Re: Teamspeak Development and Usage Growth.

**JimmyTwoHand** · 06-18-2007, 11:51 AM

Good post, well written and although im not a major PR player, generally i find too much TS chatter distracting. I think trying to keep track of the CO and my squad is enough without the addition of TS too. I seem to remember we tried seperate channels for air assets before and there was a scrim or two where we tried having all the SLs in one TS channel wasnt there? I seem to recall it wasnt a great success but someone with a better memory than me might be able to provide some constructive suggestions and possible pitfalls from that experience.

**BigGaayAl** · 06-18-2007, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Top Cat AJA

You all have your opinions on TS, ideas, problems, issues, comments, all the above is up for debate, lets hear it, LETS TEAR THIS ENTIRE TEAM SPEAK ISSUE APART - the good, the bad and the ugly, EVERYTHING

I wasn't going to post until you asked for it. So I'll just state a short opinion.

I feel that the evolution you propose would isolate me from communications and would keep me from squad-leading (effectively). While I applaud your experiments with 2 squads on ts, I am against the evolution you want.

I say one communication tool to rule them all. Either disable voip on the server or use it fully.
If there was one reason I started coming back to the TG servers, it was the use of voip, that enables a lone gamer to come into contact with the community through the server, and not through the easily clogged tubes of the internet.

Can anyone lend me 2 cents?

**mat552** · 06-18-2007, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Morganan

-I dislike the sound quality of TS in general. There are underlying reasons as to why people choose TS over another VOIP program, and I understand that. The low sound quality of TS bothers me, so as it is not a mandatory factor of playing here, I personally skip it whenever possible.

PROTIP: You can change the codecs that TS uses depending on the available bandwidth go into "Settings" and muck around until it sounds better. I was defaulted to low usage with crap codecs, I changed it and it sounds fine.

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

Can anyone lend me 2 cents?

All I have is a dollar, so here.
@Top Cat AJA Mandating teamspeak is a bad idea, especially when the ingame voip works just fine. If you can't force people to use voip ingame, then do that FIRST before you mandate TS. Also, I am a control freak of sorts. You telling me I have to makes me disinclined to do it just for that reason.

**John CANavar** · 06-18-2007, 02:10 PM

Top Cat,

I think you are a very like-minded gamer. You are approaching the game the same way some of us do; methodical and systematic, trying to bring more organization to otherwise chaotic world of battlefield.

You should continue this since it is the way you want to play the game. My only suggestion is no matter how good your ideas are, dont force it on others. Let the ones who have interest join you. When you asked me if I would be interested in joining your squad couple of days ago, you didnt have to convince me. I was ready to give it a shot and jumped in. It was a very enjoyable experience and I recommend it to others. If I werent a part of 1stMIP which uses its own fire team organization system as well as many other standard operating procedures, I would probably look for your squads every time I join server. There are many unaffiliated players on TG who would love to be a part of a system like yours. And believe me, the only thing you need to do is to be on the server and let these people join your squad.

Do you want it to be a very consistent experience, do you want to develop your system on a solid framework? Then my friend, I highly recommend you to form a new in-house squad. Then you will have your team mates to provide that solid framework; they dont need explanations on how the system works and they will help you to train guest players. Everyone will be happy. You will have a chance to use your system every night you join the server plus you will have a chance to show how it works.

For the level of organization you are looking for, in-house units is the realm you need to enter. And I dont know any place better than Tactical Gamer to achieve what you want to. 1stMIP type of highly organized gaming was my dream years ago and now I am living that dream. We built it here at TG. You can do the same.

**Top Cat AJA** · 06-18-2007, 02:20 PM

CHaps i totaly agree with just about every comment made, unless it is actualy....cant put in right BUT I WOULD LIKE TO EDIT MY ORGNINAL POST BUT I CANNOT.

Presently i am writing up a proper responce too all the comments made - regonising all the incorrect things i might have said BUT IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME.

Thanks again for all the wondefull comments, KEEP EM COMING and ofcourse focussed on teamspeak.

p.s John - EDIT: IN house squad - yerr, WHY NOT????

**Skud** · 06-18-2007, 03:12 PM

You know...

It's not hard to find a good squad in game. It greatly depends on the SL's leadership. With a good CO, you dont need TS. You just need point and click orders, and the occasional VoIP in game order. Like...text...If I want a pickup from AirCav Squad, I just type "AIR CAV - Requesting pickup in D3"

I run vent with all my other games except for PR. It only proves as a distraction. In my eyes, in squad communication is wayyyy more imporant than communication between every squad. If you inquire about what say, squad 1 is doing, type it. A good SL will respond with "We're defending/attacking XXX"

The importance of the team, in my opinion is lower than that of the squad. If you are in a good squad, you can make a HUGE difference in the outcome of the game.

EDIT: Sorry if it all read as off topic, but my main point is that communication in game is already great on TG servers.

**Top Cat AJA** · 06-18-2007, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

It's not hard to find a good squad in game. It greatly depends on the SL's leadership. With a good CO, you dont need TS. You just need point and click orders, and the occasional VoIP in game order. Like...text...If I want a pickup from AirCav Squad, I just type "AIR CAV - Requesting pickup in D3"

Absolutely correct. But rember air Cav co-ordination is ONLY ONE TINY THING that makes up total squad to squad and therefore team co-orndination.
Therefore the use of team speak, in game VOIP and in game TEXT must be based on the exact type of co-ordination, namely the complexity and length required!

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

The importance of the team, in my opinion is lower than that of the squad. If you are in a good squad, you can make a HUGE difference in the outcome of the game.
.

Well i think, ever since the first release of PR and up until now, the importance of the every squad and every man working together, rather than just the indervidual has increased IMPOSSIBLY comapred to the orginal BF2.

There was a time in PR, when 1 man could run and gun very effectively. That man can still do but it is MUCH MUCH more difficult. At present, as you correctly stated, the co-ordination of every man with in squads is VITAL for sccuess. However this increasing importance on the all the players on the team and the decreasing importance of inderviduals acting alone WILL NOT STOP BUT CONTINUE. It is the very objective of the Developers of PR.

So, even if at the moment, a single squad ALONE can have a greater impact on the outcome of a battle than say the whole team as whole, this impact, i am uterly sure will decrease until the last PR release.

I believe the actions of the team at the moment and in the future are and will be just as important as the actions of any indervidual squad. For this reason, i have created this thread and am writing this now.

Alittle rough on decent quality but give me time......

**FlumBom** · 06-18-2007, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Top Cat AJA

A1 Solution: Create a large number of new channels under the project reality area. This precise number is dictated by the requirements to for fill * AND NOTHING ELSE.
I am not totally sure as to how exactly for fill * but below is a my present but highly flexible idea as to what might do so:

- Project Reality area
- Public
- Allied Team
- Squad A
- Squad B
- Squad C
- Squad D
- Tank
- Air
- CO
- Other Team
- Squad A
- Squad B
- Squad C
- Squad D
- Tank
- Air
- CO
-In house squads
- Group 1 (e.g. 1stMIP)
- Group 2
- Group 3
- Group 4
- Group 5

As i said, this is just an example. So from all of you, i would love to hear you ideas. The above i quite complex, but you dont have to use all the channels BUT it clearly shows which players responsible for which assets. HOWEVER as more players use TS the simplicity and ease at which communication between many different assets will be wondefully apparent.

I like your idea allot. but i think that we shuld skip all squad chanels and only have one "all squad-" or "squad to squad-" chanel for each team.

this way (if it works) every squad can have one man taking a "cominication roll" and listening to that chanel and comunicatig with all the other squads.

what a team play it whould be

ps. no spaming in that chanel do!

**Jimmy_Smack** · 06-21-2007, 09:07 AM

Yea I try to get on once every day around 4-5 to check if top_cat is on so we can do some great teamwork.

**E-Male** · 06-22-2007, 03:49 PM

It is not feasible to have one man listening to all other SLs. That would almost certainly destroy that individuals sit rep, and ability to listen and communicate effectively to his SMs. SL to SL comm in an all-SL channel (for example), with the additional noise of in-game auto messages and squad chatter, and with CO chatter (which more often than not involves a CO talking to all SLs at once) will not work.

I am not sure if this is the sort of thing you have in mind. Others here seem to imply the need for a group SL to SL open channel. Will not work. Assumes a disciplined and practiced use of the channel.

As it is, PR is frequently barely playable (for me and many others) while TS is on in the open channel in TG, the most disciplined of servers.

I am also not sure what the problem is that you are trying to solve. SL to SL direct communication would threaten to undermine (with a high degree of probability) the CO's orders, introduce too many cooks into the kitchen IN THE RELATIVELY UNDICISPLINED environment of gameplay. While such horizontal comm structure may be desirable in real-world conditions, those conditions of the RW come with extreme discipline and training. The lack of discipline, training and common protocols will place serve limits on the size and complexity of in-game group communication. More horizontal communication with greater complexity will only lead to the noise overcoming the signal.

Again, I am uncertain as to your intention, but over-communication, incorrect use of the open TS channels, and multiple already-existing demands on SLs re comm traffic make any EXPANSION of group communication via TS extremely problematic.

**BeerHunter** · 06-22-2007, 04:53 PM

Programs such as TS and Ventro were useful in the days before VOIP became standard fare in games , and are still useful for for friendly gatherings and chit chat but IMO simply add a degree of confusion to gaming and aren't necessary.

Everyone with BF2 has immediate access to VOIP and BF2 (and other games) isolate the VOIP to channels so you don't hear all that unnecessary , distracting chatter you quit often get with TS and Ventro.

Of course if you create a slew of channels and everyone is using it (if you don't have it you can't hear commands) it could replace in game VOIP but IMO it's simply not worth the effort.

The in game sound quality might not be up to the standards of TS etc. but it is still usable and not sucking up additional resources and bandwidth.

I prefer in game VOIP and even though I have TS installed , hardly ever use it.

**E-Male** · 06-22-2007, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by BeerHunter

Programs such as TS and Ventro were useful in the days before VOIP became standard fare in games , and are still useful for for friendly gatherings and chit chat but IMO simply add a degree of confusion to gaming and aren't necessary.

In game VOIP do not allow for communication outside of the game with admins (which is the main thing that allows TG to maintain a superior level of mature play), and in-game VOIP does not allow the option of limited SL to SL communication, such as the 1stMIP uses for its two-squad platoon tactical operations. Without TS the TG community would not be very different from vanilla pubbie play.

**tHa_KhAn** · 06-22-2007, 05:22 PM

Buy Armed assault....more realistic than PR and we use these style comms....easy solution.

**BeerHunter** · 06-22-2007, 05:24 PM

Can certainly understand the need to communicate with an admin if there isn't one around but if there is one on the server , can't you communicate by text (not familiar with BF2 admin but DoD/CS had commands for admin chat).

Squad - Squad .. isn't it the intent of BF2 PRM to have SL's communicate through the commander for realism??

Pardon my ignorance here..I may be in over my head as I'm just a beginner in PRM.

**Top Cat AJA** · 06-22-2007, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by E-Male

and multiple already-existing demands on SLs re comm traffic make any EXPANSION of group communication via TS extremely problematic.

Thanks alot E-male, exceptionaly helpfull constructive comments.

I agree that when teams have a CO, the use of TS and in-game voip can and presently almost always does result in too much voise communication therefore making the process and responce by the SL more difficult and in affect actualy decreasing the effectiveness of the squad.

This however is almost when all those players using TS on 1 team are on 1 single channel and/or have very little experince of proper skill in using TS.

THerefore in part, these 2 reasons i think, contribute massively to as you said making play to complex/difficult and therefore unenjoyable.

In significant proportion of games, i would have to say +20% of the time when the server is atleast half full, there is no CO. This, makes co-ordination between SL's very difficult and i think, in some situations as bad as when presently 1 TS channel, the CO channel and the in squad channel are all in use.
Being an effective CO takes skill. As you said, on the TG server there is a lack of training and disaplain, or atleast to that of a highl level amung the average player. This means that for again a significant proportion of times a team has a CO, again i would say + 20% of the time who fails to attempt or attempt and fail to co-ordinate the squads to an extent that is noticable by the majority of SLs and squads.

THese 2 above CO problems do prevent overall SL co-ordination. But the 2 TS (1 single channel and extremely limited TS usage skill) problems also prevent overall SL co-ordination.

However the CO problems, for also a significant proportion of the time, are not prevailent becuase there is a CO and they are relavtively skill full in the co-ordniation of SL's.

1) Nevertheless i believe that the co-ordination between SL's, given by the CO is not enough becuase PR battles are and are becoming more complex with every release. Namely the small size of squads directly compared with the objectives they are tasked and the significant realistic representation of weapons requires many objectives to have mulitple squads and vehicles tasked to them (difficulty in completion - large numbers of players and different types of weapons required to complete objective). However effective close use of these squads, large numbers of infantry and vehicles is TOO DIFFICUTL due to the basic in-game voip system.

Whether or not you agree with 1), i do think you understand that effective SL co-ordination requires significant skill and communication in the part of leaders and SL's (through any and all means - CO, text, TS ext. )and practise . I did realize this to a certain degree but I DID NOT MAKE THIS CLEAR and your post have defintely reinforced and Focused this view - much needed for any developement of practise systems.

Becuase of 1) and past experience of TS (recent mulit squad operations, scrims and the tourney) i do believe that TS can offer a solution however as i have come to realize more and more, such will require significant skills, practise and most importantly any tactics and skills will require continuous developement.
This i do realize is impossible to forfill by having just a random but player with great intensions relating to improving squad co-ordination, from a pub game log in to TS.

So the question, i think that any one interested in improving squad co-ordination is :
A) Shoudl one focus on devoloping systems to created, coach and practicse the skills and tactics needed to effectively co-ordniate squads (incl. vehicles) to ALL TG players interested in improving there skill at being a CO.

OR IF in part you consider 1) to be true, and ONLY IF:

B) Should one focus on developing systems to create, coach and practice the skills needed to operate and utalise teamspeak that can be used to effectively co-ordniate squads (epscially incl. vehicles) to ALL TG players interested.

For me, it should be both but becuase of 1) i believe that greater emphasis should be placed on B).

For this reasons i am seriously considering the creation of a new in house squad with the purpose on trying to create a system to do both A) and B).
Therefore helping to developt a HIGHLY DISAPLINED enviroment of gameplay.
With such importance being placed on the continued and constant development of skills and tactics i am considering the name: "Tactical DEVelopement" or "TacDEV" for short, becuase of its relevance to how the squad works and generaly helps recognision (other ideas for names all welcome).

I am in the process of writing up the purpose of the squad(objectives), intial ideas on how to complete the objectives ext. If you are interested in contacting me in the next few days, the best way is probaly through TS on the PR channel at around 8:00 + pm GMT - sorry to busy to wrtie up any major forum posts or PM's.

Thread Tools

Display