I guess another way of saying ^^ that is get a short list of commonly agreed to improvements, then present to Fizzer, but not l4v or me b/c we're both too wordy. lol

Someone that can be articulate in fewer words. But the real problem is getting agreement. Don't reach for the stars, focus on easy tweaks, low effort on Fizz's part so it doesn't have to even be a "roadmap" item. Just pick 5-10 easy to implement things that helps the community.

Good point krinid. This is why we need to organize. I propose we unionize: https://discord.gg/Y7RbpJMP

yea and tbh a lot of ppl have been boycotting it for awhile now, maybe this is a mute point

Hm. So maybe the idea is the opposite? Get everyone who would play if CW were good to play for 1 season, then go back to regular. And show how good it could be?

Then again, l4v said this before, don't know that Fizz really cares how many people play, just whether you agree with him (counts your vote) or not (dismisses your vote). Seems like he'd rather have 50 people playing something he wants them to play vs 500 people playing something he doesn't care for.

Since this has currently turned into an CW improvement thread:

Current state: The CW matchmaking does not only match make the clans, but there is also a clan internal matchmaking in that the player with the oldest account gets the highest ranked opponent clan and the younger accounts subsequently get the lower ranked clans.

Problem:
- The clan internal list of who contributed most heavily favors the younger accounts.
- I know of no correlation regarding account age and playing strength.
- We have some bombers who keep getting away with their relatively trashy play since they constantly get pushed all the way down to clans like cats. It is quite difficult to tell someone that his play is garbage when he keeps winning.
- On the other hand, we have relatively solid bombers who keep running into the strongest opponents and thus get a bit discouraged.
- Some players keep getting matched against each other. For example, 2 players could prefer the same time slot and like the same templates.

Suggestion: Randomize the clan internal matchmaking.


----------------

The clan internal matchmaking is pretty annoying for me, apart from that I love CW. M'Hunters will continue to hit CW hard.

Edited 9/22/2022 21:51:55

One issue we keep running into is that if you ask 20 players who have issues w/ CW what they want, you'll get a list of 45 different, somewhat conflicting demands. At the least, we need to coordinate to show consensus and only ask for a few things. 30 players asking for 30 things are never going to get anything; 300 players asking for 3 have a good chance.

Agreed Lav, but how do we come up with a consensus? have someone put together some kind of survey and tally everyone's votes? There's got to be some kind of forum where folks can summarize their requested changes and have people vote yay/nay on them then widdle the dozens of ideas down to 5-6 solid changes that we can place on a crushed purple velvet pillow (with tassels) and present to his majesty, King Fizzer.
I've seen some pretty interesting ideas already on this thread that I didn't even think of before that I would vote for. and MB is getting lots of free publicity from this stray thread which is rather amusing.

I made a Discord server for us to organize: https://discord.gg/Y7RbpJMP

We should try and first get everyone (or as many people as interested) who has CW improvement ideas and/or grievances in one place, then do basically what you suggested.

Right now we waste a lot of time fighting over different solutions without having a clear idea of what the problems we want to solve are. So we should then have a discussion to figure out what our shared grievances even are. We can minimize the overhead here by having clan representatives for clans that want to coordinate a bit internally and simplify the process, replacing 30-50 voices with 1.

Then, once we can agree on the problems, we should come up with no more than 5 demands through another consensus process, like your proposal. I think if the Discord doesn't take off we could use a doc for this and just have people leave anonymous comments/suggestions until we get it to a good shape.

Then, we will have a clear, short (1 page max) list of problems & proposed solutions & players/clans who support it (all or nothing).

I think just having clarity & consensus will go a long way in terms of getting feedback to Fizzer. We might be able to just do a coordinated Uservoice (i know i know that's cursed), just posting a statement backed by a bunch of players, getting someone who's close with Fizzer to act as an ombudsman and forward our requests & reasons. If that doesn't work, then we can think about coordinating in more extreme ways, like the boycott/strike.

1) If Fizzer wont change anything - Nothing we do will matter.

But I do 100 % agree we need to agree what we want first.
So I like the idea to work out a concept we all would like to be the "new clan wars".

If he would listen thats what he could listen too.

I have joined the channel.

*Following*

If we want to make Fizzer listen, we need to hurt him where it counts the most: His financial gains. I got the following suggestions at the moment:

• If ~100+ players coordinate together, they can send Fizzer mails on regular basis, which would clog up his inbox and make things more annoying for him by wasting his precious time.
  
• We could spread around idea of Don't buy anything, we find anyone who is supporting Fizzer financially and convince him to stop doing that.
  
• With help of some alt accounts, we can flood open games with games which would have our messages in title and description, plus a link to where to find us, which would grow our supporter list.
  
• Whenever Fizzer makes streams or posts threads, hijack them and have dozens of players write their grievances on them. Also make daily threads in general forums. Fizzer has proven to check and read them, so he's going to have "fun" seeing a neverending player feedback.
  
• Turn global chat into active communication platform, so that whenever anyone goes there, they are bombarded with our messages.
  
• Send mail to thousands of different players and recruit some of them for the cause.

Any message would include requests to boycott Fizzer financially. If we rally up enough players, we could do some real damage to him. Fizzer might not care about the community, but he clearly cares about his profits, therefore this approach should work wonders.

---

Regarding player caps, lowering it will allow less players to play and have fun, which is not good. I propose to change it to 40 or even more daily games allowed per day where any player can play during multiple slots. This would also mean that during different days different players can play and there's no longer problem of someone joining clan wars and then never playing in them, thus preventing others from playing.

Two concerns with that approach:
1) We're requesting his time, attention, and labor. It's risky to try and achieve that by antagonizing him and going after his livelihood.
2) We have little leverage. If we spam him or the site, he can ban us. If we boycott, we'll barely make a dent in revenue.

I propose we instead focus on demonstrating consensus as our Plan A. In other words, we should make it extremely clear to Fizzer that a specific number of players has specific problems for which they all agree on a specific solution or solutions, which ideally all take little effort for him to implement. In short, a petition strategy - similar to what worked in the INSSpocalypse (https://www.warzone.com/Forum/536492).

However, if we have compelling reasons to believe that:
1) We have substantive leverage- i.e., that those who would join this boycott otherwise would generate substantive added revenue for Fizzer, creating a cost to non-compliance.
2) We can mitigate the risk of antagonizing Fizzer.
Then your proposal may make sense. I would still workshop it to tailor its player uprising into more effective, harder-to-suppress channels.

I hope we keep effectiveness top-of-mind, since we aim not to punish Fizzer but to achieve specific categories of improvements in the Clan Wars player experience and these improvements almost certainly require Fizzer's enthusiastic cooperation to carry out.

Edited 9/23/2022 00:49:22

I support we stay nice and ask as a community for a change which benefits all :)

LOL Gunk, lots of publicity for MB indeed!

Agree w/Flex & l4v, best to be nice. Realistically, the best course of action is making a convincing case & have Fizz change things for the better. He's shown that once he's convinced he makes changes, like the overlapping superbonus display tags, took l4v a freaking essay documenting all the supporting points in explicit detail, when really all it really took is Fizzer understanding 2 simple things: the change made maps worse for the community [map cosmetics/ease of use], the change he made didn't actually solve or add anything. He even stated that he didn't really understand INSS maps, thus didn't fully understand the problem. He heard the story, understand that the community hated his change and wanted it reversed, but b/c he didn't understand how it negatively impacted us, he refused to change it back and stood by his change, even though it solved no problems, achieved no gain but caused community unrest. But once he understand how and why it was bad, he reversed it. The problem is that he doesn't listen intently enough to understand community unrest, and even when he listens, he typically is only hearing on a surface level, not really putting in effort to hear the real message.

Anyhow, let's be nice. Let's be clear, concise, unified. And if we're not unified, don't ask for it. B/c if it's not something the majority wants, it's just not going to work out in the end, there will be unrest & lack of consensus.

If nice doesn't work, plan B, strike.

If strike doesn't work ... back to the drawing board. Maybe then we get creative with a plan C.

Just to ground this discussion: Whether we are implementing Plan A or B or C, we should aim to be effective first. No point being nice for the sake of being nice- you will overdo it, drop compliment sandwiches that get misinterpreted, and achieve half-results leaving a lot of progress on the table. No point being mean for the sake of being mean- you will overdo it, burn bridges and achieve at best begrudging half-results at the expense of future cooperation. Whatever we do, we should do it for the sake of achieving results.

The ideal scenario has us executing Plan A really well and finally making progress. While the thought of finally testing out some of my toys excites me a little, I hope we never have to speak of Plan C or seriously pursue Plan B.

Agree w/you boxfaec, and tbh I think that's where l4v comes in, he's good at ensuring things aren't too nice. (;

Seriously though, by "being nice" we just mean not being unnecessarily aggressive. We don't actually want to attack/insult/harm Fizz, we just want him to understand & respond appropriately (make good changes). Being nice doesn't mean compliments, it means being concise, clear, unified, simple.

excellent post Norman!

spamming fizzer is just going to push him further away from a community he does not listen to

Norman you should join the discord krinid made

a petition could work, but also fizzer ignores the user voice which is basically just petitions

Uservoice is in theory like petitions but in practice we don't really do it in an organized, consensus-demonstrating fashion or make it clear which problems we're trying to solve. I'm optimistic that if we do this in an organized & well-enough-communicated fashion, it will work better than Uservoice.

never played fizzer until today...2 times! in the second I told him to review this haha

https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=32059926

I do not believe that being nice to Fizzer is going to work. He is the same person who filed a frivolous lawsuit against Activision and then lied to community that Activision were the ones suing him, just so Fizzer could milk some extra cash from the players. It clearly shows that he's greedy, callous and manipulative. Fizzer is not the type who cares about Warzone community, he will only do something meaningful if he can get profit from it. He has been ignoring uservoice and Warzone clans for a long time already, at this point he clearly knows what's going on, because he's been sent mails about it, yet he chooses to ignore the situation and refuses to communicate to us on this topic. Stop being delusional, acting nice will not make Fizzer change, it will only show him that he can get away with his ignorance.

Clan Wars boycott does not directly impact Fizzer, he could just adapt to it. If seasons are taking too long, he'll just decrease the size of map, if not all reward tiers are hit, he will decrease their amount (if he's not feeling lazy, which is likely). Fizzer can easily make your boycott pointless with these easy 5 minute effort updates. If you want Fizzer to do any change, you need to convince it that it's in his best monetary interest, because right now he doesn't care about you, because I presume you barely bring him any profits (Considering how a couple dozen players compared to all remaining players is basically nothing).