW anymore: too tedious for too little reward.

The coins you get (even for 1st) are about as much as you would win from a single game. The rewards are pretty much only for idle, so if you're not interested in playing idle, than there is no point in playing CW.

Add timeslots at inconvenient moments and often a bad selection of templates to that, and it makes sense that most people dont play CW at all.

And would inspire a lot more participation all around... maybe even Masters Clan... :o :D

(sorry for the short replies, not sure how to make the WZ App cooperate.)

(sorry for the short replies, not sure how to make the WZ App cooperate.)

you cant, forums and/or mail is pretty much impossible to use on the app


To get back to the Masters, a bunch of them are playing with alts in Myth Busters this season (https://www.warzone.com/Clans/?ID=662)

Yeah, LD MA sukky...
no offense to Mr. Fizzer, but it is. :D
It would take more winning than I have time for to convince me otherwise.
And I would play more if I could have some input in the timeslots...
Tbh, I shouldn't be online much before 4pm, 8pm is right as we finish dinner, and 12am is late. USA Eastern Time

yep, the 6 CW slots match up perfectly with: sleep, sleep, work, work, dinner, and that one time in the evening when you're always busy

I would love some feedback on my 14 CW games per week per play idea...
And I think some additional timeslots would be great, maybe take a survey?
(Asking the App to find out if enough people are online would be cool, except it would eat battery and storage and memory on our phones...)

@Dublin, It's not a community discussion, it's a Fizzer discussion. The community wants change, he doesn't. Every time someone joins a window, this is interpreted as "I love CW the way it is, please change nothing". Everyone has to actually stop playing to garner attention.

14 CW games per week is a lot, double what we have now. We have issues getting people to play 1 game/day as-is, so doubling that will not work without other changes as well. I like the idea of making it more flexible, so it's not 1/day but X per week instead, and having more timeslots. Every 4 hrs in terrible for many players, typically works out to a cycle of slots that could be named:

- Should be sleeping
- Definitely sleeping
- Getting ready for work/starting work
- Working/eating lunch [depends on daylight savings time]
- Working/almost finished
- Eating/house stuff/family time

(just realized that JK [in Europe] said the same thing above, lol - see, it's not just me, and it's not just North Americans [me])

Needs more flexibility (X games/week not per day), add more timeslots, maybe adjust the # of players on a CW team (on the fence on this one), adjust templates (ensure there's always 1 SE & S1v1 template available in each window + choose randomly from the rest). Almost everyone loves SE, and those who don't seem to love S1v1 and those who don't seem to love the other randomly chosen ones (Guiroma, French Brawl, MME LD, etc) so always have 1 SE + S1v1 + 1 other.

Lots of good ideas from the community. But no changes planned.

Edited 7/18/2022 19:10:04

I doubt people really love SE, but its the best we got...

When you're already short on time to play due to inconvenient slots, something that's quick and easy is the way to go.
While pretty much all other templates are more interesting to play than SEAD or SE1W every day, the risk of getting into a 30+ minute game is just too big. (Besides time, the fact that I'm 100% guaranteed to get a Master alt from MB or Juan on those templates doesnt help either...)

Certainly a lot of people love SE, but definitely a lot of people (most of MB included) just play it for the reason you said, to get the game out of the way and move on with their day. But what's definitely clear is that SEAD (the quickest template, also the luckiest template) is hands down the most popular template. Lends credence to Riskyboy88's opinion that if Duel were added to the templates, it'd probably be pretty popular, lol.

So if CW "got better" (will leave it vague for the sake of this post, see prev post for details), maybe folks would "love" SE less. But as long as it's RT, I suspect SE will remain to be popular b/c of the lower timer. Most players just don't want to sign up for a template that could go close to or >1 hr it's a close match, high # of turns, opponents runs the clock or doesn't surrender, etc.

Edited 7/18/2022 19:20:08

SE is not faster turn-wise than strat 1v1/ MME MA nor needs less to commit good orders. It just happens to have a ridiculously fast timer - a necessity - otherwise, you could "solve" your position, do the best order and make the template pure lotto.

The fastest template is probably French Brawl.

Edited 7/18/2022 19:21:23

I think among non-elite players, SE is much faster. Most players can't play MA well, and most MME MA games go 20+ mins, some 50-60 mins, whereas most SEAD & SE1W games are <10 mins.

Let's be honest, most non-elite players won't even realize they've lost on MME templates until past T10 despite being totally outplayed.

I agree that FB is probably the fastest, but it's also going to give non-skilled players much higher loss rate compared to SEAD.

Maybe an idea ... SE templates are worth 1 point, others are worth 1.5 points?

Edited 7/18/2022 20:01:48

When something doesn't make sense, we should look at financial incentives. If there's no clan caps, there's less reason to make more clans. A lot of players join that clan, some play Clan Wars, some don't and the 40 player cap is easily met. If Fizzer can force ~100 player clan into 3 separate clans, then it equals purchasing same clan three times.

I believe that Fizzer introduced player cap to make more money. I presume he kept the original clans uncapped, because he's afraid of player outrage, so in his eyes that's the best solution. Fizzer probably doesn't change the system, because that would take time and time is money.

I don't play Idle, didn't even take a look at it. That's not why I came to Warzone and it's the same for many players.

Fizzer should just uncap the clans and give primary rewards for player wins. If in a month I get 30 wins, I get best rewards, if it's less, then next tier and so on. This would be fair for clans of any size.

You will never ever find me playing a game that takes more than 10 minutes. For clan wars?? Hahaha, I’m good dawg. Rewards literally aren’t worth my time

if Fizzer keeps the cap, he should lower the CW participation limit to around 25 players per clan

Mr Perfect, you played a cw game that took nearly 40 minutes today, good joke

When something doesn't make sense, we should look at financial incentives. If there's no clan caps, there's less reason to make more clans. A lot of players join that clan, some play Clan Wars, some don't and the 40 player cap is easily met. If Fizzer can force ~100 player clan into 3 separate clans, then it equals purchasing same clan three times.


The creation of a clan costs roughly 10 dollars and there are under 1000 clans around. So before tax Warzone made roughly 10.000 dollars on clan sales with me ignoring here that clans used to be uncapped and more expensive. This is not much and clans are more designed for the overall Warzone player experience package.

Edited 7/18/2022 23:44:24

CW i useful for IDLE. if you are bored of that you won't participate.