I wondered when this would come up.

I'm actually impressed that it surfaced as a mature conversation instead a witch-hunt, I think that alone speaks volumes about the type of players that thrive here.

I left Warlight as the 2nd highest level in early 2014, which was level 56 at that time and chasing players like MG and Mike. I came back last December to find a coin system and looked for a way to get back on the top-list before another temporary retirement. My income in life, the hobbies I pursue and the topics that I teach in schools are all about finding the most efficient route to achieve a goal. Well, I rediscover one here every time I come back.

I make sure no one is cheated out of a victory, as any participants in the venture are voluntary. No advantage is gained by leveling, so no one is affected by that either. No alts are used, as promised in my profile, and a solid 10% tax is applied to the entire procedure, which helps fund the evolution of the game and takes nothing from anyone else.

It doesn't suggest that someone is a bad player or 'lacks strategy', it merely suggests that a different method is used as a the primary source for points. I do fine in my 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 games.. but the 10k lottery or coin games have destroyed the 1v1 win rate, that's evident.

There's also no profit in it. The only time it came with a slight surplus was because a relatively low total was enough for first place.. and I gave it back to the community with a free open coin-prize tournament, at an added cost to me. Another one was scheduled after this coin season ends. That little bit of profit is offered to you, warlight community, in the form of a skill-based tournament.. so the top players that may object to my methods have a shot to harvest the fruit with their own skill, that would otherwise be unavailable.

-----> So, Fizzer/Warlight benefit directly from me, no 'actual' advantage is given to me as a player because of it, no alts or multiple accounts were used, it affects no one else's win rate that isn't a willing participant, no financial profit was gained on my part, no coin-game rules that I know of were broken, and the only persons time that is wasted, in mass quantity by the way, is my own. <-----

The only thing that I regret in the process is that it could be argued that people are 'bumped' off of a list that they would have otherwise earned had I not put in the time and effort to surge. Now, if I am not breaking a rule, then that 'bump' should be guiltless. However, it still creates a bad aftertaste. If I could check a box to opt out of rewards.. I would. Perhaps everyone 'below me' on coin leaderboard, up to the 21st ranking, could be the only invites to my 'post season' tournament? Just thinking aloud. There isn't profit in it anyway, these tournaments are at a cost to me.

Again, I don't know if I owe an explanation, but I'm sure the intent of the original post was to out and possibly disgrace. I appreciate that it became more of a discussion. I am close to leaving for a duration again anyway, I just wanted to get from 56 to 66.

I don't plan on doing much 'replying' here, to avoid it going south, and am in talks right now with Fizzer as to the legality of everything.

Cheers.

Edited 2/28/2017 01:50:52

can you invite me to these tourneys? I don't think I see them.

thanks

Gargamel, it is great to read your post and it seems clear that your intentions are pure. There are several follow-up question that I do wish to ask, yet I think a better approach is that we all focus on one already mentioned on the first page.

We need to look at the system and ask whether this is something we want? That players trading coins can get high up on the coin leaderboard, thus making a profit.

Ultimately this question is the one Fizzer faces.

how did you manage to convince ppl to swap coin games anyways? they clearly lose coins to fizzer on each swap.

@ps coin leaderboard record scores can make anyone's profile look sick af :p

@TBest everyone interested will try this the next coin season... and as long as more than one party is involved the circumvention will cause them to lose all their coins after which everything will be back to normal again lool

@Fizzer congrats on winning the most coins this season man how does that make you feel

Edited 2/28/2017 04:04:33

In my opinion this practice is against the rules. It is similar to some people trying to play casino systems finding loopholes. Even if you find a so called loophole, it doesn't mean you can benefit from it, because of general legal principles that can be applied.

In addition to it, it's not beneficial for Fizzer in long term at all. The fact that Fizzer profited from it was solely because I forced them to put it this high. But I can't put it higher neither I can compete for 1st place because I can't find players to play with me while he can potentially "play" vast amount of games.

To make it clear, imagine a normal season where you need around 20k coins to win it (and it would be less and less as more players would be disgusted and they would lack motivation and enthusiasm if this continues). Two people will make a collusion, one will get 20k coins, another one 15k. They get 1st and 2nd place (as I said, it will be easier to get once it's generally known and you will slowly lose hope to win). That means Fizzer would get his 3.888 coins, but he would pay them 6.500 coins and I don't even count potential 640 bonus coins from deposit. If you add negative effect on number of coin games played in a long term, you can see why this is not only against the rules (learn true meaning of a "game of skill") but not even beneficial for Fizzer.

Therefore I believe that they should be punished. Fizzer should at least deduct these bonus coins they are getting from their accounts.

PS1 - to MoD: Your arguments are invalid as I have hopefully showed you. I can't play more even I wanted. Motivation to play coin games is not to be seen as someone who is the best in the matter of skill (talking about it, I have beated you 10 to 9 games if counting only 2017 :P), but it lays in these 4000 coins for the 1st place. Don't presume that I don't mind about it. I didn't stop because first season he won in last hours by few coins and I have managed to won second season and trust me that if there's nothing done with this issue the long term effect is clear. And advocating him by saying that he made a free tournament is similar like saying that I will rob you and then give the profit out of the robbery to those in need (reading your posts, you would have loved).

PS2: Coin games and Fizzer would much more benefit from more players (through promotion and some events) than this swindle.

Edited 2/28/2017 06:49:56

What your doing is unfair to other players. You're having accounts surrender to you without even playing the game, and this is not just a few games, but hundreds. Other accounts don't have that advantage. You are undeserving of both the points and coins you have received, as you don't even have to play the game. I wouldn't have a problem but the fact your not actually playing the games, and are over-inflating stats is horrible.


I have no doubt your a smart guy and a good if not excellent player, but you're whole rise to the top is fraudulent. Want me to think differently? Then play the damn game.

Edited 2/28/2017 06:14:03

My argument about Rento's stalling to get first on 1v1 is quite the same for this. There's a difference between doing something legal but not ethic and doing something illegal and not ethic. This practice of surrendering games is legal but probably not ethic. Sadly though, in society like in Warlight, many successful people need to do unethic things that are legal to reach the top.

Let's take the big companies like Nike and Walmart for example. It is documented that they moved their companies to poorer countries that barely have regulations to be able to make similar products for WAY cheaper. By doing that, they are in a way "gaming" the economical system as they exploit those people in foreign countries to make huge profits. The problem is that after theses 2 companies would choose to act that way, every other similar company would have to do the same if they want to still be able to compete with them. Offshoring, although legal, is not ethical but it almost becomes a necessity in a world economy that has so few international regulations like the one we live in.

The same that is true for offshoring can be said for this type of coin gaming. Soon, people that want to be in the top 5 or top 10 of coins leaderboard will probably have to use methods that aren't very "fairplay" to get on top.

That being said, the coin system as it is right now is good for guys that are elite or super specialized on 1 or 2 templates. In other words, the coin system is currently made for like 10 people or so. Even if you have some skills, it is not enough there. You need to be a monster to be able to actually benefit from the coin system in an "ethic" way. I think that fact turns out a lot of players from actually liking coin gaming.

Also, the fact that you can't play anymore low cost coin games when you get to 1000 coins is a big factor contributing to people dropping off coin games. As it is possible for someone decent to good to be able to get to 1000 coins or win coin tournaments here and there, making custom coin games as low as 50 for 90 will usually bring the very top elite guys or super specialized guys against which it is almost impossible to have a 60% win rate, which is the one that is kind of needed to win more coins than to lose.

So your 1000 coins sure look nice when you get there but you will never be able to get to 7500, which is the number you need to withdraw, unless you do/are the following:

-Being like in the 1% of the 1% top players of WL
-Making a shitty template that top players hate but on which you have become super good
-Gaming the system by doing ffas or surrendering games (although surrendering games makes you lose more than you earned passed like 2000 coins earned in a season).

In other words, the coin system is already broken, just like ladders, so I can't blame people from trying to get coins in what could be seen as unethical behaviors. People will say you just have to get better to earn coins...That's an elitist point of view in my opinion. Seriously, you need to be the 1% of the 1% top players of WL (which is like 1 on 10000 players) for that and even if you put all your efforts into it, if you are not naturally disposed to be an absolute monster in this game (or if you don't find your personal shitty template on which you are a god on) you will be stucked around 1000 coins forever.

I think that coin games could be more fun if:

1. You can make custom coin games for low prices. Being forced to play small earth, earth and turkey for low cost coin games gets extremely boring very fast and like I said, as soon as you make a 50 for 90 coins game, you get the top elites unless you made the game on a really shitty template that no one likes but you.

2. Remove the 1000 coins limit that forbids people to still play low cost coin games when they reach 1000 coins. We don't receive the 100 free coins anymore so even if that 1000 coins limit is removed, people that will withdraw 7500 will have to play a long time with only low cost coin games and Fizzer will make some profit overall. Fizzer could also add an extra fee when you withdraw, something like 10% so that he can make a profit there too. Top guys usually like to play for high stakes and if there are many different types of low cost coin games at the same time, theses elites will have a hard time joining them all (if they want to join them at all).

3. Like MoD suggested, give the possibility to the players that want points to pay for them. That way, they could be less inclined to have atypical behaviors in coin games.

Edited 2/28/2017 18:45:55

I love Benoit's post so much. :)

Coin games on a super low level like small earth games are easy, but suddenly when you raise the bar the competition goes from easy to hella hard, and since you are almost always paying an expensive entry fee you better be an elite player before you start betting your precious money on these games. ^^

I also see the [Hidden] usernames as a good and bad thing because on one hand the player can't pick and choose his or her opponents to gain an unfair advantage but on the other hand some players might become hesitant to join the game because they could be betting all their deposited money against an elite player. :P

So I have mixed feelings on what Gargy and his crew are doing. It can be viewed as selfish because they are using a loophole to grab top leaderboard position from better players for their own fame and self-interest, but at the same time he (they) are legally taking advantage of an inherently flawed, nefarious (it's gambing lol) system that wasn't designed to reward players solely based on skill anyway.

..and the coin leaderboard doesn't rank people in terms of skill even if you discount this loophole because all you have to do is deposit a lot of money and keep playing coin games in ridiculous quantities and obviously some of us have way more time on our hands than others. xD We have 5 ladders that provide a more skill-based leaderboard. (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, RT, and MDL.)

Edited 2/28/2017 15:48:58

Why has nobody called this what it is? What we are talking about is a Pay To Win model. This is Warlight, at least in one specific format, becoming Pay To Win.




Also, why do y'all think Plat was only talking about Stallhazi? Unless the V means something else, it is GlamagiotisTheMultiFreak who is now on vacation with unfinished games.

Why has nobody called this what it is? What we are talking about is a Pay To Win model. This is Warlight, at least in one specific format, becoming Pay To Win.

Pretty much what I was saying, this is by no means a loss for Fizzer, but a loss for us, since we're basically getting stripped out of a feature. Once again, this isn't a big feature nor really one that deserves to be worked around too much, but it's worth pointing out that it's there, and it's being gamed.

When someone was stalling/gaming the ladders, the response was "Blame the system, not the staller".
Yet, here the same people are going after Gargamel?

I'm "blaming" the "system", so no inconsistency here. None of this would have happened if Fizzer was a bit more careful - hell, "more carefulness" solves pretty much everything I could ever complain about WarLight. Given Gargamel actually promoted stuff to "pay a debt" he did not have with the community, while also posting his viewpoint, there's little to blame him for.

The issue is, the opposite is also true. People who were blaming the 'staller' and not the 'system' are now blaming the 'system'. Inconsistency? Nah, just a different one - protecting those they care about, blaming those they don't like. People take sides, that's pretty natural. It is only really a problem when people who are annoyed by others taking sides are also taking sides. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Fizzer, post an official response here please so instead of fighting over it the entire community can rally together by knowing what opinion dick we need to suck here

Edited 3/1/2017 03:55:56

FYI, Fizzer said on stream today that it was taken care of and wont happen again.

"[..]so instead of fighting over it the entire community can rally together by knowing what opinion dick we need to suck here"

Lol

can we all just agree that Gargamel is the best player in Warlight? hop off his dick already.

he taught me how to be professional lottery player. if not for him, i'd still be a disgusting low-life strategy-attempting scum, playing diplo games once in awhile not realizing 98% of them are rigged.

Edited 3/1/2017 06:19:11

love how some folks enjoy blaming the system for everything but won't ever bother suggesting how to improve or even looked at uservoice.

I understand and agree with the suggesting ideas to improve but Uservoice for me is a bit pointless because by the time Fizzer gets time to act on the highest demands , The demands would be outdated and when your asking for a big feature you will not have a hope getting it through! This is because Fizzer is for the most part a 1 man team.

For example , I remember Diplomacy truces being top voted on Uservoice. But in 2017 Fizzer will work on Unity , We all know that Unity client is much more important for the game long term but I don't see the point of Uservoice where people can suggest fun ideas , When Fizzer is busy doing the foundations for the website , You would need a separate individual to focus on in-game features.


However about cheaters on all ladders or manipulators this would be my policy,

There will always be rats looking for cheese , The idea for a human to get rid of the rats isn't to get rid of the rats itself but the food source which in his case would be cheese. So you get rid of the cheese bang their gone!

Bringing the idea to WarLight , Manipulators will go to win a trophy by getting #1 source on the ladders or 1st coin leaderboard. In the case of Alhazi to any idiot can see it's cheating or stalling or whatever. Just remove the trophy or ban on ladders (For coin and seasonal ladder , a ban for the next season would be effective)

Stalling at a extreme level it's so blindly obvious ,So why can't there be action on that? At the very minimum ...

Edited 3/1/2017 19:23:11

There is no rule in WL saying that you can't stall. Stalling is considered cheating by a part of the strat community, not by WL itself. You also have to clearly define what is manipulating the ladders. If a team drops out of a ladder because they want to do something else and join back later and get 1st, some people could tax them of cheating when they just wanted to take a break. As long as there are no proper rules against stalling or other "cheating" things (ladders or coin games) and as long as they are not enforced, people can and will do whatever is allowed within the regulations set by WL.

Even in cases of extreme stalling, people are free to surrender when they want even if it is to attain a certain objective in a devious way. Maybe the game itself could force surrender at let's say turn 15 if the incomes ratio would be like 2:1, but such a program wouldn't make the unanimity for everyone. If someone plays RT a game that is supposed to be MD and then stops, he automatically is called a staller but that's intentions we assume the "staller" has, we can't know for sure what his intentions were exactly even if there are strong possibilities that he was indeed stalling.

Edited 3/1/2017 19:47:44

I remember Diplomacy truces being top voted on Uservoice. But in 2017 Fizzer will work on Unity

And the unity version will probably allow for diplomacy truces :p

I'd like to point out that if the system were to stop based off income ratio of 2:1 at turn 15 to prevent stalling then there would be problems with players who have their bonuses broken on that turn, but could still win the game. For example, large stacks already in play.