Poll: Roster Limit

[Doc Flabby]

Well, you've kinda answered your own question, as you've suggested the obvious way round it is to simple kick and re-add players to the roster as necessery.

Which makes the cap an additional bureaucratic and pointless inconvience to squad captains.
And no new squads get created.
Making the cap totally pointless.
People are angry because the idea hasn't been thought though...

The reason why a cap works in TWL is because you have to pick your squad BEFORE hard lock. After hard-lock you're not allowed any changes. In TWD you can change your squad at will. Even a cap of 20 players could easily be circumnavigated by smart captains...to run a much larger squad.

[Vatican Assassin]

At this point, all decisions should prioritize our keeping as many players as active and interested in TW as possible over the idea of creating new squads/more competition. Case in point: Disoblige just reformed, and they have over 35 players. Some of these players are the old vets who play 2 TWD matches a month, many of them are less seasoned players who are happy to be a part of such a respected squad with competent captains. The lack of a roster limit allows the vets and newer players to mingle, play together, and in general, keep the cycle of TW alive, unhindered. If a roster limit were in place, you would have upset captains deciding whether to axe upset older vets or upset newer players. How does upsetting people help keep TW as active as possible for as long as possible? Would the reallocation of 5 newbs to different squads or elimination of 5 inactive vets help TW in any meaningful way?

[Ephemeral]

My opinion is...
- Unless the a polling thread states that it will publish how each person voted before voting starts, the individual results shouldn't be posted
- The real issue is whether or not to try to force stabilization of squads in TW, ‘capping rosters’ is only a single veiled means to that end. They should stop dicking with the small subsets of the real issue and decide if they have the courage to tackle it or not. There are more effective ways of forcing squad stabilization. Given the lack of balls demonstrated by other decisions (such as unbanning previously life-banned people and allowing them not only back into TW as players but allowing them to be involved in squad leadership roles), I seriously doubt that anyone is going to face this issue head-on. If TW isn’t going to just come out and deal with it real issue, stop playing games and stirring up the drama queens with stupid things like this poll and thread.

[Crescent Seal]

old

[Vatican Assassin]

There are more effective ways of forcing squad stabilization.

Force squad stabilization? What are you talking about my friend?

[Cranium]

less people on a sqd = more squads which sounds more exciting to me...

[Vatican Assassin]

If TW staff truly wants to get a more active core for TWD, why is there STILL no proper tutorial/introduction for new players as they enter the zone for the first time? EVERY game has a tutorial, which besides the gameplay should be here to explain the goals/possibilities of the zone. Maybe in the past there weren't as much free MMOGs. But right now when a new player enters our zone, doesn't get the point within 5 minutes, he'll just give up and download the next free game.

Sorry to double post, but I couldn't agree with this idea more. Go to Death Star Battle and ?go tutorial and you'll see what TW is missing. I was lucky in that my irl friends introduced me to the game, I'm not sure what someone alone would think if they joined TW, got put in a small pub and couldn't find anything to kill in those first five precious moments.

[kthx]

Yeah, I never really thought about that Vatican but you are right, I would say a majority of the good players probably came to the game with someone they knew in real life or from another game.

[Simple Mistake]

I demand a recount!

[Ephemeral]

Force squad stabilization? What are you talking about my friend?

Sorry, by ‘Force squad stabilization’ I meant things like capping rosters, penalizing squad hopping, disallowing squad inactivity, basically tightening the current flexibility that is allowed for players and squad leaders. (Note, in no way was I saying that I think this should be done.)

[Vatican Assassin]

Limiting squad rosters might help some newby dd and jd squads but it would kill TWBD, hard enouh for some of these 40+ squads to get 8 or even 6 most of the time.

[Turban]

Promoting TWD in public arenas and finally making a tutorial arena would do the trick.

If I wasn't so god damn lazy, I'd do one myself. Just need some photoshopping, writing, making a lvz, making an arena layout and done. :fear:

[Draft]

tutorial

now

[Vatican Assassin]

Tutorial riot gogogogogo

[Daldur]

This thread seems to be riddled with the same misconception frequently.

Distributing the more experienced players to form watered-down squads in order to increase competitiveness for a larger number of squads is theoretically possible, however practicality is the only thing that stands in the way.

What this argument assumes is an inconsistent stereotyping of how players interact in-game with regards to two mediums, chats and squads. Powerhouse squads like Thunder, dicE, etc. base their rosters on people who they can tolerate, rather than straight out skill. I'll use Thunder for an example since I was on it for 2 seasons.

Sure, Thunder has won LJ 4 seasons in a row, but do you think if the starting line for Thunder formed its own squad of 5-10 players, the outcome would be any different? No, they would still win. Perhaps if these 5-10 people were distributed to 5-10 different squads it would be a different matter, in theory. But would this happen? Some squads are just designed for winning league and having a laugh at struck in the process.