Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comm Traffic/Covering

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

  • #46
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    The problem I see in this comm discussions, is they only apply to a small percentage of the playing time. These ideas are best for a large groups with defined leadership roles. In a small player count or short play period times with much turnover in leadership, all of our proposed comms rules/changes are way overkill. They are great ideas and will streamlines large organized play, but for the average day it will be difficult to make use.

    At the end of the day it comes down to, everyone needing to respect the comm channel for what it is. It is for coordination, not "Wow what a great shot" or "How was your weekend." or even "So guys, here is why we are taking this road." Until the VOIP issue is fixed, 90% of comm traffic could be in text form. Make use of the different channels, most squads get inserted via helo. Use vehicle chat to discuss anything. This is bright yellow text and grabs attention while keeping comms clear for any immediate impact communication. "Shilka to the east." is great on a comm channel. "What color is our rally point on the map?" is best in text. Again this is server size dependent. If there are only 4 guys on the server, what does it really matter. Everyone hop in the same channel and chat away to each ones delight on TS. As the server grows, so does the organization of TS comms. As the in game structure grows and becomes from complex, so too should the TS structure. I don't think we can ever find a perfect end all for every situation until the VOIP is fixed. That is when the real fun will begin.
    |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

    XBL GT: Khan58

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

      Originally posted by tHa_KhAn View Post
      ... but for the average day it will be difficult to make use.

      At the end of the day it comes down to, everyone needing to respect the comm channel for what it is. It is for coordination, Again this is server size dependent. If there are only 4 guys on the server, what does it really matter. Everyone hop in the same channel and chat away to each ones delight on TS. As the server grows, so does the organization of TS comms...... I don't think we can ever find a perfect end all for every situation until the VOIP is fixed. .
      Good stuff Khan... People will resort to the easiest and most "fun" use of the system. If it becomes complicated (which may be needed with the LARGE COOP Missions..) then no one will learn or use it. Again what is the average population here on TG at any time..maybe 8-10 ...A little Comm discipline goes along way..

      I think the regular TG user will learn to use the comms as it fit's the situation... It does get quieter as the target get's closer...and when you are in the Helo Evac'ing or at base...there is more BS'sing... And when we break up into comm channels the Channel commander Can effectively communicate with other CM's ... Pretty simple to me...
      |TG|ARMA Pathfinder
      ..now where did I put my keys?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

        Originally posted by peardog View Post
        ...and when you are in the Helo Evac'ing or at base...there is more BS'sing... ..

        Exactly.

        And which channel are we in when this BS ing is going on?

        I was suggesting a new cahhnel for deedicated pilots, new arrivals and respawns. essentially, its a "at base" channel.
        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


        • #49
          Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

          Originally posted by tHa_KhAn View Post
          At the end of the day it comes down to, everyone needing to respect the comm channel for what it is. .
          Really?

          Then why did strag and other admins, early on, allow a meeting to consider the original reorientation ideas for channel structure?

          Here is what I am saying KHAN. There is no question that respecting the existing system and working with it as best aspossible (as per your post) is absolutely true... No one is arguing the proper use of channel discipline. On the contrary. We are discussing a possibly better approach than what we have. Please see the distinction.

          Does your post mean that members should not explore a possible change to the TG EVO channel structure them that could make them better? I thought we were given a mandate to do so ... please tell me if this is incorrect?

          Becusae if this process is dead in the water, then by all means, please tell us all directly. This process/discussion took hold becuase some of the leadership agreed to consider a change in the existing channel structure after an initial proposal/post (the original one) was made by me. I took that as a signal to pursue it. You were not present, but others were. And they were seriously considering the image already posted in this thread.

          If you, as an admin, are telling me that we are just spinning our wheels becuase the offical word is that no change will take place, then by all means, please tell us directly. Becuase I have no desire to waste my time if that is all it is. I thought from other admins and leaders that this simple channel change and flow idea was being seriously considered......

          Otherwise, why would I keep pursuing it?
          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


          • #50
            Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

            Originally posted by Sleepdoc View Post
            Really?

            Then why did strag and other admins, early on, allow a meeting to consider the original reorientation ideas for channel structure?

            Here is what I am saying KHAN. There is no question that respecting the existing system and working with it as best aspossible (as per your post) is absolutely true... No one is arguing the proper use of channel discipline. On the contrary. We are discussing a possibly better approach than what we have. Please see the distinction.

            Does your post mean that members should not explore a possible change to the TG EVO channel structure them that could make them better? I thought we were given a mandate to do so ... please tell me if this is incorrect?

            Becusae if this process is dead in the water, then by all means, please tell us all directly. This process/discussion took hold becuase some of the leadership agreed to consider a change in the existing channel structure after an initial proposal/post (the original one) was made by me. I took that as a signal to pursue it. You were not present, but others were. And they were seriously considering the image already posted in this thread.

            If you, as an admin, are telling me that we are just spinning our wheels becuase the offical word is that no change will take place, then by all means, please tell us directly. Becuase I have no desire to waste my time if that is all it is. I thought from other admins and leaders that this simple channel change and flow idea was being seriously considered......

            Otherwise, why would I keep pursuing it?
            Sleepdoc, buddy, I meant no disrespect. I just meant to point out that TS needs to be scalable. Some of the proposed changes are great. I was in no way disagreeing or challenging anything in this post. I just wanted to shift the focus to a broader idea of TS with different size populations. In general this post only refers to a TS system with numerous players in an organized situation.

            I am in no way saying the system won't change officially so please continue the discussion. I am however pointing out something that I feel was overlooked. Playercount. What works great for a highly organized 20+ player session, does not work great with 8 guys working in a looser setting. If we do set out to enforce the new structure, we will have to consider at what point(number of players) is it useful and when it is not.

            The respect I was referring to is not for the structure, but for the comm usage independent of structure. Most of the comms problems are not directly because of the structure, but more because people fail to respect clear comm channels. Silence on a comm channel is a good thing. Many communications can take place in text. My concern is that all these good ideas for new structure might go to waste, if people do not respect how to use comms.

            Also, I want to bring up a very valid point in that with VOIP inching closer to working properly, where will TS fall into that. A new structure will be needed. We may need to look into that now and start a little pre-planning. The current VOIP will leave gaps in SL to PL direct communication. Also, SL to SL comms can be addressed.
            |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

            XBL GT: Khan58

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

              We are about to test a variant of the proposed TS layout on the upcoming Coop event Sunday. The primary objective the way I see it is simplicity. I like the idea of having SL(Squad Leaders) whisper to CO(Command Element) channel and the CO whisper back to individual Squad Channels. This combined with SLs+CO having Channel Commander status allow for broadcast messages(for special situations). This is the most simplistic setup I have seen as of yet.

              This requires a very simple TS template/keybind for everyone except the CO.
              --
              VI VI VI - the number of the beast

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                Originally posted by PanzerHans View Post
                I like the idea of having SL(Squad Leaders) whisper to CO(Command Element) channel and the CO whisper back to individual Squad Channels.

                This combined with SLs+CO having Channel Commander status allow for broadcast messages(for special situations).

                This is the most simplistic setup I have seen as of yet.
                W00t!
                sigpic
                I run my $#@! new school style with old school roots...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                  Woot X2 !!!

                  I am not pushing for my approach only. I'm pushng for any better approach (than what we have now) that meets the requirements of simplicity and will also work on the TG EVO server as well.

                  Thanks for letting us know you guys are actually going ot try something new ...

                  Thank you for the feedback panzer.

                  REQUEST ....

                  Is it Riyker's image you guys are going to test? or is it some variant?

                  @Khan,

                  No disrespect was felt from your post. None.

                  I hate text sometimes becuase it makes us appear angry or frustrated or sarcastic when we are not.

                  I was none of the above. I was being literal. I simply wanted to know if we were seriously exploring somethng that might get considered, or if we are are just spinning our wheels in a worthless effort that had zero chance of getting explored. and since you wear admin tags, I was trying to read ( too much ?)into your post.....

                  sorry if my post came across any other way.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                    Like Panzer said, the key difference being tested is specific whispers to and from the PL. This will allow the PL to address a squad individually or all at once. no more cross chat from the PL speaking to the air element, etc. This should reduce much of the unwanted chatter over comms that SL's or Radio officers hear.
                    |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

                    XBL GT: Khan58

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                      Originally posted by tHa_KhAn View Post
                      Like Panzer said, the key difference being tested is specific whispers to and from the PL. This will allow the PL to address a squad individually or all at once. no more cross chat from the PL speaking to the air element, etc. This should reduce much of the unwanted chatter over comms that SL's or Radio officers hear.
                      Originally, I started this discussion to support TG EVO.

                      In light of this, can someone please explain one thing to me?

                      How will this system work in the realities of the TG EVO SERVER where dedicated heli pilots are far more common than COs? (in other words, what if no CO exists ... just a few squads in the field and some deicated heli guys? ... This isa far more common reality of the TG EVO server mix...)

                      If the system works, i would recommend one more addition (or detail) to the process.

                      Dedicated transport pilots live in the same channel that the CO lives in (in the root channel). This way, if we don't have a CO (pretty common in TG EVO), the dedicated pilots can still perform the task of negotiating with squads for who gets the new arrivals etc.... and do so from the root channel.

                      Does this make sense in the context of the thing you guys are looking at? Becuase i hope we aren't just looking at a system that works in highly organized coops. Rather, I hope we are looking for a system that applies to both organized coop **AND** the dynamic, ever changing populous of the TG EVO server....

                      This should reduce much of the unwanted chatter over comms that SL's or Radio officers hear.
                      This is the key part I love.
                      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


                      • #56
                        Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                        Good Point, Sleep. Well, the same could be said for transport pilots. A slightly altered keybind setup that includes options to whisper to the other channels. Also if procedures are followed like those laid out in the other post relating the pilots having LZ's already marked, the need to contact a pilot via TS becomes diminished. In general, the PL will need to speak longer than a transport pilot or vice versa so a channel commander whisper would be more acceptable.
                        |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

                        XBL GT: Khan58

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                          Here is the bindings(I will post the template later).

                          Common Binds:
                          Ctrl + PgUp = Switch to previous channel
                          Ctrl + PgDN = Switch to next channel
                          Ctrl + Shift + C = Toggle channel commander

                          Squadleader keybinds:
                          * = Whisper to channel Commander Element

                          Commander Keybinds:
                          Alt + 1 = Whisper to 1st Squad
                          Alt + 2 = Whisper to 2nd Squad
                          Alt + 3 = Whisper to 3d Squad
                          Alt + 4 = Whisper to 4th Squad
                          Alt + 5 = Whisper to Air element
                          Alt + 6 = Whisper to Armor element
                          * = Whisper to channel Commander Element

                          There is nothing stopping a squadleader from speaking to a specific channel but it will normally not be used unless you are doing close squad coordination for some reason.
                          With this setup and no commander player Air could respond to the calling channel
                          This only covers Coop. I am still pondering how to support both servers.

                          I suppose we could use CTRL+1,2,3,4,5 and 6 for Evo and keep the rest.
                          --
                          VI VI VI - the number of the beast

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                            Originally posted by tHa_KhAn View Post
                            Also if procedures are followed like those laid out in the other post relating the pilots having LZ's already marked, the need to contact a pilot via TS becomes diminished.
                            Yep. One of the better ideas to come out in a while. I hope to see it show up in the next revision of the SOP, complete with an example and a screen shot or 2.

                            But please don't forget about the comms between dedicated transport, and new arrivals/respawners when no CO is present. This chatter goes up when no CO is present.

                            A. Dedicated tranposrt guys end up doing half the absent COs job (passing along load outs and squad assignments)

                            B. and the other half of the absent CO job (coordination) is done between SL's directly.

                            I guess I am saying I will be looking very closely at how this test acommodtes this unique flow of new players and respawners in TG EVO when dedicated transporter are around and CO's are not (LIKE is common in TG EVO)
                            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


                            • #59
                              Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                              Originally posted by PanzerHans View Post
                              Here is the bindings(I will post the template later).

                              Common Binds:
                              Ctrl + PgUp = Switch to previous channel
                              Ctrl + PgDN = Switch to next channel
                              Ctrl + Shift + C = Toggle channel commander

                              Squadleader keybinds:
                              * = Whisper to channel Commander Element

                              Commander Keybinds:
                              Alt + 1 = Whisper to 1st Squad
                              Alt + 2 = Whisper to 2nd Squad
                              Alt + 3 = Whisper to 3d Squad
                              Alt + 4 = Whisper to 4th Squad
                              Alt + 5 = Whisper to Air element
                              Alt + 6 = Whisper to Armor element
                              * = Whisper to channel Commander Element

                              There is nothing stopping a squadleader from speaking to a specific channel. But it will not be acceptable when a platoon leader is on.

                              With this setup and no commander player Air could respond to the calling channel
                              This only covers Coop. I am still pondering how to support both servers.

                              I suppose we could use CTRL+1,2,3,4,5 and 6 for Evo and keep the rest.

                              Now we are getting down to brass tacks. Nice to see this conversation finally going from thoeretical to implementation specifics.

                              I'm looking forward to this test. please let me know how I can be involved. I'm definitely reporting for duty on this one.....

                              Thank god for my G-15 keyboard with 18 macro keys...:)
                              Last edited by Sleepdoc; 07-16-2007, 03:53 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.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                                I personally feel SL's should arrange the transport for respawners as kind of an immersion element. The squad is receiving reinforcements and the SL should definitely be a part of that.

                                You are right that does pose a problem with new comers. My personal opinion is to use chat. I almost always use chat when I join the server to ask who needs help and where I need to go. Again, I feel TS comms are for immediate impact communications. Assignments are not immediate impact "Duck, fire from the north." that is immediate impact. "Hey who needs me in their squad?" is not immediate impact.
                                |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

                                XBL GT: Khan58

                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X