Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comm Traffic/Covering

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

  • Riyker
    replied
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    My concern still holds.

    During games where this is no RO, the SL currently "hears" too much traffic. Turning off the CA means he'll have to do it temporarily or he want get incoming trans from the CO.

    I was trying to adopt what SleepDoc proposed with one couching it for those times when a RO isn't available.

    ** I've been using CA acronym to represent Channel Commander role. I should have used CC to be more clear. CO still represents Commanding Officer and RO for Radio Operator **

    How about this:

    1) CO always resides in the root Arma channel.
    2) Players must always join a sub-channel (new players enter the root and are assigned out into individual squad channels).
    3) CO communicates to squad CHANNELs using Whisper to Channel -> Channel Name (for each squad).
    4) SLs communicates back to CO using Channel PreDefs -> Parent Channel.
    5) SLs use their existing CC bind for SL<->SL broadcast communications when nesc.

    This is the best scenario, and has a bonus benefit. Since the goal here is to reduce SL traffic (w/o an RO) or a squad's RO's traffic, having the CO reply via the whisper to the SL channel ALL element members will here the CO and "auto" clear comms. In effect this helps further to reduce covering.

    * If I adopt (w/o permission) some of SleepDocs graphics we have:

    Leave a comment:


  • Sleepdoc
    replied
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    Your signature is suddenly very relevant Sloppy....

    "The success of what we do depends upon people valuing the team over themselves."
    - Wulfyn

    Leave a comment:


  • SloppyJoe
    replied
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    I think Doc's ideas encompass more than just 'chatter control', of course that is a big part of it. But I guess the other stuff was easily missed.

    Thanks for the 'nuff said and the pretty picture though Sticky, move along.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shafik
    replied
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    Sticky, you're saying people should join the channel and shut up till they're addressed? You seriously think that's possible? How does a new comer join the game? Who does he talk to and where? And I think the picture you posted is to this thread what radio chatter is to TS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sleepdoc
    replied
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    There is nothing complex about the channel setup proposed. It is extremely simple. In fact, it decreases the total number channels currently in use by about 3 (no need for east, west, and seagull in EVo) and only adds one. the "Start here" Channel.

    Discipline is what it is. It ebbs and flows as new guys arrive. This is TG. New guys all the time. They need time to learn the discipline issues. And while theya re learning, the start here channel keeps them clear of more important comms channels.

    The approach is designed to blunt the effect when chatter is present. It is independant of the discipline. further more, some chatter is required (like between the dedi heli guy and the new guy ...... No need for anyone other than their channel to hear that.)

    Leave a comment:


  • SloppyJoe
    replied
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    Next step.

    This whole idea is in a conceptual + hashing out stage.

    Upon discussion in TS today, it appears that a lot of the ideas and hashings have started to gel. The next logical step would be to re-package and present a gelled version/proposal as well as a feeler to the ArmA staff in regards to the concepts acceptability.

    This is what I'll be working on next with SleepDocs blessings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shafik
    replied
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    So why hasn't this system been implemented yet?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sleepdoc
    replied
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    LOL. the Resurrection!

    Leave a comment:


  • SloppyJoe
    replied
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    Lemme re-align doc's diagrams side by side for the sake of future discussion:

    Although it depends on the night/players/etc, the current set-up allows for mass chaos:


    The IDEAL Scenario: -IF- TeamSpeak had the capabilities to whisper to channel commanders in a -specific- channel
    (Note, although a global channel commander (as per the bar) would still be available to talk strategy, arrows from each units could also be direct to each other, bypassing the global channel commander and allowing for commander to commander discussion, too bad TS can't do this)


    Since TS doesn't have this capability, the next best solution:

    Leave a comment:


  • SloppyJoe
    replied
    Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    Excellent points sleepdoc.

    If we wanted to, we could even have TRAIN TG type people residing in the new arrivals channel, either as transport players or just hanging out in the channel to guide new arrivals, and all this 'non-immersive' chatter would be isolated to said bucket.

    Leave a comment:

Connect

Collapse

TeamSpeak 3 Server

Collapse

Twitter Feed

Collapse

Working...
X