Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls. (Take 2)

StrikeFear · 08-17-2005, 01:13 PM

This thread is NOT a discussion of the concept. It is a discussion of a TS solution to this problem and others LIKE it. If you want to discuss the concept, start a new thread.

The IDEAL GOAL is to have some way for any squad leader to contact all VMFA-531 members on their team (thru TS) to request an air strike, and for the pilots to all hear it and for any of them to be able to reply back via TS immediately - all this without anyone hearing the conversation except the pilots and the SL.

I thought I knew the ideal solution - but it doesn't work.

There are several near-ideal solutions, but I can't figure out a way to make it ideal, nor am I sure which compromise we should choose. Let me describe the non-working ideal solution and enumerate for you the other possible solutions that I can think of, along with their associated disadvantages. Pls give me your thoughts.

The ideal doesn't work!

SLs whisper to 531 channel. Pilots use a "Bind last whisperer to preset 0" and "Whisper to preset 0" combo.
DisadvantageOnly ... it doesn't work, cuz TS doesn't consider a "Whisper to channel" as a whisper that can be bound to a preset.
So SL1 whispers to channel FINE. But Pilots cannot bind that sender to a preset. Doesn't register.

----------------------
Other possibilities:

SLs set up a key to "Whisper to player list" and add all members of VMFA-531 to that list. (There are 4 currently). That way, the whispers are personal, and pilots can respond by binding and whispering - no matter WHO it was.
DisadvantageSLs must keep up with roster changes.
DisadvantageWhat if the pilot is NOT currently in a jet squad? He's getting airstrike requests, but he's a medic.
Possible solution:Post a sticky of not just VMFA-531 pilots, but ANY pilot who wants to be available for airstrike requests. The list would be TS nicknames, not in-game names. Hence, pilots could have special TS nicks used ONLY when piloting. That would, of course, require that they logout/login whenever they start/stop piloting.
DisadvantageWhat if the pilots are on opposite teams?
We could establish set names for any pilots willing to receive airstrike requests. SLs set up a key to "Whisper to player list" and add all those set names (which never change). Pilots log into TS using any of those nicks which are available. Then they will receive whispers and can bind and whisper to presets. This will also allow pilots and SLs to sit in whatever channel they like.
Suggested nicks could be:
USMCPilot1
USMCPilot2 ...etc up to 6(6 pilots in a jet squad could take turns)
OpForPilot1, 2, etc.
Disadvantage Requires pilots wanting to receive airstrike requests to logout/login.
SLs and Pilots are all "Channel Commanders" (CC).
Then, by using "Whisper to Channel Commanders in Channel Family", the air strike request and response could take place.
Disadvantage But all SLs who were Channel Commanders would hear the conversation with other squads as well. They don't need that clutter.
Possible solution:SLs toggle CC on to request and discuss. Then turn it off.
Disadvantage ne1 toggling CC would be able to listen in on the traffic.
Disadvantage But there would be no way to distinguish USMC from MEC if VMFA-531 (or anyone else using this) were on both teams.
SLs set up keys to switch to/from the VMFA-531 channel and conduct requests like that.
DisadvantageCurrently no TEAM distinction (USMC or MEC/China). We could set up two airstrike channels, instead. (AirStrikeUSMC, AirStrikeOpFor)
VMFA-531 could sit in the 1stMIP relays channel
DisadvantageThey'd only be available to the 1stMIP and anyone using that channel
DisadvantageNo TEAM distinction. It would only work if the 1stMIP was on their team.

Got any other ideas? I prefer the "establish set names for any pilots" #2.

=Sarc= · 08-17-2005, 01:24 PM

I was going to post in the other thread that all this is a little too complicated to get set up. This should be kept simple and follow the chain of command. It's the least amount of work to get the job done. It may add extra work to the commander but I think it's better because he can issue an attack point to VMFA.

Although, of all the solutions posted, I like the ideal one that doesn't work. Let the players whisper to the VMFA channel. If the airstrike is confirmed, VMFA sends an affirmative in the game using PAGE-UP. It's simple and it gets the job done. I'm sure all the details can be worked out somehow.

John CANavar · 08-17-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrikeFear

The IDEAL GOAL is to have some way for any squad leader to contact all VMFA-531 members on their team (thru TS) to request an air strike, and for the pilots to all hear it and for any of them to be able to reply back via TS immediately - all this without anyone hearing the conversation except the pilots and the SL.

hmm, I have a question Strike: If anyone in the 531st can reply back to the requester WITHOUT others hearing it, dont you think it will create a confusion who is going for backup and who is staying? i.e., wouldnt it be better if only the SLs of request and support squads communicated and SL of support assigned a unit who will go for backup?

Obi · 08-17-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrikeFear

Got any other ideas? I prefer the "establish set names for any pilots" #2.

Yeah that looks like the best bet. Also, the pilots would not need to log out of the game. Just bring up the desktop while the game still running and make any required changes to TS then open up the game again. This could be done during loading screens where the pilots would be able to see if in the next map they wanted to be available for airstrikes.

**kormendi** · 08-17-2005, 01:30 PM

If the purpose of the thread is to discuss how to make teamspeak work for your purposes, and not to discuss the concepts of chain of command and other intricacies of BF2, how about moving the thread to the HW/SW forum so that the thread might follow a line of dicussion more focused on the SW aspects of TS.

You may find that others who don’t touch the BF2 forum may have a solution.

John CANavar · 08-17-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =Sarc=

I was going to post in the other thread that all this is a little too complicated to get set up. This should be kept simple and follow the chain of command. It's the least amount of work to get the job done. It may add extra work to the commander but I think it's better because he can issue an attack point to VMFA.

Although, of all the solutions posted, I like the ideal one that doesn't work. Let the players whisper to the VMFA channel. If the airstrike is confirmed, VMFA sends an affirmative in the game using PAGE-UP. It's simple and it gets the job done. I'm sure all the details can be worked out somehow.

Sarc,

1) this system will prove very useful if there is no CO or with a CO endorsing the idea of inter-squad comm.

2) I suggested in-game "roger key" option to Strike during practice last night. I guess he prefers to establish voice contant to relay the details (when support will come, from where it is coming from, etc)

KeithMann · 08-17-2005, 01:39 PM

I like option 4. Have the SL bind a key to switch to the 531st's channel, and another key to switch to his own squad's channel. He can toggle back and forth as necessary just like switching radio frequencies. This has the advantage of being realistic.

I'm not sure I understand the problem with MEC/China vs. USMC...does the 531st play on both sides at once? If so, then I like the idea of having both a 531USMC and 531MEC channel.

=Sarc= · 08-17-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John CANavar

Sarc,

1) this system will prove very useful if there is no CO or with a CO endorsing the idea of inter-squad comm.

2) I suggested in-game "roger key" option to Strike during practice last night. I guess he prefers to establish voice contant to relay the details (when support will come, from where it is coming from, etc)

Hmmm... I don't see any other way of getting two-way voice without making it complicated.

It seems the common problem for most of the solutions is team distinction. TS is not currently set up to separate players according to teams. Do players even separate according to server besides those in specialty squads like VMFA? I'm beginning to see TS cluttered with channels that are never or rarely used.

TS is a great tool but it just doesn't fit well into BF2. This is the reason I like BF2 so much more than BF1942. The in-game comms has integrated so nicely that TS is virtually obsolete for in-game purposes. TS never fit well into games that required complex binds. TE used a complex system for GR. It worked nicely but it took a lot of practice and study time to get used to it. I wrote that article on multi-channel protocol for JO and nobody used it. The problem was it was too complicated to get set up no matter how well I wrote the steps.

The solution for this might be some heavy modding to BF2 or hoping that TS3 has some great plugin capabilities.

StrikeFear · 08-17-2005, 02:35 PM

THANKS FOR ALL THE GREAT FEEDBACK!

Kormendi - Because we DO need a solution specific to THIS problem, and it does relate to the interaction of squads and COs. I just want to separate discussion of whether it's wrong or right to do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John CANaver

hmm, I have a question Strike: If anyone in the 531st can reply back to the requester WITHOUT others hearing it, dont you think it will create a confusion who is going for backup and who is staying? i.e., wouldnt it be better if only the SLs of request and support squads communicated and SL of support assigned a unit who will go for backup?

There's typically only 1-3 pilots in a jet squad. The SL could be in any of the seats. Rather than having to relay all discussion back and forth, it's easier for all of them to hear the request, and the SL (who might be flying the fighter) to say to his squad, "Bob," who is flying the bomber, "We're available. Handle that airstrike request." Then Bob goes about replying and performing the strike. But it's HELPFUL that the whole squad heard the request because they're all informed and the SL doesn't have to repeat info.
For a full infantry squad, yes, this is an issue. But for a couple of very autonomous pilots, it's better to share information instantly.

=Sarc= - Yes, all of the solutions add complexity. No question. That's why I prefer #2. It puts the least possible additional complexity on SLs, and puts the brunt of it on the pilots who want to receive requests. That way, we do special training on only 7 players, and just tell SLs to make a whisper bind.
As for using the PgUp/Dn "Roger". There are obvious problems I'm sure you can see. It's easy for that to get lost in game. Or what if the pilot was saying "Roger" for some OTHER reason? And we can't communicate any information with that, like ETA, or "We're on the way, but only have a fighter available." We can't ask questions like, "How many targets? Is there Mobile AA?" We can't give directions like, "ETA 10 seconds, move your troops away from the targets."
I'm not sure what to anticipate, but I'd imagine "Roger" isn't gonna cut it. I could be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ob1one

the pilots would not need to log out of the game. Just bring up the desktop while the game still running and make any required changes to TS

Yes - when I said logout/login, I meant in TeamSpeak, in order to change nicks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeithMann

I'm not sure I understand the problem with MEC/China vs. USMC...does the 531st play on both sides at once? If so, then I like the idea of having both a 531USMC and 531MEC channel.

Yes. Since VMFA-531 is (will be) comprised of 7 active pilots and autobalance is ON, they could often be playing against each other on our public servers. But this TS idea is not limited to VMFA-531 anyway. Any pilot or SL who wants to do this could get in on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by =Sarc=

I'm beginning to see TS cluttered with channels that are never or rarely used.

That observation may be true, but may not be bad. In any case, not all the solutions include making new channels.

perry · 08-17-2005, 02:44 PM

It's too bad the command channel isn't full 2 way communication amongst the CO and squad leaders. SL's press V to talk to other SL's AND the commander, B to talk to their squad.

Command Channel:
SL1: We need an airstrike to take out some troops up ahead!
SL2: We need an airstrike to take out that tank and APC rolling in on our flag!
CO: I need to hold that flag, Squad 3, targets are here.. (click, click, waypoint set)
SL3: On our way! We'll strafe the area near Squad 1 on the way to reload

I guess TG gameplay is too advanced to be supported by BF2.

**Wyzcrak** · 08-17-2005, 03:02 PM

I'm not saying we can't discuss the integration of TS into TG BF2 gameplay, but I'm saying you need to clear it through Tempus or Apophis before proceeding.

I'll take this (and the other) thread being unlocked as indication that we're encouraged to discuss it. Until then, follow the chain of command using the game's resources.

=Sarc= · 08-17-2005, 04:04 PM

Now, I think the best is to create new channels in TS. There are already a lot but more won't hurt. There should be channels for each side, players and VMFA. Participating players set up binds to whisper to these channels. No need to fiddle with names. No need to toggle TS commander status or anything weird like switching channels. No need to keep whisper lists updated. This would basically be similar to what I've outlined before in my JO multi-channel protocol.

I'm still not quite happy with this protocol. It seems like a lot of work, which is one of the reasons I think the JO protocol never took off. By the time all the details has been worked out for the support mission, the squad could be overrun. BF2 is a fast paced game and a lot of the tactics and protocols have to match the game's pace. Sometimes it just seems easier to call for air support, get the confirmation and let the pilot ID and destroy targets.

StrikeFear · 08-17-2005, 04:46 PM

=Sarc= - is this what you have in mind?
(Excuse the explorer UI. I'm at work. No TS here.)

That would be a lot of binds.

We could drop half by forgetting about Server 2 - it rarely has a good jet availability anyway.

SLs would need 2 binds:
Whisper to USMC-Airstrike
Whisper to OpFor-Airstrike

Pilots, on the other hand would need the SL binds (assuming they SL on the ground), PLUS 2 more binds.
That's 4 extra keys.

With method #2 above, they only need 2 (bind to preset, whisper to preset), while SLs need 2 (whisper to USMCPilot1...6, and whisper to OpForPilot1...6).

=Sarc= · 08-17-2005, 06:21 PM

Yeah, that's the idea. I guess both solutions have problems. With method #2, the pilots will have to get used to logging in and out to change TS names. Personally, logging in and out like that is not something I would want to do. I'd rather deal with a bunch of keybinds because it's a one time thing and a little memorization of the keys I need to use.

StrikeFear · 08-17-2005, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =Sarc=

Yeah, that's the idea. I guess both solutions have problems. With method #2, the pilots will have to get used to logging in and out to change TS names. Personally, logging in and out like that is not something I would want to do. I'd rather deal with a bunch of keybinds because it's a one time thing and a little memorization of the keys I need to use.

Yeah. I see your point. For the pilots, they'll have to alt tab, disconnect, and reconnect if they're gonna fly. That could mean doing that every map change or something.
But AT LEAST that's just a few guys. It will be MUCH simpler for everyone who wants to request strikes. I want it to be easy for MOST people, and tricky for only a few.

08-17-2005, 01:13 PM	#1 (permalink)
StrikeFear Join Date: May 2003 Location: Austin, TX Age: 39 Posts: 1,877	Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls. (Take 2) This thread is NOT a discussion of the concept. It is a discussion of a TS solution to this problem and others LIKE it. If you want to discuss the concept, start a new thread. The IDEAL GOAL is to have some way for any squad leader to contact all VMFA-531 members on their team (thru TS) to request an air strike, and for the pilots to all hear it and for any of them to be able to reply back via TS immediately - all this without anyone hearing the conversation except the pilots and the SL. I thought I knew the ideal solution - but it doesn't work. There are several near-ideal solutions, but I can't figure out a way to make it ideal, nor am I sure which compromise we should choose. Let me describe the non-working ideal solution and enumerate for you the other possible solutions that I can think of, along with their associated disadvantages. Pls give me your thoughts. The ideal doesn't work! SLs whisper to 531 channel. Pilots use a "Bind last whisperer to preset 0" and "Whisper to preset 0" combo. DisadvantageOnly ... it doesn't work, cuz TS doesn't consider a "Whisper to channel" as a whisper that can be bound to a preset. So SL1 whispers to channel FINE. But Pilots cannot bind that sender to a preset. Doesn't register. ---------------------- Other possibilities: SLs set up a key to "Whisper to player list" and add all members of VMFA-531 to that list. (There are 4 currently). That way, the whispers are personal, and pilots can respond by binding and whispering - no matter WHO it was. DisadvantageSLs must keep up with roster changes. DisadvantageWhat if the pilot is NOT currently in a jet squad? He's getting airstrike requests, but he's a medic. Possible solution:Post a sticky of not just VMFA-531 pilots, but ANY pilot who wants to be available for airstrike requests. The list would be TS nicknames, not in-game names. Hence, pilots could have special TS nicks used ONLY when piloting. That would, of course, require that they logout/login whenever they start/stop piloting. DisadvantageWhat if the pilots are on opposite teams? We could establish set names for any pilots willing to receive airstrike requests. SLs set up a key to "Whisper to player list" and add all those set names (which never change). Pilots log into TS using any of those nicks which are available. Then they will receive whispers and can bind and whisper to presets. This will also allow pilots and SLs to sit in whatever channel they like. Suggested nicks could be: USMCPilot1 USMCPilot2 ...etc up to 6(6 pilots in a jet squad could take turns) OpForPilot1, 2, etc. Disadvantage Requires pilots wanting to receive airstrike requests to logout/login. SLs and Pilots are all "Channel Commanders" (CC). Then, by using "Whisper to Channel Commanders in Channel Family", the air strike request and response could take place. Disadvantage But all SLs who were Channel Commanders would hear the conversation with other squads as well. They don't need that clutter. Possible solution:SLs toggle CC on to request and discuss. Then turn it off. Disadvantage ne1 toggling CC would be able to listen in on the traffic. Disadvantage But there would be no way to distinguish USMC from MEC if VMFA-531 (or anyone else using this) were on both teams. SLs set up keys to switch to/from the VMFA-531 channel and conduct requests like that. DisadvantageCurrently no TEAM distinction (USMC or MEC/China). We could set up two airstrike channels, instead. (AirStrikeUSMC, AirStrikeOpFor) VMFA-531 could sit in the 1stMIP relays channel DisadvantageThey'd only be available to the 1stMIP and anyone using that channel DisadvantageNo TEAM distinction. It would only work if the 1stMIP was on their team. Got any other ideas? I prefer the "establish set names for any pilots" #2. __________________ "You live and learn. Or you don't live long." - Lazarus Long

08-17-2005, 01:24 PM	#2 (permalink)
=Sarc= Join Date: May 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 4,716	Re: Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls. (Take 2) I was going to post in the other thread that all this is a little too complicated to get set up. This should be kept simple and follow the chain of command. It's the least amount of work to get the job done. It may add extra work to the commander but I think it's better because he can issue an attack point to VMFA. Although, of all the solutions posted, I like the ideal one that doesn't work. Let the players whisper to the VMFA channel. If the airstrike is confirmed, VMFA sends an affirmative in the game using PAGE-UP. It's simple and it gets the job done. I'm sure all the details can be worked out somehow. __________________ JO Guides & Tutorials Team Element - It's who you game with.

08-17-2005, 01:30 PM	#5 (permalink)
kormendi Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Fairfax, Virginia Age: 27 Posts: 2,177	Re: Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls. (Take 2) If the purpose of the thread is to discuss how to make teamspeak work for your purposes, and not to discuss the concepts of chain of command and other intricacies of BF2, how about moving the thread to the HW/SW forum so that the thread might follow a line of dicussion more focused on the SW aspects of TS. You may find that others who don’t touch the BF2 forum may have a solution. __________________

08-17-2005, 01:39 PM	#7 (permalink)
KeithMann Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Posts: 648	Re: Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls. (Take 2) I like option 4. Have the SL bind a key to switch to the 531st's channel, and another key to switch to his own squad's channel. He can toggle back and forth as necessary just like switching radio frequencies. This has the advantage of being realistic. I'm not sure I understand the problem with MEC/China vs. USMC...does the 531st play on both sides at once? If so, then I like the idea of having both a 531USMC and 531MEC channel. __________________ \|TG\|Manner

08-17-2005, 02:44 PM	#10 (permalink)
perry Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,494	Re: Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls. (Take 2) It's too bad the command channel isn't full 2 way communication amongst the CO and squad leaders. SL's press V to talk to other SL's AND the commander, B to talk to their squad. Command Channel: SL1: We need an airstrike to take out some troops up ahead! SL2: We need an airstrike to take out that tank and APC rolling in on our flag! CO: I need to hold that flag, Squad 3, targets are here.. (click, click, waypoint set) SL3: On our way! We'll strafe the area near Squad 1 on the way to reload I guess TG gameplay is too advanced to be supported by BF2.

08-17-2005, 03:02 PM	#11 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,155	Re: Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls. (Take 2) I'm not saying we can't discuss the integration of TS into TG BF2 gameplay, but I'm saying you need to clear it through Tempus or Apophis before proceeding. I'll take this (and the other) thread being unlocked as indication that we're encouraged to discuss it. Until then, follow the chain of command using the game's resources. __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

08-17-2005, 04:04 PM	#12 (permalink)
=Sarc= Join Date: May 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 4,716	Re: Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls. (Take 2) Now, I think the best is to create new channels in TS. There are already a lot but more won't hurt. There should be channels for each side, players and VMFA. Participating players set up binds to whisper to these channels. No need to fiddle with names. No need to toggle TS commander status or anything weird like switching channels. No need to keep whisper lists updated. This would basically be similar to what I've outlined before in my JO multi-channel protocol. I'm still not quite happy with this protocol. It seems like a lot of work, which is one of the reasons I think the JO protocol never took off. By the time all the details has been worked out for the support mission, the squad could be overrun. BF2 is a fast paced game and a lot of the tactics and protocols have to match the game's pace. Sometimes it just seems easier to call for air support, get the confirmation and let the pilot ID and destroy targets. __________________ JO Guides & Tutorials Team Element - It's who you game with.

08-17-2005, 04:46 PM	#13 (permalink)
StrikeFear Join Date: May 2003 Location: Austin, TX Age: 39 Posts: 1,877	Re: Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls. (Take 2) =Sarc= - is this what you have in mind? (Excuse the explorer UI. I'm at work. No TS here.) That would be a lot of binds. We could drop half by forgetting about Server 2 - it rarely has a good jet availability anyway. SLs would need 2 binds: Whisper to USMC-Airstrike Whisper to OpFor-Airstrike Pilots, on the other hand would need the SL binds (assuming they SL on the ground), PLUS 2 more binds. That's 4 extra keys. With method #2 above, they only need 2 (bind to preset, whisper to preset), while SLs need 2 (whisper to USMCPilot1...6, and whisper to OpForPilot1...6). __________________ "You live and learn. Or you don't live long." - Lazarus Long

08-17-2005, 06:21 PM	#14 (permalink)
=Sarc= Join Date: May 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 4,716	Re: Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls. (Take 2) Yeah, that's the idea. I guess both solutions have problems. With method #2, the pilots will have to get used to logging in and out to change TS names. Personally, logging in and out like that is not something I would want to do. I'd rather deal with a bunch of keybinds because it's a one time thing and a little memorization of the keys I need to use. __________________ JO Guides & Tutorials Team Element - It's who you game with.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
REQUIRED READING: Teamspeak Etiquiette	luna	World of Warcraft - Announcements and SOPs	9	09-29-2005 08:19 PM
Air Strikes via Teamspeak - Help w/TS, pls.	StrikeFear	Battlefield 2 - Ranked Vanilla	8	08-17-2005 01:06 PM
One More Time - BFDC Night	Killer_McDermott	First Person Shooters (FPS)	66	04-08-2005 09:48 AM
TeamSpeak Multi-Channel Protocol	=Sarc=	Joint Operations - Official Rules, Announcements and SOPs.	4	09-06-2004 12:02 AM
SOP (Radio) - The Fire Mission	Badger	Ghost Recon - Official Rules, Announcements and SOP's	0	05-15-2003 02:22 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links