I want that people use this thread as a place to tell what subtle and major improvements they would like to see in the game.
Ok. Here's a few to get the conversation started:
Edited 9/29/2020 17:24:27
- A replacement of Bayeselo with a sensible ladder rating system that does not reward stalling and ladder runs (MW-Elo, Glicko2, Elo, or TrueSkill - in other words, literally any other rating system). Farah, AI, Rento, Math Wolf, and others are currently in the process of making a more detailed proposal to Fizzer to analyze. If you want to be part of this effort to propose to Fizzer a better rating system, join their Discord: https://discord.gg/ZFMbADS
- The removal of 2v2 arenas from Idle. You spend 30 minutes waiting (the template is unpopular) for a random teammate (this is why it's unpopular) only for them to make 2 clusterpicks on turn 1 (because it's unpopular, most good players are still rated low and get matched with bad teammates). It's the kind of torture you'd think they'd use in the Spanish Inquisition.
- A removal or reduction in the number of fixed Quickmatch templates. Most of these templates are not what people actually play, and most of them are outright cancerous. Given that most players probably don't even make it past rank 7, it would be nice if there was more opportunity for actually good templates to get into those ranks.
- A change in the Quickmatch template system that allows players to choose which templates they unlock. In the current system, your choice of templates is too dependent on others' votes- and even 600 points into Quickmatch you have only a handful of actually strategic templates to pick from (fewer if you don't enjoy INSS- for some reason, the early templates jump from cancer to INSS, skipping over conventional strategic templates). The problem is that what people vote on and what people play on are two very different things. I think it would be much, much better if each rank unlocks a template slot you can use on any QM-listed template. The templates can be sorted by how many people have them enabled (so it's easy to find the templates that you will get good matches on), and eventually people will converge to a small group of templates because those are what they'll get games on. Right now, I really think the voting system doesn't work: strategic players assume that it's designed for casual players, and casual players assume it's designed for strategic players, but in reality it disappoints both.
- A removal of the Create Game API restriction. The Create Game API has not been widely used since its creation, and until -B, the CLOT system never took off. When I invite people to CLOTs or select templates (even under -B's friendly environment), there's the balancing act of making sure their levels have unlocked that template- which is not great, because a lot of common features in strategic templates are just not unlocked until relatively late (L41 for OP/OD cards, L45 for overridden bonuses, L37 for attack by %). I think what's going on is that Fizzer placed this restriction to avert a theoretical risk where players would use the Create Game API to circumvent unlockables, but given the lack of awareness/adoption of the API, the fact that people already do this widely enough with manually-created games, and the fact that it's incredibly easy for Fizzer to detect API abuse like this, Fizzer's stunting of the Create Game API creates practical harm in its effort to avoid a theoretical risk. This restriction is the main reason custom ladders have such a hard time attracting players, because really only high-level players can use them.
- Delegated permissions for clan management. Right now you're either a full-blown manager capable of destroying the clan, or a normal member who can't send invites. This does not match the functional needs of any but the smallest or most static clans. It's created issues in the past (hijacks) and makes clans less stable in the present (if clans are sensible about MR, they're now dependent on the activity of one player to function).
- Clarification about the ToS regarding automation. This comes to mind w.r.t. the two proposals above, which could easily be solved with third-party efforts outside Warzone's own crippled API. Right now, the ToS have a broad prohibition on any automated interaction with Warzone outside the API. However, this does not reflect what is actually enforced, for which there doesn't seem to be a rule- e.g., Muli's Userscript and Dan's Userscript both provide many automated interactions with Warzone outside the scope of the API, while forum threads that have likely involved interactions with Warzone outside the API (the clan/ladder/player statistics posts, Semice's recent post with https://bit.ly/warzone-datadump) have also been seemingly allowed. If someone built a clan management tool (userscript or otherwise) that supported delegated permissions, would Fizzer bring down the ToS-hammer or not? On one hand, it would result in no harm to the site and would provide a demonstrable benefit to many of its most active players. On the other, it would violate the ToS as they are written (but not necessarily as they are enforced). It would be nice if there was a set of written rules on this site that matched the rules actually enforced and did not allow for surprises indistinguishable from arbitrary moderation.