Sounds like a huge improvement to the current system. Might take a bit of work, but maybe that's why fizzer waited til the people suggested it, as to better manage what his time should be directed to
Hopefully he or his team sees this thread and in a few seasons it can be developed. Would be huge

Wholeheartedly agree with 7ate9, JK and truth dragon here.

Edited 5/12/2024 16:48:30

@Ralph looking good ;)

Edited 5/12/2024 19:19:11

Setting aside the clan size problem, which, to Fizzer's pov is probably just a quality of life - minor issue that a very small but vocal percentage of players cares about, I would tackle this from the perspective of profit, which consists of 2 factors
a) coins - direct profit
b) engagement in the game - indirect profit through ads, membership etc

I think common goals and more interactive clan pages with stats will help tremendously for the latter, and most likely motivate a lot of clanless people to join communities. So I see this post as a community problem and not a clan wars problem, like a lot of messages said.

Having more quests, levels, prerequisites, achievements and so on to keep players engaged is sth every game does nowadays, and while it can get overwhelming, it's probably the only way to increase indirect profit.

So, where there is will, and money, there is a way. And I think these can be found. Fizzer has also consulted players in the forums for changes in the past, I suspect he also has consulted or shared for testing privately specific players as well. The playerbase can actually help in the overall idea of what changes need to be done (not the actual implementation of the idea / coding, though).

The biggest problem I see with revamping clans and their sizes is dealing with the fact that you've already revamped them once and, as of today, there are clans with infinite size and clans of the size of 40. If you change it a third time, then do you have 3 different types of clans? the infinite, the 40s and the 60s lets say?

You can't really message all the clans with >x number of players and tell them figure out a solution till the 1st of December of 2024 when I'm putting a hard cap on 200 players and if there's 240 of you, then 40 random will get kicked . And you can't really disband clans or delete clans.

If we had a rough realistic example maximum of a community at 100 people, there's 15 clans with >100 people currently and 4 clans with 80-99 accounts, with most of them being straight up inactive. A rough solution for this would be, in my opinion: (take a deep breath here aight I just thought of this, I might have not thought of sth)


1) clans with <40 members -> we don't touch them. they transform into newly bought clans of 40 max people
2) clans with >40 members -> lookup how many active members currently (warzone class and idle, over last 2 weeks or month). get the number of the ones that are active (x). If x<40, then the clan is untouched, and transforms into a 40clan member. The inactive members of the clan are not kicked, instead they have a label that turns their name to italics and writes in a parenthesis inactive. If and whenever they get back online, a pop up message hits the screen about the changes to clans and they will be kicked by the clan automatically in 24 hours, unless the clan frees up space

3) for clans with >40 members and >40 active members, you make mirror ghost clans.
What is a mirror ghost clan. For example, the world league https://www.warzone.com/Clans/?ID=251 has 162 members and 51 active members. You message the clan members some days/months before the change and tell them, the old world league clan will be archived in a way that all 162 of you will have access to the clan to see its forums, and the cw stats will be there as well, but on 1st of december of 2024 you'll be kicked. You cannot participate in any competition with that clan as it is archived, you just have manager rights that give you access to see whatever was happening there (not to delete stuff). And you give the actual clan/its managers or its creator, a new clan, with the old name, with all the old cw stats and forums, but tell them look guys, basic clans are now 40 people, your achievement points add up to 45 people, you have 51 active people, find a solution for it. Again, the other 162-51=111 inactive people are still in the clan as inactive and will get the pop up message when they become active again.

Seeing https://wz-clans.5smith.ru/, there are 16 clans with >40 active people (with fivesmith's activity metric) and if the coin cost for the size of clan from 40 -> 70/80 is reasonably low, then those communities would opt to just pay up the extension and keep their community.

The actual problem is only 6 clans out of the 825 clans in warzone. And to that I would say either pretend like it's not a problem, or find a way to have a new tier of players in the clan, called "Reserve Members" or "Spectators" or "Community Members". There can only be up to 40 (or idk how many players the clan has paid coins to have maximum), but there is an extra infinite space for reserve members, that can participate in forums and the chat, but not in any way play for clan wars or get any idle rewards from the clan. Coiding wise, this sounds like a nightmare, but it would preserve the community of the clans with so many active members.

i’d like to present the case of mrpotato/stealthfalcon. he plays cl for harmony and cw for mb (except once every 10-15 seasons he plays cw for harmony). he has deep roots in both clans but if harmony was capped would have to choose. this is a game for fun, as of now no players make any money from wz so why not be in two places doing different things that make you happy?

Reserve Member. You're in the clan, you can see the chat and forums and interact and whatever you may want, besides clan wars. Basically my way of solving the "I want to have alts in 10 different clans" problem. Literally absolutely nothing would change for mrpotato.

Think of it like tiers inside the clan were instead of being just manager/not manager, it's manager/member/ community member.

it seems convuluted, why not just change the caps or do away with them. much simpler for fizzer to implement.

cause even world of warcraft(WOW) has an upper limit of 1000 characters per guild. and WOW has more than 100 times the playerbase of warzone.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever for the longevity and community of the game to have clans of infinite size.

I'm trying to find reasonable solutions that do not include either disbanding or deleting clans. or just randomly/selectively kicking the extras so they have an upper limit of 100 or 200 or idk what

upper limit makes sense but all clans should have to abide by the same limit. jk wrote this in much detail earlier (without specific numbers).

My numbers are simply an example of how it could look like.
And obviously all clans should abide by the same limit, I didn't suggest sth different than that.

Edit: also a solution that would satisfy everyone would end up being convoluted and complicated at first, no real way around that imo

Edited 5/12/2024 19:50:25

" it seems convuluted, why not just change the caps or do away with them. much simpler for fizzer to implement. "

Exactly. that and calls to make clans pay to win, over and over in the game he has made it so it isn't pay to win, everything you spend money on is only for solo efforts.

Just give everyone the same cap. Should be more than 40 because again, nice for people to take a vacation from clam wars without getting the boot. 60 is a nice number if you want plenty of clams. If you must go higher, 150 is what the Dunbar number suggests. Or just remove the cap anyways. Considering all the top clams but MB are uncapped, and anyone who wants to giver pretty much need to grab an old clam, might as well just remove the limit if you don't reset it

But it should be the same for everyone regardless of when a clam started. Sometimes grandfathering is fair, but not in pvp type situations.
Also making clam size based on performance just makes it harder for newer or weaker clams to ever catch up. I don't know how anyone could take that suggestion seriously, considering it's the top performing clam suggesting it. There are other and more fair ways of doing the goal.

Really people, Don't you listen to Avril Lavgine? It doesn't have to be so complicated.

So many ways to make it performance based.

Most activity points
Ladder points
clan wars points
idle points.

Many options but probably harder to code :)

Edited 5/12/2024 20:46:02

If I remember it correctly, one reason for not capping old clans when the clan cap was introduced was a legal one: it would retrospectively change the conditions of a sales contract, usually for real money. So for legal reasons, old clans shouldnt be touched.

However, any increase of the max clan size for new clans would be a good overall idea. 60 seems a fair proposal.

As whatever number of coins needed to increase the cap is easily brought together by a halfway active clan (CW rewards alone bring a lot of coins every few weeks) and a cap increase would be persistant, I personally dont think that this idea will find any consideration by fizzer at all. Put it behind a real-money paywall in the proposal, if the cap increase idea shall have any chance to be heard.

Edited 5/12/2024 20:57:22

It has to be moving towards equal for all and has to end with equal for all for the game to be interesting for new players.
Having to find an old clan to change to completly ruin the concept of building communities and expanding the game.

If one can't cap old clams due to legal reason then the only fair and reasonable system that doesn't involve Pay to Win or nerfing weaker clams even more is to just remove clam limits... which is effectively the way it is now as all the top clams minus 1 use the old clam work around.

I just find it hilarious that the strong clam is advocating for ways to embiggen their advantage even more under the guise of fairness.


While we are at it, as old clams are being taken over all the time, maybe allow clam name changes, we allow soylent green to change their names. 1 time for free, pay thereafter [as name change doesn't actually impact game play it isn't P2W

Edited 5/12/2024 21:06:38

Id be surprised if there are "legal reasons" not to make a minor change in the the game.
A change which is forced to make it possible to compete building communities which is one of the essential parts of the game.

New clans need to have a chance to compete on same conditions.
Every one of them going through the same thing deciding to quit or find an old clan just shows its not working.

Of the top 25 clams, 10 are at 40 and below and half of those are far blow the limit so who knows if they are capped or not.
15 are old clams either predating or rebadged clams. Any purpose behind caps has failed.

Of the top 10 3 are capped and 1 of the top 6
Of the top 5 who are at or near the 40 user limit for clam wars only 1 is capped.

Yeah, cap limits are an unfair joke. And again if there are legal barriers to capping old clams, then it is time to get rid of them for all, it was a bad idea, it happens. Or maybe we could just give MB first place and auto wins in all clam activities as that seems to be the goal of this thread because it isn't as if they are doing well enough already.

Morg you shouldn't judge the post's content based on the person who wrote it but the content of it. IMO. por favor.

Idk what flex has in mind but I can give you a fast example where the increment of an increase in size of the clan is 10 and to go from size 40 to size 50 you need 1000 clan achievement points where and there's 2 ways to gather those achievement points:
1) one-time achievements
2) weekly/bimonthly achievements

Let's say 40->50 requires 1000 of those, 50->60 requires 1600, 60-> 70 2700, 70->80 requires 4500, and this scales exponentially to discourage the manifestation of insanely large clans, with some cap.

type of one-time achievements, specific to each player: reward in parenthesis ()
reach x score in quickmatch (5-15), total amount of games played(5-10), wins overall(5-10), wins in clan wars for this clan(15-30), upvotes in community levels created (15-30), maps created, ascensions or super ascensions, time been in the clan, number of games played in official ladders with a teammate from the clan, idk what else you can do so many.

And you give all of these a bronze, silver and gold achievement (or 5-tiered), for example,
qm overall>500 -> 5 points, qm overall>800 -> 10 points, qm overall>1000 -> 12 points, qm overall>1200 -> 15 points
And you give a bigger value to the ones that are harder to get and not exploitable. The one-time achievements though, would not net a lot of points towards the overall clan achievements.

Then you've got weekly/monthly points which would come directly from activity and give slightly more.
Insert here everything wzib, activity, idle stuff, classic stuff, whatever you can imagine. You give the players an incentive to play more for rewards that are not absolutely vital, simply cosmetic. You were 1st in 1v1 ladder for the week? +100 points. You reached 1st in wzib? +50 points. In general, these give more points than the one-time, so you promote activity. If you scale it exponentially, within no time a clan of 40 should be able to go max 70 or 100 idk all these depend on the number.
Do you think it's exploitable? The numbers i gave earlier for achievement points are from a function of x(t)=610 * e(0.5*t). Yes to go from a clan of 40 to 50 players, you'd need 1000 points which translates to a couple of weeks of idle activity of 5-10 players, but to get from 100 to 110 cap in the clan, you need 12252 points and from 110 to 120 cap you need 20200 points. 20k points with a design that can net you a maximum of 500 weekly, means 40 weeks of insane grind. basically a year minimum.

I am going a bit offtopic cause Flex's post was mainly about clan size and it being unfair, but i just think implementing clan achievements is a decent way to solve the problem of the size of clans + add an quality of life change in the game. + all the numbers i provide are examples.

Also about the pay to win aspect of JK's proposal, good luck ever convincing a game designed to make changes without the incentive of profit.

Regardless, I hope everyone has realised that booing and mocking posts/comments with blatant complaints that are either out of proportion or straight up offensive, have led a decade after the creation of the game to Fizzer not being as interactive with the community.

Yes, I also dislike the whole alt situation for clan wars, but can we set that aside for a second?
Posts like https://www.warzone.com/Forum/102640-hell-fizzer?Offset=0, https://www.warzone.com/Forum/618221-discontent-fizzer-nuke-lose, and tbh just search in the forums hate Fizzer and you'll find more, are the prime reason we are where we are.

You don't like the current situation, you do shit nothing to change it, but also advocate against solving it and provoke the one taking the initiative to improve it because he is in a clan you don't like and has a personal agenda. Aight then.

i think all of us rational people know that fizzer (as much as he loves the game) needs to make money in order to not work for someone else. i bought lifetime membership for my main and alt as support and any clan system that cones out of this exercise must be as profitable or more than the one replaced. i don’t gave numbers but they shouldn’t be hard to crunch (convert coins to $ X clans) but if there’s an opportunity to continue collecting i think we’re more likely to have fizzer’s ear.

i agree with your vibe 7ate9, let’s keep this constructive.
morg, i’ll offer my thoughts on why this isn’t about mb getting better between us, too long for me now.

Edited 5/12/2024 21:54:02