I know how hard and stressful it can be which is why I don't give Fizzer or Mercer any sympathy

Then offer to do it for them and don't act like a cunt.

A lot of the problems they have with time come down to their time-management being dreadful.

Oh yeah, we all know how much free time fizzer has. I see him every day at the beach counting the fat stacks of cash he makes off suckers clicking the ads on the side of the page.

Oh yeah, we all know how much free time fizzer has. I see him every day at the beach counting the fat stacks of cash he makes off suckers clicking the ads on the side of the page.

I see him making youtube videos and unnecessary cards rather than sorting out the clan and friend systems for example.

I am reporting you though Lawlz for the word "Cunt". Terms of service etc etc.

Lol, okay kid. Report me, it's just an excuse so you don't have to argue.

And those "unnecessary cards"? The bomb card is coin games only, which gives people an excuse to purchase coins and help the developers.

Oh and thanks for delaying progress on the next update with a petty report.

Lawlz... The only person arguing is you..

Oh if you want me to delay progress on WL then i could spam Fizzer with requests for that "Hundreds of thousands of players" comment he made but refuses to provide evidence for.

Edited 5/15/2015 17:16:48

Avoiding the points provided before you, I rest my case.

Avoiding the points provided before you, I rest my case.

Which are?... Your point about bombs being in coin games only. New players won't buy coins to play games for a card we all know is coming to normal games. It only benefits those who are already buying coins (Which is a good thing for beta testing but that's about it).

That seems to be the only point you made.

If this game seems like such a disappointment to you then why do you continue to play it?

1. Lawlz, stop cussing. I cuss less than that.
2. Atari was friendly to third-party dev's... and look what happened there.
3. How long would it take to code in a button that means that a clan's founder can't be booted from their own clan?

> 2. Atari was friendly to third-party dev's... and look what happened there.

Atari's not the only company to be friendly to third-party devs. Look at what happened to Google and Microsoft when they made their APIs public. Coinbase, Venmo, IBM- tons of companies do it.

Hell, Apple's biggest advantage in the mobile market is the proliferation of apps- and that didn't happen because Apple made every single app themselves.


> 3. How long would it take to code in a button that means that a clan's founder can't be booted from their own clan?

Depends on how well-structured the existing codebase is. A lot of simple tasks become extremely complicated because of the existing structure they have to work with- try doing the simplest thing with Google's Python API client library, for example, and you'll see why.

I really still don't understand why so many people in a clan have to have manager rights. I also don't understand how you guys keep allowing these alts to get up so far in your clan.

In Apex, we must unanimously vote on new members. 1 no vote and that person is not recruited. Everyone in Apex has manager rights, and none of us have abused them. Hell I don't think anyone but Frank and I have even used these manager rights. Maybe Widzisz did too. We're very careful not to recruit people we don't trust. I don't think any of the high competitive clans are ever going to have this problem that most clans are having. We have high expectations of the people we recruit. I know WG's process of recruiting people can involve a lot of tryouts and majority vote from the clan. Master and Lynx are a lot the same way. I don't know GG's process, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot of communication involved.

Communication is how you run organizations and how you avoid bad outcomes like this. Everytime this has happened we've critiqued the people and told them that the reason they got hijacked was due to poor management/poor decisions, and yet everytime it's deflected with: This can happen to anyone.

No, it can't happen to anyone. The first step to solving a problem is to identify there is a problem. Solve your problems so that this doesn't happen again.

We're very careful not to recruit people we don't trust

+1 to that.

Everytime this has happened we've critiqued the people and told them that the reason they got hijacked was due to poor management/poor decisions, and yet everytime it's deflected with: This can happen to anyone.

+1 again. If you can't run your clan efficiently, expect bad things to happen.



Speaking from personal experience, the clans I have worked with have never had problems with security in our leadership. If you ever need inspiration, look to the clans that you don't hear about getting hijacked; chances are, they're doing something right. :)

Clans I have worked with have NEVER had problems with security in our leadership

Forbidden Knowledge you are truly hilarious here, are you kidding? I wasnt that active during the "great period' of the Illuminati clan under Hidden Hand but it seems your clan hit rock bottom, and tell me if I am wrong, the founder who was I believe Hidden Hand was kicked out of his own clan. Even if he was a bad leader, this was stealing a clan or as similar as a hijacking: you do not kick out the founder of a clan, if you are against him that's easy: you just create another clan.


And Lolowut, no need to waste your time we already explained everything before, instead of giving us lessons, read what people have written, thanks. We are without any pretentiousness communicating enough as we have 2 very active clan chats and 1 active forum, with at least 1 new thread every day.

Last but not least, I will remind it again: our recruitment policies are different than yours as we are not a competitive clan (according to your definition), we aim good Roleplayers and people playing diplomacy games.

To clarify it again, I will just quote what my comrade knyte wrote earlier as you seem to not read the whole thread:

CORP doesn't get involved in these "squabbles"- we don't go around like certain clans trying to hijack them. However, one clan did feel it was necessary to have another clan because someone approached them about wanting a clan and they decided this was a better alternative than paying WarLight for it so we were targeted. It's not because of any stupid "clan war" as much as it's because of our vaguer join criteria (how do you measure whether someone is a good RPer? Is there such a thing?) which makes it tougher to weed out players like the one who hijacked us.

Edited 5/17/2015 20:00:34

Forbidden Knowledge you are truly hilarious here, are you kidding? I wasnt that active during the "great period' of the Illuminati clan under Hidden Hand but it seems your clan hit rock bottom, and tell me if I am wrong, the founder who was I believe Hidden Hand was kicked out of his own clan

Old Illuminati is not the same clan as new Illuminati. I never worked with Hidden Hand, so I stand by my statement. :P


Edit:

I wasnt that active during the "great period' of the Illuminati clan under Hidden Hand but it seems your clan hit rock bottom,

You've got it backwards, by the way. Illuminati hit rock bottom under Hidden Hand's leadership. I wouldn't say Illuminati's in a "great period" yet, not compared with what we want to achieve... but we're definitely far better than we were a year ago.

Edited 5/17/2015 20:15:07

Last but not least, I will remind it again: our recruitment policies are different than yours as we are not a competitive clan (according to your definition), we aim good Roleplayers and people playing diplomacy games.

RP guild?

{rp} has been around longer than WG Lynx Master and hasn't been hijacked either.

{rp} has been around longer than WG Lynx Master and hasn't been hijacked either.

So what?

{Rp} is the mother of all roleplaying clans in warlight. The first, the best.

He's saying with that :

Being diplomacy clan is no excuse.

I think both parties are correct here. This is obviously caused by human error and the probability of such action can be heavily reduced (albeit never eliminated) through careful behavior.

An analogous situation would be getting viruses on your computer, having PE's in your diplo game, or having your super-exciting 1v1 strategic tournament somehow end up full of level 1's and Poon Squad.

In each of these cases, there are simple steps you can take to strongly reduce the probability. However, most if not all of these steps reduce the range of possible actions you can take- limiting your ability to utilize a platform to its full extent. For example, consider the solution of being selective with file downloads when using a computer to avoid hit-and-run virus downloads. Obviously, that reduces your odds of getting a virus significantly- but it has the side-effect of making it harder to find certain desired files and ultimately reduces the potential of a new platform (your computer + the Internet).

The advice that apex et al. are giving is great. It works under the current system.

But it's also beside the point. The point is that:

1. The current system is designed in such a way that the safety precautions any manager must take has an impact on their ability to take full advantage of the clan platform (and this impact is severe for certain clans due to the model they choose to pursue)

2. An adjustment to this system that would utterly remove these design limitations would (given a reasonably well-maintained and well-structured codebase) be trivial

I don't want to be vague here, so- again- using the example of CORP, let me make two points.

First, let's demonstrate the point I just made- that CORP management is confined to a certain range of actions so that they may remain safe. They can use the apex model of clan growth (which, it must be noted, is well-designed for a small, close-knit clan but not exactly very scalable), they can restrict manager rights, etc. These are also all actions that the current CORP management is taking. However, safety isn't the only concern- and, as a developer, I must say that it shouldn't be the primary concern of the user. (If the user has to take lots of steps just so that the system works properly, in most cases that means the system is broken.)

The other incentives CORP has are growth- we need, for example, strategic players to field a Clan League team. Now our management is busy and doesn't have the ability to recruit these players. Moreover, CORP is not exactly the big name in strategic, competitive Warlight- we're talking a 0 to 1 leap right here, and that's always the hardest. So the management has, in the past, given Manager Rights to a few players so that we may recruit said players and grow certain aspects of the clan.

However, from the perspective of Angry Panda and Kazuki, they have to have a lot of information before they can trust these people. This, again, limits their range of action and restricts their ability to use the Clan platform to achieve certain goals that the Clan platform was designed to achieve.

Second, this does lead to limitations on CORP's growth. Like many other clans, CORP has been targeted (in the past and the present) by other clans who plan "super-secret missions" and "joint offensives" to infiltrate and damage other clans. Even if the management chose not to have alt accounts in the alliance (a decision I must say I would wholeheartedly back), it would be tough to. The childish actions of other clans ultimately exploit vulnerabilities in the existing Clan platform in a way that makes clans like CORP extremely tough to manage. These obstacles, again, can be trivially removed through what I do not expect to be a massive overhaul of the existing Warlight codebase (although I might be wrong, given the interesting behavior of game chats when chat logs get longer- the time it takes to load chats doesn't exactly seem to scale linearly with the length of the chat log, and that doesn't suggest to me that there's been massive revision).

Finally, I'm not here to shit on the developers. I'm not saying it's their responsibility to design their system around user behavior. That said, virtually every developer I know acknowledges that it's good to design their software to work across all ranges of predictable user behavior. Especially right now, there's a massive amount of dedication to understandable user interfaces and really good user experience. It's also my understanding that good developers assume bad users. That's why we have things like input sanitation, because we recognize that the user is going to be that one idiot who does exactly what we don't want them to do with our software. This goes beyond simply putting disclaimers and shifting blame- whenever it's possible, we design our system to work better instead of expecting the user to do things right.

So I appreciate Mercer's response- I'm glad he didn't blame things on user behavior like other people here, and instead acknowledged the reality that developers have limitations and have to set priorities (which, as an engineer, is a truth that deeply saddens me- but alas). I think that's a valid excuse- but simply blaming the user isn't.

Edited 5/18/2015 06:32:56

can we have a word limit? this is a forum, not my report on alturism.

I'm sorry, Thomas, but not every discussion can consist entirely of shitty image macros. If you don't like it, ignore it and move on with your life.

Edited 5/18/2015 07:41:45