A general problem might be that idle makes money and a few extra clans more or less doesnt matter.
If its just about money but I hope he also care a bit for the community and want to fix it.

I don't have any view on the original poster, but if an idea screams self serving then it is perfectly cromument to point that out. Either I am right, and it is what it is, or I am wrong in which case, there can be no offense because it doesn't actually reflect on the reality. I am not attacking the idea because of the person posting it.


As for "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. "
There is somewhere in the game where he points out that some things don't give any advantage in PvP play, don't ask me to look it up, but I remember seeing it and thinking, hell yeah.
So yeah, he has made changes without profit maximizing, if he wanted to he could put in all sorts of Pay to Win elements but he hasn't.
Also as it stands now, none of changes to clams that I can see increase profit. If anything by nerfing new clans he added a disincentive to people buying new clams.

Say it again, to give some clams an advantage over others because they pump money into the game or because of past success reinforcing current success and adding to the divide doesn't fix the current fairness problems of old clans vs new, it just changes the unfairness to a different vector.
ANd considering what Otto said about the legal situation, we are stuck with uncapped clans, so again the only option is to remove caps all together because any other situation will at best just lesson the difference, 60 and unlimited might be better than 40 or unlimited but it's still difference and if you increase the limit to the point where it is no longer an issue... might as well uncap that mo fo

And there is a bit of an upper limit, I mean Clam Wars are a pretty big thing for many of us, a clam gets too many active players and than some folks get shut out of a spot, which should lead them to move elsewhere. I know the viking rage I get when I arrange my schedule to play a slot only to get a no game result [something that really should be fixed but will never be so meh] I can imagine the same if you keep not being able to get a slot and having to either do without or last minute find a clam that does have a spot and will take you. Prime has some pretty mild rules to prevent that, and at our level, it works out well, if we had 20 percent more players who were keen on the clam wars, something would have to give.

"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. "

Who is doing that? Almost everyone who doesn't like the current situation is in favor of solving it
Nobody is provoking anyone. As far as I know we are or should be all adults here and won't fall apart because of a disagreement
As far as I know, nobody if reacting because someone is in a clan someone doesn't like and has a personal agenda.

Based on your previous post I get the feeling you are talking about me and if that is the case you have not been reading things correctly.
I don't have a personal agenda, I don't dislike MB, I mean most of us would like to see them not win every season but that is a different story.

I don't know what you are on about, but whatever you think is going on, isn't.

If I see a bad idea, I will point it out and why
If it seems an idea is too conveniently in the suggester's favor, I will point it out
Even if it's Old Yeller, who I have met in person and will most likely do so in the future or others I get along well with, even my own clammates and leadership.

I will also say, I am in an uncapped clam and am in favor of removing limits for other clams. I am in basic agreement with the OP, it is just the solution presented. This happens all the time in these sorts of discussions and it is perfectly cromulent to look at the incentives of the people who propose an idea. Hell in another game someone accused me of doing something similar, except very rudely.

Edited 5/13/2024 04:20:49

I like the idea of JK/789 to start with a cap for all and have the ability to grow to a max cap (300 maybe too much, somewhere in the range 120-150 might be better?) by investing in a clan. If that could be worked out, it would be great!

i think there are a lot of ways to solve this problem. I think first thing is agreeing there is a problem and that the size disparity is unfair. For me it really doesn't matter how its solved as long as its solved.

300 maybe too much, somewhere in the range 120-150 might be better

Yeah the more i think about it, the more 300 does indeed seem like too much.

The reason i picked such a high number is to prevent too many existing clans from having to kick their members.
At 300 only 3 clans would have to kick some, and if they kick their inactive members, they should all end up below the 300.

I also considered putting the limit down in steps (300 > 250 > 200), but then you get the whole shitshow of the biggest clans having to kick people 3 times, so thats a no-go.

However, even just imposing a cap on the old clans, no matter how high, is already a major change, since WZ never broke the grandfathering concept.

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?

There will not be 3 types of clan, there will be one.
A clan with a max member cap of 300.
Each clan has a value for how many members it can have at most, and this number will be different from clan to clan.
Old clans get grandfathered in, so they get 300 max members by default.
New clans get 60 max members by default, and can use the upgrade system to work/pay their way up 300.

---

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.

Nobody needs to be forcefully kicked. Any clan that has more members than their cap simply cannot invite any new members.
The logic for this is already build into WZ for the new clans, so it only thing that requires changing is the max size of old clans from Int32.Max to 300 (or whatever we settle on).

Adding complex clan types or spectator clan member types or whatever else is just needlessly complicating this matter.

Edited 5/13/2024 09:09:55

I mentioned this way back on the first page:

There shouldn't be a fixed limit on clan size. Should be allowed to increase the size of the clan as and when you want to.
Old clans should remain unlimited because thats what the player bought.

Everyone likes JK’s and 789’s ideas but I was the first to come up with it.

Tbh, neither of us was the first to come up with this, as this has been an issue ever since update 5.8 was released on 2021-02-01.
https://www.warzone.com/ChangeLog/5.08.0.htm

Just a few threads I could quickly find, in all of the CW related threads, this has probably come up many times more...

https://www.warzone.com/Forum/531520-coming-soon
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/534882-update-510-clan-wars?Offset=120
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/535199-petition-lower-clan-wars-cap
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/538492-suggestions-clan-wars
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/559051-lowering-clan-wars-cap-20
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/615153-unlimited-clan-members
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/641055-cw-20-players-cap
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/641293-extra-cw-points-smaller-clans
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/674177-best-warzone-feature

Some quick thoughts:

1. A Clan cap related to Clan Wars is not attractive. As one example, in Harmony we have the HTL which has hundreds of Harmony players participating in as well as many more from outside for the Public component. There are other examples within Harmony and no doubt many more from our wider community.

2. Introducing some limit rather than remaining unlimited may be a helpful compromise (although it would be unattractive to Harmony and likely other uncapped Clans). If there is a decision to impose a cap of say 300 members, this would require that Harmony reduces its Membership by over 100 (currently Harmony has 408 Members). Cats also has just over 400 Members, so maybe a limit of 400 or more would be more sensible to minimise disruption for those two large Clans. I suggest that the mechanism for Clan reduction should be simply to prevent new Members joining until the number of Members is reduced to the cap. This would remove the need for Clans to immediately (or ever) remove Members.

This would create a new problem for those large Clans as Managers would need to constantly manage to that Clan cap. The effort in this respect should not be underestimated and there is already a LOT of effort required to manage large Clans. A limit of 500 Members would remove that task for now and may well be the best compromise since it would give a common limit without any need for Managers to take action unless those Clans grow further.

---

One issue is that we all think of our own experience as 'normal'. If you are in a capped Clan, you will doubtlessly consider it unfair for your Clan to be in competition with an uncapped Clan. You may also not understand the benefits Members of larger Clans experience - these benefits are considerable, should not be underestimated and mostly do not relate to Clan V Clan competitions.

---

There are two main Clan V Clan competitions: Clan Wars and Clan League.

Clan League seems not to be problematic unless I am missing something. I took part last season and this and am not aware of any issues relating to Clan caps. I may well be missing something.

Clan Wars seems to be problematic. Moving from unlimited to 500 limit and from limit of 40 to 500 limit (with possible upgrade costs) would remove some of the perceived problems of unfairness. All Clans would then have the potential to be large but should still be limited at 40 players for the CW roster to enable new Clans to form and become competitive.

Hopefully, this would then allow focus on some mechanism for Clans to select their CW roster rather than the current first come first served sign-up process which is not effective. It should not be too difficult to implement some selection process for the CW roster of 40 players.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't see any issue with having a clan cap, unless it has anything to do with Clan Wars or sending/receiving Idle requests. You can purchase multiple clans using alts and have a discord server where all clan members can chat, but it could be impractical to use alts.

Edited 5/13/2024 13:20:49

this would require that Harmony reduces its Membership by over 100 (currently Harmony has 408 Members)

Yes, it would. Cats and Darkloards can just kick their inactive member, but Harmony will have to make some sacrifices and get rid of players that never interact with the clan at all.
I think that with a limit of 300, Harmony can still keep all its clan-worthy members.
Harmony is the only reason I suggested that limit at 300, otherwise I would have put it at 200, but breaking an existing community is a no-go for me...

Part of Fizzers reasoning for introducing the clan cap is to stop all the players moving to 1 big clan and to prevent any mega clans from forming. Harmony is more or less the clan that is taking on everyone at the moment, so in order to prevent Harmony from holding 50% of the WZ players at some point, they too will need to be capped.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Harmony, but I suspect Harmony is already having the same issues as TLA has, in that we both could field 3 CL teams if need be. TLA has a record low interest for CW atm, but in regards to CW, Harmony and e.g. Prime could both field 2 entire CW teams and still have players left over. At some point a clan also becomes too big for its own players.

It is, in my opinion much better for the community as a whole, if clans are just smaller. It makes competitions more competitive, provides a wider choose of clans to pick from for new players, and promotes the collaboration and sharing of knowledge community wide rather than just in your own clan.

And with regards to your issues with the CW roster, if you have less players in the clan, that also becomes a lot simpler to manage ;)

Edited 5/13/2024 13:22:52

JK - 300 players would not prevent the problems, 50 players wouldn't.

One major issue we have is players sign up and do not play. This could be deliberate (an alt from another Clan or other attempt to sabotage which we cannot control) or could be accidental (we do have a problem with accidental sign-ups).

The clan size number is largely arbitrary - why not make the cap one which has no impact instead of one which requires Managers to effectively dump the 100+ least favoured players.

Why is 300 better than 500 ? Why is it better than 50 ?

Why are Mega-Clans a problem ? (Mega Clan being, say, a 500 Member limit)

In Harmony's case, that has facilitated a lot of good.

Edited 5/13/2024 13:44:18

If you want a non-arbitrary number then 150 seems like the number: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

A 150 Member limit would effectively destroy a lot of what we have built in Harmony.

harmony has over 400 members.

400 members in 1 clan = less money than 40 members in 10 clans

easy as that

You're the one who asked for a non-arbitrary number, sorry it has to be that way.

@mod But it doesnt make sense how fizzer hasn't added have a way to go beyond that limit to further increase sales.

MoD, charging more for a Clan with a large cap solves the problem.