Results 981 to 1,000 of 1385
06-04-2013, 10:39 AM #981
For the umpty-umpth time:
If you are not CURRENTLY PL, you need to be quiet. Not totally silent, but refrain from arguing with people in channel about strategy and or tactics. State your position and leave it at that.
If you are not PL, it's not your place to make decisions for the platoon. The PL's word on any issue is final. Accept you lost the argument and shut the fuck up. You do not have the right to screw with other peoples enjoyment of the game.
If you really, really, disagree with the PL, leave the platoon. Talking over the PL is absolutely and totally unacceptable no matter what the PL is saying, and it's getting to the point now where repeat offenders should just be getting kicked from the platoon.
06-04-2013, 10:55 AM #982
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
I found the noise in A/B last night very high, too high I'd say especially when trying to listen to command chat. Technically, I was SL for Bravo, but in practice I don't think if you have two squads in a channel you can have 2 active leaders in that channel. I just didn't feel like adding my voice to the confusion would have helped since we already had Cooper for orders anyway.
06-04-2013, 11:08 AM #983
No, you can't Kiwi. I do believe we can have one radio officer and one SL however.
Laldy: I fully agree that we need to shut up more when the PL speaks or not discuss so much orders and it was much too much of that last night, and I apologise on my behalf. What I do not see is how the PL has the only word on splits though? I have two times proposed split comms that was shut down. If I would've said "I am PL, it's my decision" we all know that this discussion would be that I was screwing with other peoples enjoyment of the game. We agreed to decide on such things democratically and we said that we would not just force through such things - and this goes both ways.
"Just leave the platoon" is not very helpful when there are solutions and if we're still going to have split per squad as the extraordinaire lets play like nazis strategic thing as it was viewed before (feels like were back there again), I will be kinda sad.
06-04-2013, 11:33 AM #984
You don't have to leave the platoon. Just ask to be moved to C or D. Done.
06-04-2013, 11:50 AM #985
How was I supposed to know the situation was different there? Fine, I guess it's special giraffes then.
06-04-2013, 12:03 PM #986
Comms splits are an altogether thornier issue to have to deal with. Personally I find it intensely frustrating when PL'ing to be unable to get a word in edgeways whilst multiple people are chatting, and therefore prefer splitting comms when the all-in-one setup gets vocally busy. It's not the number of people in the channel which should lead to decision on split comms, but rather how vocal, and who is being vocal (ie regular talkers constantly talking can and does deter/ intimidate not so vocal members), that should inform the choice. I personally prefer a large number of people in a given channel, but recognise that this can seriously interfere with the platoon's ability to function at all. If the platoon is no longer efficient at delivering fun for the majority due to comms problems, something needs to be done, and we have an extremely limited toolset to work with. Split comms (1st into 2 channels, then into more if that still restricts efficiency) is the most powerful tool we have. It's all very well having principles of how you think this should be handled, but you shouldn't let said principles force up to 70 people to sit with their thumbs up their ass whilst you argue your point of view over and over again.
06-04-2013, 12:11 PM #987
06-04-2013, 12:22 PM #988
We followed orders and the issue of splitting came up like two times, not all the time. The real issue were too many too vocal people. This has a solution we have agreed upon. Cooper did not think it was needed though.
06-04-2013, 12:24 PM #989
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Stockholm, Sweden
Out of curiosity, is it possible to give priorities to channels on mumble? So that, for example, the PL can sit in the current subchannel and get priority when it is needer. I know that this is not ideal, in part because the PL would then overrule everyone even when it comes to normal chatter, but it might be good in some cases.
Another alternative (if it's even possible) is to have people in squad channels and let them set up a whisper-list to all squad channels, which would replace the current push-to-talk. You chat as per usual, with the whole platoon, unless there's something that's important for the squad. Then you adress the squad, and that channel would have priority so that the squadmembers can hear it. I know that it's kind of a hassle to set up whispers and stuff, especially for new members, but it doesn't take that long and it might be helpful.
Is it possible to do something like this in mumble? Or can you only give priority to speakers?
06-04-2013, 04:49 PM #990
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Sounds like this may have been more about a balance of who ended up in which half of the platoon thing than anything else. C + D comms seemed all good, if anything a bit quieter than usual though not in a bad way. It did feel like orders were coming through to our half a bit sporadically, but this makes sense now given what's been mentioned above. We did also have that disconnect from the PL which inevitably pushes the focus more on tactics than constant strat talk and decision making (or questioning)...
06-04-2013, 06:37 PM #991
I was missing for a good chunk of last night trying to kill myself/jogging, but I fear I might be among the backseat PL's referenced which irritates me since I hate it when it happens to me. I was also trying to "liaise" for some of that time, so I kept having to break in and make suggestions that weren't always my own, see the "panic over Alatum Bio Lab" incident. However - Cooper - sorry if I was annoying to you last night.
Beyond that - I did suggest (twice) that comms were split to squads - against my personal preference - since we are always being told the silent majority prefer it. Both times there was a mumble of support vs dissent and I just let it drop, as I say - big loud channels don't bother me personally. If that contributed to the overall feeling of confusion in A+B then again I'm sorry.
PLs just need to tell me to shut up, I promise not to take it too personally - but I can get carried away and I know I talk too much, which is not really a substitute for leadership. *Sad Grible*
06-04-2013, 06:49 PM #992
I will just be going special giraffes for every such instance in the future since it seems we are back were we started again. I have no real energy or interest to continue this and it seems we can't come to a working compromise.
06-04-2013, 07:27 PM #993
I was on for a lot of last night and in A/B barring one hour. What the hell did I miss? Ha, maybe I was playing a completely different game?!
Grible, your role was comms. I'm fairly confident that you're allowed to butt in with "Urgent, we're being requested to provide assistance at Y."
06-04-2013, 09:17 PM #994
Your tolerance level is most likely higher!
06-04-2013, 11:19 PM #995
I was mostly ok with the level of chatter in A+B when I was PL.
The talking over / 'discussion' may well have been because I was not at my peak as PL. I was a bit ill yesterday, and quite tired by the end of it. I should have taken my own advice and stepped down a lot earlier.
When channels do get unruly (and this is almost enitrely longer serving members who make it that way) part of the PL's job is to shout people down if necessary. I'm usually more forceful both in giving orders and in stating why I'm doing something, but I was too tired and I made some dodgy strategic decisions.
People who know leadership themselves are much less likely to sit back and accept poor strategic decisions. Suggesting that "the PL's word is final" is all well and good, but we have never run to a strict hierarchy. We started with an atmosphere where decisions were discussed before being made. We have fostered a playstyle where information is shared, discussed and then the PL suggests something. Personally I prefer that to the kind of stricter hierarchy of decision-making I think squad comms with radio officers produces.
That being said, there was a fair amount of plain disrespect last night. Relaying info and suggesting next moves is all well and good. I, personally, feel like I PL better when that is the case. But we all need to check we are doing so without being verbose or disrepsctful.
I'm also very happy with being a bit inefficient. I really, really don't think we need to be at our peak every night. That's a sure means of producing mass burnout. I felt a fair bit of frustration from others that things were not as 'tight' as we know they can be.
I would definitely propose dual squad channels again. The good experience in charlie and delta being mentioned here and the good comms that were fine later on in the night override the couple of hours it was just too much.
It's a range of factors. personalities for one. I was often balancing the squads by moving people at the bottom of the squad list across. Which meant people who had joined later, and were often not the 'usual names'. A+B last night were pretty much the "usual names" and we are a lot of gobby shites. PLs should keep half an eye on who is in squads and balance out older members with newer ones when necessary.
All in all, I think the poor experience was only part of Friday night and was us at our worst. I would much rather dual squad comms get tried again and more often before we write them off. Because otherwise we are back at square one. Which caused even more friction."KING GEORGE IS A FROG
le BANG~__-MICHEAL FUCK OFF~~__-INTERPOL KNOW YOU WELLBIENG~—
NOT RUSHMORE MOUNTAIN
KILL WESTON KILL MUST KILLTHEWESTERNINMYHEADDOESN’TEXSIST
TEXASISDEADINPARISHEWASAMAN..BINGBING.TETTOHEAD.SP ACEOK,TIMEDEADANDSTOPPED1920HOKKAIDO.UNDERSTOODAT1 ONE.
07-04-2013, 06:32 AM #996
That is a great post, Cooper. And although this is just a game, a hallmark of great leadership is the courage to also share some of the responsibility when the function of the unit isn't as it's supposed to be. I find only one fault: you are overdoing it. Kudos!
Now, I was one of those vocal (sic!) in the outfit text chat for strategic comms. Here are my reasons:
-We could not coordinate tactically or operationally in Alphabet (sic twice - hope you're not getting sick!). Slow response times, and most importantly, poor tactical coordination in the beginning, when we needed it most, against overwhelming TR forces. Little cover fire, not sticking together, no maneuvering.
-Past experience, during the weekend attack from both TR and NC to break our last continent lock on Indar. During that, we switched to strategic comms ad hoc. One of the reasons was because the information overload became too much. This is not just backseat leading, but also the constant relay of information that is not pertinent to the situation of the whole group. People on libs calling targets, people saying "sundy to the north" when the group is split in two or three regions, people saying "TR behind you", and then three others all over the map turn around, getting killed by a TR that was coming from their front.
-Second reason for that during the weekend siege of Indar was that people were not responding to orders very well, especially for redeploys. Split comms really tightened our response, and eventually led to RPS capturing Scarred Mesa Skydock (Party at the Skydock, one of the greatest moments in this game's short history), also setting an example of how you defend the lock. Strategic comms focuses us. Our tactical play becomes much tighter, and on the ground we become more efficient.
-Finally, I do believe that strategic comms should be our default option during major operations, be they scheduled or ad hoc. And that was an ad hoc major operation, forced upon us by overwhelming opposition (at that time we were almost warpgated, with only about 25% of the overall Indar population).
I don't know about the others, but to me switching to strategic comms at that moment was not about operating like that the whole time, or even the whole evening. It was about until we got the breakthrough. The situation calmed after we broke the encirclement of the WG.
My suggestion for the future:
-Split comms during casual play, as a fallback when the chat becomes a bit too much. And in a bizarre way, at least for me, this should not be about reducing chatter. It's about letting new voices getting heard, an opportunity for newer members to join in the banter more easily.
-Strategic comms during operations. These may be our regularly scheduled weekly outings, a community event, or an ad hoc response to a dramatic situation like the defense of the Indar lock always is.
-Rule of thumb: "How much do I care about the operational outcome of the evening? Enough, but I want to chat with my game-buddys and talk to new people: split comms. I enjoy chat, even when people take the piss on my accent, but we must not lose this under any circumstance: strategic comms"
Last edited by MrEclectic; 07-04-2013 at 06:58 AM.
07-04-2013, 06:48 AM #997
And during split comms, I suggest we refer to the first grouping as Alphabet and the second as Compact Disc (or Charles Dickens, or Dickens for brevity's shake)
PS: Sorry for the smiley
Last edited by MrEclectic; 07-04-2013 at 07:00 AM.
07-04-2013, 09:37 AM #998
Maybe we should also take into account that this was quiet a long night for many of us. I started playing at around 9pm and left at about... 3am I think. I think the problems mentioned here happened earlier then three but for many that's still quiet some time playing.
And that's just way to long. After a few hours concentration just goes down and people start to feel pissed and start pissing others off (ah, that brings back good old memories from my military service ). That's just normal. Maybe we should also take into concideration that, when playing for a few hours, it might also be a good idea to take some rest inbetween. Maybe do something else (in the game). Just to loosen up a bit.
07-04-2013, 12:41 PM #999
Not having the most efficient comms is fine, but I do think doublesquads needs an SL to lead in battle. That was the most frustrating thing Friday - we played as we did a month a go. Just set someone as SL and let them lead in battle and you can fully focus on strategy Cooper. I'm sorry for rather forcefully doing this, but I personally do not find any enjoyment any longer if we are just trickling in and have no plan. When we organised we instantly won, and that continued. I assume most agree after the discussion that such direction is quite appreciated - regardless of how srs bznz we are.
If this can't/shouldn't be done I will start special giraffes at those times instead.
08-04-2013, 09:37 AM #1000
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
Public Service Announcement: I was talking to someone on Mumble last night about PS2 crashing if Mumble is running before I launch the game. Having had a hunt through the Mumble support tickets it turns out that the Mumble team have fixed this issue, which is caused by enabling the overlay, in the new release candidate for version 1.2.4.
I haven't had a chance to try it out yet and I'm away for work this week, could someone check it out? It would be great if my new build PC could use Mumble properly...the jump from 10 FPS to about 80 FPS is great but not knowing who is talking is awful!