Results 41 to 60 of 1385
03-12-2012, 02:54 PM #41
The thing is, it's the organisation and basic chat discipline that makes the fights good, and the chatter that makes the fights being good so enjoyable. There's got to be some kind of balance.
For instance, the insane infantry charge yesterday across that open ground after we'd defended the checkpoint as a lot better because we could talk in the chat about how it was like the first world war, and how they had tanks and we were all going to die.
I'd like to see things pretty much continue as they are (although I have no problem rewarding the people who tend to step up and lead with ranks, to recognise their contributions), but with slightly less chat when it's busy.
However I think it should be possible to arrange some sort of "Delta Squad" for people who want to talk a lot and just sort of generally head for the platoon waypoint. They're still going to contribute, even if they just turn up at the pointer and then shoot at the baddies.
03-12-2012, 03:21 PM #42
I think chatter is well and good, but you simply cannot have chatter in a platoon level chat. One dude yesterday got pretty pissed off because of it, and I felt his pain, since it was completely impossible to do anything when there were several people telling stories, overlapping eachother, at the same time, as well as people shouting spots etc. I fail to see how that works in any regrard. If you're 12 people, you can chat and still be tactical. Pilots and gunners can communitcate. Stuff can happen much better, and you can tell stories without interrupting orders, communication, observations and other stuff. That's why channels should be split and linked.
Now we also just play as one single platoon - a 40 man squad. There's no squad level leadership or squad level play. No one ever listens to "squad X go here" as there are commonly no real squad leaders - not with any power at least. Squads therefore never play together, and I think we're really missing out there.
Splitting platoons could work I guess.
Regardless, Cooper, what do you think about all of this? Can you get in contact with the mumble man and what's your word on organization and ranks?
03-12-2012, 03:29 PM #43
I dont know if you refered to me, as I tried not to be aggressively complain, but you did say that the mumble was lacking features to separate squads.
Yes, it was waaay too chaotic last night. I know some of you are just looking for some random fun and probably have been drinking (which is fun, I agree, but I only do that when I KNOW there is a commander that knows his shit, and everyone follows suit) but goddamn it was hard to keep track of requests and information and such. I know I can be chatty too, but not when theres a shitstorm going on.
03-12-2012, 03:36 PM #44
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
@Ranks: Didn't really seem necessary to me up to this point, though I haven't been playing for a couple of days. Imho, ranks usually exist to prevent people from taking leadership, and we rather tend to have a problem finding someone who's prepared to call the shots. If the need arises, though, keep them as simple and non-restrictive as possible.
@Coordination: I'd definitely be in for some organised squad-play. Right now we're pretty good at getting the whole platoon into one location -- which is a good start --, but not so good at actually doing something useful while we're there. If we could get a bit more tactics into capture and defence, that might make things even more awesome.
However, this type of play should of course remain opt-in, and we should always have a squad (or platoon, depending on the numbers) with the license to screw around. Moreover, I think there's some middle ground between no squad-level coordination at all and military-like discipline. Personally, I'd already be happy if the squads could just agree to stay together most of the time and follow their leader around.
@Mumble: I agree with the suggestions brought up in this thread. If we decide to go for a more organised approach, squad and command channels would be almost mandatory. As a temporary workaround, we could have squad communication on Mumble and commander communication via the built-in voice comms, or vice versa.
(N.B.: I could contribute my terrible-imitation-of-English-aristrocracy accent, but somehow I doubt you'd like to hear it.)
03-12-2012, 03:38 PM #45
03-12-2012, 03:44 PM #46
03-12-2012, 03:48 PM #47
It might be worth trying to use one of the features that would let a platoon leader talk in two channels at once, where one channel is the more "serious" channel were we all want to pretend we're at war and our families freedom depends on the outcome of us getting that tech plant and the other channel being less "serious" were we all just want to have a laugh while following along, getting some kills and doing some fun things in flying space ships and tanks.
The only problem with it is, how much are we splitting the group up then? What if someone is half and half about it and can't decide what channel he belongs in. How open is it to swapping channels on a day by day, week by week or even hour by hour basis.
03-12-2012, 03:52 PM #48
Might be easier on TS, dunno, but last I used it it was awful quality and you had to pay a license fee to get a hold of the server. Mumble is just free.
I could hook my mumble up, but I would need some financial security if it costs like 100 euros per month. From reading on the Amazon EC2 page I should be fine, but I have literally no idea what so ever regarding how much bandwidth we'll consume.
03-12-2012, 03:54 PM #49
The last time I used TS was the last time because of all the VoiP programs I've used I've never heard such terrible quality. And the fact the WoW guild I was in were paying money to host a server for it blew my mind.
03-12-2012, 03:56 PM #50
Regarding splitting I don't see how fun/banter is in direct conflict with organization. It doesn't have to be that serious, all you have to do is to somewhat follow orders and play with your squad. All it would do is make chat much less annoying for others, since you're generally talking to 12 people, and make goals much easier to achieve. Overall it would make people participate more in voice chat, open more chances for storytelling and general fun, as well as keep shit real and make stuff happen.
You'd still be able to do fun things, as it would not be much different from now, just a bit fewer people talking, with tighter teamplay.
03-12-2012, 04:07 PM #51
I don't think having 40 people chatting in one room whilst somewhat pissed and regaling one another with whatever stories whilst occasionally shooting lasers, possibly but not always in the same direction, is a problem. In fact, that we've had that many people on most night doing just that I think is a very good thing, and exactly what I want from the outfit.
I realise, however, that others want something a bit more organised; I wouldn't mind it myself.
Everyone knows they can add temporary channels, right?
Create a subchannel; "strategic giraffes". In which sub-subchannels for squads can be created.
The either dedicate one, two or three of the RPS platoon squads to "people who want something a bit more organised" and have them move into the squad subchannels. The other squad(s) can just hang out in the Barney channel as usual
OR: Have two platoon leaders, one leading the strategic giraffes, the other relaying waypoints / orders to those shooting lasers whilst telling jokes.
Use the whisper / shout system to:
a) Have PL(s) have a shout that goes to everyone in any Barney channel.
b) Have PL(s) and SLs part of a '#command' token whisper that allows them to communicate at platoon level.
c) Everyone else either in s "strategic giraffes" subchannel or in the Barney channel having a natter / laugh / laser session.
I'm going to trial this suggestion on Thursday. I'll create a new thread for this. However, expect Wednesday nights to remain dozens of people chatting together whilst shooting lasers.Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
03-12-2012, 04:29 PM #52
Well, the one wednesday night I was part of it all, was extremely organised and "tactical". I was part of Platoon 2, I still wanted a bit more tighter squad based movement, but generally much more enjoyable than 2.5 platoons in one channel chattering along.
Anyway, yes, sounds like a plan. Also, it would be awesome if squads were formed based on who is actually working actively together over mumble and In The Game™.
04-12-2012, 07:30 AM #53
Had a great time yesterday. Got a little bit crazy for me when we were about 50 people in Mumble, was hard to get orders out, but I guess it could work without splitting in the future as well.
04-12-2012, 09:22 AM #54
I do fancy trying a more organised direction on Thursday though - are there enough people on to try for a dedicated, organised air force?
04-12-2012, 10:14 AM #55
By the way, people were following orders quite well yesterday and at least seemed to enjoy it. There was only one thing when a dude just went "let's galdrop something" without a destionation nor orders and just ignored everything, and someone told him off a bit for it.
I honestly felt exactly the same as, I think it was, Qazz, as it's really annoying to try to lead and make stuff happen for everyone when someone just chooses to ignore you. I appreciated the help there at least, but maybe we should discuss how strict it should be during normal, unplanned, every day play?
I for one think orders a long the lines of yesterday aka "go here" and "alpha cap that, bravo that" works fine, but it can be a bitch if not everyone is on Mumble and some people ignore it. Should I or whoever is leading be more lax or more strict? I'm having a hard time judging what the majority wants as the people that speak up clearly favor following orders.
Also it might be overly harsh to just flat out refuse someone to do something, but it was a move that made no sense what so ever, and the dude just clearly wanted to do it because it was cool. That's why I said we're going to gladrop after, as we did, so that the people that wanted to would get their fill. Is that an okay approach you think? I mean, then we're doing it together at least.
Or should we just run two seperate platoons at all times? One mess about one, one stricter one where orders are expected to be followed and rank is somewhat important. Giraffes could be the mess about, Zebras could be the stricter. Will of course split between the two in Mumble and Zebras would likely be split in squads.
04-12-2012, 10:35 AM #56
I had to leave mumble because of my bloody sound card (Xonar DX). This loop sounds in voip are apparently a known issue with all(?) Xonar cards. I had noticed that before while speaking with a friend over headset, but it seems to be worse in mumble.
Still, I always tried to stay close to the pack and follow the platoon/squad waypoints. I mean that's the point in playing in an Outfit/Squad or PS2 for that matter. For solo running and gunning there are better games.
04-12-2012, 01:10 PM #57
Maybe having two platoons isn't that bad of an idea. Maybe one platoon that takes very specific tasks when needed like one squad switching completely to AA or going MBT and other platoon that takes more of the general "attack here" and/or "defend here" stuff where everybody can more or less chosse what they think fits the situation best.
04-12-2012, 01:27 PM #58
I have a Xonar DX and it works fine for me. Mumble was no problem on my DG either. Check drivers I guess? Pretty much all of them are pretty shit though, but I generally have few problems with my DX as long as the drivers have managed to install themselves without destroying something.
Yes, two platoons could work, but then we need to communicate this as well. We also need to get the word out that people must join Mumble, mic or not does not matter. I guess if, for example, I lead the Zebras and Cooper leads the Giraffes we could communicate via shout/whisper-thing in Mumble and determine where we're going, where the giraffes just generally follow some orders a la "go here", and the Zebras specialize and coordinate, play in squads, etc. Then we split the two in two channels in mubmle as I doubt we'll be more in 25 in each, which is manageable for sure.
04-12-2012, 06:14 PM #59
Someone on Reddit has been suggesting a Platoon Leader Command Concept and this is v2 after some feedback. What are people's thoughts?
Steam: krusader83 | Origin: Sceptrum
Planetside 2: SceptrumVS (Miller) : SceptrumNC (Cobalt) : SceptrumTR (Cobalt)
04-12-2012, 06:22 PM #60
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Yesterday eve's direction from PL / SLs / various other experienced folk was really good - there was always quick assesment and decision (brief discussion followed by clear orders - best bit of all!) on new objectives and angles of attack which made things flow very nicely.
I don't know if you found it a bit frustrating working hard on this with the number of people in chat, stragglers not on chat, random unrelated interjections about things in the real world, but this silent grunt for one really, really appreciated the effort command peeps went to last night. So here you are for being awesome (and occasionally slightly angry):