To Save TWD

[Pummel]

hm

(applecheek)>they told me i can have 300

[Heroin Bob]

(applecheek)>they told me i can have 300

well, we have found the problem, lets downsize the cap to somthing less than the amount of active people in TWD

[Sleuth]

LOZLLOZL 124 PeOPLE ON ROSTER

[Heroin Bob]

LOZLLOZL 124 PeOPLE ON ROSTER

124? that means they signed up 2 more since i posted this thread

[Subjugation]

people ask for more active TWD and such


http://www.twdivisions.org/squads/9303/roster


how can we be more active with 120+ people on one squad. cmon now, put a limit on this beast. if you want i can get a list of all the squads with 60+ members and i dont even think we have enough people in this zone to match up to the numbers we have rostered..... but thats another complaint all together...

For starters, just because they have 125 on the roster doesn't mean there are 125 individual players (granted, you alluded to that). Secondly, Giant Tiger itself is an active squad, so it sounds like you're implying that if it wasn't for them having such a large roster, those extra players would likely be evenly divided among other squad rosters---thus enabling more activity in TWD because those other squads would have enough players online to accept challenges.

Did I understand that correctly, or is this just a thinly veiled attempt at accusing GT of being a gross violator of harboring doublesquadders? Ok, let's just assume that you mean what you say, and you're just addressing the issue of how having no roster limits is a major part of TWD inactivity.

That's a pretty big leap requiring several assumptions. It assumes that whatever rostered names which aren't GT aliases or belong to doublesquadders would be accepted on other squadrons. It assumes that those same players would even WANT to be on another squad---maybe those players like the philosophy of Giant Tiger or they have become friends with their squadmates and don't want to hop.

But the bottom line is, it assumes that putting a limit on rosters would even make a significant impact on how active TWD is---and I don't even see you bothering to support that argument in your post. Are you saying Paladen is going to accept these new recruits? Or are those extra players just going to wind up ?squadcreating more inactive TWD squads?

[Blueblaze]

For starters, just because they have 125 on the roster doesn't mean there are 125 individual players (granted, you alluded to that). Secondly, Giant Tiger itself is an active squad, so it sounds like you're implying that if it wasn't for them having such a large roster, those extra players would likely be evenly divided among other squad rosters---thus enabling more activity in TWD because those other squads would have enough players online to accept challenges.

Did I understand that correctly, or is this just a thinly veiled attempt at accusing GT of being a gross violator of harboring doublesquadders? Ok, let's just assume that you mean what you say, and you're just addressing the issue of how having no roster limits is a major part of TWD inactivity.

That's a pretty big leap requiring several assumptions. It assumes that whatever rostered names which aren't GT aliases or belong to doublesquadders would be accepted on other squadrons. It assumes that those same players would even WANT to be on another squad---maybe those players like the philosophy of Giant Tiger or they have become friends with their squadmates and don't want to hop.

But the bottom line is, it assumes that putting a limit on rosters would even make a significant impact on how active TWD is---and I don't even see you bothering to support that argument in your post. Are you saying Paladen is going to accept these new recruits? Or are those extra players just going to wind up ?squadcreating more inactive TWD squads?

1. Giant Tiger recruits lots of public members, so they'll be less likely to have dsers at the same percentage as other squads. Even if they do have up 25% of their squad multi-squadding, they still have a grossly large number of people.

2. More free players means more contentment. Whenever you have more players to choose from, you will have either larger squads or more squads. Whenever you have fewer but larger squads, the likely hood of activity is decreased as people feel they are not treated individually, and no good captain can manage 125 people successfully while keeping the large majority of their players happy. Whenever you have multiple squads of let's say 35 people, the captains can keep more of their players happy and satisfied with the squad.

3. More free players means more squads, and more squads means more activity. The more squads you have (reasonably speaking, while keeping them active) the more players you will have as players should easily find the right squad for them. There are plenty of people willing to create a squad if they just could get more people to join, and this doesn't happen whenever you have squads of pulling over 50-75 members.

4. More squads means more competition. If Giant Tiger were to dissolve as is, I'd be supprised if any top 5 squad picked up a single player from that squad. (And no I am not suggesting the dissolving of GT, but I am suggesting a cap in roster size, which would have this similar effect) What would happen with those players is that they would end up filling in roster spots of the bottom 25 squads on the ladder. This would then allow those squads to have more activity (though they have active players, just not enough of them) allowing them to actually play other squads on a frequent basis. Not many people benefit when you have 10 small squads taking turns playing Gianttiger, but if those 10 small squads could muster enough players to play each other on a decent basis, then you would have more competition between the lower ranked squads. Whenever those squads can actually play serious competition on their level, then they will become more experienced and continue to work their way up into better squads. Lower ranked squads would then recruit people and pull more people from the public arenas therefore adding to the number of TWD participants and then cause TWD to grow.

Bottom line, look at team sports, the majority of sporting leagues have caps for a reason. They cap the pay, roster size, mechanical aspects or whatever it may be, they limit the players for the order of keeping balance, yet competition within the league. People who invest millions of dollars in sporting leagues might have a clue whenever they cap various aspects of leagues. TWD won't die from a roster cap, but it would sure receive a huge boost from limiting the roster size.

Honestly, which league sounds better, 2 teams of 200 players in each team, or 10 teams of 40 players per team? If you enjoy sitting on the bench during the whole match, being reduced to nothing more than a number, and completely ignored, left out, etc... then by all means, the bigger the squad the better. Otherwise, if you enjoy competition, playing time, and individual treatment and care, then I suggest a roster cap is in order.

[Heroin Bob]

didn't feel like quoting you, but try not to make this a grudge match of shit talking subjugation :+)


im referring to the fact that giant tiger has 120+ people on their roster, brainwave has 50 and other squads are at 50 +. this is just the most top heavy squad roster there is, so i posted it, if needed ill post all rosters of 50+ because that is just stupid.

no im not trying to get people in trouble for double squadding, if i wanted to do that, all i would do is message friends in game and have it taken care of privatly. this is just a call to action from TWD Ops giving them a view from a player since they always say we whine but never offer solutions.


blue summed it up by saying 2 teams of 200 or 10 teams 40. honestly that is my point im getting at

[M_M God]

I completely disagree with the current roster max right now..exactly, there isn't any. I would go for a 50 people roster max. The arguement newbies can't get into any other squad if it wasn't for gianttiger is complete bullshit. There are enough twd squads out there who are still willing to give fairly new players a chance, or people can always create a squad themselves, bring their 'newbie' friends and twd too. I think cutting back the rosters will get TWD more active and will result in more twd matches being played, which is good. If squads can play more TWD games, their members will have more reasons to get online and become (more) active again, which is also good for the TW community as a whole. Just my thoughts..

[Subjugation]

didn't feel like quoting you, but try not to make this a grudge match of shit talking subjugation :+)


im referring to the fact that giant tiger has 120+ people on their roster, brainwave has 50 and other squads are at 50 +. this is just the most top heavy squad roster there is, so i posted it, if needed ill post all rosters of 50+ because that is just stupid.

no im not trying to get people in trouble for double squadding, if i wanted to do that, all i would do is message friends in game and have it taken care of privatly. this is just a call to action from TWD Ops giving them a view from a player since they always say we whine but never offer solutions.


blue summed it up by saying 2 teams of 200 or 10 teams 40. honestly that is my point im getting at

That's cool, I don't want to get this into trash talk, either. But I just have to call it like I see it. I am not trying to start shit, or whatever, but I will speak my mind about something I don't agree with. And I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this point. Please don't fault me for not taking your word for it that you would "have it taken care of privately" when you just created this not-very-private thread just four weeks ago: http://www.trenchwars.org/forums/sho...831#post515831

As far as what blublaze talked about:

First of all, I think smaller rosters and more squads with less-experienced players just means more inactive squads---not more TWD'ing or more competition. And why even bring Giant Tiger into a conversation about inactivity in TWD? They are ACTIVE. And if one of their players is not happy about getting "individual attention", I don't see what's stopping that player from ?squadleave'ing. There are plenty of other fish in the sea.

Secondly, not every squad philosophy is as competitive as the next. Not every squad has members who have the time or interest to play this game all the time, or have the goal to make TWL. Some people just like to hang out and have fun, and TWD occasionally just to mix it up once in a while.

But most importantly, Have you even spoken with Giant Tiger's members? Have these guys indicated to you that they would be active in TWD with another squad if they were forced to leave GT and go somewhere else? How do you think the average player would feel about that? I would personally be kinda pissed off if I was forced---not by the SquadCap(s), but by STAFF---to quit my squad just because I wasn't that into TWD. That would seem pretty fuckin unfair, actually.

[bubbles19518]

I think there are a few main reasons that squads like GiantTiger have big rosters.
First being that since 90% of the squad just started playing TWD after they joined GaintTiger means that they dont know "TWD unspoken rules", such as:

1. if you say you can dd you have to be able to stay the whole match
2. if your laggy you dont play a dd

Large rosters allow them to easily bring someone else in to be subbed, if one player randomly leaves/lags out, which I would think would happen a lot.

At the same time large rosters allow lots of players to play. Four players play first round, four different players play second. Since winning obviously isnt their objective they can give new players a chance to play basically whenever they are online.

Then my last point is that the players on gianttiger will get better... Not a lot better, but better enough to realize they need a better squad then GiantTiger. They will leave, and join a slightly better squad and hopefully be more active now that they know what they're doing.

[Purple Heart]

As someone stated up above, they ARE giving new players a chance to see TWD, and might be able to gather future prospects to the zone.

[Scoop]

I second this motion

WTF LOGIN SOME TIME THANKS

[Blueblaze]

I completely disagree with the current roster max right now..exactly, there isn't any. I would go for a 50 people roster max. The arguement newbies can't get into any other squad if it wasn't for gianttiger is complete bullshit. There are enough twd squads out there who are still willing to give fairly new players a chance, or people can always create a squad themselves, bring their 'newbie' friends and twd too. I think cutting back the rosters will get TWD more active and will result in more twd matches being played, which is good. If squads can play more TWD games, their members will have more reasons to get online and become (more) active again, which is also good for the TW community as a whole. Just my thoughts..

If your too lazy to read my hour long posts, or don't have enough attention span to do so, then read this man, as he is a genius. :P

I'm going to answer those previous statements, but whenever you guys use the word smaller squad, you make it seem like these squads are squads that DD once a month, have 15 inactive players, etc... Every squad is smaller than Gianttiger, and 50 roster squads are very large and easily large enough to provide enough activity that one desires.


Purple Heart: Gianttiger isn't the only squad that recruits pubbers. Pubbers who want to DD WILL find a squad, always, and if they don't, then they make a squad, and they'll get other pubbers to play. In fact having overly large squads hurts recruiting as people seemed forced to join only that one squad, when actuality there are many others that would accept them.

Subjugation: For starters, creating something 4 weeks ago isn't just created lol.

To the important point... whenever you have a large item, it always magnifies the qualities of the small item in some way. The good is magnified, the bad is magnified, but whenever it comes with people, larger the number, the larger the disruption and distortion. Smaller squads would end up having to axe people who were absolutely inactive (Oh no such a bad thing, we need more inactive players) Larger squads would end up having to axe people who are more so inactive as well, there is nothing wrong with this. No point in having inactive members other than to create clutter and confusion for that squad.

"Secondly, not every squad philosophy is as competitive as the next. Not every squad has members who have the time or interest to play this game all the time, or have the goal to make TWL. Some people just like to hang out and have fun, and TWD occasionally just to mix it up once in a while. "

Every squad is competitive though, not one squad in TWD goes in hoping to lose, do poorly, get made fun of, etc... Whether the desire to win is always great, its just different squads put different values on how they will obtain that victory. A roster of 50 or so people would give you plenty of room to work with inactives you like, semi-actives, and regular actives. Your being greedy if you need more than 50 people, I was on the GT squad for 1 day just to observe it, and they have at times they have 3 DDs occuring at one time. That is absolutely insane as people do not get individual attention (which newbies need as they not know much) nor will they get better playing TW as they will not get used to teaming, understanding basic concepts of playing, etc. The result is we get stupid newbies who'll turn out to be stupid veterans one day.

By the way, if your just glancing this, then atleast read the solution, no one is asking for the complete slaughter of any squad. We just need a smaller roster size.
I believe the best way would be to get the captains to cut whoever they desire to, force the inactives off, and then we can see their roster sizes. I have a feeling GT would get cut down to atleast 75 from this and other squads over 50 members probably would be cut under the limit. From that point you could impose a cap on whatever the highest roster size is, but don't allow anyone else to join the squad that is over 50 members. So basically, GT would have to axe or have more people quit if they wanted recruit more people as they would not be able to accept anyone while they have over 50 members in their squad. The process would take maybe a couple of weeks, no more than a month as captains would have to remove inactives and bad apples to keep their activity up. Once they got under the 50 limit, then they would be able to great a balance of how many true active players they need.

bubbles19518: 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot, including this one, and including yours. Looking at just the first 25 players on their roster, 9 players have been on previous squads before. The percentage is 64% for the first 25 anyway. Any more than likely, if you take off double squadders, new registered nicknames, and any other reason that causes your previous squad list to be removed, the actual percentage is probably near 50% or so. Vastly different from what you stated.

"Large rosters allow them to easily bring someone else in to be subbed, if one player randomly leaves/lags out, which I would think would happen a lot."
50 is enough to do this, you only need 1 sub, not 20. Having so many people waiting for the substitution spot just creates more confusion and chances are that they'll end up talking and distracting the players. GiantTiger isn't struggling to find a substitute, but other squads might be because of them having a roster that big.

"At the same time large rosters allow lots of players to play. Four players play first round, four different players play second. Since winning obviously isnt their objective they can give new players a chance to play basically whenever they are online." The players will play somewhere. If you're able to run 3 or 4 DDs at one time, then actually you could have 4 seperate squads running rather than just 1 squad that faces everyone else. As well, if you've spent anytime playing with or against Gianttiger, you'll notice that they (and other squads in the past with rosters of that size) will stick in their best players if they think they have a chance at winning. I've seen it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears, and actually done it as previous captain of a massive size squad (Trak; 75, 100 people on two seperate occassions). If you are 90% sure you can win a DD by sticking in your best players, but are 20% sure you can win by sticking in your newbies, more than likely you'll go with the 90%.

"Then my last point is that the players on gianttiger will get better... Not a lot better, but better enough to realize they need a better squad then GiantTiger."Like I said before, better players get better oppertunities despite what squad they're on. Even on Gianttiger, (Membership = 1 day, yet plenty of DDs) whenever I first joined my playing time was low until I had an oppertunity to start and I then scored 13 or so kills, then they started putting me in frequently, while players who went 2-5 and 10 were continually placed on the bench. This happens with any squad, and even squads like Giant Tiger. Just because they're big doesn't mean that everyone gets equal playing time or even decent playing time, never happens. I don't disagree with the fact that the players on Gianttiger will get better, but whenever they are not taught anything new, not treated individually, playing time is very unstable, and the actual teamwork of the squad is nil, then the growth of the player will be very slow.

"They will leave, and join a slightly better squad and hopefully be more active now that they know what they're doing."
More than likely these players will not leave to go to different squads but rather cluster up and remain close to what they know, they'll be home sick. If they do leave, then the progression that they will have made in Gianttiger will be nothing compared to how they progress under a new smaller squad. Why not just send the players straight to smaller squads where they get the attention and training they need and deserve? Having big squads makes big confusion and big newbies. 50 player squads create plenty enough activity, enough individuality (and if you need more, go to a smaller squad), and enough personal treatment (same for individuality). We need a 50 roster cap.

[kthx]

We are really working on this the wrong way here people, There shouldn't be "max player limits" on squads, every player should be worth X amount of points based on how many years hes been playing TWL, and a squad should only be able to have X amount of points for a given league. So for instance if Racka had been playing for three seasons, and Izor had been playing for two seasons, they are worth combined five points, with a 50/75/100 point limit for one/two/three league squad. As long as someone keeps track of if a squad is actually trying to be competative in the leagues they say the want to be in. This would keep some of the super squads apart atleast, and new pub squads could still have like 50 players, which they need since they don't understand the need to be on the game yet.

Of course splitting up old squads also might make some of the people quit, so it is hard to say.

[Aquatiq]

We are really working on this the wrong way here people, There shouldn't be "max player limits" on squads, every player should be worth X amount of points based on how many years hes been playing TWL, and a squad should only be able to have X amount of points for a given league. So for instance if Racka had been playing for three seasons, and Izor had been playing for two seasons, they are worth combined five points, with a 50/75/100 point limit for one/two/three league squad. As long as someone keeps track of if a squad is actually trying to be competative in the leagues they say the want to be in. This would keep some of the super squads apart atleast, and new pub squads could still have like 50 players, which they need since they don't understand the need to be on the game yet.

Of course splitting up old squads also might make some of the people quit, so it is hard to say.

Aliases.