Results 361 to 376 of 376
12-05-2013, 05:57 PM #361
My point is, if this thing happens again we're going to need 48 people in comms roles under the current setup. That's all our regulars, most of whom are normally pretty reluctant to get into said roles in the first place.
I for one would like to just grunt it up next time. Maybe others want that too. Since we can't force anyone to do anything, as far as I can tell we have 2 options:
1) Turn down newcomers because we're full.
2) Reduce the amount of comms people we need.
12-05-2013, 06:03 PM #362
we did fine with alpha and bravo together, and we were absolutely full. so that would essentially halve our RO need, and lessen the responsabilities for half the SLs as well.
12-05-2013, 06:07 PM #363
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Boston, MA
RO is a great position for anyone who is comfortable with the game, really. It's a low-stress job that I think people might actually enjoy if they tried it. The bare minimum, absolutely acceptable level is that you report in when your squad is ready to move, when it arrives, and how screwed the situation is. Everything else is just repeating what your PL says to your squad. Extra credit is asking other ROs what their situation is if your SL is too busy to use his SL-SL chat. We really shouldn't have an issue filling RO slots and I wonder if people are just intimidated by the idea of it.
12-05-2013, 06:09 PM #364
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Boston, MA
12-05-2013, 06:10 PM #365
As long as people are informed that they should follow the green or purple star guy at all times, I don't foresee any problems with this.
13-05-2013, 12:16 PM #366
One thing I've been wondering is whether the workload for SGs can be decreased. My impression is there's still a lot of communication up/down the command structure and that perhaps the SGs could take a more macro approach and have PLs take more initiative?
As an example, SGs may order P1 to take Indar Bay Point, P2 to take Highlands Solar Station and P3 to take Sandstone Gulch Mining. At this point, it's down to the PLs to handle their forces. SGs shouldn't hear back from PLs until they've either completed the task (assault, capture, secure) and require new orders, or the task is currently unrealistic (in which case, they either need to be reinforced or redeployed). Once all Platoons achieve their goals, they converge on Hvar Tech Plant.
This could mean PLs don't report in for 10-15+ mins. I think the benefit of this would be that it gives the SGs more time to consider the strategic layer, where forces should be deployed next and organising with other outfits in Leader chat.
This could already be the case or I could be completely wrong, so please correct me or shoot me down if so. Thoughts?
13-05-2013, 12:35 PM #367
This is pretty much exactly how things worked for most of the night. CMaster and I gave very general orders to PLs, along the lines you mention. "Take this", "resecure that", "reinforce platoon X at location Y". We did a couple of more handholding-type of movements, like asking specifically for an armour push from one of the platoons, or like the full monty Indar Excavation assault, but mostly, we let PLs handle their objectives according to their own judgement. I think it worked really well, as far as I could tell.
The one problem from my perspective was that since there sometimes was 15 minutes between reports from PLs, it could be tricky to know what was going on on the ground, how the fight was going, if people were having fun or bored from being stuck or from lack of resistance. We had to ask for sitreps from PLs rather often, which is not really a problem in itself. I did feel a bit like I was nagging on my PLs though.
Having Cooper relieve us of the duty of coordinating with other outfits was good too, though we could have had better contact, I suppose. Wouldn't hurt to have had a little better idea on whatothers were doing. I think some of the problem was that there weren't that many others with us on Indar. Should be better if we go somewhere else the next time, where we can fit a few more other VS.
13-05-2013, 12:45 PM #368
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Being SG was not really an over-worked task, either this time or last time (once we'd switched to the intermediate platoon level stuff). In general we didn't micromanage especially, save to sometimes request a squad is sent elsewhere, or request armour/galaxy movements to support another platoon.
Getting regular sitreps in is very much desirable, and shouldn't be discouraged. 15 minutes between reports means 15 minutes of the SG not having the faintest what is going on. It's very important to know how fights are going if you are to be able to react to PS2's very fluid situation at all. Reinforcements need to be brought in before the fight is clearly lost. Strategically as well, it's not worth having 4 platoons struggling through just winning fights. Much better to double up at at least one location, win quickly, then bring those now freed up forces to anther one of the slow fights, win that, repeat. To do that, you need a good feel as to how much resistance there is at each location, and how much progress is being made.
13-05-2013, 12:52 PM #369
Glad to hear we're being optimal. As an SL, I only know what's happening at Platoon level, so no idea what's happening on the grand scale. My main concern was the occasions where you'd receive an order, then have it changed a minute later after hauling over to the new location. I wasn't sure whether those were PL or SG decisions...
13-05-2013, 01:29 PM #370
Actually, regarding Priority Speakers on mumble: is there anyway the PL could talk to SG without all their ROs hearing it? Those folks were obviously chatting back and forth, and throughout the conversations I couldn't hear my own SL, my own squad, or even other ROs... And I'm sure a few PLs said that they couldn't hear their ROs when you were talking to other platoons. We resorted to Platoon Chat in game to communicate at one point.
13-05-2013, 01:49 PM #371
By the way, in case anyone missed it, the post that Jim linked to on sunday, updated with screenshots from JG and me, I think.
13-05-2013, 02:09 PM #372
13-05-2013, 02:25 PM #373
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
In particularly I wasn't happy with how I handled the fights after defending Allatum (which from a PL's perspective was rather epic). I was basically told to do what I liked with you lot at that point and decided to go for TI Alloys and then the impact site... but I got all indecisive about whether to defend TI alloys after we'd taken it and failed to make a decent decision. We ended up losing TI Alloys and failing to take the impact site, so with hindsight I should have just picked one area and stuck to it, which would have made all my minions happier too I imagine.
13-05-2013, 05:02 PM #374
But it might be logical to reduce the 'responsible role' number, if not to avoid a lack there of, then for a few i'll now go on to mention.
Yesterday afternoon/evening when a few squads of us were trying to take Quartz Ridge, A BRTD platoon showed up. After a while we noticed a tactical pattern. Usually in two groups (ie. ~24), their Heavy Assaults and MAX's would be the main engagement troops. whilst their Medics and Engineers were much more disciplined and tended to congregate towards the rear, evading combat rather than actively engaging in it. It was a very effective tactic. I reckon they would have held on for a lot longer if our Zerg hadnt turned up and overwhelmed them.
Obviously though, BRTD is BRTD. Nobody's particularly surprised by that example as that's just typical them.
That anecdote aside, 2 squads of 24 in 1 mumble channel might (hopefully?) encourage those squads to stick and work together more closely. Those who have PL'd or SG'd know all to well that when it comes to capping, individual squads(12) are only really good for ghosts, A, B and C or other 'point objectives'. Basically, you tend to get things done better with more people... However, returning back in the interest of Boris' point, with this system you now effectively have 1 big super squad(24). 1 SL, 1 RO(Mumble). The SL has more vocal influence sure, perhaps even becoming a bit more of a demi-PL, but ultimately he/she's just doing what their PL tells them. Who in turn, now only has two squads of 24 people to worry about moving to the SG's given objective. Concerning the other in-game SLs, they merely have to place squad waypoints that match the overall SL, and deploy a beacon for their group of 12 when needed (i.e. just using the PS2 UI). With the exception of perhaps leading their 12 as a fireteam at the overall SLs discretion. Which again would be visually simple to follow in terms of UI. As long as things are clearly communicated within mumble.
(Tactics wise) There's potential there to breed squad-level, class-based tactical gameplay. Something similar to the BRTD example above. Though in oppose to any form of disciplined, restrained squad role, i think this would more happily evolve from my next point.
(Geographically speaking) Two squads on the ground, interacting freely and within arms reach of each other are arguably going to perform better than having them restricted to one channel each. "I need a res! I'm near the SCU Gen! Look out though, there are two MAX's there". After hearing that, people who tend to roll as Medics will naturally converge on that position. Though this time, potentially another 15-18 people hear it too, leading to ideally better efficiency through (rapidly responding friendly numbers > current enemies at that position), potentially leading to a higher chance of a quick res too. Obviously tactics are subjective to how quickly the battle changes, but having an active 'thing' of "ok guys, lets try and focus on sticking together. If you check your maps for Greens and Oranges and support each other" might not be all that bad a decision?
(Players wise) I've personally found that Tacplay naturally induces a more focused and less clusterF'd comms atmosphere. So whilst the argument about it "being to busy" is valid to a point, i dont think comms discipline is as much of an issue now, as it was before... Sure, when the action is at its hottest comms will flare up, but between typical conversations, enemy berating and general lollygagging there are always going to be audible lulls for new players to chime in with a question or five. If they don't, then they actively chose not to... Heck, more vocality could even lend more to that whole "bigger picture" feeling everyone creams over, at least to a certain extent maybe?
That last little bit isnt me being passive aggressive by the way, it's my attempt at a witty link to a film coming out this year i cant wait to see!
Anyway, this is possibly only going to be something to seriously consider when the ranks start swelling to the dizzying heights of yonder Thurs... "If it aint broken, dont fix it" and all that.
14-05-2013, 02:14 PM #375
I think the separate squads-in-channels thing works well - when the SLs are coordinating, the ROs are feeding back and forth, the PL is doing their job. As new players become more experienced and we get used to the roles (and more people who feel comfortable stepping up to take on those roles) this whole process will be slicker and slicker.
It does require SLs to be on their game a little more, feeding information back and forth from SL to SL and down to squads as well. 24 people in a channel seems to busy for me when you're trying to get a bit more tactical with it all, and doesn't allow for standard levels of chat between players.
After all, this is a game. People are here to have fun. I'd rather have split comms and some good banter going back and forth.
That's just me though.
Edit: There's nothing to prevent the PL ordering two squads to coordinate together to put a MAX Crash in on a target, and nothing to prevent a squad leader requesting that people pull particular classes for that to happen - it's up the SLs then to sort out who goes where and who does what. That would work just as easily (and possibly better) with split comms then everyone in channels. It's also worth nothing that squads get very inter-mixed when you're running single channel vs. split - which can cause delays when you need to start spreading out or focusing squads on different objectives.
Last edited by sketchseven; 14-05-2013 at 02:17 PM.
14-05-2013, 02:21 PM #376
I need to add though, there a couple of times, really, like two, where I had to tell all to shut it for a second. If this is not your style, or if youre playing with easily offended people, maybe you shouldnt have two squads :D