PR Tournament?

[Brainlaag]

Brain, it was one of the reasons why PRT died. Everybody wanted to be NATO :/

Yeh thats why NATO didn't even have the numbers anymore to play through out C9. Was all drama and bitching and ppl getting steamrolled. Thats about it, otherwise the tournament wouldn't have been successful for 8 (or 9 if you count 8.5, not counting C9) campaigns.

It was those names we all know that lead to the same issues. People just love to over complicate things, thats why it failed.

If, for some marvelous coincidence, the factions played a major role in what happened, well, then why don't we get just one faction so we have always the perfect balance and no-one feels left out in his choice, duh (I don't want to go at you Cossack, it's just the general tone of the topic is simply frustrating).

Not running INS might also have a positive result on tournaments.

[Peeta]

I wanted to be CATA. :/

[PLODDITHANLEY]

I drove a logy truck for 2 hours on qwai from main to mortars to main to mortars to main to ....

[Brainlaag]

I drove a logy truck for 2 hours on qwai from main to mortars to main to mortars to main to ....

Haha I was there with you plodd, till I flipped it.

[Wicca]

Would be cool to have like 1 faction per team. Like lock it.

[HunterMed]

Would be cool to have like 1 faction per team. Like lock it.

yep. completely agree.

I remember in C5, when CATA was still PELA and MEDI. PELA only played Chinese and MEDI played MEC. And NATO was BCST and what was the name of the yanks... USsomething

Good times.

[MaxBooZe]

yep. completely agree.

I remember in C5, when CATA was still PELA and MEDI. PELA only played Chinese and MEDI played MEC. And NATO was BCST and what was the name of the yanks... USsomething

Good times.

Whilst it was a good idea at the time (MEDI also playing INS) the sheer amount of factions and the always changing Russian situation (Is it OpFor or BluFor?) make it very awkward to do so and the CATA & NATO structure is the closest you can get to a proper division.

Besides the 2 Factions, 4 teams structure worked out, until NATO got a bad rep.

Then again I just want to revive CATA and all of it's awesomeness.

[the_ganman]

2 teams with 2 teams on each with free reign to switch between essentialy a nato and cata on each team. As for the CATA steamrolling that came from the momentum. I joined cata and it seemed like everyone had played together for years before I showed up. I think theres been enough brake that I think everything would be allot more balanced

[L4gi]

Biggest problem back then and still now is not enough good commanders who are willing to put enough time in. There were some people incharge of teams who should not have gotten the job after the first failure, but instead got the job again and again.

[the_ganman]

Biggest problem back then and still now is not enough good commanders who are willing to put enough time in. There were some people incharge of teams who should not have gotten the job after the first failure, but instead got the job again and again.

I think this can be rectified. Just make easier for teams to replace there co after some less then stellar action or commitment.

[L4gi]

You need people to sign up for CO in the first place...

[Brainlaag]

You need people to sign up for CO in the first place...

Dedicated people that don't lose themselves in bureaucracy.

[HunterMed]

Yeah, CATA had a good run also because of the stability of the COs who were in the same team for a long time and were grunts, SL before within the same team. On that note, also NATO1 at the time with casualty as CO who was in the game for a long time.
I at least had all ranks during my 3 campaigns from grunt to CO. And Bonsai and Aquiller aswell I think.


I think stability is a greater factor really than being a strategic master mind. Strategy does not need to come from one person but the stability that a team can believe in itself and its structures.
Changing SLs or COs too often makes it impossible to command or play in the team.
That's also why public gameplay COs have a hard time in my opinion.

[Heavy Death]

I would enjoy the PRT returning with the caveat that there should be four teams, rather than two.

Actually, it would be cool if there was 3 teams; BLUFOR, OPFOR Conventional and OPFOR Unconventional.

[Brainlaag]

Actually, it would be cool if there was 3 teams; BLUFOR, OPFOR Conventional and OPFOR Unconventional.

So one team gets always the *** card to play INS through out the whole length of the campaign? I doubt there are enough players willing to join the PRT that enjoy INS that much. I wouldn't sign this idea, just my opinion.

[the_ganman]

I think for the CO's its a case of build it and they will come. It wont be a cake walk to get it back to where it was nor should that necessarily be what we strive for however I think the will and the people are there to make it work. We know what went wrong and we can work to not repeat those mistakes.

[Welshboy]

I remember C8, i was on NATO in the air cav squad. We got pooped on so hard. Ramiel was intense when we won though

[the_ganman]

I think a good question would be would people be willing to play with new people, as in the focus is not on recreating the same teams with same sl and co etc but have people from different communities come together and play. Personaly I think clans are actually obstacles to it cause they want to stick together. Have to avoid it returning to essentialy a type of clan warfare. For example, l4gi would members of OD-S be willing to seperate and fight against each other?

[Wheres_my_chili]

I joined pr right about when C9 came to a close, so i would be absolutely thrilled to be able to play in PRT. If the admins were to open it back up then i'd certainly join.

[Brainlaag]

I think a good question would be would people be willing to play with new people, as in the focus is not on recreating the same teams with same sl and co etc but have people from different communities come together and play. Personaly I think clans are actually obstacles to it cause they want to stick together. Have to avoid it returning to essentialy a type of clan warfare. For example, l4gi would members of OD-S be willing to seperate and fight against each other?

This is certainly one of the biggest hurdles to overcome. On one hand to offer the ability for mates and clan members to play together, while still keeping the teams fresh and balanced. Or go downright ******* and randomly assign people .