Roster Limits -- Is it time?

[qan]

Well, as far as I know, you're currently the only person I've heard opposed to it, Jessup. TWD is mostly used for practice these days. It's always struggled to define itself on its own terms. If you've got an idea that doesn't require a ton of development, or an idea that does + can get a developer to commit, put it forward, get community backing, and lead the charge. The division between staff and community has never been more narrow than it is today. We're all just players keeping the game going. Meanwhile almost all players are now full grown adults with busy lives. We share responsibility to the degree that we each have time to put in and the interest in doing so. Personally I've not had a lot of time since quarantine started, as it's added a huge amount to my workload, and I'm not looking at taking on any new projects aside from a few that are essential + the usual occasional bugfix. I spend enough time as it is maintaining the status quo and making small improvements as I can. That alone is quite taxing. Any radical development is largely out of my hands these days as necessitated by hours available in the day (long gone are the days when I quit my job and lived off savings to develop for TW nearly full time) but I'll gladly support what the community decides is the right way to go.


Beam, there might be some problems with being able to borrow a cap/asst, as those players could affect how the other team functions. Haven't taken a detailed look at it, but it's good to know that's an issue.

[BIET]

I agree with dwopple that there at least shouldn't be a physical limit. I can't see a way for that to bring us the result we want, which is more activity. There has to be a reason why there arent that many squads currently, and I doubt it's because there's no roster limit. If we force roster limits now we might just end up with loads of players who wouldve played were they on a large squad, but are now unwilling to either be borrowed or make a squad. One way to find out would be for the squads with a large roster to agree that they would either split up into multiple squads, or remove players up to a limit like violence suggested he could do on rapid.

[LucifersWarcraft]

I agree with dwopple that there at least shouldn't be a physical limit. I can't see a way for that to bring us the result we want, which is more activity. There has to be a reason why there arent that many squads currently, and I doubt it's because there's no roster limit. If we force roster limits now we might just end up with loads of players who wouldve played were they on a large squad, but are now unwilling to either be borrowed or make a squad. One way to find out would be for the squads with a large roster to agree that they would either split up into multiple squads, or remove players up to a limit like violence suggested he could do on rapid.

If people didn't stack on the top teams we wouldn't need to regulate rosters but the truth of the matter is, everyone joins top teams and then sit in spec for months. If we force people to spread out, there will be more opportunities for players to not only be played but for squads to be able to find games.

"roster limits might end up losing loads of players that are unwilling to play or join another squad"--that's a very grim outlook you've taken on what can happen with implementing limits. It could also be the exact opposite with more players becoming active and more games being played.

Thing is, we've never tried and I don't think it would hurt to give it a shot for a few months to see if there's a positive impact. If there isn't, we simply revert back. Let's not kid ourselves, TWD is not nearly as important anymore. TWDT is arguably the sole reason for activity followed by TWL. The whole point of this is to give TWD a spark of life which at this time it has none. But if it doesn't work out (which I don't see happening) this game is not going to die or anything terrible so long as our leagues are running. Worse that will happen is some people will step away because they can't sit on stacked squads but am not even sure we'll notice because those kind of people haven't been actively playing to begin with.

[Vehicle]

I agree with dwopple that there at least shouldn't be a physical limit. I can't see a way for that to bring us the result we want, which is more activity. There has to be a reason why there arent that many squads currently, and I doubt it's because there's no roster limit. If we force roster limits now we might just end up with loads of players who wouldve played were they on a large squad, but are now unwilling to either be borrowed or make a squad. One way to find out would be for the squads with a large roster to agree that they would either split up into multiple squads, or remove players up to a limit like violence suggested he could do on rapid.

It's exactly because there's no roster limit.

There's really no good argument not to put a cap on rosters, either. Want to play with your friends but not enough room on the squad? !borrow. Not enough room on the squad but still want to keep in touch with your mates? chat=.

And there is a good argument for having a cap: there would be more activity and a wider variety of players would play.

Maybe the shitty side effects are just much more noticeable in twbd than the dueling arenas.

[LF]

Dice Roster.....

Captains 1 Dwopple 2 kess 3 megaman89 4 Stayon Assistants 5 a2m 6 Chief Utsav 7 CLARK KENTaro 8 Cripple 9 Draft 10 Dreamwin 11 maketso 12 Ro 13 Spawnisen 14 TJ hazuki 15 Turban 16 Vys 17 wbm

Players 18 Assembly 19 BigKing 20 bike 21 Burnt 22 Cape 23 Eel 24 Elven 25 EvilDeed 26 Frozen Throne 27 Groan 28 GUSHING 29 Hak 30 Havok 31 Jrahen 32 L S 33 LF 34 McVicar 35 Mess 36 Mikes 37 Necromotic 38 Oderus Urungus 39 Panama 40 paska 41 rucci 42 sheep 43 Smurf 44 Sumpson 45 TABARNAK!!! 46 Weak

So here's 46 players on our roster. In the month or so I've been back, 25 of them haven't even logged on even a single time.
Of the 21 that are left, 4 log on only on Sundays for TWDT.
Of the 17 left, 6 have played only 1 game.
That leaves 11 players who play with any measurable consistency (Stayon, dwop, dream, turb, wbm, me, gushing, l s, smurf, chief, TJ)

So counting every player (16) that's played at least 1 game in the past month, tell me again how it benefits the zone to either....
A) Axe every player that doesn't log on and replace them with active ones (Not gonna happen)
or
B) Force the 16 of us to join other, smaller squads and still play with the same clique of !borrow'd players anyway.

I may squad hop some on my own volition, I have in the past, but if Im forced to leave my squad of like 9 years then I can pretty much guarantee I wouldn't join another.

[Rab]

If we ever rebuild that system, just add a "bench", then all the ppl can stay tagged but it's clear they don't rly count.

[Grasps]

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

As for borrows, personally I'd love for them to be cut back or even removed if this goes through. Very least bring them back down to 1-2 for dueling and 2-3 for basing to encourage squad play. Borrows were great for unregulated rosters, they'll need to be reassessed should this go through along with lots of other things. I don't think anyone just wants to cut rosters and call it good. This will be done with care and consideration for everyone involved.

We can't put all our eggs in one basket here or it would be overwhelming and nothing will change. Even for roster limit amout, that should be voted on too. First, we need to get roster limits passed and then other changes will follow suit to ensure the intended results are working ie. more squads, more games and more activity. And as it's been said, if this doesn't work, it's a simple thing to revert back to. I think this is a great time to test it out especially between TWDT and TWL which is our lowest activity levels to see if there's a substantial boost.

There's more reasons as to why limits would be beneficial than not. Concerned you'll lose touch? Keep a ?chat that remains unchanged so when they log they can reconnect. We have discord, twitter, facebook and numerous other ways to keep in touch with friends. They don't need to sit on a squad to do that anymore. As for a bench system, I don't see the point. Just keep people on a dedicated squad chat--that in theory is benching as they aren't rostered but apart of the team. If they come back and want to be active, you can slot them in or they can find another squad that has room. It's not the end of the world guys. I say lets try it out for a few months and let the results speak before we completely throw it out.

[Stayon]

If people didn't stack on the top teams we wouldn't need to regulate rosters but the truth of the matter is, everyone joins top teams and then sit in spec for months. If we force people to spread out, there will be more opportunities for players to not only be played but for squads to be able to find games.

This is a way to see it, however, its a complete missread. While the idea of people wanting to just be a part of top teams even if that was detrimental to their playtime, highlights itself more than lower squads..the issue isn't and never was about such squads. The issue is virtually every single squad that existed on this game with excess of players, which are nearly all of them in history.

The only time I remember the game to be nearly balanced in 'quantity' of players per squad was 2002-2003, when you had at one point 70 squads on twdd ladder, or nearly 30/40 in twbd, and even then most had too many players.

From good to bad, how many times there were average dueling squads with 30 members? When you need about 12-14 for dueling. How many times there were average, good or bad basing squads with 40+ members?

While on the past, "squad feeling/chemistry", joining someone to improve even if not playing, or just the people and the connections you make, it made way more sense back in the day... nearly every single squad that has played this game had an excess of players.

Thats really a mob mentality you'll never resolve, because we are humans and we like connections. I can't speak for others..but I would never waste time on a game to sit on the sidelines. It's a video game afterall, and even for me with my own opinion, the people I've met and cherished for 15/20 years and my old squad means way more than all the playing I did. I was just "lucky" to have the best of both worlds on this game.

There will always be benchers, but there was way to many people not "wanting" it enough to play, be part of a starting lineup and fell too much into one of the game's strenghts, its community and easy chit chat. Or even better, realizing they would barely play on 40 member roster as 95% of any given moment in TW's history, they moved on to newer games and let go of the old spaceship.

The responsability layed not on the players, but on who lead us..to "indirectly" show us a better way for the game's sake and enforce such rosters, so people would actually...participate more.

Those same connections and squad feeling created too much of a resistance, fear and denial...with nearly everyone rejecting such roster limits. The game is as dead as it was before I went on a 3year hiatus recently, and despite the COVID population spike and an interesting TWDT..things are about the same. Just a shame it took so long for people to actually want it. Now? Go ahead, but all these "solutions" for the game only serve to soften up the zone's obvious last breaths.

With this said, always been a big advocate of cutting rosters, with staff's enforcing for the greater good of the realm...we're just about 15 years late on this matter. I voted yes regardless.

[Kassius]

I agree with dwopple that there at least shouldn't be a physical limit. I can't see a way for that to bring us the result we want, which is more activity. There has to be a reason why there arent that many squads currently, and I doubt it's because there's no roster limit. If we force roster limits now we might just end up with loads of players who wouldve played were they on a large squad, but are now unwilling to either be borrowed or make a squad. One way to find out would be for the squads with a large roster to agree that they would either split up into multiple squads, or remove players up to a limit like violence suggested he could do on rapid.

Pubbux for winning team in TWD?

[Heaven]

adding a roster limit on TWD has failed every single other time. why try it again now. it's an incredibly stupid idea that lowers TWD activity. check past history. I was staff when the TWD roster limit was passed the 2nd time and iirc it lasted a few weeks and twd was dying. a league started up which kept shit alive and the limit was removed when league started. it's a horrible idea and currently as it is, we're seeing 10-15+ TWD games a night. don't ruin what's currently working. TWD is for playing with friends not some supreme league.

[Heaven]

also, as previously mentioned a couple times, most rosters with 20+ are majority inactives. sure dice can cut down to 20 but those others never log on. this doesn't help "promote twd activity". aside from MAYBE rapid/spastic, no other squad has more than 20+ active players. if people are crying they can't find squads to play on, kicking 25ppl from dice is not gonna "open" up a spot for these newbies who cry on forums to join an active squad. it's a stupid idea and has failed every. single. time. it. was. attempted. in. the. past.

thank you for listening to my TED talk

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.