With the new single-player system, it would be great if mapmakers could allow their map to be unlocked in a new way: after a player defeats the single-player level created by the mapmaker.

My Checkerboard Naval War 2.0 map is complicated and unlike 99% of warlight's maps. Currently, I only allow level 55 players to create games with the map, because I don't want inexperienced players to play it.

But if a player is able to defeat some AIs in single-player, they will have proved that they understand the mechanics of the map, which is the type of player I want to be able to create games with the map.

Edited 6/3/2016 15:54:08

There's an ideas website that Fizzer reviews from time to time, you post this there?

I think it is called warlight.

Good idea. I like it. Ofc, you would have to make it so the level was winnable.

its not called warlight https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features

An interesting idea. Not applicable for a lot of maps, but could be good for some.

Qi, I tried playing your map and found it very interesting - left a review. Thanks for the thought-provoking map!

Thanks for the review. I wish there were more maps like the one you described. It would make the game more realistic.

I have an idea about how I can make the connections clearer. Originally I wanted a little illustration, but I was focused more on illustrating the connections between ships, jets and subs. I thought

Command Center <--> Suit (Bonus Link) <--> Jets/Subs

plus the colors and bonus links would be intuitive enough to understand.

Maybe it isn't. If I have time I'll copy the map and make a mini map with bright yellow arrows showing the more obscure connections (eg, between the Command Centers and Transit Points).

A "map-like" map would be cool and better. But it would take more time to plan and execute. For this map, I simply wanted to improve an older map. I wanted to publish this update as part of the older map, but the map page would then be confusing: comments about older versions of maps remain, even after the map has been updated. This confuses people and isn't helpful to the mapmaker. The only way to avoid this is to publish updates as new maps.

Currently, I only allow level 55 players to create games with the map, because I don't want inexperienced players to play it.

I have personally never understood why mapmakers put level-limitation on their maps... I mean why would you want to prohibite players to play your map?
That makes no sense to me.

More complicated maps should be unlocked at higher levels. My new map is complicated. It takes a long time to reach level 55. A level 55 player has played many maps. S/he will have a better understanding of how a complicated map functions.

Let's say I let level 1 players play the map. They have no idea how to play. This map is especially complicated. They get confused, make major mistakes, and blame the map for their low IQ and/or inexperience. Then they rate the map poorly and leave a bad review (often with unintelligible English). I don't want that to happen, so all my maps are unlocked at level 40 or higher. Plus, I disagree with some of Fizzer's changes to WL. So I prefer to reward older accounts, which can play all my older maps regardless of their level.

Ideally, winning the single-player level would allow you to create multi-player games with the map.

Another map I have is level 56: I think the map is shitty, so I don't want anyone to play it! Let it be forgotten.

Edited 6/4/2016 05:10:27

@Qi

- I like that idea! Would support in uservoice. As said before, not everyone nor all maps needs this kind of (un)locking mechanism. So maybe map-makers could choose what whether to use level-requirement or some-kind of setting variation in Single-player challange mode.

Question is how Fizzer would feel about that?
- Because this could lead to blocking a lot of players using certain maps. One can make quite a complicated and almost unbeatable level, just those who understand the in depth mechanisms of AI or with few learned tricks could unlock it. It may not be beneficial for Fizzer to allow that, because it may reduce new players game-experience. I personally do not think many would want to lock their Maps this way, so approved by me!

- About the level issue! You can get level 55 with few days, probably even with single day. All you need to do is know, which games offer more points and how are they assigned. Check someones profile of near-full list of achievements and farm or play lottery! Level-lock is just to promote maps. For example when you reach next level, then the level you assigned to map would show the map to player in end of game. Thinking that level is even slightly related to someones understanding of the game seems to be biggest flaw most players here tend to do.

- The standard-warlight players has played 3-core maps: Earth, Rome, Imperium Romanum. Understanding map has little to do with understanding game-play, it requires spatial understanding of territory connections and bonus placement. I agree that new players should be introduced to game one step at a time and that is what Fizzer has said he plants to do, because a lot of players quit by the overwhelming info and lack of tutorial features in early phase of game. Nowadays most are not into reading and learning, before playing the game actually!

Why I like the idea!
- Firstly I think it is quite interesting that one has to beat an AI with map-makers settings to unlock it. I find that Warlight has great potential in custom maps/settings that offer gameplay that deviates from standard play enormously. This feature would help to introduce suggested settings on particular maps that offer already tested gameplay experience. Thirdly would increase the options to promote maps and would help to extend the AI-challange and single-player mode.

Unlocking could be done in numerous ways:

1. Levels
2. Single-player Victory (on mapmaker's template)
3. Pay coins (split between mapmaker and Fizzer)
4. Membership

I think an all-of-the-above approach would be best. Let each mapmaker decide on a map-by-map basis.

Option 3 would probably lead to more top maps by better mapmakers.

About coins!

- If you already have enormous amount of good maps and people keep making them for free, why would you give away your revenue? It may result in better maps, but have you seen much of criticisms, that Warlight lacks good maps? Instead the problem is, that most players are stuck with the old maps and never even consider equally good maps.

- Secondly, thus far if one has felt lack of certain map, he has made it himself to fill the spot. I have never exactly understood why people make maps what others like (just for others)? It is great if someone else also appreciates it, but mainly one should think for what he wants, needs, feels lacking.

- Thirdly there will always be "Top maps" whether the selection is pluralistic or rich with quality is different topic.

- Don´t get me wrong QI, but I have never understood what is the classification of "Map-makers". In my recollection warlight has players and some of them have just created a map or few.

It is good to think if you would be in place of Developer: The situation is following!
+ Warlight has a lot of maps, and creation of maps is increasingly growing
+ People are not concerned with map quality (mostly)
+ Map-making is free process, which already offer players recognition (feedback + ratings), that players can take credit and bride on
-> Conclusion: There is no need to give up any revenue! To be honest, I would even try to experiment that only members could be able to make new maps public! Because it seems people want to make maps and maybe it leads to more cash from membership purchases. It would be worth a try.

To people referring to Uservoice - it hardly has any use.

Fizzer makes money by having more maps to keep players around. But you don't have to pay to play a map. What I am suggesting is that Fizzer could make unlocking individual maps a part of the coins system. If Fizzer doesn't make enough money, eventually WL dies as we know it. Too much is free. New cards, new colors, new maps, news settings should be available to those who pay some coin. Single-player should sell armies or cards too. Isn't Candy Crush basically a single-player game that sells shit to players to help them accomplish more? I don't know, but I heard a commedian imply this. If so, why doesn't WL offer single-player purchases to allow people to do more? It wouldn't be a huge source of income. But every little bit helps.

Fizzer reads the top suggestions, some features of warlight have come from there

With the new single-player system, it would be great if mapmakers could allow their map to be unlocked in a new way: after a player defeats the single-player level created by the mapmaker.

My Checkerboard Naval War 2.0 map is complicated and unlike 99% of warlight's maps. Currently, I only allow level 55 players to create games with the map, because I don't want inexperienced players to play it.

But if a player is able to defeat some AIs in single-player, they will have proved that they understand the mechanics of the map, which is the type of player I want to be able to create games with the map.

Why do unexperienced players need to be blocked? Nobody is affected by them playing a map they don't understand.

Unlocking could be done in numerous ways:

1. Levels
2. Single-player Victory (on mapmaker's template)
3. Pay coins (split between mapmaker and Fizzer)
4. Membership

I think an all-of-the-above approach would be best. Let each mapmaker decide on a map-by-map basis.

Option 3 would probably lead to more top maps by better mapmakers.

I strongly disagree getting money for making maps.

If Fizzer doesn't make enough money, eventually WL dies as we know it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Though, for clarity, the quote above isn't the actual slippery slope. The slippery slope is "If my suggestions aren't implemented, eventually WarLight will shut down."

Edited 6/5/2016 17:17:35