CaptBuckle
3dge of D4rkness
SoulWing Alliance
10
   |
Posted - 2012.12.14 19:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jos Shinobi wrote:Right now, it is very hard to retain cohesion among the team in a match because of the comms system. You either have the squads talking in independent squad chats isolated from each other or every one on one chat trying to talk over each other. The first results in squad leaders being forced to try changing channels in mid combat. The second results in confusion and sometimes disaster as warnings and callouts meant for one squad are mistakenly acted on by another (BEHIND YOU!!).
I would like to see a dual comms system for the players designated as squad leader in a match. The SL would be able to hear chatter on both the team chat and his squad chat. That way, the SL can communicate with his squad and the other SL's at the same time while avoiding the confusion and chaos of four squads all talking over each other. This would help maintain teamwork and cohesion among the players.
+1, but don't limit this to just squad leaders.
I do like the idea of having a heirarchy of channels: squad->team->command->orbital HQ, ... whatever. But I think mercs should still be able to choose whatever their "base" voice chat channel will be. Call it "C". Normal voice broadcasts would always go to "C". "Keyed" broadcasts would then go to "C", and to the channel above. Call it "C+1".
Does this still open up the possibility of squads talking over each other? Yes. But it gives teams everything they need to establish an appopriate communications doctrine, without forcing one particular rigid organization.
As an example, It could be preferrable for a squad or team leader to delegate another member as RTO so that the leader can focus exclusively on the tactical engagement without the distraction of calling in reports or requesting support up the chain of command.
So, I guess that leaves the following issues:
Interface: The current PTT ("push-to-talk") interface would have to be reworked, I think. And squad members would need a way to toggle between hearing only "C" comms, or hearing comms on both "C" and "C+1". (I thought about having a third toggle for only hearing comms on "C+1", but I just can't think of a use case for it.) Suggestion: A PTT tap toggles between either hearing "C"-only, or hearing both "C" and "C+1" comms. Normal voice comms only go to "C". But a long-press of PTT broadcasts comms to both "C" and "C+1". (Broadcast still goes to "C" so that others in that channel know what has been reported/requested and don't turn around and report/request the same thing!)
I don't have a suggestion for what to do with the current PTT option. It might still be good to have PTT for the "C" channel, still...without having to reach up to your ear to mute and unmute your headset. (Keep background noise from overrunning the chat, or for privacy of family members, etc.) But I'm not certain how to work it back in. It may be that having the "normal"
PTT enabled precludes you from ever broadcasting to "C+1", since your comms officer is unlikely to want to have the normal PTT enabled.
Also, I think any broadcast to "C+1" should automatically switch you to listening to "C" and "C+1", if you are not already. Presumably you would want to hear a reply! (But then a short tap of PTT would set you back to "C"-only, if that's what you want.)
Empty channels: It could be that "C+1" is empty. What then? Automatically bump to next populated level, be it "C+2" (command?) or C+3" (orbital HQ?) or however far up the chain? There are still kinks to smooth out, here. Maybe channels higher than "C+1" don't exist until at least one person sets their base channel at that level, and there is someone available in the "C+2" channel... At its simplist, "C" would be squad, "C+1" would be team, and that's it for now because there's noone to populate any level higher than that. Mercs could set their "C" to be team if they want to, but because there's no one to populate any channels higher than team, then PTT to "escalate" communications is moot.
Point being, current comms organization would still be a possibility with this sort of implementation, but a more refined communications doctrine would also be available, such as everyone in squad ("C") and team ("C+1") used for Squad Leader coordination...either by the squad leaders, themselves, or their delegated comm operators.
It may be a little harder to follow, but hopefully it is trivial to apply this C/C+1 pattern, no matter what the base channel, "C", happens to be.
Finally, there is the question of where Corp chat would fall into all of this, if at all. And I have no opinion on that. |