Removing Inactive VTCs from TruckersMP

[RAW Truck]

Suggestion Name: Removing Inactive VTCs from TruckersMP

Suggestion Description: Inactive VTC must be removed from TMP as this will increase VTCs to more actively grow and have new members in them. For Example if a VTC is having 1-4 members and is older than 6 months must be removed or VTC having 5-20 members and older than 1 years must be removed. This is just an example.

Why it should be added: This will increase interaction of the VTCs. Currently facing issues of everyone bieng creating VTCs and creating events even with 1-2 members. This will drastically help VTCs to grow and more combined VTCs will be formed and may grow better.

Just Suggestion not hate to any one.

[Bеаn]

Hey, 

 

7 hours ago, RAW Truck said:

Inactive VTC must be removed from TMP as this will increase VTCs to more actively grow

No. While searching for VTCs, people can specify both a 'min members' number and a 'max members' number. If the member count is a key indicator of activity, people can use these filters to ensure they are only finding the 'active' VTCs.

A better way to find active VTCs is by searching for verified or validated VTCs. As explained here, eligible VTCs must meet the respective requirements of 20 active members or 50 active members. Becoming validated or verified is challenging, but with enough commitment, any VTC can achieve it.

Advertising your VTC and fostering growth is the responsibility of VTC management, not TMP. Removing non-active VTCs won't have any impact on your chances of growth. It's a well-known fact that the majority of people join VTCs due to their associated recognition, member count, or advertising.

The VTC you're currently in has 495 members. Based on my rough calculations, only 79 members have played in the last 2 weeks. This indicates that only 15% of your VTC is currently active, with a ratio of 79:416. Considering your events as well, it appears that you have a low turnout from your VTC. If your VTC is, by scale, this inactive, I can't comprehend why you'd want to remove smaller VTCs that, in comparison, have more active members relative to their size than your own. Seems to me that you want the smaller VTCs to make way for the bigger VTCs. Without giving the smaller VTCs a chance of growth, or consideration of their wishes and circumstances. 

In my experience, I've seen a bunch of smaller VTCs that wish to remain at their current size because they're just a bunch of mates having a laugh and driving together. On the other hand, there're some VTCs that're really struggling for recognition. Those struggling for recognition are struggling at the hands of VTCs like yourself. If TruckersMP came along and wiped out all these communities, things wouldn't improve, we'd only end up losing a bunch of friendship groups and up and coming dedicated VTCs. 

Before I conclude, I'll just talk about events. Why shouldn't a VTC with a couple of members be able to organise their own events?

7 hours ago, RAW Truck said:

Currently facing issues of everyone bieng creating VTCs and creating events even with 1-2 members

Hosting events is an excellent way for VTCs to attract members, and as mentioned earlier, some VTCs may simply want to organize events to drive together with their mates. With an average of 100+ sign-ups for your events (estimated), I find it hard to believe that you're 'facing issues'.

In conclusion, from my understanding of your proposal, I cannot endorse such a suggestion. You're advocating for the removal of VTCs that you deem inactive, yet the VTC you represent is, in terms of size, inactive. Moreover, you express displeasure that smaller VTCs and groups are organising their events. Personally, I don't see any issue with individuals hosting events, and I don't believe VTC member count holds significance in that regard.

[Interstate Nomad]

Like @Bеаn has pointed out correctly, only verified and validated VTCs must comply to specific size and activity requirements .

Deleting smaller and less active VTCs from TruckersMP would compromise their chances to become known and to grow (if desired).

 

 

[InsanoDeath]

According to me in this case as my experience and what i noticed is that the VTCs are created with lot of energy but as the VTCs dont grow its just there to compromise users of other VTCs. For example if a VTC of 10 people is older than 1 year it states that the VTC is unable to grow as 1 year is a good amount of time. If that VTC is disbanded / closed those 10 members may go to other VTC or collaborate with other VTC and may be then they can grow more better than competing each other. This way there will be less VTCs in the amount but more active vtcs. currently there are almost 50k VTC out of which 70-80% of them are totally inactive. even the owners may not have joined TMP in game in previous 3 months. Those VTCs must be removed. And in this way the leaders of VTC will work more hard to make there VTC stay in this competition.

[Bеаn]

I completely disagree, @InsanoDeath. 
 

An inactive VTC doesn't impede the growth of another VTC. The development of a VTC relies entirely on its reputation. Specifically, if the owner or management actively takes steps to promote the VTC's name, then that VTC has a greater chance of acquiring members compared to one that remains idle, merely awaiting people to join via the click-through rate.

In my experience, the currently most popular VTCs are either demographic-specific or large. Some individuals prefer to join a VTC with 200 members rather than one with only 10, while others favour a smaller VTC of 5, preferring it to be smaller.

 

If a VTC is inactive, people aren't likely to join it; therefore, it's in no way competition to yours or any other VTC—unless you're, for some reason, an inactive VTC trying to compete against other inactive VTCs. The key to success is recognition and a good environment—nothing less, nothing more.
 

I consider smaller VTCs, of which there are many, that are closed for recruitment, as 'time-capsule' VTCs—simply there to retain the memories of what was, not to impede the success of another VTC. Therefore, I see no reason why they should face deletion. Furthermore, smaller VTCs that are actively recruiting are, by recruiting, not inactive. VTCs sitting idle without reason or justification are indeed inactive, and thus, they don't pose any threat to new or existing VTCs. Those who remain in the VTC can join or leave as they wish—however, the entire VTC shouldn't be forcibly deleted, and all members forced, against their will, out. The VTCs that pose the most threat or challenge to newer or smaller VTCs are larger and well-established VTCs.

[Gummy]

You could have a group of friends who wanted to make a VTC and only be them. This suggestion is very pointless and I do not see the need for it at all. This will not help to increase the amount of active VTCs at all. If people want to have their own VTC even if it is not that active or many people in, they should, and are, allowed to do so. Adding this suggestion will do nothing but damage TMP as they are forcing VTCs into recruiting when they shouldn't have to. People can join any VTC they like to join.

[xBestBBx]

Hey there,

 

While we understand the reasoning for this suggestion, we are declining it because of all of the reasons above. VTCs are an integral part of our community and if we were to just remove inactive ones, we'd effectively be hurting our community, which we don't want to do. We appreciate you suggesting this, but we will be declining it. 

 

Regards,

xBestBBx

[xBestBBx]

// Rejected