Peerun

Additional comms - are they needed?

55 posts in this topic
10 minutes ago, Kerri said:

Not needed, provided proximity comms can overcome engine noise. Adding an automatic intercom when in a vehicle might help, since it would use the same key as proximity and not add any confusion. Fireteam comms are completely unnecessary, especially since 99% of squads don't utilise individual fireteams (especially static ones, normally they just select a few random people to send somewhere), and any squad that's coordinating at that level is going to have enough radio discipline anyway.

 

I've said it before in regards to suggestions for manual raising/lowering of weapons, etc. If it adds additional keybinds, it should add significantly to gameplay. I don't think this does so.


I think part of the reason that noone is using fireteams, is that the current VOIP contradicts it and makes it ineffective with people talking over each other.

It wouldn't have to add additional keybinds. Depends on the implementation, but I've already outlined one version of it that keeps all keybinds the same.
Also, how would you divine that it doesn't add significantly to gameplay, to have the ability to separate your squad into 2 fully operational teams without any hassle or 3rd party program.

Edited by Peerun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peerun said:


I think part of the reason that noone is using fireteams, is that the current VOIP contradicts it and makes it ineffective with people talking over each other.

It wouldn't have to add additional keybinds. Depends on the implementation, but I've already outline one version of it that keeps all keybinds the same.
Also, how would you divine that it doesn't add significantly to gameplay, to have the ability to separate your squad into 2 fully operational teams without any hassle or 3rd party program.

 

The thing is your squad shouldn't be two fully operation teams, it should be two halves of one operational team. Fireteams are only really used when travelling in a hot area, when you need to bound and the like.

 

Any scenario in which you'd need to independently assign a fireteam to do something or another, they're always going to be close enough that any communication between one fireteam is going to be relevant to another (fireteam 1 declaring that they're in position and fireteam 2 is free to move, fireteam 1 calling out a contact, etc.)

 

Anything that's is so local that it isn't relevant to the rest of the squad should be kept to proximity chat anyway, as fireteams should always be well within proximity of their fireteam leader.

 

I completely agree that my definition of 'significant gameplay' is subjective, and in the end it's up to the devs to determine what's worthwhile adding and what isn't.

Edited by Kerri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kerri said:

Not needed, provided proximity comms can overcome engine noise. Adding an automatic intercom when in a vehicle might help, since it would use the same key as proximity and not add any confusion. Fireteam comms are completely unnecessary, especially since 99% of squads don't utilise individual fireteams (especially static ones, normally they just select a few random people to send somewhere), and any squad that's coordinating at that level is going to have enough radio discipline anyway.

 

The last thing I think anyone wants is something like an ACRE style radio system being added.

 

I would love ACRE style radio system. But i know that won't happen.

 

But I do love to see a vehicle intercom system for vehicle crew. Passengers wouldn't be on it, they'd either use proximity or squad radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chompster said:

I would love ACRE style radio system. But i know that won't happen.

 

But I do love to see a vehicle intercom system for vehicle crew. Passengers wouldn't be on it, they'd either use proximity or squad radio.

 

Don't get me started, as much as I loved the ACRE system and think it's incredibly flexible, it can only really work in clan-style environments where everyone playing together is regulars. The ACRE system is suited for Arma, which is already hip-deep in abstruse keybinds, so adding a couple dozen more isn't going to hurt.

 

I didn't even play with a particularly try-hard clan but we still ended up having to do almost daily training sessions to get any new players familiar with the system. I don't think such an in-depth radio set up would work with a fast-paced, easy-to-learn-the-basics game like Squad that fills the niche between a Battlefield-like game and something more abstruse like Arma.

Edited by Kerri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kerri said:

 

The thing is your squad shouldn't be two fully operation teams, it should be two halves of one operational team. Fireteams are only really used when travelling in a hot area, when you need to bound and the like.

 

Any scenario in which you'd need to independently assign a fireteam to do something or another, they're always going to be close enough that any communication between one fireteam is going to be relevant to another (fireteam 1 declaring that they're in position and fireteam 2 is free to move, fireteam 1 calling out a contact, etc.)

 

Anything that's is so local that it isn't relevant to the rest of the squad should be kept to proximity chat anyway, as fireteams should always be well within proximity of their fireteam leader.


Sorry, have you played the game at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Peerun said:


Sorry, have you played the game at all?

 

Give me an example rather than trying to insult me, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Peerun said:


You haven't really adressed fireteam comms although giving it +1, what's your rationale behind that being a priority item?

It's pretty damn obvious. Fire teams have different missions from each other and therefore would clutter half the squad comms with information only useful to one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kerri said:

 

Give me an example rather than trying to insult me, please.

 

You use fireteams and fireteam comms when you have 1 or more vehicles in your squad giving ranged fire support on a mobile platform, when you have recon or overwatch groups covering flanks, when you have mixed utility squads (transport/logistics), and oh so much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kerri said:

 

Give me an example rather than trying to insult me, please.


I've actually just finished a round, where I would've appreciated fireteam comms, so I am going to give it as a practical example.
To cut to the chase, we've captured Storage Site(on Chora) and we were holding it. Once we started seeing enemies I split my squad into 2 smaller groups. One was tasked with defending the cap, while the other, with me, went around the south to take out the FOB we thought was there. On the come up to it, the fighting was already heavy, both on the cap and the FOB. People were calling out targets both on the flag and the compound where the FOB was, at the same time mixing in info about the CROW's position. Now granted it wasn't that bad at this point. 
After we took out the FOB and cleared the remainder of enemies including the humvee, I returned to the cap. I spied with binocs from a roof and was able to spot another enemy FOB, all the way to the south. So again we split up.
At this point both teams were half a map away from each other. Once the enemies started attacking the cap, it wasn't easy to sift through all the info. Thankfully, half the squad was made up of clan member and people who play rather regularly, so the comms discipline was really good, but even then, having just one additional channel for each fireteam, would've allowed us not only to communicate more efficiently, but as a result also spread out more, maybe even split up into buddy teams of two and maybe we would've been able to find that FOB that I saw originally.
When I do something like this with a full pub squad, it just doesn't work, the VOIP gets drowned in useless info really quick. Layers and layers, of what could've been said in local OR in a fireteam channel.
Look, this is my stance on it.
How info should get filtered right now is as follows

Squad relevant
- squad chat
Individual relevant

- local chat
- squad chat

With a fireteam channel you'd have it like this
 

Squad relevant
- squad chat
Individual relevant

- local chat
- fireteam chat

If it's not readily apparent, squad chat becomes limited to only things relevant to squad.
This isn't a breakthrough. This isn't a magic cure or a nobel prize-worthy invention, but it sure as hell also isn't something that shouldn't make it into the game ONLY because it would POTENTIALLY take up more buttons.

Also, a fun fact, if you haven't read the recap yet guys, OWI implemented the long awaited Numpad-to-IndividualSL, which is nice to see, given that the keybinds were in the menu since V6 or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Peerun said:

Also, a fun fact, if you haven't read the recap yet guys, OWI implemented the long awaited Numpad-to-IndividualSL, which is nice to see, given that the keybinds were in the menu since V6 or something like that.

 

Re-implemented, actually. It was in for the closed alpha and removed as it got borked and you can make 9+ squads. I really hope they're not going to limit teams to 9 squads. That would really limit organizational options for teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

That would really limit organizational options for teams.


Not really. Not if we get fireteams, anyway.

Edited by Peerun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peerun said:


Not really. Not if we get fireteams, anyway.

 

Yes, it would. You ideally want separate squads for individual assets like tanks, transport, logistics, etc. You want a variety of Infantry squads sized from 3 to 9, performing functions like recon, sabotage, etc. You want separate squads for individual emplacement assets, such as mortars. 9 squads don't cut it in PR, and they won't cut it in Squad.

 

Let's say you're an infantry squad and you request armor support. The one squad with 3 tanks sends one your way. But you can't communicate directly with that one tank supporting your squad. No, you need to pass any information through the SL of that squad, who is on the other side of the map supporting another squad and engaging contacts of his own.

 

And as long as those tanks are subservient to that one Tank SL, they won't be utilized well. They need separate chains of command to ensure that they are available to the entire team.

 

Fireteams will have no effect on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too notice the local icon showing up more than it used to without being able to hear the speaker. I wonder if the local radius was increased slightly, if that wouldn't help cut down on Squad chatter? It does seems a bit small to me as it is, I feel like I have to yell sometimes to get the attention of someone not that far away, and I don't feel like my choices should be to either yell or tell the entire squad, especially when it's something like "SMITHY! HES RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER!" I live with other people and all that. 

 

I think having the red SL icon show up, isn't a bad idea either. I'm all for a non cluttered UI, but it would help in keeping coms clear, at least with players who cared about such things. 

 

Fire teams are a must IMO for many of the same previously mentioned reasons. 

 

Squad chat should be only used for the SL to communicat to his entire squad and a squad mate communicating directly to his SL, not for player to player communications. "Squad move to my marker" "SL, I have eyes on an enemy FOB"

 

Local/vehicle should be the primary tool for player to player, backed up by fire team when out of range. "BMP approaching!" "Let's clear those buildings" "Medic, I'm down at.."

 

Communicating with vehicles in other Squads is an interesting issue and playing telephone by passing requests through your SL's would be a mess. What about keypad for direct communication? It would work if vehicles had numbers assigned that displayed when you hovered over them. If you had more than 9 assets, you could have modifiers I suppose. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tartantyco said:

...


Why would you want a 3 man infantry squad?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Peerun said:


Why would you want a 3 man infantry squad?
 

 

Recon. FOB Hunters. Ambush squads. Lots of stuff. I'll most likely run5-7 man squads for the higher mobility when they implement squad locking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4. 3. 2017 at 8:14 PM, Tartantyco said:

 

Recon. FOB Hunters. Ambush squads. Lots of stuff. I'll most likely run5-7 man squads for the higher mobility when they implement squad locking.


But couldn't you run a fireteam instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really believe devs should focus on VOIP system overhaul, e.g. reducing the 1 second comms lag that makes effective in-vehicle coordination pure pain. Devs said this is will be worked on but it seems to have fallen into obscurity recently. I think lag fixing is especially important with all those vehicles coming out in V9.

With regards to diffent comms options i say why not. Although the game feels to fast paced atm so these additions could contribute to comms overload already being experienced on the battleground.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peerun said:


But couldn't you run a fireteam instead?

 

No. First of all, you don't have an independent chain of command that allows you to make decisions on your own. Secondly, you don't have the SL-to-SL comms that allows you to effectively share information, to be given information, or to be given requests. Thirdly, mixed discipline squads end up compromising on one or more of the tasks they're engaged in due to the SL bottleneck in communication and decision-making. Fourthly, you don't have access to the squad's RP and SL abilities. Fifthly, roles are poorly communicated in mixed discipline squads, so players may join your squad hoping to play as X, but only Y is available, so you'll have a lot of SM rollover and players who aren't that invested in playing those roles joining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6. 3. 2017 at 0:18 AM, Tartantyco said:

 

No. First of all, you don't have an independent chain of command that allows you to make decisions on your own. Secondly, you don't have the SL-to-SL comms that allows you to effectively share information, to be given information, or to be given requests. Thirdly, mixed discipline squads end up compromising on one or more of the tasks they're engaged in due to the SL bottleneck in communication and decision-making. Fourthly, you don't have access to the squad's RP and SL abilities. Fifthly, roles are poorly communicated in mixed discipline squads, so players may join your squad hoping to play as X, but only Y is available, so you'll have a lot of SM rollover and players who aren't that invested in playing those roles joining.


Well since they are adding Numpad controls for SL-to-SL comms in V9, I would imagine that the 2IC would be able to use those, too.
There could also be red rally points, deployable by the 2IC and only usable by his fireteam, while the SL's rally points remain spawnable for everyone in the squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Peerun said:


Well since they are adding Numpad controls for SL-to-SL comms in V9, I would imagine that the 2IC would be able to use those, too.
There could also be red rally points, deployable by the 2IC and only usable by his fireteam, while the SL's rally points remain spawnable for everyone in the squad.

 

There's no 2iC. And that would just produce a bunch of comms noise with no added functionality. Suddenly, your squad is getting 3X the chatter because you have mortars in your squad, and they're adjusting fire constantly over your comms while you're trying to do other shit. The chain of command issue would also still remain. You're running a tank an then the SL kicks you to make room for a friend. Or a squad requests support, but the SL won't let you since he's participating in another assault and wants you to help there. You also have the issue of obscured utility, where squads don't know if or in what squad fireteams of utility X or Y are, leading to under-utilized assets or duplicated assets. An infantry squad runs recon, but other squads don't know that because it's not in the squad name, it's just a fireteam in the squad.

 

There are simply too many issues with trying to use fireteams for these things, and 9 squads will not be enough for 40+ player combined arms, multi-disciplinary teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I really don't see an issue. Everything that you mentioned are circumstances which can be avoided.
Maybe, instead of trying to illustrate your point with one-sentence references of examples, which I am supposed to imagine and nod at, try and condense your thought proccess into one example, fully written out.
Throwing phrases and hoping I will get the gist of it and paint an identical picture, is not effective. No offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Peerun said:

Sorry, I really don't see an issue. Everything that you mentioned are circumstances which can be avoided.
Maybe, instead of trying to illustrate your point with one-sentence references of examples, which I am supposed to imagine and nod at, try and condense your thought proccess into one example, fully written out.
Throwing phrases and hoping I will get the gist of it and paint an identical picture, is not effective. No offence.

 

I don't see what's so hard to understand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tartantyco said:

 

I don't see what's so hard to understand. 


"There's no 2iC. And that would just produce a bunch of comms noise with no added functionality. Suddenly, your squad is getting 3X the chatter because you have mortars in your squad, and they're adjusting fire constantly over your comms while you're trying to do other shit. The chain of command issue would also still remain. You're running a tank an then the SL kicks you to make room for a friend. Or a squad requests support, but the SL won't let you since he's participating in another assault and wants you to help there. You also have the issue of obscured utility, where squads don't know if or in what squad fireteams of utility X or Y are, leading to under-utilized assets or duplicated assets. An infantry squad runs recon, but other squads don't know that because it's not in the squad name, it's just a fireteam in the squad."

^This bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Peerun said:

^This bit

 

Have you tried reading it? Because it's not quantum physics. You need to have clear lines of communications to individual assets that are directly supporting you. You need to have autonomy over the asset you control to use it effectively. Team members need to know what squads are performing what functions, or if they are being performed at all. Using fireteams does not provide for any of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tartantyco said:

 

Have you tried reading it? Because it's not quantum physics. You need to have clear lines of communications to individual assets that are directly supporting you. You need to have autonomy over the asset you control to use it effectively. Team members need to know what squads are performing what functions, or if they are being performed at all. Using fireteams does not provide for any of that.


I tried reading it. I just don't agree.
I can't tell you anything more, because your post is so abstract, that it'd be like arguing with the wind.
So you can either provide an actual example or keep your answers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now