Project Reality Forums

OD-S wouldnt join the PRT after what we've seen happen there... Atleast not in its old state, with same people running the show.

Also, I doubt we would split, because having people on both teams makes it virtually impossible for us to hold clan events cause all the good days to hold shit will be taken.

The PRT ended because of bad management plus the lack of a proper admin team.

C10 was being organized by 1 senior admin and a few half retired admins, including the lead admin. Right before it was closed down, there was only that 1 senior admin plus a new admin trying to get the PRT working and the over-all low motivation of some was one of the main reasons for it to be shut down.

The other reason was egocentric people raging a war when they didn't get what they wanted and whining to the management about it. The usual e-drama that everyone is well aware of.

C10 was going to have 4 independent teams and one of the main concerns was to try and make it as balanced as possible, which is one of the most difficult things to achieve and can only be done with a bigger cooperation between the administration and the team leaders.

"one of the admins took the liberty of communicating too much with the soon to-be commanders."

You can't expect improvements without a few changes on how things are structured and managed. That was overall a misunderstanding that was interpreted out of context by the tournament management. A tournament cannot be managed by people that only show up once a year and have for the most part, no idea what-so-ever of what is going on with the tournament.

I very much doubt that the PRT will ever be back and even if it would, I doubt it would get the right player base to provide the quality it once had. But we can still imaging how great it would be if that could be achieved with a proper admin team organizing it.

I smell FH...

Onil wrote:
You can't expect improvements without a few changes on how things are structured and managed.

Whats the changes that needed to happen?

I smell a poor excuse of a tournament... And I though nothing could be worse than the previous attempts of replacing the PRT.

I guess I was dead wrong.

I see no distinction between playing in a public server and playing in a tournament that has no command and no structure. Even events organized by the community have that to try and achieve good teamwork within each team. Organizing a tournament without it is simply deceiving the players into believing that they will find proper teamwork just because it is a tournament. When in fact, all they will find is the typical random game-play of a public server.

the_ganman wrote:Whats the changes that needed to happen?

It's well explained in my previous post. Good coordination between the administration and the team-leaders in order to balance the clans and the veteran groups that signup in order to achieve proper balance and challenge between the teams. That and supporting the development of all teams with the same benefits and requirements for their squads and players.

What would happen if a Server Owner/Operator decided to throw a private tournament?

Would the Community embrace it or would they shun something that is not official?

No way to know except to try. FH is hosting a tournament soon, so might want to wait till they get it over with.

I don't think it's in "full swing" as op said
I think a 64 player event would be sick so no server poop
But I wouldn't mind participatin in a few

Adalaxy wrote:What would happen if a Server Owner/Operator decided to throw a private tournament?

Would the Community embrace it or would they shun something that is not official?

Official things always get more attention but private tournaments have somewhat succeeded in the past. (IE: TART)

Cossack112 wrote:Brain, it was one of the reasons why PRT died. Everybody wanted to be NATO :/

Are you nuts? CATA was an *** kicker at any stage of the PRT. NATO had its time, but CATA rocked NATO the last few years.

What killed PRT was nothing to do with the BLU-RED structure, it was a lack of dedicated admins, a sharp drop off in some of the most talented personalities that made things rock up til C7 and overall confusing state of affairs in the management of it all in the final few seasons.

I think the PRT was proper doomed the day Robbi resigned permanently from admin. Without a vicious ******* running the thing with an iron fist it can't run at all. I can relate some stories of why I think the administering of it was flawed in the final years but its just more drama to punt around.

In the end it fell apart from the top down. The drama overtook the whole thing and there wasn't anybody in a position to stop it. It could be run with the right people, but it takes that core to make it happen. Everyone focuses on the teams, NATO stinking it up in the final 2 years, CATA curb stomping everything, but thats not the issue.

Its like a political round table where the moderator can't stop the guests from picking up chairs and beating each other over the head with them. Sure you can blame the KKK guy for the blood on the carpet, but where was the guy who knew that was gonna happen if he didn't play Picard at the Neutral Zone, ready to stem that shit before it blew into a full blown flustercluck?

Oh my. Memories.

What I am thinking, 2-3 man highly dedicated admin team with a couple of the leaders of the old team to act as advisors to the admins, thinking something along the lines of the Lt + warrant command team.

The issue isn't really getting admins or officers, those can be found even now. Rules and scoring are simple stuff. Problem is there isn't enough players to be grunts or squad leaders who are willing to put so much into playing PR. There has been attempts to make a tournament quite a few times, but low player count was one of the biggest problem. 64 players is massive amount and added team needs more than that, as not everyone can make it for every battle. People had good experiences in TART, but we could not get player numbers and were constantly contacting random people to join the battle some minutes before it happened. Of course problem was also that we didn't have anyone capable or willing to really build a community around it.

PR community is very niche and small, and the void left by the tournament has been filled by communities and clans. So players who would be the target audience for these are already participating to something else. Few of the biggest clans even now got their start from the original tournament in one way or the other.

Now this doesn't mean its impossible as we have huge influx of new and old players. Have at it, at worst you lose couple months of time.

I think TART failed with grunts, because of lack of advertisement. Just PRT had it directly with realitymod.com where nearly every player comes.

TART was known only for those who had direct contact with Wicca and those, who were involved in it. :/

Raic wrote:The issue isn't really getting admins or officers, those can be found even now.

With respect I don't think its that easy. Lots of people want to pitch in and help out, but the burden of running a full sized team and tournament is massive and few people have the drive to do the hard task of organizing it as the boss.

If its really this easy to find dedicated Admin why was it such an issue for several campaigns leading to the end of the PRT?

The direction of the PRT was a direct result of the shaky leadership in the admin office. Structure and rules seem easy, but something just wasn't as satisfying in the later stages. Abandoning the progressive campaign map and its ticket pool that let you invest in battles variably deprived the teams of much if any deep strategy and reduced it to nothing but a simple win/loss tally that ensured you knew who had won or lost by halfway through the tournament. With a ticket investment option commanders could play the odds better, work towards grinding out a favourable match and throwing all their efforts into that one, with more tickets and thus a higher chance of being able to grind down a win that opened the door to another good map.

Instead, you fought a map chosen by the victors and after 3 or 4 of those the writing was on the wall. Not much to fight for, not much for people to stick with. The tournament didn't favour underdog contenders because every loss was faced with a new map your enemy chose that likely didn't favour you and whats worse the simplified game structure actually lead to issues with how to actually punish a team's infractions. You either sacrificed your map choice or let infractions pass or banned individual players for a round. In the past you'd take ticket hits, much like in a Harry Potter book. What did this mean? When you cocked up in a battle or on the forums it wasn't just you that was punished, but the whole team, the war effort so to speak. Your failure was reflected in the numbers the Commanders obsessed over every week trying to balance and invest for maximum gain. Ironically even in bad behavior there was a sense of immense team spirit and mutual interest. The whole campaign wasn't about battle wins but total tickets lost. So every time you died you directly affected the outcome. Every enemy you killed directly affected the outcome.

What else was so great about that old system? You could technically lose a battle but win on tickets. It was genius. You still lost ground on the campaign map but if that leg of it didn't matter to you you could afford to play it tight and safe and throw your tickets into the other battle your sister team was fighting. You could plan a string of battles, trying to reach a particular map by the end of the campaign to culminate in something you were sure you could win. For NATO C7 this was the glorious Kashan 64 fight that topped my first campaign time in the PRT. I remember the strategy sessions I listened in on. Never again was it like that.

There has to be vision beyond simply keeping the doors open. I think the tournament lost a lot of its grand scale post C7.

In C7 there was a very large admin team, of talented individuals. And the Commanders were seasoned to say the least, with dedicated Staff and such.

Squadleaders were quite legendary, but as C7 came. Was also alot of experimentation of "command Structures" on the NATO side. And I think the focus of Structures, as opposed to the actual game, was why the CATA team won so much.

Like you said, the "strategy" that was removed, left a gap. And it seems people tried to find it again.

PFunk wrote:With respect I don't think its that easy. Lots of people want to pitch in and help out, but the burden of running a full sized team and tournament is massive and few people have the drive to do the hard task of organizing it as the boss.

If its really this easy to find dedicated Admin why was it such an issue for several campaigns leading to the end of the PRT?

The direction of the PRT was a direct result of the shaky leadership in the admin office. Structure and rules seem easy, but something just wasn't as satisfying in the later stages. Abandoning the progressive campaign map and its ticket pool that let you invest in battles variably deprived the teams of much if any deep strategy and reduced it to nothing but a simple win/loss tally that ensured you knew who had won or lost by halfway through the tournament. With a ticket investment option commanders could play the odds better, work towards grinding out a favourable match and throwing all their efforts into that one, with more tickets and thus a higher chance of being able to grind down a win that opened the door to another good map.

Instead, you fought a map chosen by the victors and after 3 or 4 of those the writing was on the wall. Not much to fight for, not much for people to stick with. The tournament didn't favour underdog contenders because every loss was faced with a new map your enemy chose that likely didn't favour you and whats worse the simplified game structure actually lead to issues with how to actually punish a team's infractions. You either sacrificed your map choice or let infractions pass or banned individual players for a round. In the past you'd take ticket hits, much like in a Harry Potter book. What did this mean? When you cocked up in a battle or on the forums it wasn't just you that was punished, but the whole team, the war effort so to speak. Your failure was reflected in the numbers the Commanders obsessed over every week trying to balance and invest for maximum gain. Ironically even in bad behavior there was a sense of immense team spirit and mutual interest. The whole campaign wasn't about battle wins but total tickets lost. So every time you died you directly affected the outcome. Every enemy you killed directly affected the outcome.

What else was so great about that old system? You could technically lose a battle but win on tickets. It was genius. You still lost ground on the campaign map but if that leg of it didn't matter to you you could afford to play it tight and safe and throw your tickets into the other battle your sister team was fighting. You could plan a string of battles, trying to reach a particular map by the end of the campaign to culminate in something you were sure you could win. For NATO C7 this was the glorious Kashan 64 fight that topped my first campaign time in the PRT. I remember the strategy sessions I listened in on. Never again was it like that.

There has to be vision beyond simply keeping the doors open. I think the tournament lost a lot of its grand scale post C7.

Why was this system abandoned? Also I think the biggest issue with the admins is finding people dedicated enough while knowing they dont get to play. Thats the hard part about admins

IMHO All that most players want and enjoy is mega teamwork and a battle plan that's stuck too as far as possible.

Above that having a choice and strategy to selecting maps I think can lead to long running resentment by the losing team and over complication watering down the core value of a decent round.

I would have thought a simpler system with two set teams that play without any more structure with neutral admins choosing the map to advantage the losing side if needed. Even going as far to try to minimize the effect of a long running score board.

Maybe the CO's, XO's enjoy strategy and planning but for most of the grunts all that's needed is the best teamwork and co ordination possible in PR.

Two teams , that alternate between blufor and redfor, once a month battle with maps chosen by neutral admin TEAM vote after short discussion.

Just the minimum to be able to enjoy the best of PR, no tags, minimum obligatory training, as little private forums as possible and E drama, flaming, non gentlemanly posting or behavior stamped on hard and fast.

I would be interested in playing in a new tournament.

Why don't we trial something small using Skirmish mode only to see how it goes?

In relation to clan tags and splitting forces, I think they should be removed, and the teams assigned at random. It's the fairest way, and it signifies leaving clan allegiance at the door. The tournament is something different.

PLODDITHANLEY wrote:IMHO All that most players want and enjoy is mega teamwork and a battle plan that's stuck too as far as possible.

Above that having a choice and strategy to selecting maps I think can lead to long running resentment by the losing team and over complication watering down the core value of a decent round.

I would have thought a simpler system with two set teams that play without any more structure with neutral admins choosing the map to advantage the losing side if needed. Even going as far to try to minimize the effect of a long running score board.

Maybe the CO's, XO's enjoy strategy and planning but for most of the grunts all that's needed is the best teamwork and co ordination possible in PR.

Two teams , that alternate between blufor and redfor, once a month battle with maps chosen by neutral admin TEAM vote after short discussion.

Just the minimum to be able to enjoy the best of PR, no tags, minimum obligatory training, as little private forums as possible and E drama, flaming, non gentlemanly posting or behavior stamped on hard and fast.

Yea but what you're describing isn't the PRT.

Every person who has a fond memory of the PRT probably can say something about it more than just "yea was a good match, very balanced, killed stuff". There's always the tone of NATO vs CATA, or whichever previous incarnation you were branded with in the earlier years. The team identity made for a lot of the intensity and satisfaction.

Sure, all that intensity makes for a lot of potential for bad blood, but in my opinion thats handled by a big bad boss who shitkicks anybody who gets out of line, hence the difficulty in having it run. CATA 1 was famously dismantled and its senior staff mostly banned. Thats some serious will and confidence in the admins to do that. I wasn't there for most of that stuff but the way the players and the team commanders spoke about the way it happened showed a sense that it was a strongly led tournament.

The CATA 1 thing if I recall correctly even had a retired former admin lead an investigation into it and he posted a report. Talk about professional.

You also say, the players don't care about strategy, they just want a good round. Well frankly what defined the PRT as above the cut was the fact that there were so many dedicated senior staff planning the ever loving **** out of things. Even if the grunts never sat in on it and never had much of a say in it (though they often could, which is how I started to get higher in the ranks, from pure interest in participating) they always got this sense of something big happening upstairs.

Crazy strategies, obsessively timed and balanced battle plans. 11th hour arguments about whether to send that Bradley on a flanking run around the main MEC column at round start as a delaying tactic, or whether it constituted wasted tickets (turned out to be a bloody great idea). If its just some one off battle between two nameless teams with nothing at stake then why bother? It just becomes a scrim.

I get it, the blood on the walls is what came to define the PRT to many people, but in its hey day the rivalry was tempered by great admin and the sense of team identity paired with the impetus to fight a battle every 2 weeks that counted for the whole shebang over a few months was like nothing I've ever done in gaming before or since.

What I find interesting is that if the strategic map is locked in then there's not much argument. You can't tell the admin "WTF is wrong with you, we just lost and now you're giving them a map they can use to shit kick us again" as would no doubt happen. At least in the grand strategy style campaign you gave the losers lots of room to plan and strategize, even if they were on their heels for a couple battles. In a simpler structure it just becomes an NFL playoff. You win or you lose, and the losers definitely feel like losers. One of the things that really buggered up the losing teams after C7 was the sense of futility, the sense of powerlessness. You're gonna get rocked either way, but with a grand strategy map you can at least play a game that makes his victory, if done correctly, Pyhrric.

Sorry P funk but I am still wondering why they eliminated the grand strategy style?