Roster Limits -- Is it time?

[menomena]

ur comparing leagues with scheduled matches or games with twd that has matches anytime enough people happen to be online including borrows lol

[beam]

Subspace - no roster limits
CSGO - 5 players + coach
Overwatch League - 12 players
League of Legends - 7 players
Rocket League - 3 players + 1 reserve + 1 optional manager
Fortnite - 3 players + 2 reserve players
Starcraft II - 2 to 10 players
Rainbow Six Siege - 5 to 12 players
World of Tanks - 5 players
DOTA II - 5 to 12 players
Smite - 30 players
NBA - 15 players
MLB - 40 players
NFL - 53 players
Guild Wars 2 - 50 players/10 players (raid)
F1 - 4 drivers

Going to stop, you get the point. Just about EVERY single competitive game, sport, w/e has roster limits. It's not like what's being proposed here is outrageous. Limiting rosters is a positive thing for competition. More competition = More activity. I think 20 is more than generous, frankly though 12 would make a lot more sense (8 for base games + 4 reserve). If people can't play this game without riding on a stacked team, that's pretty sad. Not sure how anyone could call themselves competitive yet be unwilling to not being on super stacked teams.

You're comparing a casual practice environment to multiple hyper competitive leagues that people participate in as a career. It's apples and oranges. For the idea of a roster cap to have any of the desired effects, borrows would need to be removed as it's completely pointless to cap teams when you can just borrow the same people every game. Squads used to matter back when twd fed into twl but now that anybody can just sign up and enter there's simply no competitive aspect to it. Implementing a roster cap wouldn't accomplish anything besides pissing people off.

[menomena]

Subspace - no roster limits
CSGO - 5 players + coach
Overwatch League - 12 players
League of Legends - 7 players
Rocket League - 3 players + 1 reserve + 1 optional manager
Fortnite - 3 players + 2 reserve players
Starcraft II - 2 to 10 players
Rainbow Six Siege - 5 to 12 players
World of Tanks - 5 players
DOTA II - 5 to 12 players
Smite - 30 players
NBA - 15 players
MLB - 40 players
NFL - 53 players
Guild Wars 2 - 50 players/10 players (raid)
F1 - 4 drivers

Going to stop, you get the point. Just about EVERY single competitive game, sport, w/e has roster limits. It's not like what's being proposed here is outrageous. Limiting rosters is a positive thing for competition. More competition = More activity. I think 20 is more than generous, frankly though 12 would make a lot more sense (8 for base games + 4 reserve). If people can't play this game without riding on a stacked team, that's pretty sad. Not sure how anyone could call themselves competitive yet be unwilling to not being on super stacked teams.

ok good idea let's follow the MLB's guidelines and cap it at 40

[qan]

on this doomed game??

People have been saying SS is in its last days for probably 15 years now and have yet to be correct. But in fairness, all online games are necessarily "doomed" (as are we all). I think we've got plenty of life left in us, though.

[Grasps]

Subspace - no roster limits
CSGO - 5 players + coach
Overwatch League - 12 players
League of Legends - 7 players
Rocket League - 3 players + 1 reserve + 1 optional manager
Fortnite - 3 players + 2 reserve players
Starcraft II - 2 to 10 players
Rainbow Six Siege - 5 to 12 players
World of Tanks - 5 players
DOTA II - 5 to 12 players
Smite - 30 players
NBA - 15 players
MLB - 40 players
NFL - 53 players
Guild Wars 2 - 50 players/10 players (raid)
F1 - 4 drivers

Going to stop, you get the point. Just about EVERY single competitive game, sport, w/e has roster limits. It's not like what's being proposed here is outrageous. Limiting rosters is a positive thing for competition. More competition = More activity. I think 20 is more than generous, frankly though 12 would make a lot more sense (8 for base games + 4 reserve). If people can't play this game without riding on a stacked team, that's pretty sad. Not sure how anyone could call themselves competitive yet be unwilling to not being on super stacked teams.

[Jessup]

mean gene .. lol . ur a really bad warbird. Dunno why you gotta insult me but I'll return the favor. You now a member of the Dick Clicks running this final stand shit show on this doomed game?? You said nothing of any significant consequence after saying " but now.. there are different things we need to worry about/try to accomplish" . Let's hear some details from you about what we need to focus on and do to improve the zone besides you taking low shots at people participating in this thread. You gave ZERO real constructive input. Great point!! TWL shud have roster caps!!.. real original.. rofl..ur amazing and cool dude! rofl..

[WillBy]

I dont see any benefits to roster caps. Others have claimed that it will generate more activity, which is just false. Maybe it holds more true for 3v3 dds, but it just doesnt work for 8v8 bds. In fact, enforcing roster limits will hurt zone activity by limiting available player pools and driving away potential returning/new players.

And why it's been active lately? No thanks to big squads like Rapid! It's thanks to small squads like Wolf, Spliffed, Lululemon and Lolzers. If it wasn't for the small squads (which the point of this is to make more of), this game would be inactive af.

Let's to a quick tally of most games played. Players on the 4 squads you mentioned account for a whopping 8 out of the 40 players with the most games. 11, if you start including other small squads. Rapid alone has 13, spastic has another 7.

Someone will try to argue that teams should be split up for this very reason. That individual is misunderstanding why players on rapid dont want to be kicked off their hyper-active squad. We like to play with our friends.

For a personal anecdote, I still manage to get an hour or two each night of playing, but that time is cut short if there arent active games going on. I only started playing again because I found some old friends and was able to start bding. If people on those squads hadn't kept a spot open for me, I wouldnt still be playing. Sure, I could've gotten borrowed, but the odds of a game starting and me logging in are low without being on an actual squad. It's a 20 year old game, almost all of us have quit and come back at some point. Its important that we keep spots open for anyone that does want to return, and axing them (or everyone active leaving their squads) wont make anyone want to log in.


Nobody in this zone wants to be on a squad of 12 people. Everyone wants to be on a squad for 25-35. You always want someone- several people- around and available to play (and to play against!) The shrinking population has made it difficult to maintain as many large, active squads as before. The people arguing in favor or roster caps arent arguing in favor or limiting roster sizes- their goal is to create more squads, and they believe reducing larger squads down will accomplish this. However, as mentioned above, this will instead result in players leaving the game- logging in, idling for a bit, leaving for something more active. We all love playing with our friends, and anyone still playing clearly loves this game. In a time when we have more options than ever of ways to play with our friends, why would we try to make Trench Wars a worse option?

[Grasps]

Just want it to be noted here that the most vocal people calling this idea dumb (@heavan, @zeebru, @craeture, @voi, @bacqn, @tsupami, ect.) are all from Rapid--3rd largest squad in TWD.

Heaven, sure I remember that time when roster limits backfired but there were a lot of ass politics involved and we didn't have the ability to play 3v3 games or borrow people. What happened is people boycotted the game and within a short period of trying it reverted back. I don't even think it lasted 2 weeks did it? How can we say that that is a fair amount of time for trying something out?

I don't understand how people can think that if the zone has say 70 active players and most of that 70 is on two squads, that that's a good thing. We need people to spread out.

And why it's been active lately? No thanks to big squads like Rapid! It's thanks to small squads like Wolf, Spliffed, Lululemon and Lolzers. If it wasn't for the small squads (which the point of this is to make more of), this game would be inactive af.

[Zeebu]

If people want to be on a squad, they need to be active. That's the whole point of this change.

woo!!

found the single dumbest thing that anyone has ever said on the forum!!!



TWL has strict limits and does not allow borrows. if you can convince a few friends to join up on a TWL squad youve created youll get in with even the smallest amount of skill and effort. youll probably get smoked by the same 3 or 4 squads full of the same 50 active people but thats just the way it is.


TWDT has a draft that forces strict limits. there are certainly some things that can be suggested here to increase participation probably, but im not sure what is best.


TWD is nothing more than glorified practice. TWD exists to play games when an actual league is not going on. thats it.

[mean gene]

lmao dont do this. this is, like stayon said, 10-15 years late.. 5 years ago i would agree but now.. there are different things we need to worry about/try to accomplish than capping twd squads lol..
half the big squads are half filled with afks. so were gonna kick out the afks/semi active players and those semi active players are forced to either not squad/ go somewhere they dont want to be at/ or probably not bother showing up.. great plan!

edit: if youre going to cap anything, like creature said, cap TWL where ppl are willing to branch out because of play-time opportunities. this is just silly.

edit: Jessup most good players and up are not really looking to troll their team they are borrowed to because they are playing their own squad.. twd is about practice. besides, u should be worrying about urself since you dont play for the team anyways.. weird..

edit: who is the OP? no clue why this is happening from a guy ive never seen play in this game before.

[Tsunami]

This game has, and will continue to be, cliquey at its core; players tend to stick with their core group of e-friends (see: Thunder, Dice, Pandora, Spastic, etc.). This is why TWL seems to have the same group rotating squad names year in and year out. TWD allows for more freeform, to an extent, but again, player bases will stick with each other because at the end of the day, they enjoy playing this game with certain people. Rapid, which this thread is clearly targeting, is a byproduct of this.

Implementing an arbitrary TWD roster cap will not help with activity necessarily. I have been borrowed by players / squads I have seemingly never played with before with no problem; TWD is allowed to be active and I still have the optionality of playing with Rapid players. If anything, I recommend allowing all players (including assistants and captains) to be borrowed by enemy teams for purposes of TWD activity. There is no reason to break up squads because they simply like playing with each other.

At this point, this game's only hope of maintaining and possibly growing its population is to foster a sense of community; you will not accomplish this by arbitrarily breaking up squads for the sake of "activity."

[the_paul]

So, just to be clear, the argument is that enacting roster limits will somehow make TWD more active? Despite the fact that players can be (and are) borrowed to play with and against any squad at any time (as long as not asst or cap), somehow putting an arbitrary number on the number of people who can be rostered on a website is supposed to increase activity? I haven't heard 1 explanation that makes sense as to how this will magically happen. If there aren't enough borrows available because of the asst/cap rule, limit the number of assistants and caps each squad can have. If there aren't enough borrows because there aren't enough people in the arena, that's a zone problem and not a roster problem. Nothing kills TWD activity more effectively than starting a new TWL season, but I don't see anyone starting a poll to eliminate TWL seasons.

tl;dr this idea makes no sense, has never made sense, has never even worked despite being tried multiple times, and has been made completely obsolete by the !borrow system. This was a bad idea when it was tried a decade ago, and its an even worse idea now.

[menomena]

is luciffers war craft the dumbest guy i ever see or no

lucifers warcraft idea	dumb af
lucifers warcraft	dumbaf
lucidfferers warcraft's other ideas	dumb af

[Bacon]

This could be the dumbest idea I've seen. Why are we trying to promote borrowing rather than playing with your own squad? Most people play TWD to play with friends. If you force a hard limit, it will most likely kick out the semi active players that want to play with friends. People will quit when they are not on squads with their friends.

You won't be able to just revert changes back in a few months when this idea fails. People that have quit will most likely not return.

Please don't follow EG leadership and kill the zone.

[Creature]

I OPPOSE THIS IDEA ALOT.

I don't think you'll achieve the goal you want as it won't increase activity. Keep in mind the "active" population of players is really small. Look at Rapid. We have like a 37 man roster where anybody who isn't (A) or (C) doesn't log in or play. Same thing with Dice.

If you want to decrease roster limits, decrease them in TWL, not TWD. This will force people to have smaller rosters in TWL and thus ppl who want playing time will be forced to create new TWD squads as a result.

"Having a large squad to keep activity up is also no longer necessary and is actually counter-productive in 2020 since it removes players from other teams for games to even take place"

That's frankly not true. The reason why games aren't happening is b/c there's literally not fucking 10 people online. You think Rapid is sitting around getting games with 10 people in spec and nobody to play against? LOL.

Forcing squad limits in TWD is not going to make people log in or play more. Personally, I don't really want to play with a squad that isn't the one I'm on. So now if you artificially force the number of active players on my squad to be less, then I'm going to play less as a result. Do you know how rare it is for even 5 "elite" players to be logged in at the same time and want to play a TWD match? Now you're depending on half of your squad to show up and play a TWD match. LOL. I want to obviously squad with people who are "good", but still have activity enough so I can log in and just play when I want. Your proposal forces constraints to the point where the people I want to play with don't log in enough or aren't active.

Look at a personal level, here's how I feel about your proposed change:

Option 1: Sit on a roster with a bunch of inactive "elite" players who I know I have a great chance at winning TWL with (Ease/Myth/etc.) and never play any TWD as a result b/c they never log in to play TWD games.

Option 2: Sit on a roster with a bunch of "active" players who are my friends decent but not elite. Probably lose a bunch of games.

Both these options fucking suck. I don't want to sit on a roster with a bunch of inactive elite players and never play. I also don't want to sit on a roster full of active players that aren't the players I want to play TWL with and isn't competitive. But I DO want to play with my friends and I'm happy to carry them or lose games. You're taking away the option of having both. Net result is I will simply just not play.

This is an outrageous idea and one that I'll just personally quit TW if it happens b/c the entire point of me logging in is to vs with my squadmates that I genuinely like and TW isn't active enough to support squads of 12.