The loudest people here usually aren't planning to buy anything ever.

How about applying already tested solutions? Like removing tournaments from "open tournaments" page if noone join them for some time ? Players still could forward invites, but Tournament won't be visible anymore. And when it's not advertised and someone joins, it's visible again.

That would leaves only tournaments, where people are actually joining visible, and solve problem of bad/abandoned ones. It could work fine with autodeletion, like if tournament is not advertised for let's say 2 months, it's automatically deleted.

From the other hand, it also leaves some field for hosts, that are actively trying to make tournament start, despite lowest interest. They can just join with an alt and decline right after. And that should reduce situations, when tournament, that still have chance to start is being deleted.

P.S. it would be nice to make tournament page available for mobile devices as well :)

Edited 2/10/2015 10:16:24

The loudest people here usually aren't planning to buy anything ever.


Very general.


*looks around for evidence*

Yup, didn't find any.

Thomas don't be so dense, you are the loudest here and you've clearly stated you were never gonna spend another dime :)

I too would love to see Ladders and Tournaments restricted to member only access. But there should be a middle ground, like a 20 player tourney for non-members once every other month, and the winner receives free membership.

Edit: And again Thomas, stop pissing on everyone else's thoughts because you're upset that fizzer didn't rush to comfort you with a warm cookie and a blanket. Boo fucking hoo, you lost a clan. Get over it

Edited 2/10/2015 11:28:24

It should be the game as the games that get auto-deleted after 100 days of not starting, the people are going to be the same level of upset should either happen.

Also auto-declines, aka this uservoice
http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/3012597-add-an-auto-decline-an-invited-player-if-innactiv

I am saying, and if you looked I am not the only one, about several topics, that the normal people are not being listened to. And due to the fact I own a clan clearly states I did give money to warlight. And why are you naturally opposed to anything I say?

How about after a certain amount of time the tournament starts irregardless of how many people have accepted the invite? You fill the holes with byes or AIs.

This idea is great, except the AI part, which is pointless. I'm pretty sure, it will easily fix the current situation. Unfortunately it only works perfectly for 1v1 games. In case of team games, it would be annoying to fill AIs in the missing slots. Instead you could fill uncomplete teams with players from other uncompleted teams and kick those players that are left over, starting with those, that have joined the tournament at least. Or just kick those uncompleted teams.
In my opinion, players, who join team game tournaments are responsible to fill the missing slots in their teams. If they simply blockade an entire team for theirselfes, they are part of the problem as well.

Edit: tournaments would need a countdown, that shows when they will be enforced to get started

Edited 2/10/2015 12:23:08

ditto what blortis said.

unsuprisingly, the only tournament i joined that actually started was one i created. it was only successful cause i knew not to aim too high and made it a 20 person tourney.

@Fizzer

Nearly 1 week ago i sent you an e mail. i am not sure you read it or not but i know that you dont care it. It was a long mail but after you told me to write it to uservoice i stopped to write more.

your coin system is only for coins games. i suggest you to allow people do more with coins.

when people want to open a tournament there should be a cost for this.
when people want to join a tournament, there should be a cost for this.
and every step they passed in tournament, there should be a coin prize for them.

***i know everybody doesnt have coins. i didnt want to write the system i sent to fizzer. it is too long. with this system you can earn coins from lots of different ways or you can buy coins bundles.

and with some small settings filters you can solve it.

If creator is not active more than like 30 days, tournament should be automatically deleted or should be managed by an active player.

maksimum boot time: it should be like not more than 30 days

inactive players (30 days maybe) should be taken out automatically.

team tournaments: there should be a leader for every team.

for example in a 512 players tournament:
*after 1 month if there is not more than 128 players joined
*after 3 months if there is not more than 256 players joined
*after 6 months if tournament didnt start
tournament should be automatically deleted.

open tournaments should be in an order with their fill rates.

.....

didnt want to write the system i sent to fizzer. it is too long

you know about Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V ?:P

Ottoman - the idea is interesting, but do notice, that there is large group of players, that doesn't have coins at all (because they probably lost in on the very first day). This means, they won't have access to any tournaments/other coin-based feathers, unless they'll buy some coins. In long term it might cause many players to lose interest of game, because they are not good enough to earn coins.

when people want to open a tournament there should be a cost for this.
when people want to join a tournament, there should be a cost for this.
and every step they passed in tournament, there should be a coin prize for them.

no one will play warlight tournaments anymore after 1-2 months if you do this

remember the game is also for fun

what next?you want fizzer to make all games coin games?

we must not change the original warlight

@ Kryzchu

i didnt want to write, because i have to edit it. i will write it to another thread.

@latnox

but they can earn level points right? after i write the system in another thread you will understand it clearly.

@ Ryiro

when i get free time i will write the system. so that you will understand it better. because of the current coins games you understand it differently. for now coins=money. but in the system i will write later you will see that coins are a little bit different.

Edited 2/10/2015 14:15:54

Ottoman-- There is also a vast majority of players under the age of 18 that can not receive coins....

I would join more tournaments if I could browse them on my mobile.

@ the turtle

that is the point.

1: if it is a bad thing for under the age of 18, is it good for +18?
2: are coins games hidden for under the age of 18 players ?
3: is it too hard to find an +18 friend and use his/her information to play coins games?
4: what is problem? receive coins or playing gambles?
5: which ones are easy to make play coins games. under 18 or +18?
6: is the money you can win from coins good enough? or you play it for more competitive games?

in my system coins are working differently. nobody can receive it from warlight. so there is not a problem for under the age of 18 players. (but you can always find a way to change it to money. you can sell it to someone for example)

Auto filling tournaments is not going to help IMO. All that does is encourage people to make them WAY larger than they need to be. Why make a 32 person tourney? Just make it 512 and if it never fills...oh well.

Deleting older ones would work, but that also throws out the work of finding teammates (not a huge deal I guess). It also helps with the larger issue of tournaments that are going, but half the people are inactive because the tournament took WAY too long to fill/start in the first place. I like the idea of deleting after 30 days if not started for that reason alone. It cuts down on the number of tournaments held up by inactive players.

I would really like to see the user voice option I proposed on eliminating rounds in tournaments (creator option only). So if you make it 6 rounds, but only enough people for 5 rounds joined, it would cut a round. You could do this automatically as well. Like after 30 days, cut down to rounds that currently have players joined (do not boot any teams). And then auto delete tournament after 45 days if it never started.

I think there should be some sort of expiration if tournaments don't fill

The problem with this is that it's a bad experience for a player if they join a tournament and it never starts. Imagine it from a new player's perspective: they go to tournaments, see a couple they like, join them, and then... nothing. Days, weeks, months go by and they never see anything happen. Sure, they could navigate back to tournaments and find it they could find a message saying that they expired, but then what? They join more tournaments, and the same thing happens again? It's a never-ending cycle.

It's also a bad experience for the tournament creator, who created a tournament and then never got to see it start most of the time. I want tournaments to work reliably for everyone involved.

I also want real-time tournaments to work reliably. Someone creates one, and it actually gets enough people and starts. For that to be possible, we really need to fix the ratio between creators/joiners. If it's too easy to make one, then they won't hold enough significance to be relevant to people joining.

one reason tournaments stall out is because people don't decline and you can't invite more people

You're talking about private tournaments. Open tournaments do not have this problem -- anyone can always join it, regardless of whether they've been invited. The only reason tournaments reach the invite limit is due to abuse of the invite system -- people are just spamming everyone rather than actually inviting players who they want to play a tournament with. This leads to people ignoring tournament invites, which is the fundamental reason they're taking up a space in that tournament. We can talk about private tournaments more in a different thread, but let's keep this thread about open tournaments, as the subject says.

How about after a certain amount of time the tournament starts irregardless of how many people have accepted the invite? You fill the holes with byes or AIs.

Something like this could maybe work. But we have to consider how it could fail, too: what if the tournament is only 5% filled, and everyone gets byes up to the end of a 512 person tournament? It would be kind of silly. Also, team tournaments are screwed, since not everyone would have a full team. I don't really like using AIs, since the AI will never be as good as a human, and in some cases it's even worse than not having a partner at all.

how about a rule which'll restrict the "number of tournaments" and "players in it" that we create based on the number of tournaments that we've joined that others have created

That could work. As I said earlier, we need to adjust the ratio of people creating to people joining. In your example though, if you're making a 64 person tournament you'd have to join 64 tournaments before you could make your own. Maybe less depending on how many people are joining but not creating.

What if there's just a limit to the number of open tournaments that can be open at any one time? Say, there's 10, and if you want to start a new one you have to wait for one of the existing 10 to start. There are problems with this idea, too, but I say it just to get the idea out there.

when people want to open a tournament there should be a cost for this.

This is interesting. What if there's a coin cost for creating a tournament, and those coins are given to the winner(s) of the tournament? This would REALLY encourage people to join tournaments, and also keep the number created down to a realistic number, ensuring that they all start.

There is also a vast majority of players under the age of 18 that can not receive coins

That's not true at all. Anyone can receive coins. The only thing that you can't do if under 18 is turn them back into cash. You can still buy, receive, and spend them.

Edited 2/10/2015 16:45:01

This is interesting. What if there's a coin cost for creating a tournament, and those coins are given to the winner(s) of the tournament? This would REALLY encourage people to join tournaments, and also keep the number created down to a realistic number, ensuring that they all start

at that point nobody would create tourney. I think it is better make the player who join the tourney pay an entry fee. And divided the $ between top 4 or 8 (in a 512 torueny i think it's ok).

at that point nobody would create tourney.

I don't think that's true. It will certainly be less than people create now, but that's exactly what's needed to solve the problem we're facing.

Let's take a step back and ask: Why do people create open tournaments? What's the motivation? Is it because they like some specific settings/map and want to play a bunch of games on it?