Project Reality Forums

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?

A few years ago I would have completely agreed with you 100%. But honestly now I just think it creates so many difficulties and is such a limiting factor on tournament organisation. Its also probably more interesting to actually play a wide variety of factions throughout a campaign, rather than just the 1337 Blufors or whatever.

Web_cole wrote:A few years ago I would have completely agreed with you 100%. But honestly now I just think it creates so many difficulties and is such a limiting factor on tournament organisation. Its also probably more interesting to actually play a wide variety of factions throughout a campaign, rather than just the 1337 Blufors or whatever.

It is supposed to be competetive, but I dont think we want uneven games. So I will try as hard as I can to ensure that doesnt happen. But still, like I have said. The outcome of my attempt, comes down to peoples willingness to split and show up for battles.

[R-CON]Wicca wrote:NATO CATA, those names will remain with the official PRT. I wont go there.

I find that ironic. It wasn't NATO versus CATA but you put the same 2 CATA commanders from the last PRT campaign in charge of one team and had a guy who commanded NATO for 7 straight campaigns in charge of the other with another NATO commander coming in later on as another. By the end of the last campaign it was basically 2 NATO commanders against 2 CATA commanders. XD

Hard not to make that comparison given that fact.

PFunk wrote:I find that ironic. It wasn't NATO versus CATA but you put the same 2 CATA commanders from the last PRT campaign in charge of one team and had a guy who commanded NATO for 7 straight campaigns in charge of the other with another NATO commander coming in later on as another. By the end of the last campaign it was basically 2 NATO commanders against 2 CATA commanders. XD

Hard not to make that comparison given that fact.

I didnt put you togheter.

I have closed the Archives.

I'm a active player and when TART got announced i signed in with a few guys from my clan. But then it took too long until the tournament really starts. Then every member had to sign in in like 4 Threads and then have to wait a very long time. We wait for months and people lost interest or hadn't time anymore.
The warday was announced as sunday, then they changed it to saturday. For the most of us sunday was perfect, but saturday the worst possible choice. And that like 2 months after sign in.

When the tournament actually starts it was hard to find the threads were you can read whats actually going on. There is such a powerful Bulletin Board, but there was no Mail or Private Message "Hey this Sunday is Train, next sunday is war, sign in". You have to search for it, then things changed and nobody knows exactly whats going on. Knowing that i cant take part in a war i stoped to sign in trains and other stuff...

But i can imagine how hard it is to organize a tournament with so many players. I hope there will be another Tart Tournament with improved organisation.

Ghost depending on if you are Squad Leader or Platoon Leader I agree we have alot of subforums to look in (I was SL/PL). I do agree on long time wait is painful but regarding information about trainings and game dates it is a duty of a Platoon/Squad Leader to check that and spread the word in the platoon, Yes the announcements comes officially, but you have still obligations to take care of your platoon/squad - which means it's up to you if you want to poke your squad and say "Hey guys, so you don't forget (date) we have training/battle".

Actually who ever reads this and will become a PL or SL have this in mind aye? Commanders and Admins have their work to take care of the teams as a whole, but many of different things gets delegated, So it's up to you guys or your PL/SL how prepared and well informed you want to be and don't hesitate to speak up in the beginning of the season and tell them that they should inform all actions and stuff that your platoon/squad has to do.

Yes, I am aware that it is a huge text... you only read it if you want to, so leave the comments about its length to yourself!

Here's my opinion about the main issues with TART or any other tournament:

One of the most important aspects of a tournament is that it is a structured competitive environment that is suppose to provide the players with an organized and challenging gameplay that requires both the player and the whole chain of command to step up in dedication and discipline in order to achieve a higher level of effectiveness.

1 - Mindset of a player and gameplay preferences:

There are 3 types of players signing in for such tournaments (independently of being in a clan or not): The first that searches for the most serious and disciplined gameplay that requires constant improvement and evolution which is very time consuming. The second that seeks more organized gameplay than in a public server but lacks the interest, dedication and/or the time needed to contribute for such organization. The third that has no idea of how a tournament works and will eventually become one of the two above.

The result is that you end up with players that want a very serious and disciplined structure and others that want a very relaxed and unlimited structure. They might be on the same team and not be able to work together properly or they might be in different teams and depending on numbers, increase the unbalance in each battle.

2 - Clan or community affiliation or squads from previous campaigns/tournaments:

Many clans have been created from within a tournament and many friendships were made during each campaign. It is normal that such players will prefer to stick together when they sign-up for a new campaign and so there needs to be a concern by both the tournament admins, the CO's and the clan/squad officers or representatives to make sure that such clans or groups are divided equally between the teams.

Team unbalance is not only based on a possible higher level of skill or teamwork but also on possible activity issues. If one individual player does not show up for a battle, it is a minor issue... but if a whole clan (squad or platoon) does not show up for a battle, then we have a major issue.

All tournament squads/platoons need to be extremely organized so that if their primary officer/sl is not available, they are still informed and capable of organizing their squad to be present in a battle. That's what NCO's are for... you can even have more than one! It is very sad to see specially squads made of clans, lack such a structure and go completely MIA just because their SL is away.

3 - Tournament Objectives, Structure and Rules:

First of, TART was created to replace PRT as it was the only existing tournament and when it was abruptly shut down, there was nothing else that could provide such quality of gameplay. However, TART's first campaign was a total mess with no resemblance what so ever to PRT. Randomness in the name of fun does not work. The second campaign was made to resemble the PRT but trying to surpass it by achieving the 128 gameplay. It obviously overreached and fell on its ***.

If the objective is to provide high quality in a disciplined gameplay, then there needs to be a very well structured and carefully planned tournament, in which complex rules are created to prevent future issues and not just to fix past ones. For that purpose, the tournament would need to be defined as a serious environment and have a strict recruitment selection.

If the objective is to provide high fun within a somewhat organized but mostly relax gameplay, then there needs to be a light structure that is easy to maintain and that is composed of simple rules.

The point is that both types don't fit together in the same tournament... and eventually ruin one or the other. That is why many players and even squad eventually leave... either because it is too serious or because it lacks discipline and organization. That is caused by having a tournament undefined and with both types of players joining it.

In terms of numbers, PRT always tried to have double the number of team members in relation to the in game number (2 x 32 per team/army). In order to make sure that you have enough players to fill all the in game slots, you need double the number which means some might not be able to play on some battles even though they are present, and others might not be available and you end up using a reserve from another squad.

4 - Conclusion:

In my point of view, the solution is having a serious and strict structure to offer the highest quality and supports the development of both teams. This only works if people leave their grudges and egos behind before joining the tournament.

Form 2 teams with 50 to 60 players each and maintain them with strict activity rules. These will be your base players, disciplined and dedicated officers and grunts that have the privilege of being part of one specific team (and squad or platoon) where they have full access to the forum, reserved slots for battles and trainings. Anyone of these players does not fulfill the requirements in terms of activity or discipline and it is kicked (after being warned first) from the team (might be allowed to stay in the reserves). To become a team member there need to be strict recruitment rules with 1 or two weeks trial.

Form 2 reserve groups (20 players): 1 for each team, formed with players that have team preference and that either don't have the time/dedication to be in the main team or that are awaiting a slot in it. These are team specific reserve groups and are maintained by their teams in terms of basic training.

Reserve groups have less requirements and are less time consuming but offers less priorities. They have limited forum access, may have no squad affiliation and are called upon when needed. Meaning they do not have priority over team members and only get to play to fill in the gaps when the number of team members does not reach the required.

Battles have different number of in game slots depending on size/type of map so that you don't need 60 players in game in every battle. That allows the teams to manage in advance when they will need reserves.

Since the sign-up process for creating and managing the teams in the beginning would take some time, fun & relaxed battles would be scheduled every two weeks to maintain a certain level of activity and enthusiasm until the official battles start. During that time, the admins would have not only to help manage the signups but also test the tournament structure and rule set.

Amen Onil

I dont see the "support" Teams working. Makes more sense to have double sized squads.

It is not a support team... it is not a team at all. It is a group of reserve players that each team can use if they do not have the required number of team members for the battle.

What you are saying about the double sized squads is what was used in PRT and was tried in TART and did not work due to the larger scale of active players needed. Officers had to deal with a bigger number of squad members and were usually not able to get every one of them to be dedicated and active but still kept such players in the squad.

Lets put it like this:

PRT had 64 slots in game and tried keeping each team with 2 x 32 (or at least 50 total) so that the in game slots were always filled but that meant that active and available players would often not be able to play on one battle. TART uses 128 slots in game which is double the number so it would need 2 X 64 per team which means you need to get 256 players (or at least 180 total).

It was and still is very difficult to find 180 dedicated, disciplined and active players that are willing to spend so much time and effort in a tournament. So you get a mix of serious players with some less serious players and also a few amount of trolls. You end up with a bunch of squads that will have to balance the use of those 3 types of players in terms of who gets to play in the battle due to having double the number of squad members in relation to the in game slots.

You can't always choose the most dedicated since the others also want to play... which means your squad effectiveness goes up and down and your squad members will be vulnerable to frustration and lack of motivation which leads to less activity and will to improve.

If you divide the type of players and let the squads be filled with the most dedicated while keeping a manageable number of squad members, you get better effectiveness which will result in a more challenging gameplay. At the same time, you still give the possibility of players with less availability or seriousness about the tournament, to participate as reserves when there are free spots.

Some MULE squads had this division in the previous campaign. The squad was composed of very active and dedicated players while having a small group of reserves that couldn't commit as much to the tournament but that were sometimes available to play if needed. That meant that those squads always filled the required number for the battle. The reason this worked in those squads was because it was mostly clan squads that were doing this. Squads with random players wouldn't work that much with having reserves within the squad and that is why it would work best with a reserve pool for the whole team even if you do want to keep the reserve's squad preference in mind when you assign them for the battle.

What we are talking about is doing something similar but on a larger scale so that there is a reserve pool for the team even if you can still have some of the reserves with squad preferences.

However if you are not concerned about the lack of discipline and activity of the players that you were getting in TART and just want a relaxed but organized gameplay similar to a public server event night, than go ahead. But that is not what PRT was about for many of the veteran players and what is currently lacking in PR.

I left TART due to the lack of discipline of some team members, the lack of activity of many players and the fact that the tournament was not providing two fundamental things: PRT alike gameplay quality and TART 128 scale (which was never reached). I'm sure others left the tournament because it seemed too serious for them... that also happened in PRT but it was not the reason why it shut down.

As I said before... First define what type of tournament you want and for what type of player it is created for and then develop a structure to support that objective.

[R-CON]Wicca wrote:I dont see the "support" Teams working. Makes more sense to have double sized squads.

But we never signed up enough people to run a 128 player team with even 1.5x squads. Hell, we barely managed to get enough for 32v32 consistently, and then that didn't even holdup over time.

Ambition has to be beholden to the realities of what it wants to achieve. Try to overreach and it'll be worse than if things were a bit more modest.

Eventually the PRT managed to have 2 teams running 32v32 player battles... most of the time. They built that over time though and they had a reputation of making it work. TART hasn't earned anything except a negative reputation so far.

I think for TART to be successful it has to start as a more elementary level, create a very clear vision for what it wants to achieve, take it very seriously, and treat the next campaign as a point of building into a larger and better tournament.

TART has made mistakes that took PRT years to figure out, but was trying to be bigger than a tournament that was successful but still fell on its ***.

Onil's break down is pretty sound logic, even if you don't agree with his conclusions. I think it should be paid heed.

I agree to take it easy, aim for an curtain amount of players that are reasonable and logical instead of placing the bar over the top... Lets start small and become big, start with 32 or hell even 40 for sake of experiment. When you start something new and set the bar so high there is no way you can achieve success, I agree with PFunk and Onil got pretty damn good points to gather or thing about

I have certain incentives I can use to gather a large crowd. I would reckon.

[R-CON]Wicca wrote:I have certain incentives I can use to gather a large crowd. I would reckon.

Its not just the number of people, but how dedicated they are. You give away tickets for free and its nothing to not show up, but you gotta pay for them and suddenly it starts to feel like a bigger waste.

When I started in the PRT I was told to sit there waiting for Zero hour when sign ups would open, fill out your application as fast as possible, and hope you got to go to your preferred team before it got filled. I felt like I had a special place, like I'd beat the queue, instead of being one of a bunch of people who were basically begged to show up.

Scarcity played a big role in making it feel different than say joining the World Cup. It was a place that felt like if you didn't have time to be there they'd kick you to the curb and get someone else who was lining up to join.

TART never reached that point, it was never like you felt like you had to live up to an expectation. The attitude I think suffers on account of this. Its a buyer's market becuase there are more slots than people who want to fill them, regularly.

Its not just about running up interest but maintaining it. You get X number of people to show, but if Y more are inconsistent in their attendance then things don't feel as tight as in a tournament where you'd be checking the page every day to see when you could get in.

PRT at times struggled to get 4 full teams worth of players, and it had a strong reputation. I'm not saying TART can't do it, I'm just saying getting sign ups and getting dedicated active players are two separate things.

Sometimes I think PRTA suffers the pitfall of putting Quantity before Quality. Bigger is better. Sometimes smaller, austere ambitions can lead to bigger better things, but only if they begin emphasizing the quality that you want.

Its hard to just boot up a tournament and create a massive 200+ player roster. I think its foolish. All massive clans started as a handful of guys working hard with each other. Tournaments are the same thing. I think ambition backfires and if anything I'd say in reply to the OP question "What was wrong with TART?" that maybe it was too ambitious too soon.

Maybe. Doesn't even mean you can't do it right NOW. But its still tougher to make 4 teams than 2 work. I think if you had 2 teams and more people than slots it makes a mentality of "I Gotta get in on this!" instead of "Meh, they don't even have enough people".

TL R - People want what they can't have. Always keep them wanting more.

[R-CON]Wicca wrote:I have certain incentives I can use to gather a large crowd. I would reckon.

like what? cookies? Oo

It's not about getting a large crowd... it is about getting a fair amount of dedicated players. If we can only get enough of those for a 32 vs 32 initially, then that is fine. It is definitely better than having 200 in which only a very small number are actually dedicated and very active players.

I do not play on SISU for example... it has the numbers but has absolutely no teamwork whatsoever. If you only focus on getting the numbers then you will be getting something very similar or slightly better than that public server. Which lacks quality for a tournament player.

And I have to agree with P.Funk that PRTA suffered from the same issue... trying to grow too much too fast usually means loosing a big part of the quality that used to be the main objective of such projects.

Plus as I proposed, you can start with a 32 vs 32 setup focused on smaller maps and get the ball rolling while you keep the sign-ups open to allow the teams to grow. I predict that eventually you will have full teams with a good selection of members and will still have people trying to join. That is when you start using the reserve groups with the extra sign-ups and the ones who didn't fit into the teams for lack of activity or not willing to participate in trainings and so on.

But hey, its your tournament... your project, your way.

Onil wrote: But hey, its your tournament... your project, your way.

We are using this thread as a place to gather information and suggestions. If I disagree with one point I might agree with another. I do not like the idea of "reserve" groups cause it makes little sense to me why they should be "active". They have no incentive.

And Yes my project my time

Nothing personal.

[R-CON]Wicca wrote:...why they should be "active". They have no incentive.

IF you are a dedicated squad member, you WILL show up on a training even though you might not be playing that particular game! Why bother? Cause you see yourself as a part of sth. and you want to contribute.

I think that is exactly Onils' point about the line between the different players and I have to fully agree with it...actually with all of them.

If you start a 3rd. season please make it absolutely clear what kind of players you want to get in or what you want to achieve. Is it
a) High level dedication and therefore high level gameplay or
b) sth. more relaxed. I have the strong feeling there is absolutely no need for a tournament like this! tbh pw events and the "better" public servers can provide this sort of PR experience with ease.

So for the sake of your (and also any dedicated squad members') time state the goal of TART. For less frustration for anyone - the As AND the Bs.

The way I see it, there will be plenty of players that would love to get a chance to play in a TART battle even if only once, without having to spend so much time and dedication within its structure.

Players that do not have as much free time and would otherwise be kicked from a tournament for inactivity, would now have a chance to play once in a while in a very organized game. That is a good incentive and I'm sure we would get more players than we needed.

If we imagine the amount of players that joined and eventually left or got removed from PRT and TART because they weren't as active or weren't as interested in training weekly but that are still very nice players. These are your reserves... besides the ones that sign-up for the reserve group to eventually be included into the main team once a spot opens up.

I might be wrong but I think you would get very well organized and strong teams with such a selection while using the reserves whenever needed. That would maintain a good level of quality while reaching the quantity required for the 128 layers.

Instead of having double the members in each squad, you would have perhaps only 2 more than the in game slots and if you ever need more, you can use the reserves pool. Officers would be able to pick which reserve players they would prefer to use in the case of needing some extra players for the battle.

That way, you could use some friends or clan mates that you play more often with but that are in the reserve group instead of being active enough to be in your squad.

Anyway, personally I see this as a solution to have a more strict recruitment of the team players while still allowing the more relaxed players to participate in the tournament when a larger number is required.

So what I'm understanding so far by skimming this is:

1. Simplify the Forums

2. Shuffle Teams, both to reduce Clan footprint and break up old CATA/NATO Groups

3. Drum up support.

1 and 2 are simple, 3 comes down to timing. As a few people mentioned, start the campaign not during people's vacations and finals, and since you're looking to essentially start a long running tournament from scratch, try to time it next to a release.

My 2c.