Comm status - chatter level

[StrongHarm]

Quoting myself from the post about tac nights:

 

I have noticed that in game channels with few end points are very reliable. I use the ingame vehicle channel very successfully when flying with a gunner. I have had to turn my TS volume down so I can hear my gunner over the 30 second explanations of where an enemy parachute is falling. I have removed my key for press to talk in game (CapsLock) and use it for TS. I use doubletapCapsLock (default) for toggle ingame channel open. I find this to be very convenient.

 

The proximity channel (Direct Communications?) works very well also. Maybe this could be used on a squad level? If the squad is moving in a wedge (and they aren't running forward all willy nilly john wayne) they'll see the squad commander call a halt and take a knee. They'll know to gather around for instructions. Being deaf on a squad level would be very interesting. TeamSpeak would be equivalent to the radio chatter one hears from a vehicle in RL. Each squad member could tune into TeamSpeak only in emergency situations.. like with a PRC90. For normal squad comms, we'd have to pass instructions back through the formation with DirectCom. Maybe this would be TOO real? heheh

[T_1]

This is the way I do it as well. TS to speak to the Leaders, or InGame to speak to the Squad. What we could also do is how we split the squads in Team Status on Sunday with Custard leading.

 

We split into 4 man squads with a Mortar team. The squad leader (in my case Custard) greated a new group and we joined this. This gave the advantage that double taping Esc showed us where he was so we could keep or spacing and grouping from him.

 

It would also give the advantage that we could have used the Squad channel for comms and only the four players in Custard's team would have heard this.

 

I don't think we have explored the possibilties of In Game Comms fully.

[Ebden~SPARTA~]

I don't think we have explored the possibilties of In Game Comms fully.

 

Edited shortly after post:

I agree, and I've given in-game voip some thought. The in-game comms as a whole are really touch-and-go. Some people come through dandy, others sound like an analog cell phone in the Andes. We can't adjust any precise settings for the in game radios, and we can't modify the relative strength of human v. AI/automatic radio in game either. I disagree with strongarms assessment of 'Direct Communication'. The idea is good, but it's implementation is bad, always choppy audio, and a terrible radius. The in-game automatic radio (ex. squad-level enemy location) is so blasted loud, that without additional controls I'd prefer to use in-game sparingly, usually only for vehicle chat.

 

Did someone suggest we modify our own volumes? Not happening, I'm not yelling at my computer screen with other people in the house (or neighborhood, they'd call men in white coats).

 

I'd like to experiment with Mumble and a TS overlay (did someone say they had a working TS overlay?). I know mumble is redundant to 'direct communication' but it also boasts settings and fine-tuning that don't exist in A2. You can set your in/out volumes to make up for not wanting to yell and bother the wife, and I've found the audible radius in mumble (tried in PR) better than A2 direct comms. If TS overlay is good, then shag mumble for experimentation. Anyway, it all comes back to organization and ability. I'd prefer to see, as stated by others, groups split into discrete squads. It can work with the coms discipline that is growing in the Sparta servers, especially on a tacdom or larger tac mission night. As we all progress to macro-management, then seperate TS coms will free up airspace for more tactical discourse, such as describing the location of a distant enemy, without confusing other squads. Of course, the TS overlay is critical to make any of this work, because unlike in real life, I've never met one of you, and short of the distinct british accents, I haven't a clue who is whom.

 

Don't forget, the radio isn't your only communication tool. As for marine navigation, make your prick! (no really, that's what it's called for anyone who's used a paper chart). Crazy idea time...how about we take advantage of the in-game watches, and SLs mark, via specified-color dot, their location @ time. Or better yet, for tacdom commanders only, introduce the SP high-command features? Can they be used for MP organization? What a way to cut back on coms, since the commander only needs to relay a series of waypoints and an objective for his squad. Yes, go with high-command if it is at all possible; forget pricking the charts, and save so much explanation in TS!

 

My nickel for the discussion.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Ebden

[StrongHarm]

The idea is good, but it's implementation is bad, always choppy audio, and a terrible radius. The in-game automatic radio (ex. squad-level enemy location) is so blasted loud, that without additional controls I'd prefer to use in-game sparingly, usually only for vehicle chat.

 

Don't forget, the radio isn't your only communication tool.

I agree that ingame voice is hit and miss... in global or side channels. I've had no problems with group(small), command, vehicle, and direct channels. As I said, the less end points in the channel the more reliable it is. I've used direct voice to greet new people coming into the server. They hear the direction and walk up to you. This makes it personal and makes them respect the server more. As for command voice; Me, Durka, and Gunny used the command channel to great effect one mission. We were able to discuss tactic and command level decisions without breaking TS silence/ops. I think ingame channels are an existing asset that bares consideration. If they don't work, there's no loss.

 

As for the volume of ingame voice - that's: esc>options>audio options>radio. The default is 100% volume, whereas the default effects volume is less. I brought my voice down to 75% and effects to 70%.

 

I really like your idea of expanded use of the map. A SOP for fireteam/squad marking to report position at intervals of time and distance.

 

Brevity! Brevity!

 

[Ebden~SPARTA~]

As for the volume of ingame voice - that's: esc>options>audio options>radio. The default is 100% volume, whereas the default effects volume is less. I brought my voice down to 75% and effects to 70%.

 

I really like your idea of expanded use of the map. A SOP for fireteam/squad marking to report position at intervals of time and distance.

 

I know about the radio volume, but I'm 86.3% sure that it varies both the automatic radio and human radio volumes concurrently, so it doesn't solve that issue, unless I'm 13.7% wrong!

 

Expanding use of the map would be good. I'm still not entirely pleased with the icon setup though, mostly because it was never clear how to sort through icons and colors from the start, and it isn't possible to set an arrow to a specific direction (for pricking efficiently). Again, all toward brevity, and implementing some sort of universal map relay code is best for tacdom nights, with everyone trying to keep coms at a minimum, shuffling duties to other game attributes. Since it isn't a standard form of communication on land, I suggest it use marine navigation techniques, mostly dead-reckoning.

 

Adapted to what Arma2 permits, a mark would be a dot, color specific to the squad, with time, course, and speed (or travel method). Example, for 9:50pm moving directly SW from the main on foot a SL would enter after the dot "2150, 135, ground." There's no need to indicate true v compass heading, since we all use the same compass and the map is oriented with N-up (All of Chernarus is oriented compass/magnetic north).

 

Edit: A simplification of this method, given the map scale, is to use general compass headings (for SW, just write SW. If you are between SW and W, then write SWW, which means Southwest-by-West. I don't imagine more precision is needed than that). For the travel mechanism, use whatever tight term fits your travel (foot/ground, tank, APC, helo, whatever, just so it's concise and we get the idea. We should all know roughly how fast each method travels). The purpose of the charting is two-fold: A)to keep the commander abreast of his squads' locations w/o asking; To give other squads a rough idea of who might be in their scope. It's the responsibility of all players to ID their target, but there's no harm in giving them a hint.

 

Remember, by the time a sailor made his prick on the map he was already somewhere else. Navigation is about where you want to go, charting is about where you think you have been. Looking at your damn surroundings is how you tell where you are!

 

Better yet, those high-command features, if available, would make it so much easier for the commander than teaching SLs how to use dead reckoning.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Ebden

[StrongHarm]

AlrightyThen.

[T_1]

I was going to post this in Durkas Post about the TS Bindings, however that thread is valuable in its own right, and I don't want to detract from that.

 

 

However ...

 

 

Secondly I would like to throw in another possible key consideration. Do we need an 'All Stations' key for the commander to utilise for this stirring speeches, or more probably for the go-commands to all teams or just to advise that an evac zone has been setup.

 

I don't see the point of the commander being able to speak to everyone, thats why there is a CoC, Commander to Squad Leaders to Squad members. Whilst this may give an impression of an elitist command structure, do as I say not as I do, I don't see that we will need any speeches from Shakespears Henry V.

 

I also think the Whisper to channels is not required. The commanders only need to speak to themselves, I found it irksome when Luggage was speaking to Zeno on the Commanders Channel and Zeno was whispering into the Bravo Channel, it was a one side conversation, information that we (as the Bravo team members) didn't need to know, and it restricted the use of Squad Comms because Zeno was talking to Luggage. If we'd had a contact we'd have, at best, garbled comms.

 

I just don't see the need to Whisper to All the members of a Squad, that's why the Squad leader is there, and the can get the info they need via the Channel Commander route.

 

The structure Durka is proposing is IMHO a sound basis for good comms, I am just not convinced that as a squad member I need to hear what the mission commander or anyone else is telling my Squad leader.

 

The difficulty I do recognise is that the other squad leaders then become involved in Comms not necessarily intended for them, so I suppose it boils down to Information Overload at Squad or Command level.

 

I would vote overload the commanders as they get paid the big bucks

[Ebden~SPARTA~]

I agree with T1 about this. As long as the commander shares a channel with a squad and can be whispered, he will get crosscom errors. Much better to have people talk to who they need only, leaving as little room for scrabble as possible. It was also why I liked a greater degree of delegation.

[KalXen~SPARTA~]

I just don't see the need to Whisper to All the members of a Squad, that's why the Squad leader is there, and the can get the info they need via the Channel Commander route.

 

The structure Durka is proposing is IMHO a sound basis for good comms, I am just not convinced that as a squad member I need to hear what the mission commander or anyone else is telling my Squad leader.

 

The difficulty I do recognise is that the other squad leaders then become involved in Comms not necessarily intended for them, so I suppose it boils down to Information Overload at Squad or Command level.

 

Keep in mind, Teamspeak doesn't do preferential channels and mute one while another speaks - hence the 'chatter'. If commander only speaks to the individual in channel, the others in the channel do not know he is being spoken to and may talk at the same time. In the squad leaders ear, this is all garble. By letting us her would reduce the need for someone to yell "Clear Comms" and ask the person to repeat their statement. We would all hear that commander is trying to talk and people would naturally be quieter.

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

T1, your advice is sound and is noted. I was trying to figure this out last night while writing all that crap down, and just like Kalxen said, it comes down to garbled comms. I kind of took the lesser of two evils approach and suggested the commander speak to the team leaders with all squads listening in so it would be easier to "clear comms" and all team members can hear the plan together. Plus, it's easier to transition commands this way, but I'm sure there's a different way to do it that could benefit us all.

[Xross]

Just curious but do you guys use call signs or can you remember the names of all the comers and goers in various roles.

 

Call signs would be much more efficient from my angle but not sure how everyone else feels...Durka?

 

 

 

 

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

Just curious but do you guys use call signs or can you remember the names of all the comers and goers in various roles.

 

Call signs would be much more efficient from my angle but not sure how everyone else feels...Durka?

 

 

What we've been forcibly "encouraging" people to do is state their name and who they want to talk to before they say anything else. (XWind, this is Durka...)

 

During Tac Dom, we've been changing that to something like "Command, this is Alpha Leader: At Rally point"

[Xross]

Cool Bud thanks for the quick reply.

 

I knew you had it covered just wasn't sure which approach you were taking.

 

 

 

 

Edit: I'm seriously going through ArmA withdrawal....I need a fix bad ;-)

 

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2009 by X-Wind~SPARTA~

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

hehe, when you do come back to play with us, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[StrongHarm]

Excerpt from my post on the tac nights thread.. this portion concerns teamspeak:

In the following scenario, pressure is taken from the command structure. They no longer try to communicate with one another, their team, and execute critical decisions at once. Same concept as in RL teams.

TS setup between deployments is just a few key punches between being a grunt and being a missions commander. It can be downloaded and imported into teamspeak by each person participating. Take note of the examples.

Here's a sample TS config. Considering the above scenario and this TS config, Each group would be in their own chat room. The only people crosstalking through channel commander would be: MissionCommander, A-1-Medic, B-1-Medic, Pilot. Each squad lead would have the ability to jump in the crosstalk by using the TOGGLE CHANNEL COMMANDER(ctrl+alt+c), to make themselves channel command along with their medic(coms officer). They would also have the ability to whisper directly to just the Mission Commander(alt+\) only, at their discretion.

 

(I can provide an export file to be uploaded)

CTRL + ALT + C Toggle channel Commander (makes you a channel commander)

ALT + Num0 Whisper to all channel commanders

ALT + Num/ Whisper to Mission Commander

ALT + NumDel Whisper to ALL (channels and players)

ALT + Num1 Switch to Channel Alpha

ALT + Num2 Switch to Channel Bravo

ALT + Num3 Switch to Channel Charlie

ALT + Num4 Switch to Channel Delta

ALT + Num5 Switch to Channel Mission Commander

ALT + Num6 Switch to Channel Pilots and Support

ALT + Num7 Switch to Channel Team Assignment Room

ALT + Num+ Volume up 10%

ALT + Num- Volume down 10%

defKEY Speak to channel you're in.. as you always do in teamspeak.

 

For instance:

If I were a MG on B-2 I'd hit: ALT + Num2 to join bravo squads room. Done.

Later I become Mission Commander. I'd hit ALT+Num5 to join that room, and CTRL+ALT+C to become a channel commander. Done.

 

I'm AlphaLead and realize that my medic is a complete rock and is not communicating with the Mission Commander well. I hit CTRL+ALT+C to make myself a channel commander and tell him he's relieved of that duty, then com with the Mission Commander myself. The extra chatter I have to endure from the channel commanders will divert me from the task at hand, but the dude's a rock so what can ya do?

 

Thanks for good times. Please feel free to use, alter, or scrap these ideas as you choose, I'm not sensitive.

 

Thanks,

StrongHarm

Ebden - don't troll my threads and restate the obvious in a passive argumentative tone anymore. I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguement, I'm simply trying to contribute. If contribution becomes frustration, it will no longer be worth my time.

[Zeno~SPARTA~]

Thanks for your contributions Strong, this is nicely explained. Lets all try not to wind each other up please.

 

 

[Ebden~SPARTA~]

Ebden - don't troll my threads and restate the obvious in a passive argumentative tone anymore. I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguement, I'm simply trying to contribute. If contribution becomes frustration, it will no longer be worth my time.

 

Woha! What's with the hostility? I don't recall posting anything that was any sort of passive-whatever toward your, or anyone else's, ideas. Like the rest of the regulars, I'm also trying to contribute, brainstorm ideas, etc, on this forum for the game, and I am sorry if something in a previous post offended you.

Do you recall the bit of praise I singled you out for last week in another thread? I hope that is indication enough of respect for your time in the server. PM me if there's something in need of a more detailed apology, I certainly have no intention of building some spat here.