| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mace flagrantfool
6
   |
Posted - 2012.11.14 06:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
Now that everyone is using squad chat (read "dust communication *facepalm*: part 1" if you haven't already) it's time to work on team chat.
To have an entire team participat in team chat would be impossible (the amount of cross chater with that many people would make it impossible). My idea is to scrap the team chat altogether, and introduce a new batllefield role to dust: the radio opperator.
My idea is to use the logistics class for this role, but I could easily see it being a dropsuit class all on its own.
The way it would work is, the radio would be an "equipment" equipable only to the logistics class. The radio would function like the active modules for vehicles, but instead of holding down "R2" you would hold down "up on the D-pad" (player list and rankings would be moved to a start menu - where it belongs anyway - I hate that you guys wasted an in battle button for that anyway). When "up on the D-pad" is held down it will pop up a menu (just like active modules) with a list of squad numbers. The radio opperator will then be able to use this list to quickly switch coms to any squad in the team, at which point, he can ask for a "sit rep" or "call for aid under fire" or "help squad leaders plan team strategy" etc.
So this seems like a must inclusion into dust in order to deal with dust's serious communication problems. I have many more ideas about the subject, but I'll let some people respond with some feed back first.
Hope every one has fun with these ideas.
Thanx. |
R F Gyro
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
315
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 09:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
I agree that comms needs some work, but....
...you can't have an inter-squad comms mechanism that has significant drawbacks compared to an external TeamSpeak or it just won't get used.
The squad leader is the "radio operator". All players should be listening constantly to their squad comms; squad leaders (only) are also listening to team comms. All players by default speak into squad comms; squad leaders can use a button to speak in team comms instead.
We should have an indicator on screen showing who is talking, and whether they are in squad or team comms.
I agree on your "player list is a waste of a button" point. |
Mace flagrantfool
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 10:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
As I said, I do have other ideas on the subject, and it just so happen that some of your above points has touch on them. But here is my main concern with what you are proposing:
R F Gyro wrote:The squad leader is the "radio operator". All players should be listening constantly to their squad comms; squad leaders (only) are also listening to team comms. All players by default speak into squad comms; squad leaders can use a button to speak in team comms instead.
So there is a really big proble here. If we force squad leaders to listen to two Chanels (squad and team) squad leaders are going to be ineffective in battle/command due to cross chatter. If we make it a dedicated chanel then squad leaders will have no way to coordinate there timing as to when to check the squad leader chanel so it will essentially be useless and will quickly fall into disuse.
What needs to be done is for the dedicated coms member of a squad to be able to temporarily become the fifth member of any other squad on the team, and at a push of a bottom, exactly as I suggested before. This way the coms member of a squad can listen to see if it is appropriate to speak to the squad leader or not (and of course it should only be the squad leader that hears this). However the most vital part here is that this communication must not take place through a start menu, which effectively removes a squad member from battle for several seconds at the least. It needs to happen in real time on the battlefield.
My ideas could all be very easy be accomplished under the squad leader mechanics you suggested (which I had also thought about). I just like The idea of a logistics radio man better.
R F Gyro wrote:We should have an indicator on screen showing who is talking, and whether they are in squad or team comms.
If we go with the mechanics I have suggested, then I suggest (instead of what you have suggested above) either to have a squad number appear above each team player's blue arrow marker or a dedicated "different colored squad 'player indicators'" for each squad, so that the coms member of a squad could easily keep track of what squad is where on the battlefield.
R F Gyro wrote:I agree on your "player list is a waste of a button" point.
Isn't it though.
Another way this could work to wast even less buttons is, if you have "push to talk" set to off and you are the dedicated coms member of a squad, the "left D-pad button" could pull up the active menu I describebed in my initial post. |
Mace flagrantfool
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 11:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
I would also suggest that a similar real time function be implemented in order to communicate with EVE pilots, when EVE and Dust merge. |
R F Gyro
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
315
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 19:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Cross-chatter will be a problem if comms discipline isn't good and everyone is chattering away randomly, certainly.
However, corps can easily have 8 people in team chat currently without problems; I've done this numerous times with Zion. Its got to be easier to cope with a squad of 4 plus 3 other squad leads then two squads of 4.
I'm sure there'll be occasions where a request has to be repeated because someone is talking over it, but that needs to be weighed against the benefits. This approach allows squad leaders to talk to all other squad leads, not just one at a time; it doesn't require commands to be repeated (squad lead 1 -> radio ops 1 -> squad lead 2 -> squad members 2) and it doesn't require dedicated equipment. I guess on the down side it doesn't allow people to listen in on the internal chat of another squad.
Ultimately the comms system should be flexible & configurable enough to allow both methods so that teams can choose themselves whether a radio operator system is the best option for their play style.
|
Mace flagrantfool
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 01:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:This approach allows squad leaders to talk to all other squad leads, not just one at a time; it doesn't require commands to be repeated (squad lead 1 -> radio ops 1 -> squad lead 2 -> squad members 2) and it doesn't require dedicated equipment.
As I said before, the mechanics I have suggested could easily function under the squad leader mechanics that you have suggested - i. e. "radio man" and dedicated equipment are not necessary (I just like the ideas) meaning the active menu comms functions, that I suggested, could just be transferred to the squad leader. However, there is a command advantage to having a dedicated comms member of the squad be someone other than the squad leader - like the weakest member of the squad (logistics of course). the squad leader should seldom have time to explain, in detail, battle situations, to another squad. A squad leader should be planning strategy and directing his fellow squad members on the battlefield (as well as racking up the most kills if he is worth his salt) not siting down to a detailed chat with another squad. A squad leader should only have to bark out a few simple commands to a trusted comms member (for instance: "Roko, get on the horn and tell squad two to get there @$$es over here now!" Roko can then relay a more "detailed" message because Roko doesn't have anyone to heal or repair right now and is less effective in battle than other squad members).
R F Gyro wrote:Ultimately the comms system should be flexible & configurable enough to allow both methods so that teams can choose themselves whether a radio operator system is the best option for their play style.
I couldn't agree with you more, however some kind of comms command structure needs to be implemented -áand easily accessible to even a team of player who have never played with each other before (a team of randoms). IOM this is exactly why we are seeing so much heavy armor and dropship Imbalance in game, because your average-áteams, squads randomly thrown into a match together, are currently unable to coordinate there efforts efficiently enough to put together an effective AV unit or two, while at the same time holding a few objectives or planing a strategic retreat.
If you want two squads of eight that sounds fine, in a well oiled 16 man team I doubt more than two radio operators would really be necessary anyway, but this is to say nothing about the future of the game. I know personally I would love to see battles involving many more than the current 32 man limit (if we are going to be invading hostile planetary settlement I would also like to see imbalanced odds as well - 16 member, well armed well orbitally supported, against 32 member defense team, and other such mismatches - battle is inherently unfair, but it is the heroes and tyrants of war that makes for legends). |
Free Beers
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
1041
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 07:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
As long as a squad leader I can turn off by default listening to other squad leaders. I don't want to join a match and listen to someones music or them bullshitting about whatever because they are a scrub.
Also take into account a bunch of us use corp chat even if we are in squads because we are busy making fun of each other and can't be bothered with what other people think we should be doing |
Mace flagrantfool
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 07:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:As long as a squad leader I can turn off by default listening to other squad leaders. I don't want to join a match and listen to someones music or them bullshitting about whatever because they are a scrub.
I don't see a problem with that. That is what a block player function is for.
Free Beers wrote:Also take into account a bunch of us use corp chat even if we are in squads because we are busy making fun of each other and can't be bothered with what other people think we should be doing
It's not about telling others what to do (unless you are a dedicated group and everyone has agreed to participate in a particular command structure. It is about effectively being able to request help from other team members (known or unknown) or strategize. |
R F Gyro
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
315
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 12:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mace flagrantfool wrote:
If you want two squads of eight that sounds fine, in a well oiled 16 man team I doubt more than two radio operators would really be necessary anyway, but this is to say nothing about the future of the game. I know personally I would love to see battles involving many more than the current 32 man limit (if we are going to be invading hostile planetary settlement I would also like to see imbalanced odds as well - 16 member, well armed well orbitally supported, against 32 member defense team, and other such mismatches - battle is inherently unfair, but it is the heroes and tyrants of war that makes for legends).
I wasn't actually suggesting 2 squads of 8. I was pointing out that being able to hear 7 other people during battle (team chat with 2 squads of 4) is completely workable, given a modicum of comms discipline. It therefore shouldn't be a problem to be listening to three squad members plus 3 other squad leaders, assuming 4 x 4 player squads.
For larger battles I'd imagine we'd have need the commander in the MCC directing things, with a dedicated comms setup for them.
I pretty much agree with everything else you say though. As long as teams aren't forced to use a radio operator for cross-squad comms I'm happy.
If everyone had the following options...
Squad channel
[ ] Mute
[ ] Listen only
[ ] Default talk
[ ] Push to talk
Team channel
[ ] Mute
[ ] Listen only
[ ] Default talk
[ ] Push to talk
this would probably support most of the use cases we are interested in.
|
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 19:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
As a supplement a simple map tag system could be included. Using the squad orders system a second color of tag (with no WP value associated) could be included, usable by, and visible to, only squad leaders within that team. This way if a rally needs to be called, a priority target flagged, or an area dug in on and defended the squad leaders in match could communicate this information on the fly even without comms.
Ideally this would be in addition to an improved comms system and would include some visual cue denoting which squad leader supplied that tag (number? differing color/shade? or whatever) so it could be quickly understood and responded to appropriately.
A final refinement to this system would be the ability to choose (while in the War Barge most likely) which notifications would be seen or not. This filter could allow one team commander to see the flags from all squad leaders but squad leads to only see those from the team lead. Or squads stationed near each other to see only the tags of their local leaders, etc.
Thus preventing the supplemental flags from becoming distracting clutter rather than useful information.
0.02 ISK
Cross
|
|
|
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 18:31:00 -
[11] - Quote
More discussion seems warranted. |
R F Gyro
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
315
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 21:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:More discussion seems warranted.
Maybe discussion ended because we've found a solution.
Your team tags combined with my comms setup and the ability to designate a radio operator (if desired) would be great. |
CaptBuckle
3dge of D4rkness
SoulWing Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 03:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
more discussion here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=47410&find=unread
(R F Gyro copied a link to this thread into a more recent thread related to the same topic, figured I would copy a link to that topic, here, to "complete the link", as it were. I think both threads have good ideas.) |
Isaa Quade
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
107
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 05:54:00 -
[14] - Quote
We haven't had a designated radio element since VIetnam. |
CaptBuckle
3dge of D4rkness
SoulWing Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 07:15:00 -
[15] - Quote
Isaa Quade wrote:We haven't had a designated radio element since VIetnam.
Then the army field manuals published between 2001 and 2006 are wrong. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |