As many of you have noticed, a new 8 member limit to teams has been recently instated. I thought long and hard about doing this, and thus have reasons for doing so. This was not just something I randomly decided to do. These reasons will be explained in this post. Please feel free to ask any questions if any further clarification is needed. I had considered making this post a poll, but I suspect that many people would have voted without reading this whole post. I want to avoid that and will create a poll at a later date after I feel most of the membership has read this.

Before I begin, I'd like to mention that alot of what I've done with the war section is based on observations I've made from being a part of an organized war section on a different forum for over a year. Nothing I do is on a "whim", and everything is done with lots of thought and consideration.


Now on to the explanations:

More Teams
The biggest reason for this limit was to allow for more teams to be formed. On a smaller forum like ours, membership for teams is at a premium. We don't want to have only a couple teams with a buttload of members. We want to have ALOT of DIFFERENT teams to spur on the activity of the war zone. When I first got here, there was one team with a ton of members, and the rest of the other teams were pretty lacking (and there were only 3 teams to boot). A war forum must have MANy more teams than that to be successful.


War Activity
Cutting the teams down has also been for the reason of ensuring that members are ACTIVE. With team slots as few as this, it ensures that teams will only be recruiting those members they know will be active, as well as encourage the current team members to STAY active. When the limit was higher, teams ended up developing inactive members since they didn't get to participate in all the wars. A healthy team has MOST of the membership participating in MOST of the wars. Having half the team sit out for any war is not conducive to producing activity.

If someone is on a team, we assume that it's because they want to DUEL. Having too many members means that alot more members are going to sit out of wars they'd rather be participating in. If you have members that don't care if they sit out or not, then, honestly, those members shouldn't be on the team. Teams are for organized, competitive dueling. Not for sitting around.


Smaller Wars
Based on the few wars that have already been held, it seems that having anything over 6 member wars tend to run slowly. The reason being is that you end up with more hearts/eliminations, and meeting up with other players tends to be harder. I'd like to see wars stay around 5-6 member rosters to encourage shorter, more efficient wars. Quicker wars means more activity in the war section since there will be more team matchups cycling through.


Those are my main reasons up front. Now, a few of you have expressed specific concerns which I'd like to address here as well for thoroughness:


We need more members in case some of them can't duel!
Wars are 5-6 members deep. That leaves 2-3 extras on the team that can sub in. There is absolutely no need to have more than that. Any more and the team is practically doubling its war roster. This leads to the activity issues I listed earlier.

I was on a team that had more than 8 members before, and now I was cut due to the new rule!
This is the one negative issue with the new rule. I realize some people are attached to their teams, but it's something that has to happen to make a change like this. As far as I know, there's only one team that's actually having to deal with this.

*************************************

As stated, alot of thought went into this before its implementation. I believe the war zone as a whole will benefit from this in the long run.

This guy here, is doing great things for the war zone.
If only I could instigate wars.

Decato wrote:

Dreamstate is busy trying to get 10 members. So if you war them now they'll be distracted and easier to beat...as long you have skill that is.

Sabbaticus wrote:

Superfriends can't even hold a candle to the true competitors. They're easily the weakest ones here.

Salik wrote:

Genesis is at it's weakest when it's in multiple wars. We should challenge Genesis all at once and pick it apart

Nichigo wrote:

Lethal Bullets are power hungry meta users. They're easy to beat obviously.

Charko wrote:

We're obviously the best. We have an original name and signature, with skill to boot. These teams won't see what's coming

Cons

War Activity
Cutting the teams down has also been for the reason of ensuring that members are ACTIVE. With team slots as few as this, it ensures that teams will only be recruiting those members they know will be active, as well as encourage the current team members to STAY active. When the limit was higher, teams ended up developing inactive members since they didn't get to participate in all the wars. A healthy team has MOST of the membership participating in MOST of the wars. Having half the team sit out for any war is not conducive to producing activity.

Okay Now Since you applied this have you seen an increase of activity from before when it was 15 on a team and now? Just because teams are short doesnt mean the members are active. Actually Data shows that the more people you have on the team The more active the players are. I dont know About others but i feel that if you have more people you have a higher chance for people to be active am i wrong? Ill do a comparison Their are a lot of teams on DN and i see a team called GOW (God Of War) They have atleast 25members and due to this they have more members online its just like A TEST the more questions you have the higher you score


Smaller Wars
Based on the few wars that have already been held, it seems that having anything over 6 member wars tend to run slowly. The reason being is that you end up with more hearts/eliminations, and meeting up with other players tends to be harder. I'd like to see wars stay around 5-6 member rosters to encourage shorter, more efficient wars. Quicker wars means more activity in the war section since there will be more team matchups cycling through.


I find this reason Invalid because even if i have 10 members on a team doesnt mean the war will be shorter In fact i think i could be shorter with 10 people lets say its a 5 on 5 you picked your 5 members but oh no all 5 members are inactive and only come on one a day for 2mins If you have another 5 they can be substitutes which actually cause the war to run smoothly in effectively

I heard one of the leaders of Dreamstate say this... you'll just have to take my word for it.

Sabbaticus wrote:

Dreamstate is NOT busy trying to get 10 members. The cut to 8 members was done the second the rule was changed, and since then we have not been trying to get any more members. We are not distracted, we are not easier to beat, and no skill you have will help you survive a war with us. That is all

MonicaTheVampire wrote:

Cons
Okay Now Since you applied this have you seen an increase of activity from before when it was 15 on a team and now? Just because teams are short doesnt mean the members are active. Actually Data shows that the more people you have on the team The more active the players are. I dont know About others but i feel that if you have more people you have a higher chance for people to be active am i wrong? Ill do a comparison Their are a lot of teams on DN and i see a team called GOW (God Of War) They have atleast 25members and due to this they have more members online its just like A TEST the more questions you have the higher you score

From since there were 15? There weren't any wars at all with the 15 man teams. Could you supply this data that shows more people have more active teams? I remember Gods of War from YGO3. They were a large team who had 3 active members and the rest were just a part of the team for the cards.

And I don't know what school you went to but in Canada the more questions you answer correctly raises your score. 3/25 is a worse mark then 3/8 fyi.

Quote :

I find this reason Invalid because even if i have 10 members on a team doesnt mean the war will be shorter In fact i think i could be shorter with 10 people lets say its a 5 on 5 you picked your 5 members but oh no all 5 members are inactive and only come on one a day for 2mins If you have another 5 they can be substitutes which actually cause the war to run smoothly in effectively

It does. Less members mean smaller overall wars. Understandably, most teams would like all of their members to take part in wars, which can make things go really slow if it's a 10 on 10 with 16 hearts, we'll be here until next year. If someone's team has half their members being inactive it's time to pull out the chainsaw and get chopping. Make room by throwing the bums out.

-delete-

MonicaTheVampire wrote:

Cons
Okay Now Since you applied this have you seen an increase of activity from before when it was 15 on a team and now? Just because teams are short doesnt mean the members are active. Actually Data shows that the more people you have on the team The more active the players are. I dont know About others but i feel that if you have more people you have a higher chance for people to be active am i wrong? Ill do a comparison Their are a lot of teams on DN and i see a team called GOW (God Of War) They have atleast 25members and due to this they have more members online its just like A TEST the more questions you have the higher you score

DN has a MUCH larger player base than Pro, so they can accommodate larger teams and there are more possible opponents for warring. On CEA, the amount of teams currently active is low (6), so you can't have 15-player teams when you feasibly can only have about 1-2 wars at once. If you play 5 in one, and a completely different team of 5 in another war, you have 5 other players sitting out. The lack of activity leads to a lack of motivation and leads to inactive players on an otherwise active team. The 8 player limit is supposed to mitigate that by essentially forcing players to play in wars due to the low number of players available on a team. And if a player isn't willing to war, he/she probably shouldn't have been on a team in the first place and should've been kicked in favor of a more active player. Maybe when there are more teams, the player limit can gradually increase so teams can participate in more wars at once.

Quote :

Smaller Wars
I find this reason Invalid because even if i have 10 members on a team doesnt mean the war will be shorter In fact i think i could be shorter with 10 people lets say its a 5 on 5 you picked your 5 members but oh no all 5 members are inactive and only come on one a day for 2mins If you have another 5 they can be substitutes which actually cause the war to run smoothly in effectively

There's a reason why we have roster lists during a war - to determine who can play. Otherwise, what you just mentioned is a 10v10 war, which I suppose would be allowed if the limit was 10. And your hypothetical situation involves using inactive players, which should be solved by reducing team size and some kicking. Why would a leader use a whole set of inactives for a war? I sort of get what you're trying to say, but your situation is just impractical.

First of all You can do a 10vs10 war then you wont have any subs and like i said there are pros and cons

How about 500dp for an additional Team spot ? x3
This way , everyones happy ^^

Then teams without staff will have less members, that will not work tbh xD

Salik wrote:

Genesis is at it's weakest when it's in multiple wars. We should challenge Genesis all at once and pick it apart

I never wrote that wtf...?? I'm calling my lawyer and sueing Fayt for fraud!

He's just joking around lol

So based on the input on this thread and with the approval of Sabbaticus, the 8-man rule is officially official. Any further complaints can be sent to my PM box

Now let's stop worrying about trivial things and start WARRING WOOOOOOOO!