Shell type selection for arty spotters -1 reply

Please wait...

Thamu

Brazil,presents in WW2

50 XP

5th May 2008

0 Uploads

112 Posts

0 Threads

#21 12 years ago

But a simple question: This is possible for the devs?Because this is a really good idea!




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#22 12 years ago
ctz;4495188I'm loath to make this system any more complex than it needs to be.

That's commendable. It is arguable that such a system would allow freer and more effective communication between spotter and gunner. Personally I feel that there's nothing wrong with using the chat to say "Hey gunner, that last spot I gave needs smoke, 3 shells." I would argue against this feature, not because complexity is evil, but because the likelihood of people using it is very very low.

Suppose for a moment this feature were to be added and consider the following 3 populations of FH users:

1. The population that will never use the shell-select feature when spotting because they do not know it's there, are too lazy, etc. This will be the majority.

2. The population that is so active and capable in the game that continuous text chat is not a problem at all to ask for a certain shell type, control of fires, target description, etc.

3. The population that is unwilling or unable to effectively chat all the firing parameters back and forth with the gunner and yet is still advanced enough to know how and when to request shell types and as such does it through the GUI feature proposed.

I posit that population 3 is a very tiny middle population, advanced enough to care about shell types and go through the effort of specifying them, but too lazy or chat-adverse to not have a simple running chat dialogue with the gunner. I think it's a case of "training wheels for racing motorcycles."




Raizok

Boys, Boys, Boys

50 XP

27th May 2008

0 Uploads

509 Posts

0 Threads

#23 12 years ago

Well, in my opinion the third population is probably much greater than the second one, since, as I've said, I've yet to see someone call in a smoke barrage in-game, or even write detailed sit-reps over chat. Of course, you have probably played for much much longer than I had, and I may be wrong.

Text chat is a unwieldy and insecure (large probability of information loss) tool for communication in this context, especially since there is no way to tell which spot belongs to which player. This applies especially to squad leaders. Now, maybe I'm simply to slow :), but I would find extremely hard to order a smoke barrage effectively, given that I already have to: a) coordinate my squad, b) keep yours truly up-to-date on the general map situation in order to plan ahead, c) keep an eye for immediate threats to myself,

and then, I'll have to additionally draw my attention away from the game to the chat, to make certain that the gunner got the params right - never mind that smoke barrages are often requested in tight spots. That's just my two cents.

On a separate note, I can sympathize with ctz here - I know from my own experience that, after reaching a certain level, forcing a game via modding to do what you want can be a real b*tch, even in such a relatively low-maintance language as Python.




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#24 12 years ago

It seems our experiences and predictions differ. I don't really play that much.

My usual experience is that the only spotters worth a darn are dedicated spotters who are not SLs or even in a squad. SLs have a lot to do and are usually not best suited toward being part of the indirect fire team. Usually the SL is best for quick spots of opportunity or coordinating with the commander for theatre fire support.

A lot of people consider text chat unwieldy, but I don't. You are lucky to find a good spotter in most games, two is unheard of. Overstaturation of spots is a rare problem.

The reason I like the chat is it's a pre-existing tool that everyone knows how to use. A dedicated special spotter-gunner communication tool would be nifty but of course costs development time and requires the players to learn and use it.




Raizok

Boys, Boys, Boys

50 XP

27th May 2008

0 Uploads

509 Posts

0 Threads

#25 12 years ago

But you probably play for a lot longer :). Also, due to the lack of time, I don't play in tourneys (despite being occasionally invited), only in public.

Anyway, it boils down to the question whether arty should be more "elitist", or more "democratic". I would say that relying on dedicated spotters who are in a relatively safe place (which enables them to type in chat) is a less optimal solution than relying on squad leaders or spotters in infantry squads subordinate to squad leaders, simply because of the fact that the latter are usually closer to the front line, and can coordinate with the team more effectively.

Of course adding the proposed mechanics would increase the learning curve - on the other hand, calling in arty support is not something each and every player has to learn from the beginning, compared to, say, using field dressings or looking down the gun sights of tanks. It's more of an advanced concept.




Thamu

Brazil,presents in WW2

50 XP

5th May 2008

0 Uploads

112 Posts

0 Threads

#26 12 years ago

I think the ppl use the chat requestin a specificy shell,because we dont have this option...I really think the devs should "give a look" in this Thread,because this is a really good Idea.




It's Happy Fun Ball!

aka Killed in First Minute

50 XP

21st October 2005

0 Uploads

1,297 Posts

0 Threads

#27 12 years ago
ctz;4495188I'm loath to make this system any more complex than it needs to be.

Do you mean complex to code or complex to operate? My simple-to-operate suggestion would be, keep everything working as is. However, if you hold down the "S" key while calling for artillery, a big red S would appear in the bottom right of your binoculars, this S would also appear in the bottom right of the artillery view. A clear, simple, indication to both spotter and artilleryman that smoke is requested at these co-ordinates. However as has been pointed out, there are pleanty of ways to request smoke in the game already. Also an alert artilleryman will watch the mini map. If I see blue arrows near my target, I switch to smoke. So while I think a better means of requesting smoke would be nice, and could be done in a simple to understand manner, if this is too labour intensive for the devs I don't think they should bother.




Thamu

Brazil,presents in WW2

50 XP

5th May 2008

0 Uploads

112 Posts

0 Threads

#28 12 years ago

Yes,this is good too,maybe less work for the devs...




Nephros

Amateur cruffler

50 XP

26th January 2005

0 Uploads

103 Posts

0 Threads

#29 12 years ago

what arty really needs badly imo is a cross-hair instead of a line for the spotter, and not to switch the arty to the most recent spot automatically. I do like the idea of specifying smoke though. especially since the 2 canisters a sl carries are not enough to advance a squad under in the dessert most of the time.




Gezoes

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

4th July 2008

0 Uploads

13 Posts

0 Threads

#30 12 years ago

I am a good gunner, and I just look carefully when there's friendlies around. When they are, and I am not 100% certain of hitting just the enemy, I always switch to smoke. I figure if I'm on the ground, I'd be very happy with a smoking artyman.