Could have something like:
40 members = initial purchase of the clan (one-time payment)
unlimited = increases clan cap to unlimited (one-time payment)

Higher clan cap should cost more than initial purchase of the clan. Unlimited should definitely cost at least 5 times as much as the initial clan cost. Chances are unlimited are in high demand and people willing to pay lots for it.

Depends how new user friendly you want to be.
If you want to attract new users and help them build a community you might not want to greet them with that message :)

Seems a lot of the solutions are either some variant of pay to win, or still having clams operate with different rules, only the clam size is based on something different.

Said it before, say it again, the only 3 reasonable solutions to the problem is
1: Everyone goes to 40, but that sucks because 40 isn't really enough to allow for clam wars and vacations and people who do other things but not clam wars
2: Some new modestly higher number say 60 or 70, which at most might slightly impact 2 clams depending on what happens in them. I figure almost everyone has only 60 or 70 max active participants in some way or another. And to stop this just because 2 clams seems silly
3: No limits for anyone. I suspect limits were put in for a reason. More players means a deeper talent pool to draw from. Probably not the end of the world, after all, if you have 50 people who want to play clam wars and only 40 spots, eventually those people will want to move to a clam where they can play every season, but still.

All this pay to win stuff, or equal limits except not is not on... I donno man.
Next thing you know you will be allocating supreme executive power based on a mandate from the masses instead of a farcical aquatic ceremony.

Recommend keeping clan sizes capped at 40. Clans can adjust their membership regularly for less active players or as needed. There is plenty of competition of clans, so moving from one clan to another isn't a big deal and clans can remove those who haven't played in months/years.

Depends how new user friendly you want to be.

Fix for that is to have buying the clan to give the initial cap. Then after the clan is made, allow clan creator/clan mods to increase clan limit on the clan page.

I understand, that the Old Clans should be something special. But maybe we should find a new solution to give recognition to them.

If you have a very activ clan like we are, it is sad, that we can not growth anymore.
Especially in clan wars we wanted to compete the others, but with the clans who has unlimited members, we have no chance to get top ranked.

Maybe at least the activ clans should have the positibily to grow unlimited and compete the other top clans.
We are starting playing clan league, create a lot of tournament, etc. but now we are at a point, where we want to grow, but we are restricted.
We are starting to focus also on playing large maps with 6vs6 etc. there you need other players than 3vs3 or 2vs2. Due to the member cap we can not be as acitv as we want.
We also voted a new map in the quickmatch templates Europe 3vs3.
As you see we try to make this game more attractiv to other players.

i don't think there should be a capped limit on any clan (old or new). the biggest issue seems to be that uncapped clans swallow capped ones and we lose some clan culture in the community (i'm thinking of tfd specifically and there are many other examples). this is creating the mega clan dominance in clan events and lead to situations like mb getting alts of top players regularly. for the record, although i'v tried to scheme plans to dethrone them i have to applaud the great efforts made by them to continually win cw.

i'm not sure why fizzer has ignored this issue for so long, this is unfair in an an otherwise egalitarian game. i'd like to believe that with enough votes he will need to take note of this problem and move to fix it.

https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warzone-features/suggestions/48426353-proposal-to-address-clan-size-disparity-in-warligh

in case it wasn't linked earlier

I hope Fizzer will attend it but the communication so far has been he doestn think its an issue although all the evidence is very clear.
Even I didnt understand how bad the situation was before people approached me with their stories and their change to "old" clan.

To build a new community with new clan is considered the wrong way to go about it.
You have to get an old clan to be able or just give up.
MB is actually the except from the rule.

Warlight should be fair and newcomer friendly.
As it is now its neither of those when it comes to building communities.

it seems like new communities fail but some of them are still very active just in old clans uncapped since they gave up with the cap.

Clan size isn't really an issue for any clan event, apart from clan wars (which assumes all clans are different and none linked to others) and sending/receiving Idle requests. Community clan events could more easily allow recognition of main/extended clans, which is why clan wars becomes an issue.

You could make a new clan and name it as an extension to the main clan. But when a clan is split then there could be organisation issues. You'd need a platform outside of wz to allow chatting (such as a Discord server) and sharing of resources (like strategy guides).

Forcing any limit in one way or another is bad especially when there was no limit in the first place.

"Clan size isn't really an issue for any clan event, apart from clan wars (which assumes all clans are different and none linked to others) and sending/receiving Idle requests."


that's literally 2/3 of clan events (clan league and what else am i missing?)

also when i'v created 20v20 clan games i never approach capped clans (maybe a mistake on my part) because there are few of them that have half their players into large team games.

Edited 5/12/2024 13:19:45

Warzone is a website that states players do not get an unfair advantage in games. Is it not unfair advantage when one clan gets no cap on members and other clans do.

does anyone know fizzer's argument for continuing to cap clans? he knows it's not popular with many players.
i wasn't around but the initial reason was cw creation and trying to create a level playing field, correct?

His argument is that noone has asked him to fix it.

https://www.warzone.com/blog/index.php/2021/02/update-5-08-clan-updates/

Open clans will also automatically close if they reach 40 players. Clans with more than 40 players can’t be opened, as it’s better to encourage having a variety of clans rather than a few enormous ones. [...] Reduced the price of creating a new clan by 33%. Newly created clans are now limited to 40 players. Clans created before this update continue to have no limit.

Lots of words on this thread. Without reading everything said above, I'll just post a few thoughts about clan size.

1.] Allowing clans to have unlimited members leads to all players concentrating in a few big clans.
Advantages of scale come into play at some point, in terms of training/support being available, idle requests, events organized, etc.

2.] Allowing clans to grow their member cap based on some rule/achievement makes it only harder for new clans to get started and reinforces point 1. And regardless of what metric you choose to base this on, it can probably be cheated or manipulated anyways.

3.] 40 clan members is nowhere near enough to build a wider community.
While a clan usually has its core activity focused on about 10-40 players, the beauty of clans is that they can also help newbies get better on WZ.

4.] Extending on point 3: By limiting clans to 40, it forces the kicking of every member that cannot contribute enough.
This includes both any newbies, as well as core clan members taking a break from WZ, as well as most people that just play WZ casually and dont want to invest too much effort into it.
Some clans have tried to get past this by using a main clan and (a) feeder clan(s), but from my experience, having to split effort across multiple clans ends up hurting all clans involved, or leads to all but one being neglected.

5.] I understand that Fizzer wants to avoid mega clans, because they limit the competition between clans. This can be seen in CW (any clan that cannot field a daily 40 player roster has no chance of becoming top 3), as well as in CL (more and more Div A and B clans are merging together). Which in turns leads to less clans being available for serious WZ players, starting a feedback loop of everyone concentrating into a few clans.

6.] Since 40 is nowhere near enough to do anything with a clan (especially considering how many newbies join an open clan and then immediately go inactive), all new clans bought should start of at a member cap of 60.

7.] Since the new clans are 33% cheaper than the old clans, I see merit in the concept of allowing clans to buy a higher member cap.
To prevent new mega clans from forming, the cap can be raised by 15 members at once, for an increasing cost of coins. (+500 coins for every purchased upgrade?)

8.] An upper limit of 300 clan members seems reasonable to me (for all clans!).
At some point a clan becomes so big that players don't know each other anymore.
And while unlimited growth seems cool, people that play WZ daily and yet still never interact with their clan dont need to be in a clan.
The limit of 300 still allows for a healthy community to thrive, with sufficient space for newbies and without constantly having to kick any members that go inactive.

9.] Clans currently above the 300 limit proposed in point 7 cannot accept any new members until they have kicked some of their existing members.
This will effect a couple of biggest clans, but that's a sacrifice that will have to be made to fix the system.

@JK all you say is correct and I also support the way you would like to fix it

+1 to jk

If you want to implement your 7th point, which i think its a good idea btw, what do you do with the preexisting clans with >40 players?

I mean, do you arbitrarily say, well all preexisting inf size clans now have the cap of 300 but every new one has to pay the exponential increment to go from 40 to 55 to 60 and so on? which is similarly unfair to new clans and doesnt solve the fomo issue.

or do you completely rebuild the system, reward the coins back the the people that initially created the clans,figure a way to save their forum posts and achievements in cw, and tell everyone new update hit, this is Warzone 2.0, recreate your clan, you start at 40, and pay up

Edited 5/12/2024 14:55:56

Yes, its still unfair, can't disagree with that, but it provides a path forward for new clans (although expensive).

Sometimes, things need to be grandfathered in, for the sake of allowing change to happen while not breaking what already exists.
Just like how accounts that were made before xp was introduced instantly had everything unlocked, while new players had to level up to 53 to get it all. Or like how most older maps do not meet today's map requirments, but are also not forcibly removed. (Granted, neither of those have as much impact on the community as the clan cap...)

Fizzer has given high priority to my point 5, while unfortunately ignoring the issues i raise in point 3 and 4.
The community has clearly voiced these issues ever since Fizzer proposed this change.

So ultimately, clans will have to be smaller.
And while I would love to say to just drop the clan cap all together, I also agree with Fizzer that mega clans where most people never do anything with their clan are not the way to go.
By suggesting such a steep increase, I hope to prevent any new clans from just buying their way to the 300 cap limit.

What I have attempted is to suggest a way that can be somewhat acceptable both to the current community (which is mostly focused around the old clans), while still allowing a new generation of players to have a chance.
And at the same time, I also tried to propose something that Fizzer might possibly approve of.

Perhaps the 300 limit is still too high, and a limit of 200 would be more suitable.
Perhaps allowing new clans to start with 60 is still not enough (tho imo, clans should try to add value first, rather than just become an empty shell that does nothing else but give its members a shiny clan icon).
Perhaps the 500 coins is too expensive.
The numbers are all up for debate.

Edited 5/12/2024 15:31:49

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Given current engagement in the game I think 300 is way too high (also cw is for 40 people, and 300 is way higher than that) and Fizzer is correct in giving priority to your 5th point. Also it is relatively easy i think to build an exponential function for clan levels that makes it unrealistic to have clans >100 people.

Take for example, a scenario where you build an exponential functiom x(t)=x_0 * exp(k*t) for
t in the range of 1 to 18, with t=1 -> 40 people, t=2 -> 40+10 people, t=3 -> 40+2*10 people and so on, till t=18 -> the upgrade towards the max of 220 let's say.

k= 0.8, x_0= 250 for the sake of the example and rounding to the closest integer the cost for each upgrade is
t cost(coins), max players in clan
t cost, 40
1 556, 50
2 1238, 60
3 2756, 70
4 6133, 80
5 13650, 90
6 30378, 100
7 67607, 110
8 150461 120
9 334858, 130
10 745239, 140
11 1658561, 150
12 3691195, 160
13 8214906, 170
14 18282610, 180
15 40688698, 190
16 90554362, 200
17 201532440, 210
18 448518693, 220

and tbh you probably don't even need a cap here but alas.

I think also there should be another currency for leveling a clan besides this, being clan achievements. You quantify/match things in the game to clan achievement points, for example,
player in clan reached qm level of 800 -> 10 points, 1000 -> 15 points, 1200 -> 20 points
on weekly reset of the ladders, player 1st in 1v1 ladder -> 100 points, 2nd -> 50 points, 3rd-5th etc etc

Things that are harder to get as well as take more effort and time reward more points (things like clan wars ranking, wins or rank in ladders) while other things that still require activity, give less points (qms, activity in open games, idle based achievements idk what else). you can even match things like community levels finished or even maps created here.

---
You might say now, well this chris actually just makes people want to stick in the same clan for ever so as to level up that clan, as it takes an ungodly amount of effort after a certain milestone.

And then you slam in the exponential function for the clan achievement points a factor that is dependent on the size of the clan. A clan with more people would need more points for a level. Mathematically that would be x(t)=x_0 * exp(k*t + λ*n), where
n = number of people in the clan
lambda = growth penalty.

And make it incomprehensibly tough to grow a clan with >x number of players. x is debatable. idk what happens though when people change clans haven't thought about it to that extent.

Even if some of those points could be exploitable, or cheated, I think it is outweighted by the fact you've created a set of goals for the players and expect a return of investment in the form of more activity in the game. More activity means more money right?

common goals are good so its an option to give clans that but harder to code possibly and needs more thinking