For Discussion:

1. Have Two rounds of voting
2. Pick from Current Quickmatch Tempaltes
3. NO FORCED VOTES
4. Smaller number of choices, say 4-8 if there are 2 open slots.

Nobody has time to play 25 templates to evaluate them. Ridiculous!
=======

More detail:

Round A: Everyone vote their favorite candidates from the CURRENT QUICKMATCH TEMPLATES. This pulls from a list of templates that are Already Popular. Every one gets to use up to N votes, where N is the number of open slots.

Round B. Run off the top Nx2 or up to Nx4 candidates. Everyone gets to use up to N votes, where N is the number of open slots.

And eliminate the Undemocratic Forced voting.

in this current round, I voted "i dont care" because I refuse to vote for templates that I do not want to play. Might as well force me to use my Quckmatch votes. Or my Feature Request Votes: YOU MUST VOTE is a totalitarian method. Might as well force me to vote for Democrat or Republican Candidates I abhor! Never!
Or force me to play Clan Wars on templates I dont' want. Never!

Finally, 25 templates to choose from is the fallacy of plethora of choice. It atucally makes it harder to pick, and results in less, not more happiness.

Why not take the candidate list from the CURRENTLY ACTIVE QUICKMATCH TEMPLATES???? These have already stood the test of popularity. We should not have fringe tempaltes in there that are not already quickmatch.

I think best system is rank each template individually out of 5.

Cuz right now you are forced to put a template you dont like in 2nd if you only like one template.

This thread proves that the current system works as intended.
It filters out players that don't care enough to vote.

Allowing only qm templates would work if we were talking about 1v1s only. For teamgames, playing with random teammates vs playing with clanmates are two completely different things and so template popularity doesn't translate that well.

Edited 2026-06-20 07:40:40

I will agree that there's no need for forced voting. We should be able to check 'I don't care' by templates individually. That would be an improvement. The current STV system we're using can easily support that.

Other than that, this thread is just venting.

CURRENT QUICKMATCH TEMPLATES.

That would be really limiting, going through a system to collect votes to have a chance to be included in clan wars? They have different audience, different systems, I dont know why you suggest the need for going through 1 system to have a chance at the other.
Also, as everyone knows, QM has its own problems. I cannot count the times where people suggested an increase on the template count at qm.

And eliminate the Undemocratic Forced voting.

in this current round, I voted "i dont care" because I refuse to vote for templates that I do not want to play

That means you hadn't understood the system in place at all.
You don't vote for templates in a traditional manner, you rank them. There may be templates you don't know or don't want to learn, you can put those before the templates you hate/don't like and after everything else.

I will agree that there's no need for forced voting. We should be able to check 'I don't care' by templates individually.

That runs the issue of how do we compare the templates that received different amount of votes when tallying the votes.

Finally, 25 templates to choose from is the fallacy of plethora of choice. It atucally makes it harder to pick, and results in less, not more happiness.

It depends your expectation I guess, if you see it as "my favorite templates must win" then yeah it can lead to less happiness. If it is like "it's a fresh breath of air and I'd be fine as more as it is 2 templates that I like" then it is less likely to lead less happiness.

so we are voting against what we voted for last time..

that's a weird way to try to correct something

Look at what happened last time.

If you voted, you were forced into rank ordring templates that you did not want. Your rank order was then converted into votes.

THE VOTES WERE THEN CHANGED

See where he says "...and their votes will be re-distributed to the other templates."



https://war.app/Forum/798975-clan-war-template-voting-results

In the first vote, this was the order:

French Brawl (55),
Kabix 2v2 (33),
Europe 3v3 (28),
Biomes of Americas (28),
Strategic Greece (22)

As you note, the template that originally came in 5th was adopted. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th were not.

How did this happen?

"Every template got at least 8 votes, so that's good. But Fogless Fighting got the fewest, so we eliminate Fogless Fighting and re-distribute those 8 votes to those 8 people's #2 choice."

We do know that after this mumbo jumbo the 5th place votegetter was moved up to 2nd place.

Anyone with a class in decision science knows this is not a reliable way to measure sentiment. First of all, elimination of a candidate would require a re-vote, due to rank reversal, that is the only way to measure sentiment. To allow a re-vote.

Second, the forced vote of a candidate is un-democratic, and allows the manipulation of your votes, as demonstrated.

Edited 2026-06-22 19:25:03

More:
We don't know why fizzer moved your 10th place vote to add it to your 2nd place vote, instead of your First place vote...and presumably, the 9th place vote was added to my 3rd place vote... not my FIRST place vote.
I had no say in how my votes were re-allocated.
This is complete mumbo jumbo.

But it explains why the 5th place vote-getter was suddenly moved up to 2nd place. Especially if the 6th place votes were redistributed to the 5th vote.

---

The "plethora of choice" is the false belief that having an endless array of options always maximizes human happiness and freedom. Instead, psychology shows that excessive options actually lead to decision paralysis and reduced satisfaction.

So having 25 options for 2 openings, is ridiculous.

Maybe we should have 5 candidates, or perhaps 8. But never 25. Just another example of how Fizzer badly needs a class in decision science, or should sublet the voting to someone that does have a background in decision science.

---

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=decision+theory&i=stripbooks&crid=3SVSC0VQ15KAK&sprefix=decision+theory%2Cstripbooks%2C135&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

Every book in this list would tell you that elimination of a candidate requires a re-vote. That rank reversal errors demand it.

Edited 2026-06-20 16:28:12

I see there's some misunderstanding here.
The voting system last time was STV - Single Transferable Vote and I assume we're using it again. There are more details on the internet if anyone's interested.

But the key word is Single. You only choose 1 template. The one you put at first.

So last time 8 people put Fogless Fighting as #1 and it was the worst result of all templates. So what do we do? We scrap Fogless Fighting. And then what? Doctor K suggests a re-vote and... that's exactly what we do!
We assume that these 8 FF lovers would instead vote for their 2nd choices. In other words, their Single Vote is Transferred to their 2nd choices. All the other people are unaffected. And now we look again at the votes and scrap the worst performing template. This time it's Aseridith. We repeat the cycle until we're left with 2 templates. Well not exactly, it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.

It isn't some random mumbo-jumbo and there's definitely no vote manipulation. It's a well thought system that's been in use for 200 years. It has its benefits, its flaws and its applications. And I think it's great for this sort of vote because it eliminates negative voting. You can put the template you hate in last place but it has pretty much zero impact, as it should. What matters is what you put 1st. If people don't agree with your choice then what matters is your 2nd etc.

Edit:
After seeing Doctor's K last post I realised that I'm probably wasting my time explaining it. I love when people don't bother learning how something works ("We don't know why fizzer moved your 10th place vote to add it to your 2nd place vote, instead of your First place vote") yet they are super opinionated AND condescending.

Edited 2026-06-20 16:55:43

You have serious understanding problem with how the system works and because of that just spreading misinformation.
The simplest explanation is this, let's assume you voted 1. a 2. b 3. c 4. d 5.e etc etc until 15. O.
After 10 eliminations the remaining templates are c, f, h, i and o.
Based on your list you'd be voting c, since that would be the highest ranked one from the remaining.

So, your 10thj place vote was added to your Second Place Vote. Not your First place vote.

If you can read the message you just quoted above, it explicitly mentions that the reassigned votes after the first eliminations are whose votes who ranked that eliminated template as #1, and it was reassigned into their highest rank from remaining options.

In the first vote, this was the order:

french Brawl (55),
Kabix 2v2 (33),
Europe 3v3 (28),
Biomes of Americas (28),
Strategic Greece (22)

As you note, the template that originally came in 5th was adopted. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th were not.

It isn't the template that "came in" 5th, it is the template who has the 5th most population of people putting as first. It was chosen because when people ranked it higher than the other templates. In the final vote of it, it can be seen that 119 people ranked Strat Greece over BoA, when 118 people ranked BoA over Strat Greece.

There is no place in the world that governments use such a system, to my knowledge, it is only used here. Because it is inherently unfair.

Or... maybe it benefits to those who rule. The common systems today have common characteristics: They are easy to explain, easy to understand, easy to tally votes (especially when you consider millions of votes), cheaper in terms of cost, and benefits the rulers and more open to manipulations of the public in general. Though if it werent for rulers across the world needing to take the steps for such a change, I think many young people that cares about politics would want better voting systems.
(Also apparently there were some places that uses this system which I forgot about. So it isn't like one random system noone knows)

I'm leaving those 2 links for more information:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

@Rento and Uzzay: Fizzer does not use STV, but Ranked Choice Voting. They are similar.

BUT -- Ranked Choice Voting is so bad it is banned in NINETEEN STATES Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The scientists that advocate for it have not developed a consensus. That is why it is BANNED in 19 states.

I am a scientist. I have taken classes in decision science, and i have worked in decision theory. Occasionally i may be misinformed, or make mistakes, But the application of the scientific method reveals the flaws in Ranked Choice Voting, That is why it is BANNED in 19 states.

Here are three but three fallacies or problems with this system.

It assumes votes are "fungible", which they are not. My vote for one cannot be transferred to a different one. That can only be done under a re-vote.

Then there is the known as the problem of rank reversal in decision theory. Supposed candidates A, B, C, D and E finish in that order. Now, eliminate candidate D. The assumption is that Candidates will finish in the order ABCE. That assumption is wrong. In real-live voting, voters may re-order the ranks unexpectedly, so that the finish might be ACBE, or any other order. Becasuse the removal of a candidate affects all the voters, not just those that picked that candidate.
More info on the problems of changing alternatives, and their effect on rank order here: https://db.arabpsychology.com/rank-reversals-in-decision-making-2/

The only way to determine voter sentiment in a changed list of candidates, is if the voters are asked to RE-VOTE.

In Fizzers adaptation I am forced to give a 3rd place candidate almost as much importance as a 2nd place candidate. This may be far from the truth. The truth may be i would never vote for the third place candidate.

This forced voting and manipulation of the votes is Controversial with the public, and there is no scientific basis for it.
Why Fizzer chose to use such a controversial method is surprising and disappointing.


/edited to clarify rank-reversal due to changed candidate list.

Edited 2026-06-20 19:17:32

STV is a form of RCV? Do you mean IRV instead of RCV?

For more criticism of Ranked Choice Voting, see this from the Heritage foundation:
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/ranked-choice-voting-bad-choice


Edit: The source is The Heritage Foundation iI is a prominent American think tank based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1973, it researches and advocates for public policies based on free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Edited 2026-06-20 18:18:53

please do not post alt-right propaganda sources

Ranked Choice Voting is a superclass of STV, RCV basically means any voting system that makes the voters rank their choices rather than pick one or multiple. I believe what we use here is STV.

I have seen the term RCV used in both senses; a renaming of IRV/Hare (which is awful), and ordinal voting systems in general (including STV and various Condorcet methods).

"please do not post alt-right propaganda sources"

HAHAHA

Criticism levied by the heritage foundation is valid, no matter how many times you scream Nazi.

What do you think RCV is? It is an invention of the Far Left socialists and communists.

Yeah that was a waste of time.

@ RENTO

I read your explanation.

I understand how RCV works. You said:

"We assume that these 8 FF lovers would instead vote for their 2nd choices. In other words, their Single Vote is Transferred to their 2nd choices. "

So, the people who's first vote was to a losing template, they are given another bite at the apple. Their vote is changed as if their 2nd choice would be their number one, and the vote added to the total.

What is the scientific basis for giving losers another bite at the apple? There is none. Their vote was counted and they lost. They should have voted for winners. So no more bites at the apple. That is why this is banned in 19 states.

If they get to re-vote then everyone re-votes, not just them.

That's why Ranked Choice Voting is Banned in 19 states. Because it is unscientific.

The heritage foundation article gives a lot more detail on the problems with RCV.

Edited 2026-06-20 19:19:03