That was only true with 5150 in T2. When I played in T1 we had WA, Reckless, IE, 5150, Synergy, and several others that could all take the top spot, if only they could challenge for it. Once you get into the top 5 it's nearly impossible to challenge up ever again, you just defend your position (or at least that used to be the case in the OGL).Sir Lucius said:
Ladders: Limited roster sizes for Vengeance.
- Thread starter Special
- Start date
Sir Lucius
Veteran XX
Well, then you're running under the assumtion that T:V will be worth playing enough to permit that kind of competetion
I think the best way to gauge that is to see if in the end the dev team wishes to create its own tribe for competetion. Not forced to, but by choice. Now that I think about it you never really saw Dave G. in serious competition with tribes2.
I think the best way to gauge that is to see if in the end the dev team wishes to create its own tribe for competetion. Not forced to, but by choice. Now that I think about it you never really saw Dave G. in serious competition with tribes2.
I have mixed emotions on locked roster sizes. Mostly because CkB had 66 players at our height in T2 and I would have hated to have to choose players.
That being said, TWL supports it and for a new game with a new style of play I would back a fixed roster size out of that gate if it would better serve the commuity. I think the smaller rosters means you have a more tight knit group of players which always helps drive the quality of competition.
That being said, TWL supports it and for a new game with a new style of play I would back a fixed roster size out of that gate if it would better serve the commuity. I think the smaller rosters means you have a more tight knit group of players which always helps drive the quality of competition.
yea ... i'd have to agree with polaris. As long as the team size limit is at the inception of the ladder it should be all good. You can always do something like have an injured reserve list also. Something along the lines of 1-14 are able to play this week but 2 on injured reserve. If you lock the teams too small noone can take a week off due to work/school etc.
Cons
Well I am not really against this idea, I will give some feedback from my point of view after running a competitive Tribes team for several years. Running a team in Tribes 1 demo, where we played 8v8, there was pretty much zero stress on roster, and it wasn't even really an issue. If competition is slated to be at around this size, perhaps 10v10, a cap would work without many cons I think.
However, if you go like Tribes 2, and have 12, 14, 16 man competition, adding a cap will just be adding another roadblock in the way of building a competing team in my opinion, and while it may add some competitiveness at the very top, it will make it even tougher to field a team on the way up. That is because for any team it is hard to have all good, dedicated, consistent players on your roster, and so a lot of depth (read: lots of players) in the roster is needed; I have had as many as 30 players on our T2 roster at times, and that still has left us struggling in practices, scrims etc for numbers. With a 30 man roster you can of course be expected to have enough for matches. But what about practices, meetings, scrims, all the other things needed for a team's health? That is what a cap might hurt if the roster is severely limited. And if a team has trouble with practices, scrims, meetings etc eventually, that will impact them in matches too, and might prevent them from even competing.
Well I am not really against this idea, I will give some feedback from my point of view after running a competitive Tribes team for several years. Running a team in Tribes 1 demo, where we played 8v8, there was pretty much zero stress on roster, and it wasn't even really an issue. If competition is slated to be at around this size, perhaps 10v10, a cap would work without many cons I think.
However, if you go like Tribes 2, and have 12, 14, 16 man competition, adding a cap will just be adding another roadblock in the way of building a competing team in my opinion, and while it may add some competitiveness at the very top, it will make it even tougher to field a team on the way up. That is because for any team it is hard to have all good, dedicated, consistent players on your roster, and so a lot of depth (read: lots of players) in the roster is needed; I have had as many as 30 players on our T2 roster at times, and that still has left us struggling in practices, scrims etc for numbers. With a 30 man roster you can of course be expected to have enough for matches. But what about practices, meetings, scrims, all the other things needed for a team's health? That is what a cap might hurt if the roster is severely limited. And if a team has trouble with practices, scrims, meetings etc eventually, that will impact them in matches too, and might prevent them from even competing.
If the ladder sizes are kept small then the cap will work fine, as long as it's known about before hand. Having the cap somewhere between 150% and 175% of roster size is probably best. Personally, I don't want to see a ladder with more than 12 man teams on it, and even that might be too much.
I'd like to see a smaller and a larger ladder too, like 7 and 12, or 6 and 10, or something like that. It's still a long way off before these kind of decisions have to be made though
I'd like to see a smaller and a larger ladder too, like 7 and 12, or 6 and 10, or something like that. It's still a long way off before these kind of decisions have to be made though
Irrelevant
Flatscan its not as simple an equation as that. Every team has more and less active players to juggle, and loyalty, and other issues to consider. In the last month or so I recall IA having to recruit for a couple positions right after taking the top rung, and Rapture complaining about people not coming to practice. While I am not saying these 2 teams are struggling, I am saying that a hard cap of say 18 players or 20 players for 14 man competition would make running a team more difficult, irrespective of where you are on the ladder.
I agree it would make the top more competitive though, so it wouldn't only be a negative. And if say, T:V had 10x the player base T2 has, I think maybe the abundance of players would make roster issues secondary to competitivity issues.
Flatscan its not as simple an equation as that. Every team has more and less active players to juggle, and loyalty, and other issues to consider. In the last month or so I recall IA having to recruit for a couple positions right after taking the top rung, and Rapture complaining about people not coming to practice. While I am not saying these 2 teams are struggling, I am saying that a hard cap of say 18 players or 20 players for 14 man competition would make running a team more difficult, irrespective of where you are on the ladder.
I agree it would make the top more competitive though, so it wouldn't only be a negative. And if say, T:V had 10x the player base T2 has, I think maybe the abundance of players would make roster issues secondary to competitivity issues.