Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rethinking TG's Evolution ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rethinking TG's Evolution ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

    This is an open discussion and a "rethink" of TG's Current Comms Channel structure in Team speak. This discussion is ONLY RELEVANT to the Evolution server (and any other large scale, multi squad, coop missions that might come along in the future .... Queens Gambit Maybe?)

    I welcome input from all interested parties. The more people who review this thread and look for better ideas, the more valuable this thread will be.

    As the EVO server gets more and more popular, the limitations of our current Teamspeak comms channel and squad org systems are becoming apparent.

    The goal of this very serious discussion is as follows.

    #1.

    To graphically depict the Team speak Comms structure we are using now so that all readers can "see" how our current structure is potentially "Task Saturating" squad leaders unnecessarily

    #2.

    To show some ideas on how we can restructure the TG ArmA Teamspeak channel structure moving forward to "Unload" the squad leaders (and his squad members) of certain communications that are not relevant to them. This will greatly assist in keeping a Squad leader’s Comms channels clear (and those of his members) so he and his squad can better meet their objectives and communicate with FAR FEWER INTERRUPTIONS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT TO THAT SQUAD LEADER AT THAT MOMENT. Please note that I DO NOT mean to imply that the other comms are irrelevant to the server. On the contrary. The idea here is to get all comms to go where they are needed so that ALL PLAYERS, including first time arrivals, are BETTER SERVED.

    #3.

    To show how "unloading" the squad leaders ears of many of the comms he currently has to listen to (and often respond to) will actually ENHANCE the servers ability to assist new players in getting into the field and getting into squads. NEW ARRIVALS and RESPAWNERS will have **LESS** wait time to get back into the action.

    #4.

    To show how "Unloading" the squad leaders ears can allow all squad leaders more time to coordinate with other squads and armor elements, air support (not to be confused with air transport), so that they can execute combined assault tactics more fully.

    The Benefits of improving TG’s Teamspeak-based comms protocols and channel structure are many. Lets begin by understanding more clearly how they are right now. By seeing clearly what we have now, we can better understand how to get to a better structure.

    The first picture below is a depiction of how things are today.

    Please note that every picture ahead shows what channel people are in and who can hear them when they talk. It is the purpose of the images.

    In TG's current EVOLUTION SERVER COMMS approach, the following weaknesses can be seen by the image below...

    All squad members, INCLUDING THE SQUAD LEADER, typically hear the voice of EVERY NEW ARRIVAL to the server. This includes every RESPAWN from your own squad who just died and re appeared at the Base. They often additionally hear the dedicated transport guys as well. THIS IS NOT GOOD. There is no useful purpose in a squad leader AND EVERY SQUAD MEMBER hearing new arrivals, respawns and dedicated transport folks working together to get people back to their squad or assign them a squad. These comms (between new arrivals, respawns and dedicated transport folks) serve only to STEP ON vital in-squad transmissions which need to occur between SQUAD LEAD and members currently in harms way. Some one other than the SL needs to coordinate the assignment and transport of new arrival and respawners. (more on this newly defined individual, called the RADIO OFFICER, later).

    Now lets look at image #1. It shows quite graphically the level of radio traffic going INTO THE EARS of EVERY squad member and their squad leader, as we are setup today at TacticalGamer.com.



    What an overwhelming barrage of voices!. It is not uncommon during periods of enemy contact to have as many as 8 or more voices in the heads of SL’s and their members! And only one or 2 of them are actually relevant to the moment. And the last thing Squad members need to hear during contact is anything other than their SL’s orders and the “contact calls” of their immediate squad buddies.

    So if we can now understand this issue, the question becomes how we can make this better?

    In order to improve this, the squad leader, IMHO, will need to ALWAYS assign a person in his squad that he will designate the RADIO OFFICER. In the next (and all following) images, you will see the introduction of a radio officer into the key and the process (He is the neon green guy).

    Personally, I intend make the radio officer my DELTA guy, because as squad leader, I typically make bounding movements with my squad members in alphabetical order. This will tend to leave the Radio officer farther in the rears to manage radio traffic when he needs to.

    THE KEY PURPOSE FOR ASSINGING A RADIO OFFICER IN YOUR SQUAD IS TO FULLY UNBRUDEN ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SQUAD, INCLUDING THE LEAD, FROM HAVING TO HEAR ANY RADIO TRAFFIC RELATING TO GETTING NEW ARRIVALS AND RESPAWNS, IN COORDINATION WITH DEDICATED TRANSPORT, DISTRIBUTED TO SQUADS WHO NEED THEM.

    In fact, by unburdening the rest of the squad and its lead from this radio chatter, 3 things are improved.

    1. Squad lead can focus better and keep his squad safe and moving towards its objective faster.

    2. Squad members can now hear more of the lead’s orders because radio traffic (in their ears) are greatly reduced.

    3. New Arrival and Respawns are now BETTER and MORE QUICKLY served because a dedicated guy (the radio officer) who is not already saturated with squad lead responsibilities, can focus on getting them the info they need to get back into the action

    Once the radio officer coordinates with dedicated transport and the new arrival (or respawn) and provides map markers for LZ or truck location for delivery, then the radio officer can say ONE SIMPLE THING on the radio to the entire squad. "SL, this is RO. So-and-so is inbound to the squad, ETA 3 minutes". That’s it. All the coordination talk (and there is a metric boat load of that stuff …… it could fill a 5 ton truck) does not need to crowd the ears of the squad leader or the rest of his squad. Only the Radio officer (RO) will hear that stuff. It is his job and his job alone to manage it

    This next image shows the current ideal design for just such a communication scheme. Please note that this ideal design is not actually possible in Teamspeak right now. But we must see what we are doing now (the first image of chaos) and the ideal image (this next one) to better understand what compromises we may be able to live with in changing our current Teamspeak channel organization, until TeamSpeak gets updated or a more versatile gaming comms software comms along.

    Please note the addition of a new channel in this next image. This is a channel we do not currently have at TG EVOLUTION TeamSpeak server. It is called ….

    The “NEW ARRIVALS AND DEDICATED TRANSPORT” Channel.

    It is a vitally new important new channel to isolate all the traffic within itself and with the radio officer so that the SLs and squad members do not hear a peep of that very important subsystem of activity.

    Here is the image of the ideal or "Best" solution




    Additionally, here is the exact same image as the "BEST" image, only slightly more cluttered to actually show all 4 squads interacting with the ideal solution, rather than just one squad. The “bigger picture”, if you will



    So now, we have seen how "LOUD" and “unnecessarily merged" all comms were in the first image and we have seen how nice it would be if we could set up TeamSpeak, in conjunction with the designation of a radio officer in each squad, to create a far less "comms saturated" environment for the leads and their members.

    But alas, we have to deal with the realities of Teamspeak. As far we can see, Teamspeak will not actually allow a channel construct as seen in the previous 2 images.

    The reality is that Channel commander is all we have. We cannot have 2 distinct channel commander situations. At least not yet as far as we know. (If any one can deign a work around in Teamspeak for this image, I will jump for joy)

    So the question becomes, how can we compromise and use The SINGLE channel commander feature better to unload the Leads and their members and re-distribute that load over to the new "RADIO OFFICER" position that each squad leader should assign to his squad (Stay tuned,… a new, fully featured Squad leader lesson plan, complete with actual classes, is being developed and will be taught soon to interested parties. I just need to finish it and get it fully edited, reviewed, and approved by the TG authorities and Admins.)

    The next image shows that compromise.

    What it shows is that the radio officer is continually tuned into Channel commander. NOT THE SQUAD LEADER. The squad leader only goes into Channel commander when he needs to in order to coordinate with air support, armor support, or other squad leaders. And in the instance when a platoon commander is online, he functions from Channel commander as well.

    As with all compromises, certain things are less than perfect. So the question becomes "What have we lost through this new approach and is it worth it for what we gain". In other words, does the next image present and improvement over what we have now?

    In my humble opinion, the answer is a resounding “YES”. However, it not my job to believe myself. It is best that I convince all of you and listen to everyone’s input. Maybe something even better than this design will emerge in the ensuing discussions.

    First, lets list the compromising elements of the next image.

    Compromise #1. The Radio officer must not only hear all coordination chatter related to new arrival, respawns and dedicated transport (his actual job), he must also hear the chatter of other squad leaders, and attack support from the air and ground.

    To me, this is still ##FAR## better than the squad leader hearing it all the time. After all, the squad leader has things to do. He is a busy guy. So are his members. I see this trade off as being 100% better for the squad leaders and squad members while only incrementally burdening the RO more. But lets face it. The RO has more bandwidth to deal with the chatter than the SL does. And there is never a reason for the squad members to hear all that.

    Compromise #2. In order to know that the presence of the Squad leader is requested on the Channel commander channel, it must be relayed by the RO to SL.

    To me, I'm not sure this is actually a compromise. This may actually prove to be an advantage. Think about it. Here is an example. Squad 1 comes on to the channel commander channel during a period of relative calm for them in hopes of communicating with squad #2 for coordination. If squad #2 also has relative calm, the RO relays the request to SL and SL gets on the channel and has the conversation. If Squad #2 is under fire, the RO already knows this. He can ACTUALLY USE HIS OWN GOOD JUDGEMENT and tell Squad #1 that we are currently under fire. He doesn't even have to tell the SL that squad #1 is on the phone. What a boo-tee-ful ting. Why on God’s green earth would a SL want to coordinate while under fire? Now, if the SL actually wanted coordinated assistance, that would be a different matter (like we were pinned down and decided he wanted armor support on his position). In that instance, the SL has 2 options.

    #1.

    The SL can ask the RO to request assistance. Now, the RO can handle the entire coordination comms business of getting another squad into our area for help. Maybe call in armor or air attack or another squad. But the point here is that the SL can off load the request to the RO. And once the RO has solved it, he can simply tell the squad the result, like "Cobra 1 inbound on our position, markers of enemy troops placed in the map for them, ETA 2 minutes to the fireworks ... take cover". Again ---a boo-tee-ful ting. The SL could remain focused on keeping his squad safe and the RO handled it all.

    #2.

    If the SL wanted to, he could simply turn on the channel commander and handle it himself. (Note in the image that the words “on/off at SL’s discretion” is there for a reason. As SL, he would have it off almost all the time. And if the RO felt the SL needed to “get on the phone for something, he would let him know.

    This last option #2 points out a key element of the "compromise plan" as seen in the image below. Note how **BOTH** the RO and the SL are in Channel commander. The HUGE difference is that the SL only turns ##ON## the channel commander mode IF HE WANTS TO. This is a huge distinction from the radio officer who turns ##OFF## the channel commander ONLY IF THE SL ORDERS HIM TO DO SO. In other words, the RO is ALWAYS listening to Channel commander and always talking on it as he needs to, but only relays brief, finalized info to the squad as required.

    Of course, if the SL wants to have a nice little chat around the fire back at base (or anywhere really) to get his squad organized and planned out, he can always ask the RO to turn off his Channel Commander for a few minutes so that there are no audible interruptions to any member of the squad during the SL's planning talk. But once the planning phase is over, the RO’s responsibility to turn on, and LEAVE ON, the channel commander for the duration of the mission.

    Here is the compromise image, and the one I am currently recommending TG move to eventually (once it is taught and more widely understood). As metioned earlier, please take special note of the addition of a new channel called the..

    “NEW ARRIVAL AND DEDICATED TRANSPORT” Channel. Of course, respawns also go to this channel as well after they respawn until they have been successfully arrived back with their squad.



    And here is that same compromise image showing the integration of the additional 3 squads (a bit more cluttered).



    I look very much forward to the input of all persons as the purpose of this post was to get everyone involved to further vette out a new solution that everyone can live with.

    Thank you all for you attention to this matter and I apologize for the length of this post. But it needed to be done.

    All the Best,

    Glenn “Sleepdoc” Kletzky
    Last edited by Sleepdoc; 06-30-2007, 03:48 PM.
    Sleepdoc

    My typos are legendary. I choose not to correct them as a form of unique signature

    (and because forum spell checkers are a hassle) : )

    I actually spell just fine. But my typing skills are the pits.

  • #2
    Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

    Great to see such productive threads Sleepdoc, thumbs up !

    Question: What about Armor, Air Support and Air Transport personnel and their exposure to comm between "new arrival" and "radio operator"? They are all on same channel (channel commander) and placing a new arrival in a squad can be a high-traffic comm (squad join process, fire team assignment, kit/equipment assignment, etc).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

      I think you could come up with a better solution if you instead introduced a platoon commander element. A lot of the issues you're describing seem to be happening because there is no group in overall command of the squads.

      Also, with a platoon command element, it may be more applicable to TvT and coop play. The setup you've described here is extremely Evo-centric and I'm not convinced that you'll be able to adapt it to TvT/coop successfully.

      And, finally... a platoon command element is asking a lot less of the playerbase than expecting for there to be ROs in every squad who can do that kind of job successfully, without adding in a very significant delay to inter-squad comms and throwing in yet another potential point of failure.

      Radio discipline + proper usage of chan commander + proper organization + platoon commander = very workable VOIP solution until the in-game VOIP is at a point where it becomes usable.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

        I think the issues behind overuse of TS(which is necessary until we get voip to an acceptable standard) don't revolve around a SL having difficulties issuing orders and receiving them at the same time, but from the SL being able to interpret these orders over the in-squad chatter. Having an RO doesn't fix this, it just shifts it onto another player. It also increases the time between an order bring given to a SL and it being put into action.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

          This all really boils down to discipline. I'm just as guilty as the rest, but we all need to work on keeping the chatter down. Only 1 channel commander per channel. They need to use identify who they are, then address who they are speaking and then present a brief message. Strategy should be discussed in a different channel or via text. Only important meaningful messages need to be broadcast on TS.

          Until VOIP is fixed in game, discipline is the key.

          Dyslexi does have a point about platoon commander. The night on the Evo server that we got really organized and I was PL the comms on channel commander we exceptionally quiet. I felt kind of lonely almost. However, this was a good thing. This meant the SL's were dealing with issues that mattered instead of trying to decide what to listen to.
          |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

          XBL GT: Khan58

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

            This all really boils down to discipline. I'm just as guilty as the rest, but we all need to work on keeping the chatter down. Only 1 channel commander per channel. They need to use identify who they are, then address who they are speaking and then present a brief message. Strategy should be discussed in a different channel or via text. Only important meaningful messages need to be broadcast on TS.
            Emphasis added. Text is great for comms, so long as people do not chatter mindlessly over it.

            One thing to keep in mind in the future re: text is that there will be mods (ie ACE) where the "So and so was killed" death messages no longer take up screen real estate, so text comms will benefit nicely from that.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

              First off... Crazy Post Sleepdoc... Lots of time and research put into that... I wish you spent your time Making Missions... I bet they would be very detailed!!

              Secondly..I agree with the Above post stating the biggest issue is COMMUNICATION DISCIPLINE (I suck at it also..)..
              First thing I wish could be done in TS is that you limit a Channel to ONE COMM.. I've seen multiple COMMS in a single channel and it is too much of a mess..there are communications that the NON SquadLeader should just not be involved in...
              And how about a thing like "Mute all" except channel Comm? That would be neat... I am hoping this is just an EVO issue..since most COOPS are fairly single Goal oriented and everyone is working that direction.
              |TG|ARMA Pathfinder
              ..now where did I put my keys?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

                Hi guys. I'm glad to see so many people have taken interest and read through this post.

                I'm going to try to asnwer every one behind this reply in order.

                @CANaver.

                Your question is more easily answered than others becuase it does not involve my opinion. It is a functional.logistic question.

                Armor elements (air elements etc) can benefot from the same organization as the squad. Let me explain.

                Lets say you have multiple armor people in the armor channel. Furthermore, you have 2 or 3 people in each tank. Or even it works if you assume assume 3 tanks working together, all with one person per tank.

                Armor Element needs a squad leader internally. That squad leader assigns antoher armor person (preferably not a driver) to be their element radio man. Their Radio officer also goes into (and remains in) the channel commander unless asked to step out by armor element lead.

                Armor element lead can also go into channel commander, but need not do so unless he feels compelled to or is being relayed info from his radio man that makes him feel he must.

                In other wrods, Armor group has a radio man and a lead just like Squads do.

                The issue here is for Leads to learn to assign a radio officer as their element develops. and if they are the only person in the armor channel, they are radio and lead.

                I believe it will work better than what we have now.

                The same applies to air support channel and any other support unit (A convoy of trucks with armed humvees in protective tow, etc.)


                @Dyslecxi,

                The Platoon commander concept is fully taken into consideration in this model. It is simply not shown. The PC would simply be "another Squad" in this model, however he would be his own Radio Officer. After all, he talks directly to the squads. Then he can have his logistical support in his squad like a fuel truck guy, a repair truck guy, his FARP setup team etc.

                But I have to respectfully disagree with your statement which indicated the following....

                A lot of the issues you're describing seem to be happening because there is no group in overall command of the squads.
                The lack of command is not the issue IMHO. the problem exists, as I see it, becuase our channel structure does not ask new arrivals, heli transport and respawns to bunch together INTO A COMMON CHANNEL which is not heard by the Squad Lead.

                Of course, you are right that a PC can prevent these "RADIO OFFICERS" from having to negotiate with other RADIO MEN and the transport guys for where to take new arrivals and resapwns. But as squad leader, I still wish to be AS REMOVED AS POSSIBLE from those discussions and I do not understand how a PC will keep that stuff out of my ears. can you please explain more?

                The amount of talk that this group requires in order to deliver people to the front, no matter how disciplined, is substantial. It cannot be erased. It can, however, be managed by a Platoon commander (as you suggested). The problem is that PCs are not always available. A server is a server and you get who you get. If you think Squad leads are hard to find, try to flesh out a Platoon commander every night.

                Further more, even if the PC were managing the distribution of new arrivals to the field, A squad leader does not always need to communicate with the PC over simple arrivals (and respawners). I can easily give my RO (Radio Officer) a couple of simple instructions for managing new arrivals.

                1. If they died with us, we want them back unless the PC has bigger plans.

                2. If they are new arrivals, and we are not yet full (1SL + 8 SMs), we are happy to take them unless the PC wants them somewhre else or we are in a brutal firefight. (tough to recieve new guys during a fight).

                I love delegation and seperation of labor. Its a boo-tee-ful ting when it works. I believe in this approach. I donot want to manage that process as an SL. My RO can easily handle it.

                So far, none of the arguments have rung true with me as too why we shouldn't change our Comms Teamspeak channel structure. I Strongly believe we should.

                I am not closed off however. Please do not see me in that light. By my very nature (and my training), I am an engineer. A better idea is a better idea and I try very hard to see them when they come. But so far, nothing in this thread has addressed the basic issue of limiting what a squad leader and his squad members need to hear. If they don't need to hear it, I dont want them (or me) to hear it. All the discipline in the world and all the text chat in the world (for keeping off channels) does not replace proper channel flow. And as far as text goes, it only goes so far. I can't read very often when I'm busy. but I can talk and I can hear. Nothing in this thread thus far has made a concrete recomendation on the flow of words into ears. I'm trying to break it down to that level. Who hears what and when.

                I am asking the community to recommand a change in the flow of comms based on our channel structure in Teamspeak. I have put fortha new structure. I am interested in seeing other ideas. But I do not believe teh one we have now can suffice.

                I have also seen the comments about "We just need more discipline". This is certainly true. We do and I fully intend to try and bring that to my squad through education and a well documented system to keep comms succint (you wouldn't know that by the length of my posts... LOL). But all the discipline in the world does not trump a better process and channel flow. Better channel flow allows mistakes of discipline to have far less negative effects and mistakes are always present. Especially when you are in a server that seems to embrace new players where only maturity is required (not pre-existing knowledge).

                I would like to start with a better process, and then further enjoy the value of better radio discipline as it develops. I do not wish to depend on discipline. Becuase that only comes in spurts on a server like TG.


                @Tha_Khan

                You wrote:

                Dyslexi does have a point about platoon commander. The night on the Evo server that we got really organized and I was PL the comms on channel commander we exceptionally quiet. I felt kind of lonely almost. However, this was a good thing. This meant the SL's were dealing with issues that mattered instead of trying to decide what to listen to.
                He certainly does. And I have no doubt that this expereince was better than what I normally expereince on EVO TG. But your last sentence is telling. You talked about SLs could basically not have to listen to the other chatter becuase they didnt have to worry abotu it. but that chatter is still disturbing. It steps on more vital squad transmissions. Its bad. It is still in too many peoples ears and it is certainly in my ear. I don't just want to ignore the chatter. I don't want to hear it. And I dont want my squad to hear it. I want them to hear their other squad members and I want them to hear me. Mostly. competing with chatter is not helpful, even if the PL performs tasks that allows us all to ignore it.


                2 FINAL POINTS (I guess for Dyslecxi)

                #1. If I do not correctly understand how the PLATOON COMMANDER will help keep new arrivals and respawns and dedicated helis out of my ears (and the ears of all my squad members), please tell me. I migh tbe missing something here.

                #2. I remain open to a better approach. So far, and with all due respect, the comments have not outlined an [B] unambiguous, specific, detailed approach [B] that can be followed. So far, I have only seen ideas (valid ones i might add) about discipline and commanders, but not an actual approach. I do not mean to sound critical. So please keep the ideas coming. But at some point, some one has to DEFINE A PROCESS to the level of detail that I have defined one here in order for me to see it and understand why it is better. Pictures are not necessarily required, but concrete, specific process steps, well defined, are. Otherwise, we aren't really moving forward.

                Keep em coming guys. I look forward to really diggin out a new and better process. The one we have is starting to break as more players arrive.
                Last edited by Sleepdoc; 06-30-2007, 08:24 PM. Reason: Cuz I can't type for S$%^ ; I'm like a one fingered grandma in a typewriter testing factory
                Sleepdoc

                My typos are legendary. I choose not to correct them as a form of unique signature

                (and because forum spell checkers are a hassle) : )

                I actually spell just fine. But my typing skills are the pits.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

                  For the Evolution mission, where respawns and troop transport are a necessary part of the game, I think we do need some tweaks to help promote smoother communications. I've heard the comment from multiple folks that maintaining comms as a SL in Evolution is "almost overwhelming." As a possible remedy, I like the idea of a **New Arrivals/Dedicated Transport** channel in TeamSpeak. It would give everyone joining the game a single place to assemble so they could be assigned and transported to where they're needed, while (hopefully) alleviating the SLs of this burden.

                  The Radio Operator concept at TG isn't new. JohnC and I experimented with this "back in the day" based on similar problems with intersquad comms in BF2. I think this sort of thing is good, and in our ArmA comms structure it can be utilized by those SLs who want to take advantage of it OR it can be ignored by those SLs who'd prefer to handle all comms themselves. This sort of flexibility allows SLs to play according to their preferred style without disrupting the overall platoon operations whatsoever.

                  The key to this system working in ArmA is having dedicated transport folks to manage the new arrivals. So far we've been lucky enough to have a group of folks willing to handle dedicated transport duty. For those folks who do typically play as transport personnel, would you be willing to accept the responsibility of managing new arrivals and coordinating with SLs and/or Radio Operators and/or PLs to distribute these new folks to the proper units?

                  For the occasions when a PL is present, he/she could coordinate with the dedicated transport folks to get new arrivals to where they're needed. This comm structure would easily allow for such.

                  More thoughts/discussion?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

                    Originally posted by Strag View Post
                    For those folks who do typically play as transport personnel, would you be willing to accept the responsibility of managing new arrivals and coordinating with SLs and/or Radio Operators and/or PLs to distribute these new folks to the proper units?
                    Vendi and I were close to full implementation of this last night, but low server population altered the immediate need.

                    So yes, there is no reason why we can't have the blackhawks inserting squads (and little birds when needed) and someone such as myself flying in new recruits and respawned SMs. Such a system must be respected if used, though. I would not want to be sitting on the running way all night waiting for orders.

                    As to the TS problem. It will not be solved with more discipline applied to the current TS structure. The very moment when an SL's comm channel needs to be clear (during enemy engagement) is when the noise to signal ratio goes too high, particularly when other units are operating in the immediate area. As SleepDoc's diagrams and analysis demonstrates, even the most disciplined use of TS in the most correct fashion would still overwhelm an SL under the current TS structure.

                    The solution must itself not be overly complex. While at this time I have no suggestions as to what the solution is, I recommend considering a phased development that moves towards maximum utility (and inevitable increased complexity).

                    Can we make changes in stages that would add new elements and address specific problems at each stage? If we leap forward too fast to a very advanced system that presumes most will know and use the system, it may not work because of the human element.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

                      Exactly E-Male.

                      the way im proposing looks like this......

                      1. we place all new arrivals, respawns and dedi transporters in their dedicated **dedi tranport/new arrival/respawn** channel (**DT/RS/NA**)

                      2. all TRANSPORT persons in (**DT/RS/NA**) may come in and out of Channel commander **at tehir own discretion*** (this is why email will stay in channel commander and never miss a call)

                      2. every squad has a radio man also in that channel commander for coordination.

                      3. when Actual SLs need that channel for SL level integration, they come on to the channel comander. request radio slence for SL level comms, then proceed to complete their immediate SL level comms.

                      4. then SLs announce they are siging off and the "negotiations between dedi tranporters, new arrivals, respawners and radio officers can then recommence.

                      SL's have to be leaders. so requesting "politely" that all persons on channel commander go silent for priority SL work seems reasonable. they get on, they do their thing, they get off. SLs still have their radio men on the channel commander in case their presence is requeted by the PL or antoher SL later.

                      This prevents any squady (other than the RO) or myself (the SL) from having to listen to the immense aount of transport chtter). The RO takes that chatter hit. As he should. Not the SL or the other squadies.

                      I know it puts pressure on the SL level comms up at channel commander, but it takes that pressure of chatter away from squadies adn from SLs. and that is where quiet is most needed.

                      Its a compromise based on current TS capabilities. Later today, when I have time, I will daigram this additional refinement to the plan which uses channel commander and ROs for contact. but in the final analysis, it means this.....

                      1. New arrival and respawns have to know the least. they just come into the new (**DT/RS/NA**) channel and ask for orders

                      2. Dedi tranport guys need to know a little more. They need to know they are also to live in the(**DT/RS/NA**) channel, but also leave channel commander on and use discipline on that freq.

                      3. Radio officers need to know something too. they are expected to be on squad comms but also channel commander to work with Dedi heli guys. ofcourse, their SL can teach them this, even if they are newbies, in like 45 seconds after telling them they are the RO for their squad and describing their special duties.

                      so when a dedi heli is "negotiataing" with RO's, they are on channel commander. When dedi heli guys are explaining to new arrivals and respawns, only they hear those coordinations becuase theya re transmitting back int (**DT/RS/NA**) only. NEW ARRIVALS AND RESPAWNS ARE NEVER HEARD ON CHANNEL COMMANDER.

                      This nuance is slgihtly different than my original image. I will diagram for clarity later today and post here for further comment.
                      Sleepdoc

                      My typos are legendary. I choose not to correct them as a form of unique signature

                      (and because forum spell checkers are a hassle) : )

                      I actually spell just fine. But my typing skills are the pits.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

                        I too like the "New Arrivals" channel concept. Just to make sure I understand correctly (and to summarize) is this how it could/would work:

                        No Platoon Leader

                        Squad Members
                        -Squad Channel (1st, 2nd, etc)
                        -No Channel Commander (unless radioman per SL's choice)

                        Squad Leaders
                        -Squad Channel (1st, 2nd, etc)
                        -Channel Commander

                        Armor Elements
                        -Armor Channel
                        -Channel Commander

                        Air Elements
                        -New Arrivals Channel
                        -Channel Commander

                        Newly Arrived Players
                        -New Arrivals Channel
                        -No Channel Commander

                        With Platoon Leader


                        Squad Members
                        -Squad Channel (1st, 2nd, etc)
                        -No Channel Commander (unless radioman per SL's choice)

                        Squad Leaders

                        -Squad Channel (1st, 2nd, etc)
                        -Channel Commander

                        Armor Elements
                        -Armor Channel
                        -Channel Commander

                        Air Elements
                        -Air Elements Channel
                        -Channel Commander

                        Platoon Leader
                        -New Arrivals Channel
                        -Channel Commander

                        Newly Arrived Players
                        -New Arrivals Channel
                        -No Channel Commander

                        Here is a scenario: No Platoon Leader present and a new player joins.

                        Player Smith joins game and transmits on new arrival channel: “New Player Smith, Rank Major, reporting for duty and awaiting squad assignment” Non-Tasked pilot responds in new arrivals channel “Roger Smith, stand by for assignment.

                        Pilot then transmits on channel commander (during lull): “All squads, this is LB1, new player Smith, rank Major, requests squad assignment”. Squad 3 SL responds on channel commander: “LB1, this is 3, Squad 3 accepts Smith, instruct Smith to join Squad West 1-4-D and switch to 3rd Squad channel for loadout instructions”

                        Pilot then transmits on New Arrivals Channel: “Smith, Join Squad 1-4-D, your SL is Jones, switch to 3rd Squad channel for further instructions”.

                        (3rd Squad and Air elements later arrange for transport as per current SOPs)

                        Scenario would be similar when a PL is present except PL would handle the assignment arrangements.
                        LoyalGuard

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

                          As one who squad leads often I say I would not like the radio man. It adds complexity to a situation I can already handle. Finally all it does is make squad to squad level communication slower and combersome. I like hearing whats going on in the other squads and helps me out to be away of what the rest of the platoon is doing. If it does get to ovewhelming I'll delegate command to my second fireteam leader.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

                            Originally posted by E-Male View Post
                            As to the TS problem. It will not be solved with more discipline applied to the current TS structure. The very moment when an SL's comm channel needs to be clear (during enemy engagement) is when the noise to signal ratio goes too high, particularly when other units are operating in the immediate area. As SleepDoc's diagrams and analysis demonstrates, even the most disciplined use of TS in the most correct fashion would still overwhelm an SL under the current TS structure.

                            The solution must itself not be overly complex. While at this time I have no suggestions as to what the solution is, I recommend considering a phased development that moves towards maximum utility (and inevitable increased complexity).

                            Can we make changes in stages that would add new elements and address specific problems at each stage? If we leap forward too fast to a very advanced system that presumes most will know and use the system, it may not work because of the human element.
                            Unfortunately, we've pretty much reached the maximum practical level of complexity permitted by the current version of TeamSpeak. The solution suggested by Sleepdoc in this image is probably the best compromise we have, and it should help to unburden those SLs who choose to use it. It doesn't add much to our existing TeamSpeak schema (so it would be easy to implement), but it should do quite a bit to ease the comm problems our SLs are currently experiencing in Evolution.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rethinking TG's ArmA TeamSpeak Structure

                              Originally posted by johnflenaly View Post
                              As one who squad leads often I say I would not like the radio man. It adds complexity to a situation I can already handle. Finally all it does is make squad to squad level communication slower and combersome.
                              I'm kinda up in the air on this one. The only way I would utilize a radioman I think is that if I really knew the player I chose and he/she could be in perfect sync with me.

                              Regarding all of the above, ideally in addition to a PL it might be nice to have Platoon Sgt who could handle squad assignments, vehicle repair/re-arm/re-fuel and recovery efforts, and other "executive" tasks to free up the PL to direct combat ops...(and to take over during PL head calls) :D
                              LoyalGuard

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X