-
12-04-2009, 05:48 AM #1
Teamspeak Team channels
I propose that we use teamspeak team channels a little more. I think the cobwebs in that room need dusting off
Does it really make a huge difference?
Well, I came late into a round of Gibraltar. The EU team wasn't doing particularly well - to me, it was clear we would've been capped out.
I joined a squad and eventually became squad leader. Marginal improvement in situation
"Zhohar, team channel 1?"
"Sure"
Our team had more deliberate and effective attacks and defenses.
Unfortunately, it wasn't enough.
Zhohar and I worked rather closely together later rounds with good success.
Tunis: 3-flags - early on we had the intention of working together - getting 2 squads to control 3 flags. (There was a third squad, but I don't remember what it was doing)
Berlin: We were close to capping them, but they lost all their tickets first
???: I don't remember, but I know we played 3 maps. At this point, we decided to be on separate teams
Was this teamstack? I don't think so, there were a decent amount of TG on the other side. I would like to think we had a huge advantage because of increased communication.
There were other times SL communication helped. We've managed to make a break in Cerebere as PAC (doesn't sound impressive, but the offensive seemed pretty hopeless. We decided to work together 100 tickets too late), Tunis, and some other times I don't immediately recall (part of brain is preoccupied with other matters).
What can be gained from SL-SL communication?
I have to say, inter-SL communication was incredibly fun. Without it, I doubt the rounds would be very memorable. I remember the rounds we worked together fairly well (of the ones I remember).
Other than the fun factor, what are practical uses for it? How can you use it?
1- Shared intelligence.
ie. Berlin: "Break through north, they're going to Outpost"
or
"We're going to approach from low, go high"
or
"We can hold these attackers, you're better off capping their spawn point"
2- Greater power
ie. Same example: "They're going to outpost (we both realize it is an important flag). We need help, spawn outpost."
or
"Let's go ahead and take Eastern Docks, try for a 3flag game"
3- Ground coverage
ie. Zhohar locked down Eastern Docks, while my squad were defending Power/Junk. If we needed help, we were only a few steps away.
or
Berlin- I approach from the north, Zhohar went from (somewhere?). At the time, I didn't need to worry about playing 2142 like a game of chess, keeping tabs on the entire map. The only thing I needed to focus on was the task at hand.
Should I use it?
It shouldn't be forced.
It should be tried.
It's fun.
It's a tactical tool that's been neglected.Last edited by Fruvous; 12-04-2009 at 06:30 AM.
Without teamwork, you'll never survive.
Without betrayal you'll never win.
Welcome to Cutthroat Caverns
-
12-04-2009, 06:40 AM #2
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
awesome! i would love inter-SL communication
Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population....Tactical Gamer is not mainstream. We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers"
-
12-04-2009, 09:30 AM #3
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
Sounds like great fun, and easy. No more asking commander to ask something to another SL only to not have him do so.
-
12-04-2009, 12:45 PM #4
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
The team channels are already there by the way. Fruvous is just saying we should use them more often, which I agree with, they give you another advantage which is always helpful.




|TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.
-
12-04-2009, 03:32 PM #5
-
12-04-2009, 04:22 PM #6
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
I definitely approve of this thread and its message. This is teamwork at the next level and we should embrace its full potential.
One situation where it's really a life-saver is when you have a "bare minimum CO" -- the kind that's responsive and technically giving orders (so you can't report him to an admin), but nearly useless in that he doesn't give intel, spot, co-ordinate squads, or use VOIP. In this case, direct co-ordination with another SL is beyond useful.
Also, I've found that this works best on smaller, infantry-based maps like Tunis and Gibraltar. On larger maps like Belgrade, it's difficult to co-ordinate beyond round-start.Fight!
-
12-04-2009, 05:19 PM #7
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
Well now that we have Zhohar's stamp of approval we just have to... [/sarcasm]
I think it's a good idea even though I almost never SL ('cause I stank!)
Just a thought, what if we renamed the channels to PAC and EU? Maybe that would encourage people to use them more.
-
12-04-2009, 05:58 PM #8
-
12-04-2009, 06:14 PM #9
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
This should be required reading:
http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...-channels.html
|TG-6th|Damonte










Proud to have been an Irregular!
-
12-04-2009, 07:12 PM #10
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- on the internet
- Posts
- 157
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
That was going to me next question.. what was the CO doing?
If you have no CO then by all means... otherwise I actually think it creates another issue of misdirection. Talking back to, your squad-mates, your CO.. and now chatting with other Squad Leaders?
Why not just chat in the TS 2142 lobby of Team1 vs Team2 if need to communicate to another squad leader
-
12-05-2009, 05:59 AM #11
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
SL-SL communication is all about "Ask and ye shall receive".
1)We only own Eastern Docks. If I spawned Eastern, my squad would be useless. Zhohar was about to dash with the only buggy
"Zho, hold the buggy, I'm spawning in 3!"
Zho waited for a bit before dashing away
2)PAC Cerebere, we only had Office Ruins
"Let's go up the middle, it looks the best way." (equipped recon, I found a pretty decent path)
"Ok, Fruv, you take point"
One squad unfortunately died, but I think we took roadblock from it.
3)Berlin
"Fruv, we're gonna cap outpost, hold spawn for it"
He took the flag, I spawned on it, and we were able to defend it
4)PAC Berlin. We had outpost, they had square and was using it to attack outpost.
We were near square, they were defending outpost
"Do you need help at outpost?" (deciding whether or not to either eliminate a spawn point [square] or protect one [outpost])
"No, take square" (unfortunately, I failed
)
Last edited by Fruvous; 12-05-2009 at 06:20 AM.
Without teamwork, you'll never survive.
Without betrayal you'll never win.
Welcome to Cutthroat Caverns
-
12-05-2009, 10:49 AM #12
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
This would benefit the teamwork allot, but you should not go above your Commander.
If you have an order from your CO, you should follow it. If you haven't let the CO know what you are going to do.
But to get this really working, you need the CO in teamspeak channel to.
No Squad Members because you can get to many conversations and discussions (and other funny things).
Proud to have been an Irregular!
Medic for Hire





-
12-06-2009, 03:22 AM #13
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
The commander on most maps is not very useful at this point for questions of strategy. We've all danced the dance of 2142 for years now. We know where to go and what to do in every situation. We know the important flags and the unimportant ones. We know the moves. Camp Gib EU, for example, we know that if a buggy breaks through someone has to chase down the enemy SL. Sometimes it's easier if you have SLs taking initiative so that the CO can use his God vision to spot developing threats.
In other words, the SLs can organically react to the common situations of 2142, leaving the commander to consider the the uncommon things the enemy team may be up to.
Honestly, the one thing I see a lot of is a failure to concentrate force in the attack. Squads hitting a flag like South Town or Church in sequence and not all at once. So 1 hits and dies, and the enemy revives, then 2 hits, then another pause, then 3. It's not 18, it's just 6 three times in a row. Whereas if the SL's pause for 30 seconds to get everyone spawned in, then approach from three directions and give good mutual support then there is not a flag in the game that will not fall quickly. The SL channel is great for this. A study of successful armies shows that it skillful and agressive leadership, with authority pushed down to the lowest possible level makes the difference. Initiative is the key to victory. The SL channel encourages a smooth flow of information, and there is no such thing as not having enough intelligence.
-
12-06-2009, 07:57 AM #14
Re: Teamspeak Team channels
The TS channels really did arise as a compensatory behaviour. I'm sure a competent CO would render the use of these channels obsolete but the fact of the matter is that there just aren't that many COs, much less good COs.
... which reminds me of how often I step up to CO
Eh, it's a difficult problem. If I had a wishlist for BF3, it'd include something like this:
1. The ability to demote an SL, and to choose who to promote from the squad. (Once every 5-10 minutes so that it's not abused.)
2. Ability to have a vote of non-confidence among squad leaders only. Squad leaders can only start this, and only squad leaders with more than 50% full squads can vote so that it's not abused. Result is a demoted CO.
3. Ability to have a Command VOIP channel that all squad leaders and the CO can use for communication.Fight!
-
12-06-2009, 12:55 PM #15
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- on the internet
- Posts
- 157
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)



Reply With Quote






Bookmarks