Mumble Limits

Aegir

New Member
Nov 2, 2012
50
2
0
Seriously, you need to remove these limitations. A platoon is up to 48 players, so why limit each channel to 20 or whatever? All it meant then was that there was 3 of us in another channel with fuck all way of communicating with the rest of the outfit.
 
J

Jamriko

Guest
The plan is meant to be to have a max of 20 members in any given Platoon. However, I agree with you that the system gets in the way and is fairly pointless. It took me way too long to grab a higher-ups attention to authenticate a new recruit on mumble because I couldn't move into the channel and ask them directly.
 

Frankies

Well-Known Member
Veterans
Oct 29, 2010
372
140
58
34
The problem is you all moan that there are too many people in channel and its too loud... we limit it to a manageable size and you moan again?

What are we supposed to do???
 
A

Akyan

Guest
The limits make sense, but AFKers need to be actively policed otherwise the platoons get fragmented in different mumble channels due to people blocking the voice slots.
 

BigAl

Outfit Leader and founder
Staff member
Community Leader
Jan 2, 2006
310
87
56
50
right the channels are going to be limited to 36 to a channel

so that will be 3 squads per platoon

like before the air wing can be running but like always only called on if needed apart from that you can be in your libs mossies etc but be at location of the platoon and working together unless there is 3 full reapers then the air wing can be active and do there shit

this is final desicion
see how it pans out as 3 squads together is going to be more effective than 2 squads rolling out
then if 3 reapers of 36 attack a point together or a large base say bio or tech plant then we would pretty much unstopable

see how things work to have 3 squads in each reaper
there fore we are gonig to be needing more squad leaders and platoon leaders
 

vestice

New Member
Nov 22, 2012
2
0
0
I'm quite sure that TS3 you are able to have like a channel leader or something, where you can talk over a master channel.

That way you can make 1 guy the leader in the squad be connected on the leader channel. So whatever channel he is in he will always be able to hear the outfit leader. Same going for all squad leaders. In that way each squad will not be hassled with unnecessary things they don't need to hear.

I'm thinking mumble should be able to do this as well.

If not I know TS3 can.

Just a suggestion, but you guys know how to run it the best way.
 

Audiofly

Active Member
Aug 31, 2014
320
33
31
46
mumble does have that facilty and i believe it is in place, hence when your SL asks for clear comms and says nothing, it means he he listening to command channel, whilst still being the squad/platoons channel.
 

DonGrobione

New Member
Oct 30, 2012
17
0
1
The current system with the 20 member hardlimit has indeed room for improvment. Maybee if we remove the hardlimit it would work better?


[quote="FRANKIES" post=6630]The problem is you all moan that there are too many people in channel and its too loud... we limit it to a manageable size and you moan again?

What are we supposed to do???[/quote]

You can't make everyone happy :)
 

Mythx

New Member
Sep 26, 2012
241
13
0
--36 in 1 mumble channel will work ONLY IF people start to give the voice of the platoon leader and squad leaders more priority. Also if there are going to be lib pilots within the mumble channel chatting non-stop they absolutely have to setup a whisper between themselves and like Al says stay with the platoon (this should be strict).

--Alot of people are focusing on keeping coms clean which of course is a must, however we also need to let new recruits/members talk more, give them a chance to as least - what i mean is channels seem to be drouning due to a handful of voice's rather than "to many Voice's".

--If we are going to stick to 36 in 1 channel or platoon then i believe the squad leader of each squads need to step up and assist platoon leaders, If a platoon leader says Alpha squad to take [A] Bravo to take B squad leaders need to jump on this! "you heard, Alpha get to A!!)

--The idea of having 16-20 in a platoon meant that it was just a bigger squad with 1 "squad leader" - manageable
having 36 in a platoon will change this into having a more chain setup of platoon leaders and squad leaders.

--I think the way things have been working are working... it still needs training and decipline etc however it does work.
If i may and this is in no sense disrespecting anyone, but try and judge if you are drowning a channel.

I can promise if people respect each other more and those trying to get stuff done that things will fall into place.

I have yet to complain once about anything and i love BRTD with a burning passion and in for the long hall, this is my way of "complaining" that being the above suggestions and feedback. prefer typed words than screaming on VoIP.
 

Gawin

New Member
Oct 23, 2012
72
4
0
True there needs to be some kind of limit, cause being to many is not helping either.

We have to work on faster acting on when a group becomes to many and when we have enough to field 2 or even 3 20 man platoons. Cause there are times when 1 channel is full and 2 channels have 12 ppl in them. Which means that you need to make 2 platoons in seperate channels work, instead of just moving those into same channel and continue and when you gain more ppl, then you split them up again. But this is something we have to work on.

20-24 ppl per platoon is still a very good number. You are a force to take on many things, but still few enough to make traveling easier. Because being to many then you lose a lot of time just moving the platoon from base to base. Also you dont usually need 30+ ppl to take a small to medium base.
 
M

Madfish

Guest
Why don't we seriously give the in game chat a trial? Automatic platoon and squad channels would remove the issues - allow the squad to have friendly banter (which is important - comraderie is the main reason many of use join an outfit) and leaders can converse on the platoon channel - and give cross squad commands all members can hear.

And we can bark insults at greenies.

Unless we can emulate this in Mumble its not going to cut it.

Here's a pretty picture of what I mean, and what we need to achieve in mumble.

Squad Comms

The question is what permissions should be at Platoon level for squaddies? Listen? No access? Post ability, but explicit? Emulating real ops, wouldn't it only be squad leaders with access? But is that a limitation of the technology (i.e. direct radio - they don't have conference calling in the field!).
 
A

Akyan

Guest
[quote="Madfish" post=6667]Why don't we seriously give the in game chat a trial? Automatic platoon and squad channels would remove the issues - allow the squad to have friendly banter (which is important - comraderie is the main reason many of use join an outfit) and leaders can converse on the platoon channel - and give cross squad commands all members can hear.[/quote]

I think we should be giving the in game voice chat a go....it's considerably harder to replicate what you describe without it and having a some poor bugger fiddling with mumble channels/settings all the time seems like an exercise in making hard work.

The only downsides that I can see are:
[ul]
[li]You can't use it while not logged in - Mitigated by the fact that you can still use mumble.[/li]
[li]Cross platoon co-ordination - Mitigated by giving sqaud/platoon leaders the outfit voice right ingame[/li]
[/ul]
 

Juggernaut

Interwebs Mechanic
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Jul 20, 2006
3,277
948
143
43
Ireland, Galway
shanecunningham.me
I have yet see why we should use it. it is not working for a lot of people, ie in game voice . we have paid for mumble, and will not lose control to an outside source, the grass always look greener. there voice system is design for greenies not large outfits.

mumble has many more advantage than ingame chat. last word on this is that we will not be using in voice game chat. it does not work for large outfits. EVE online has the exact same system(same software company) in game voice was only used there as an emergency in (corps)clans and large alliances.

we will be making changes over the next few days to settle down our voice comms.
 

Juggernaut

Interwebs Mechanic
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Jul 20, 2006
3,277
948
143
43
Ireland, Galway
shanecunningham.me
also why the fuck should we have to bark voice command to greenies. wtf we have enough to deal with a lot with then having to manage greenie as well . seriously folks.
 

Aegir

New Member
Nov 2, 2012
50
2
0
First, thanks for sorting access. Second, my apologies for ranting on community area. I didn't have access until Juggernaut sorted it, so from my eyes it looked as if this had been removed.

Anyway, I really do like mumble over in-game chat, just if you're going to enforce channel limits then please enforce the same number limits in-game and actively remove afk players, otherwise it'll never work.
 

iniquix

New Member
Oct 28, 2012
29
0
1
I'd just like to make a few suggestions here as this has been a topic of discussion within mumble as of late.

First would be:

Making Reaper channels specific event channels only. This means that these channels have a limit to the amount of players (for example 24-36 per platoon depending on operation requirements) and then have "out of hours" channels with incorporate a larger player base.

Second:

Increase the size to 24-36 to allow more into channels.

Third:

Create AFK "officers" to check every 20-30(lower if wanted) minutes within the Reaper channel they are currently in. If they aren't in the platoon ingame then they are removed into the awaiting platoon channel or the AFK channel to return when they rejoin.

I'd also like to state the voice servers in game are 100% crap. In fact actually taking away VOIP in game gives you much better ping and stability...

While I'm sure these have been discussed it was just in-case they hadn't.
 
D

DLC602

Guest
[quote="iniquix" post=6703]

Create AFK "officers" to check every 20-30(lower if wanted) minutes within the Reaper channel they are currently in. If they aren't in the platoon ingame then they are removed into the awaiting platoon channel or the AFK channel to return when they rejoin.

[/quote]

Don't want to sound nasty but, whos going to pay that much attention to making sure someones not afk? I know someone won't just sit in channels to pick up on it and If you suggest the SL and PL'ers pick up on whos afk and move them then sure... I'll tag it onto the other things I'm doing like communicating between command and other PL'ers while giving orders and picking targets all the while trying to avoid getting slotted and earn myself some certs so I can get the SL'er certs to make it easier for you lot to get into the action. [/rant]

It should be be common sense that if you're going away for more than 5 mins you should leave the channel as I've no doubt you'll be leaving the squad too. It means you'll also be freeing up the slot then so we wont need afk officers. Its on par with being a SL or PL and then going afk leaving us all stuck for moving people about.

Trainers, do we have a comms training guide in the works? (I ask this wondering if I'd agreed to do it and not got about to it :/ )