Project Reality Forums

I'm sorry but constantly blaming the players and the maps for the losses is simply not taking responsibility for failing as a team staff member.

There has been lack of recruitment and training effort from both TART teams but MULE recruited multiple clans while CORD didn't focus that much on the recruitment. The result was MULE with squads made of clans that sometimes didn't show up, and CORD with random players that didn't adapt to the tournament or weren't disciplined enough to follow basic rules. But both teams failed at cleaning their rosters just because they needed the numbers.

And i'm sorry to say but the way CORD was being lead is pretty much the same that NATO was lead through their PRT losses. I've seen very little effort to improve, just always a lot of effort to innovate without the proper base for such ideas to work.

How can I say this without having been in NATO or CORD? I watch all battle recorder files usually as a way to find my own mistakes and improve while trying to learn as much about my opponent as possible. And I saw the same mistakes being made in TART that I had seen in the PRT.

Getting new blood in the command of both teams could be a solution but that depends a lot on who steps up and I believe you should always keep a veteran as an adviser because experience also comes into play.

My 2c from the last campaign of things could be done better. Not trying to talk you down Wicca, as I think you did a good job seeing as these things take so much time and energy.

- Matches always started about a hour late, I know there were server issues but it went on wayyyy too long.
- Be proactive in balancing the teams. Lets be honest it was fairly obvious what the outcome was going to be after a few battles. You can blame the staff all you want to tell them to train their players more, but a much more practical solution is just swapping out squads (that are willing to) between the teams to even it up. Winning all the time is boring, losing all the time is boring.
- Wayyy too much bureaucracy on the forums. Having to post in 3 threads just to get in the squad and then getting bugged by someone posting in the recruitment thread etc, I just tended to stay off the forums in the end.
- Get some new blood in the commanders seats and I think the tournament would be a lot more interesting and could go in a new direction.

Good Luck with it Wicca.

We all talk about Chain of Command and discipline, but TART isnt a milsim and maybe a TART team does not work like a military platoon and needs different leadership. From my experience in online gaming I would say that order and discipline is not the key to success. If you would work with transparency, openness, flexibility and loose leadership you would probably have more success.

I was surprised that TART|CORD Leadership was separated from the SLs and Grunts (separated Sub-Forum, TS-Channel) and all the unnecessary structures and rules they had. A teams that is supposed to play together over months is a community where everyone should have the same value. Make it easy for anyone to step up and organize something. I started organizing trainings - because I saw the lack of it - as a grunt, but despite requesting for it several time, never got admin rights for the training servers. I had to use my clan server for training, because I couldn't even change maps on our training servers. After getting promoted to NCO and later to SL it took weeks to get access to the subforums.

You wonder why Commanders got blamed for loosing? If you choose maps and fractions without even asking your team for advices, players will blame you if it turns out bad. Players started questioning the CORD Platoon system (basically two 25 man Inf-Squads instead of several smaller squad) right after the first battle, but high-command sticked with it just because it was their (non-working) idea.

Dont get me wrong here. I do appreciate all the effort and work the commanders and PL-Leaders put in and they where all nice guys I really enjoyed playing with. I just question the overall leadership mentality in TART. Yesterday Commander sign-up for TART III was closed. We cant see who applicate and we will never know why someone has the honor to command a TART Team. After that Commanders will pick their PLs and SLs and even TART homepage does tell you that most SLs wont be picked because of their public application. Thats a classical top-down approach, but hey Internet does work different. Just form up two teams and let them decide who is in command. This way commanders have a better legitimacy then "I was commander in PRT xyz" and Wicca sad I am the man for the job. Do bottom-up not top-down.

Hannes_Sbg wrote: Dont get me wrong here. I do appreciate all the effort and work the commanders and PL-Leaders put in and they where all nice guys I really enjoyed playing with. I just question the overall leadership mentality in TART. Yesterday Commander sign-up for TART III was closed. We cant see who applicate and we will never know why someone has the honor to command a TART Team. After that Commanders will pick their PLs and SLs and even TART homepage does tell you that most SLs wont be picked because of their public application. Thats a classical top-down approach, but hey Internet does work different. Just form up two teams and let them decide who is in command. This way commanders have a better legitimacy then "I was commander in PRT xyz" and Wicca sad I am the man for the job. Do bottom-up not top-down.

Commander signups are still open.

[R-CON]Wicca wrote:Commander signups are still open.

You are right, commander sign-up started not ended 1st of August. Any comment to the rest of the post?

The chain of command worked very well in PRT so I do not think that is the problem... however, it always depends on who's leading it. Transparency and Flexibility is required to lead such a team but that does not mean that every grunt will have the privileged to get all information and provide direct feedback. If most information reaches the grunts or not, solely depends on their officers and usually not the CO.

Basically the chain of command is there not only to structure the leadership and decisive members but also to distribute the workload.

It took multiple campaigns in PRT to find the best possible solution for a team structure even though that solution was often put at risk while trying new things. Just because it didn't seem to work that well in this TART campaign, doesn't mean that it is not the best option to be developed. Simply means that it was not enforced properly or it was messed up by the staff of such team.

Chain of Command is important, that's one of the fundamental things in any group/clan or community/tournament!

End of story.

/CC

CopyCat wrote:Chain of Command is important, that's one of the fundamental things in any group/clan or community/tournament!

End of story.

/CC

I guess you didn't get my point.

End of story.

Indeed, Copy did not get the point. Hannes is not saying to change Chain of Command. He just suggests to not start with CO election, but instead start with grunt sign ups, SL, PL, and then CO. So grunts, SL's, PL's chose their CO or something like that.

Creating teams first and let them choose their leaders is probably the radical opposite to the CO selection system of TART right now.

Onil wrote:Getting new blood in the command of both teams could be a solution but that depends a lot on who steps up and I believe you should always keep a veteran as an adviser because experience also comes into play.

I agree with Onil that some fresh blood would be good, but I disagree that its only up to "who steps up". If you want to apply for CO right now you should have previous CO experience and should already have a core leader team (PLs, GSO, etc.) with some reputation. I guess there are not a lot of players out there who could meet those requirements and those who do are probably not "new blood".

Mitchverr already suggested in the TART Forum to start officer sign-up to give CO applicants without a team behind them at least a chance. I think its a good idea and would give non-vets at least a chance.

helll everybody, I really need yours help. first of all I can't find project reality 0.966 patch please show me the link. thanks very much, I am new guy in there so sorry for stupid questions...

THE_UNIT_Julius wrote:helll everybody, I really need yours help. first of all I can't find project reality 0.966 patch please show me the link. thanks very much, I am new guy in there so sorry for stupid questions...

You can click on the tab that shows Downloads and then "Battlefield 2". But I'll ease the process for you. There you go, click here.

Install all 3 parts + Mumble as it will come in handy for some servers. Better yet, PM me with your xfire or Steam contact and I will help you out.

THE_UNIT_Julius wrote:helll everybody, I really need yours help. first of all I can't find project reality 0.966 patch please show me the link. thanks very much, I am new guy in there so sorry for stupid questions...

How to get Project Reality? | PRTA - Project Reality Teamwork Alliance

There.

Hannes_Sbg wrote:Words.

We have simple hierarchy because that's what you need when organizing lot of people. It has very little to do with simulating military, as every single company and organization in the world has such system. We won't be taking players in before we get general staff, why? Because it would not raise a our changes of finding good willing Commander. It would make a situation were someone takes it because nobody else is, and as such is not very dependable.

Officers have their own space to use for their discussion and planning, each officer is then responsible on conveying the plans and decisions from there to his squad or platoon. Its simply easier to make sure 9 officers understand and know what are the goals and steps required to reach them & have grunts concentrate on squad specific goals. Rather than have general staff explain plans to 64 players, when they don't need to know details of 90% of it.
Problem was, many of the officers seemed not to their job and general staff did not fix it.

What unnecessary structure and rules? Players are cut in to groups, which has someone in charge with couple people in assisting position. The group trains and prepares together and those who are in charge make plans on how each group is used in battle. Groups are completely free to train together and teams should have team trainings.

Also, while Commanders did make decisions which SL or PL is in which squad and could invite whoever they wished, we did not refuse officer applicants and everyone had to signup in appropriate threads. It was public.

Hannes you are not really making any arguments why the hierarchy was bad, you only point that it was not used and that the team leadership was inactive & no where to be seen, of which I have already commented about.(Seriously, grunts running trainings. . .)

Mess, mess, mess.....

You know what...I might just be a commander this time.

Oh, and Wicca. I TOLD YOU SO.

Gaz wrote:You know what...I might just be a commander this time.

Oh, and Wicca. I TOLD YOU SO.

Golden post.

Maybe it has something to do with people being banned for starting a discussion about the gametime and saying that anyone who's available on Saturday evenings is most likely a computer nerd with no "social" life.

Maybe one shouldn't have to be a computer nerd with no (Social) life to have dedication to something. there is no corrolation between practices, availability for game time and skill and maturity.

One should not take offense to the whole computer nerd with no life thing, it's a fair asssesment.

You sound a bit butthurt there Vicious302?

[R-DEV]Tim270 wrote:You sound a bit butthurt there Vicious302?

don't worry, it's his way of communicating.