Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comm Traffic/Covering

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

  • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

    Sleep, you are correct. I should have used the term New Arrivals, not new comers.

    As Ryker pointed out there was too much channel commander usage still. I agree, this was mainly because not everyone has their binds setup. Those who had them enjoyed much simpler more direct comms.

    Again, much of the issues are caused by the limitations of the software. I reviewed your diagram Sleep. The only difference I see between it and the current non whisper structure is the mixing of command, air, and new arrivals into one channel. The rest of your structure seems to be the same. My opinion is that new arrivals and respawns should be handled in text. Neither are immediate impact situations and text worked great when we had a dedicated commander. I propose Air and Command ensuring they have a whisper setup for both channels and almost all Chatter of Channel Commander would be eliminated. Yes having whispers is more complicated, but it is more precise at eliminates SL's or RO's being bombarded with chat that is unrelated to their squad. While being more complicated, whispers do reduce the amount of channel switching that would be necessary in your proposed changes(New arrives/transport/command/respawns to another and then back again on respawn), Sleep. I feel that everything in that New Arrivals, Transport, and Respawns need to do can be accomplished via text. This was proved last night and worked very well. Respawns could be done via voice, but only with the SL's arranging. The SL's should very much be in the loop when receiving reinforcements. Command would need to check with the SL anyway to see where to place the incoming reinforcements. Why not skip the step of respawn moving to command/transport/newarrival channel?

    Also, SL's or anyone on Channel Commander needs to remember to be brief. Know what you are going to to say before hand. Don't use air time to think out what you want. Instead of "Commander this is 4, we taking heavy enemy fire, I think it's just infantry...with umm...PKM's and some RPG's they are coming from the left....I mean North sorry...we need help over here!! Quick!!." With that statement, not only is it longer than what is needed, but doesn't answer all the questions. The commander would then have to ask where the squad is, etc. A similar transmission could be "Command this is 4, need immediate Anti-infantry support at our current squad Marker." Then command could give a text confirmation or voice confirmation, depending on the amount of text at that time. Assuming the Sl already marked their position, command goes right into planning what will provide the support.

    We need to not only focus on the framework of TS for communication, but better communication period. Brief voice messages. Thought out messages with appropriate markers already placed. We've used this kind of though with transport helo's already by having pilots pre-plan LZ's around the place of engagement. This not only saves decision making time, but comm time. We need to apply that thought to every comm.

    Again, all this discussion for large groups with clear organization. With smaller numbers, most of this is unnecessary.
    |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

    XBL GT: Khan58

    Comment


    • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

      Originally posted by tHa_KhAn View Post
      The only difference I see between it and the current non whisper structure is the mixing of command, air, and new arrivals into one channel. The rest of your structure seems to be the same. My opinion is that new arrivals and respawns should be handled in text. .

      Well. Your a good guy Khan. I can tell you are genuinely trying to understand my point. Thank you. Its all I can hope for. That you tried. I read everyones post, no matter how long, in this section. I try to do the same before i comment.

      I guess my whole point was the fact that new comers are the least likely to be effective with text. they are the ones who will gain the most by having someone just talk to them when they first show up and explain to them what is expected. And in a conversational kind of way. They don't know anything yet ....

      I remember being a new comer. It was only about 8 weeks ago. I remember my first few times at TG. It was wonderful that a few people took the time to just talk to me and answer questions and explain things to me. I was so impressed with that. It got me over the hump and as you can see, i'm pretty hooked.

      i have been trying to preserve that initial friendly, non imtimidating experince for others, ever since. It is at the core of my design.

      Only a week or so into it did it occur to me that I might have totally hosed someone's channel on those initial days....

      I was trying to give new comers a place to get that interaction intially without hosing someone's comms channel. I was accepting that they a e not ready to go straight to text. they have questions. they have things to learn....... theya re not so clear on things as all these people think they are. This whole thread reminds me how qiuckly people forget what it is like to be new ....

      I was trying to preserve and nourish their opprtunity to have that kind of talk time. I was providing them a "bucket channel" to ask questions to 2 expereinced groups (respawners and dedicated transporters) without stepping on the 2 main channels that require discipline and comms controls. The SQUAD channel and the CC channel.

      I'm sorry that I continue to fail to convince others of how this "Bucket channel" preserves teh essence of the TG spirit and allows new comers to get some good old fashioned conversations and orientation while the rest of us in the field have a controlled comms environment.

      In one last effort, please see if you can now see how my design did this. it was so much more than a "functional design". It was desinged to preserve the spirit and feel of the TG SOPs (for new comers to feel the spirit and comeradierie of TG), while keeping the guys in the feild in quieter, more disciplined comms.

      I didn't want to expect new comers to exhibit discipline. On the contrary. I wanted to give thema place to ask full blown questions and learn and interact with expereinced guys who can asnwer them, full blown. Before they are forced down stream into the disciplined channels. Of course, the first thing they should be told is that coversations are allowed here in most cases, however once you go downsstream, its all about comms discipline....
      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


      • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

        Sleep, I gotcha now. It's been the confusion over New Comers and New Arrivals.

        Your design idea stems from giving a personal and friendly helping hand to someone new to TG. While the rest of us have been looking past that and into the functionality of what works best for a large server in an organized evening.

        I can now say that at least in the theory of the structure I agree 100% with you. The problem then becomes how to implement a place that new comers can see as a channel where their questions might get answered and them walked through the ropes. I think if you check Rookie's post it will give an idea. I don't think there is a simple solution that provides a good place and still allows the structure needed for a big game. I know several relatively new guys like DaChev's and Linkill that never spoke on TS but felt comfortable asking questions in Text. Now DaChev's gets on TS and often in teh air element offering transport no problem. In my experience new comers are less likely to speak up, especially if they are new to gaming in groups in the first place. You seem like a gaming vet Sleepdoc, and other new comers to TG like you with gaming and TS experience will have no problem speaking up on TS so they could benefit from a channel to answer questions.

        Maybe we could use the Admin channel and relabel it something to do with Help as well. Then we admins or any other vet when in a pub situation could sit in that channel or move to that channel when we find ourselves with a true new comer.
        |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

        XBL GT: Khan58

        Comment


        • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

          Why not just use the default/root ArmA channel as both the PL and "New-to-TG" channel? Couple benefits:

          1) PL can assign them to squads when they join
          2) New guys listen in on SL comms - giving some context about what's expected

          (If we're worried about the PL being overwhelmed with non-game chatter (people lounging around, connecting, or otherwise chatting), a "Lobby" channel works fine.

          Comment


          • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

            Its nice to see this concept getting clearer.

            One more issue, although I don't see people agreeing (Or recognizing it).

            I wish PL whispers didnt exist to squads. I generally reject this idea despite all the arguments i have read so far. I want my Squadmember's ears completely devoid of voices, except from other SMs in their squad, and from their SL. My system also acheives that. The current one does not. And the fact that they only hear half the discussion (PL->SL and not the return comms, SL->PL) just doesnt work for me. It adds confusion to the ears of grunts (SMs)

            But as I said, I can do pretty much whatever. i'm experienced now. So can many others. But I have always been taking positions in this discussion in defense of 2 things.....

            1. The new comers to TG, who can't speak for themselves, becuase they aren't here yet.

            2. The SL who wants nothing in the heads of His SM's but his voice and the voice of his other SMs. Becuase when squads need to function as a unit (underfire), no one can know its happening but them. So no entry to their heads AT ALL was always my goal and still is.

            Notice how i crowded the CC channel a bit more with SLs from every squad and the PL? This is becuase these are the guys who best understand discipline.

            1--> I put the least disciplined guys (new comers) in a channel with people who can help them (respawners and DEdi transport guys) and who ARE ALMOST NEVER under fire. (so they have the time to help)

            2--> I put the most disciplined people (SLs from every squad and the PL) in one channel becuase they can all exhibit the level of discipline as needed

            3--> I shut out all comms from the ears of my SM's expect for their SLs and their squad's SMs.

            Here is the channel structure i see working in this scenario

            1. Start here channel (also called respawners, new comers, new arrivals, and dedicated transporters)

            2. Squad 1
            squad 2
            squad 3 etc

            3. Armor support channel

            4. Air support channel

            Each channel has one person in the channel commander

            and of course, it doesnt matter where the PL is (his choice), as long as he is in the channel commander channel.

            note how this system also works when the PL doesnt exist. which is common. SLs can communicate and coordinate. no special considerations required.

            One size, simple and plain, fits all (no whispers, no whisper to whisperer, no one way conversations audible to SMs, place for new comers to talk, etc etc etc)
            Last edited by Sleepdoc; 07-18-2007, 11:14 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


            • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

              I think SleepDocs idea is more teamwork oriented and 'elegant' without adding much more complexity. SL's can basically do the same thing as they do now, unless they want an RO. The only difference, really, is the new arrival/transport/PL channel, which IMO is brilliant; it allows the CO not only to be able to handle directing strategy, but player assignments and monitor (or even direct) traffic. it also allows a centralized place for guidance and 'learn TG' type acitivty in the most fundamental regards (basic SOPs, or direction to forums if needed). If the PL doesn't exist, players still should see it as a channel to check in on, and if they are told a PL doesn't exist, go directly to squads for assignment. And when you are dead or need transport, it's not too complicated to switch to the transport channel to work out the logistics, and switch to a squad channel to get back to the squad when you are transported to it. If the PL doesn't exist in this system, there is minimal impact as SLs/ROs operate as usual. The separation of transport and air combat support is much much needed and will reduce comms and compartmentalize them as needed. The combining of re-spawn, new players, transport, and 'learn TG' into one channel is appropriate as well.

              The other system proposed with the PL in a root channel does cut out some comms, one way, by the mechanism of SL's whispering to commander in 'parent' and then the PL can whisper to a (whole) squad channel in reply, cutting out all other squads by avoiding the command channel. This would cut down on some comm traffic, then adds more in the whisper to all in a channel. So it's like 3 steps forward and 1 back. Kind of simple, but still an added complexity to remember who's whispering to command channel and whos whispering to a whole channel. Elegant? Not so much, since the whole squad is going to hear one way comms coming back from the PL, it the least it will be annoying noise, at worst, confusing to hear one side of a conversation. Also bear in mind, much, if not most, of comms are generated by transport ops and squads talking with transport using CC. This system doesn't really reduce that traffic, unless SL's went through the PL (if there is one), and the PL relayed to transport, and vice versa (and introducing more comms, just in another way). Also, if the PL doesn't exist, this system wouldn't really make 1 iota of difference as far as I can tell.

              Regardless, I think a channel structure that could accommodate an exploration or use of either or both systems could be something like this.

              -Arma Evolution (root)
              --NewArrival(+respawn)/Transport/PL
              ---Squad 1
              ---Squad 2
              ---Squad 3
              ---Squad 4
              ---Squad 5
              ---Armor
              ---Air Cav (rotary wing)
              ---Air Cav (fixed wing)

              And yes, air cav should definately have their own channels like armor, there is a lot of comm traffic involved, especially between gunners/pilots/spotters in AH-6's and AH-1Z's, and comms between bomb jets and escort/air-to-air jets.

              The root channel is not a good place to have anything important, since it has no real description in the name, hence the first subchannel which does. The root channel makes a good lobby, place to talk about 'why can't I get such and such mod working', etc.

              Just something to throw out there, for either or both systems.

              Re-commence discussion.
              .



              [Game rules, announcements, and SOPs ][ ][ ][ ]
              "The success of what we do depends upon people valuing the team over themselves."
              - Wulfyn

              Comment


              • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                Originally posted by SloppyJoe View Post
                If the PL doesn't exist, players still should see it as a channel to check in on, and if they are told a PL doesn't exist, go directly to squads for assignment. Re-commence discussion.
                One minor addition to your review (which was a nearly perfect understanding of my intent)

                when a PL doesn't exist, it is my hope that new arrival and respawns **WILL NOT* go straight to the squad channel. Rather, it was my hope that Dedicated transport pilots would function to negotiate with SL's (or RO's) via the channel commander to determine who wants the new guy etc, where to drop him off etc.

                Note in the image that the dedicated Transport pilot has acccess to the channel commander.

                It was my hope that only once the new arrival was boots on the ground at the squads side (or at a minimum, the assigned LZ negotiated between Dedicated transport pilot nad the SL), would the new arrival then switch to squad channel, and announce his presence. In fact, it would be nice if Dedicated transport pilots got into the habit of telling their passengers to switch over to their squad channels just as they are landing at their LZs.

                I think Sleepdoc's idea is more teamwork oriented and 'elegant' without adding much more complexity.
                Thank you. It is a bit disconcerting to me at the moment that current solutions being bantied about are not noticing their own complexity. Simplicity **is** Elegance. (as you obviously already know)
                Last edited by Sleepdoc; 07-22-2007, 04:14 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


                • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                  Our Sunday COOP event went well. We used the direct whisper binds and did not use Channel Commander. It worked well. I think everyone agreed -- it was a huge imporovement in helping reduce comm cover.

                  Since the PL whispers to squad channels when in conversaion, all element members would quiet down when PL chatter came in. In reality, this proved to work out well. I didn't get feedback from anyone about feeling like they were left out of part of a conversation.

                  The PL, "Kahn", did mention that the only issue he had was when multiple incoming calls from squads. But did say, that because in practice the SLs used short calls during initiation so as to not interfere with any conversations the PL might be in. For example, "Squad 2 for Command" is short and sweet enough to get the message out w/o interferance. Squad 2 would wait for a "Go" from the PL before further broadcasting.

                  To adopt SleedDocs proposal would mean working with a couple new channels for new arrivals, etc. which would work fine. Wether that's a new channel name or any other addressable channels like the Channel Parent.

                  I think we've found the best of blend here.

                  Any other folks in Sunday's event have an opinion?
                  sigpic
                  I run my $#@! new school style with old school roots...

                  Comment


                  • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                    Originally posted by Riyker View Post
                    Since the PL whispers to squad channels when in conversaion, all element members would quiet down when PL chatter came in. In reality, this proved to work out well. I didn't get feedback from anyone about feeling like they were left out of part of a conversation.

                    This isn't a competition. It's an academic debate. Please know that I recognize that and that I engage in it from that spirit. If my point fails to prevail, I will gladly function in the system of the majority.

                    But I will take yet another stab at this concept as the self-assigned deviil's advocate. Please excuse my persistence .....

                    Why should my entire squad have to listen to what a PL is saying?

                    For that matter, what good can possibly come from a regular grunt hearing anything other than the voices of his immediate squad members and SL?

                    What if we (as a squad) are in a firefight? I would not expect my squadmates to stop making rapid contact calls (heading distance etc) just becuase the PL starts talking (Whispering to my channel). In fact, in such an instance, the PL stands to step on the much more vital transmission. The contact call is immedaite and it can save lives. It deserves a gauranteed clear channel for as many grunts as possible.

                    Every single person in the squad might not hear the contact call becuase someone "Whispered" to my entire squad. and the opportunity to rapidly concentrate fire is either lost or dangerously delayed if that communication is competeing with "Whispers".

                    I am not making up this situation. I have been in it. More than a few times I have had non squad member comms directly in our squad channel prevent contact calls from being heard and saving peoples lives. They can cuase confusion and delayed self preservation.

                    It is purely coincidence if a PL does not step on a firefight-ciritical transmsission during any particular session. In most cases, the PL cannot possibly know the instantaneous changes to the squad's environment. so he should not be set up to step on all member's ears .... IMHO.

                    but i can see how in most cases, this might not happen. But it can .... why create a system that permits this occurence and does nothing to prevent it? It will never happen if you don't use whispers....

                    Of course, my system has compromises too. All Squad leaders have to share a space with the PL. And this might require the PL to call "Hold comms". But PLs and SLS in the same channel represent the most disciplined people in the same channel. So teh problem is automatically limited.

                    I can't say this enough .... I don't want anyone else in my Squad Members ears but their other SM's. unless they are the SL or the RO.

                    They say the defnition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing over and over even though it doesn't work. Maybe I am insane. :) It seems I have failed to convince the majority.

                    The bottom line? TG is awesome. I'm just trying to help this academic debate run its natural course.
                    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


                    • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                      Sleepdoc, presents some valid concerns. I however feel there is no perfect solution. So let the ideas flow and debate go back and forth as we attempt to try new things.

                      As for the issue of PL interrupting comms. This can be taken care of by procedure. In general, the PL won't attempt to contact a squad unless there is a need or it's been a while since last comms. The procedure for contact has been established as "State who you are taking to, then who is talking." wait for confirmation. Now this little blip would be about as big an interruption as a beep on a phone/radio. The PL must also respect the SL is busy and give appropriate time between attempts to get attention. This is a procedural fix that as of now is probably the best solution for stopping comm interrupting.

                      Concern that SM's don't need to hear anything but their squadmates or SL. I agree that would be ideal, but I would rather have PL transmissions heard by the entire squad than by all SL's(channel commander option). Generally once the game has started the PL's transmission is relevant to all the SM's. We found this especially useful when coordinating air. Faster you response when asking if all aboard by whispering to the channel as opposed to Channel commander or direct whisper to SL. PL to SL traffic is heard by the entire squad. SL to PL is not. So the traffic is actually less. Ryker instituted a could policy that once the squad heard the PL's voice, they immediately give radio silence. Remember that the PL should be asking for confirmation first, so if the squad is engaged the interruption would be extremely minimal. A quick "Hold, PL" from the SL will get the Pl to hold transmission. This works both ways and was tested with great success.

                      Ideally a PL should have whispers directly to all SL's/RO's. They only need the whisper to command channel back. Again the system is not perfect, but I don't think there will be one with the limitation of TS. Today's game successful tackled a past problem of SL's getting too much unnecessary chatter. This was accomplished via channel whispers and comm procedure. We can take what we learned and move forward towards some of the other issues.
                      |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

                      XBL GT: Khan58

                      Comment


                      • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                        After I made this post, I had a long talk with Riyker. I believe we had a break through. it is what appears to be the perfect mixing of both these systems...

                        I now understand and accept the value of whispers. It too is a compromise just like the limitations of my design. I think we just came up wiht a combined thing that has all of your stuff and all of mine in a way that overlaps without confusion....

                        Stand by. A new picture will be out soon.

                        the picture will be accompanied by a suggested channel list and suggested binddings. the bindings will actually look just like what you guys had today....

                        I think we just found a sweet spot ..... and it allows the current whisper system (which prefers a CO) and my system (which is CO independant) to co exist with one single keybind file and one simple channel layout (that looks very much like what we have now)

                        Stand by...
                        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


                        • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                          Originally posted by tHa_KhAn View Post
                          Ryker instituted a good policy that once the squad heard the PL's voice, they immediately give radio silence. Remember that the PL should be asking for confirmation first, so if the squad is engaged the interruption would be extremely minimal. A quick "Hold, PL" from the SL will get the Pl to hold transmission. This works both ways and was tested with great success.
                          right. I'm coming around.... : )

                          think about this approach you have developed, in concert with a new arrival channels which also holds the dedi pilots.... like in my picture .....

                          See where i am going?
                          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


                          • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                            Personally, I liked hearing the PL's orders to our squad today. Although I was just a grunt, it was nice having a "higher-altitude" view of our place in the battlefield. <shrug> :)

                            Comment


                            • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                              I think that the new binds worked perfect today, except for the SL's that didn't have them. I know I kept hearing channel commander messages from Air/Armor guys. If everyone gets the binds, for when SL's die, it will be a beautiful sight. I can't imagine having done that mission today with the old channel commander style. With all the coordination needed, I never would have been able to talk to my squad.

                              Great work on the comms guys, looking forward to more great ideas!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Comm Traffic/Covering

                                Originally posted by WhiskeySix View Post
                                Personally, I liked hearing the PL's orders to our squad today. Although I was just a grunt, it was nice having a "higher-altitude" view of our place in the battlefield. <shrug> :)
                                Here's my long winded opinion:

                                Definition: Strategic level operations: operations involving the bigger picture of the battle and movements thereof, the highest macro level planning and ordering. Usually involving platoon/squad general orders/intel and heavy asset allocations.

                                Definition: Tactical level operations: operations involving the smaller squad level picture of the current and smaller battle environment that the squad is in and movements of squad members, micro level planning and ordering.

                                The Commanding Officer/Platoon Leader should be focussed on strategic level operations. Squad Leaders should be involved in this only as so far as providing intel to the CO, possible suggestions, and execution of the CO's orders.

                                Squad leaders should be focussed on tactical level operations, commanding squad members and the squad in the more micro and immediate vicinity in carrying out plans for such, and every now and then participating in strategic level operations as far as intel and suggestions and acknowledging orders from the CO.

                                Squad members should -only- be focussed on tactical level operations. They should be concentrating on the immediate environment and executing the squad leaders tactical plan. They should be using comms to facilitate these operations and work as a team, to keep each other alive, to call for a buddy's help, to spot targets, to confirm target status, to communicate what direction they have covered, to confirm supply needs and requests, to confirm movements and overwatch maneuvers, etc etc etc.

                                The problem I have with what you are saying is, is that sure, it's nice to hear what's going on from the bigwigs, but only if you're at a campfire sharing battle stories. When squad members are "in the sh__" as they say, lives are on the line and the last thing they need jamming up comms is a bunch of high level chatter about who's moving where and who gets the Abrams and all that. Your squadmates should be utilizing that priority in comms to work as a team, and to work as a team to a high effect, communication is not optional. You can't stop the fight, tell the opfor to hold because a PL's transmission is coming through. And you don't want a PL transmission to break the mechanism that the team must have in order to operate effectively. Furthermore, the grunts that hear the conversation are only hearing the PL's side of things, not what the SL is saying to the PL through parent commander chat, talk about schizo.

                                Yeah it's nice to know what's going on in the bigger picture, but there is a time and place for it. When the squad gets out of the battle or is in transport or find a break in the storm, then is the appropriate time for squad members to ask the SL, hey man, how's the big picture? But that should be at the right time and convenience of the squad.

                                That's the big problem I have with the whisper to all from PL -> SL's channel is all that. It's a solution that undermines the fundamental and efficient compartmentalization of comms seperated by strategic and tactical level operations being in their appropriate places.

                                Why I like Sleepdoc's idea is for two big reasons
                                1) Compartmentalizing the transport/respawn/newarrival/and 'learn TG' and squad member placement comms into it's own channel. Because these guys are very rarely, 'in the sh__', they can use comms at a different pace and priority than combat squads in the battlefield.
                                2) The compromise is, while #1 up there will help alleviate A LOT of command channel chatter, there will still be a web involving SLs and PL in that when something is broadcast it will not be direct to channels but a blanket communication through command channel. Given that transport and new arrival chatter will be removed, it will still be a great relief on CC. SL's can focus on what they need to do on tactical level operations and participate in comms with the PL as needed. IF the CC traffic gets to be too much for him (each person has different thresholds), he can assign RO to handle CC comms so he can focus on Squad level comms. That's the biggest compromise right there, and I gotta say it's actually cool. The RO could be a squadmember that by design is a semi-combatant, like a medic, or hell, is the medic, or an AT specialist that is called up for AT operations and hangs back when not called upon, or a sniper in some nice quiet hills. It's also a new position that opens up the posibility of a new squad roll, an important one, that adds a sense of usefulness to the player and immersion in the game, and should even come with it's own ribbon awards. Some might say this is a 'compromise'. I say it's an opportunity.
                                .



                                [Game rules, announcements, and SOPs ][ ][ ][ ]
                                "The success of what we do depends upon people valuing the team over themselves."
                                - Wulfyn

                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X