Re: TART - What was wrong?
Posted: 2012-07-27 12:13
OD-S will spread into both teams this campaign to balance the teams out as much as possible.
This is the (clan) attitude I like! Nice.L4gi wrote:OD-S will spread into both teams this campaign to balance the teams out as much as possible.
Shut up mouthpiece..Mouthpiece wrote:This is the (clan) attitude I like! Nice.
Can't wait for an improved version/season of that delicious TART.
Aaaaand because the tournament isnt Muttrah 24/7. If they are such babies that get all stubborn when they arent with their friends, then they have no place in the tournament. Thats just the people that make clans look bad. Always wants to be with his group, playing his way, and if he cant, then his attitude is meh/fuck off. Narrow minded, not open to new experiences.[R-CON]Wicca wrote:Opposed to complete randoms, who might not even bother checking the forums, since they werent placed with their mates.
Actually this happened in PRT a lot, people sign up for NATO, NATO is full, people get assigned to CATA instead. Never weakened any of the teams, bailers are probably just 20% of the people that didn't get their choice, most people actually suck it up.Arnoldio wrote:Aaaaand because the tournament isnt Muttrah 24/7. If they are such babies that get all stubborn when they arent with their friends, then they have no place in the tournament. Thats just the people that make clans look bad. Always wants to be with his group, playing his way, and if he cant, then his attitude is meh/fuck off. Narrow minded, not open to new experiences.
Same in PR. mimimimim, i wanna be a marine! Gets switched to insurgets, game suddenly sucks and quit.
You're on crack. Mumble goes down, nobody has any whispers set up, server info, or familiarity with how it works, then if that happens inside of an hour of a battle you're going to see a lot of confusion. This is especially true since you also didn't like the idea of being in the Xfire group which would be the backup way of communicating the last minute changes.Bluedrake42 wrote:get rid of teamspeak, just use mumble
Yea thats how it works. If I recall it the PRT would be just sometimes unsympathetic to your desire to be on a team if it was full. It was more like you'd have to wait for the next round and hope you got the team you wanted. It never felt like it a 'sure thing' but never like they were working against you.MaxBoZ wrote:Actually this happened in PRT a lot, people sign up for NATO, NATO is full, people get assigned to CATA instead. Never weakened any of the teams, bailers are probably just 20% of the people that didn't get their choice, most people actually suck it up.
MaxBoZ wrote:Actually this happened in PRT a lot, people sign up for NATO, NATO is full, people get assigned to CATA instead. Never weakened any of the teams, bailers are probably just 20% of the people that didn't get their choice, most people actually suck it up.
Web_cole wrote:- The losing team should pick the next map and side. This is probably an undervalued factor in the losing spiral of tournament teams in the past; the winning team wins, and picks a map that favours them, and wins and picks a map that favours them and so on.
This would not be the case if admins picked map/random maps and the teams weren't locked to a certain side - opfor/blufor. You could even have a whole maplist from the beginning of the the tournament and just announce who plays who. The blufor lovers would play as their favorite and viceversa.Cossack112 wrote:Indeed, what Cole is saying - loosing team should pick the map, so they could have a chance.
I see two main issues with that; 1. you don't have the "losers advantage" which would be inherent in the losing team picking the map and side, and 2. it takes away from the meta strategy somewhat in my eyes. What I mean by that is, if you have a map pick and you think that your CAS squad is particularly strong, you might want to pick say Black Gold Alt to leverage that advantage. Or conversely if you think the opposing team is poor in ground assets you could pick Burning Sands to try and take advantage of that.sweedensniiperr wrote:This would not be the case if admins picked map/random maps and the teams weren't locked to a certain side - opfor/blufor. You could even have a whole maplist from the beginning of the the tournament and just announce who plays who. The blufor lovers would play as their favorite and viceversa.
Personally, I think that takes away the competitiveness aspect of it. Regardless of the occasional idiotic bickering, it makes the whole thing more challenging and sweeter, does it not?Web_cole wrote:I do agree that there probably shouldn't be set sides, in the sense of CATA - Opfor, NATO - Blufor of days gone by.
Eeeeer? Sweet?Arcturus_Shielder wrote:Personally, I think that takes away the competitiveness aspect of it. Regardless of the occasional idiotic bickering, it makes the whole thing more challenging and sweeter, does it not?