Useful radio communication, more human. Examples:

[suma 8]

That's all good advice, but it should not make up for the poor situational awareness on the higher difficulty levels. That is something that needs to be fixed by the developers... especially since it was not broken neither OFP nor ARMA ;)

Could you please post some concrete example of how which radio message from OFP and Arma you fould good and usefull, and its Arma II counterpart you do no like?

We have tried to make the radio communication more human, and for this it was necessary to make it somewhat less precise (e.g. to contain less numbers), but our goal was to maintain approximately the same level of information wherever possible.

[mr_centipede 31]

Could you please post some concrete example of how which radio message from OFP and Arma you fould good and usefull, and its Arma II counterpart you do no like?

We have tried to make the radio communication more human, and for this it was necessary to make it somewhat less precise (e.g. to contain less numbers), but our goal was to maintain approximately the same level of information wherever possible.

well, if i may chime in. in OFP when calling out targets they sound like:

12 o'clock. enemy. man. 500. <-- i like it this way

when order to target the enemy:

2. target. soldier.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Mr_Centipede

[bravo 6 0]

12 o'clock. enemy. man. 500. <-- i like it this way

I agree. I prefer the old words. But i also like some new added words, Oscar Mike.

[{SAS}Silentkiller 0]

I would actually prefer references to points on the compass myself, ie N, nnw, nw etc. it's much easier to relate to (at least for me) perhaps it could be switchable?

[maddogx 13]

I would actually prefer references to points on the compass myself, ie N, nnw, nw etc. it's much easier to relate to (at least for me) perhaps it could be switchable?

Great idea! What always bugs me about the AI saying "just ahead of us" or "to our right" is that it's a bit too vague. How do I know that my right is the same as the AI's right? Maybe I'm currently facing in the other direction and his right is in fact my left?

Compass coordinates would be much better.

Something like:

"Enemy machine gunner just north-west of us!"

"Unknown man far south of us!"

[bravo 6 0]

like this:

Enemy man, North, 500m.

Enemy men, South East, 500m.

etc..

Yes, you are right. I remember in OFP sometimes it could get confused when hours were used to direct the target. If N, S, E, W, SW, SE, NW, NE is used instead, can become easier to the player to have the correct direction using the compass or the sun if no compass.

I strongly recommend BIS to use such directions (N,S,E,S, SW,SE , NE,NW and distance) when a target is detected. It can be much more educative is indeed more challenging for game play.

Edited June 2, 2009 by bravo 6
typo, refrased idea.

[mr_centipede 31]

I also prefer if the word 'meters' are taken out.

incase needed for video reference:

Edited June 2, 2009 by Mr_Centipede

[cross 1]

It really does not matter... saying or left or 270...you still need the reference.

Like if the squad leader 150 mtrs ahead says enemy 270 its to your 300. You still need to be make the conversion for your position.

This was tried to be overcome by popping up clock directions on the screen. Without the popping up clock, you are just as blind ArmA or if playing ArmA you were just as blind as Arma2.

[bravo 6 0]

Why taken out meters word? (its ok for me with or without meters)

Its not relevant is it has or not meters, the important thing for game play is to have:

Compass coordinates + Distance of target.

edit:crawler75, yes a more reliable reference would be the compass coordinates. The popping clock some times are useless.. if you are in a intense firefight you don't even have time to look the popping clock, and when you do you can lose its orientation very fast. With compass coordinates its better.

Edited June 2, 2009 by bravo 6

[sabre4809 0]

I'm sorry but compass points are just no good. In quick situations, 'to the right' etc is fine and very 'human' in the inaccuracy. Maybe for distances over 500 meters it would be nice, and in some vehicles, bearing is best.

[mr_centipede 31]

i like to left out the meter word because it would make the sound unnecessarily longer. it also seems for me more realistic because that's how i was trained. but you guys right.. the most important thing is the clock or compass direction... i thin compass direction is better

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Why not "Enemy man, 35 by 20" meaning 350° by 200 meters, similar to that of a regular waypoint reporting, referenced always from the leader? You don't have to guess the direction of the formation (which changes brutally), and you'll have to estimate leaders position on the map and calculate the new point from there. A waypoint will show up in the compass (I think it behaves like this in Arma2 as well but I haven't tried yet for obvious reasons), maybe an assigned target should show up there as well but in a different color?

Some people like to play with in hardcore mode, and then complain when they don't get enough information. Using the compass is at least an active chocie the player makes, it's intrusive, and you can't have it up while in ironsight/scope view.

Why taken out meters word? (its ok for me with or without meters)

Just to make the phrase shorter I guess. Works for me.

I'm sorry but compass points are just no good. In quick situations, 'to the right' etc is fine and very 'human' in the inaccuracy.

Good point. Maybe compass mode when the team is split up, and 'to the right' when the team is close together? Hard to define the limit though.

Edit: No, compass mode is best. It doesn't affect single player that much, as the team is usually broken. Even if you are in close formation you should have a mental image of where 35 is. Also, the whole autoreporting thing should be forced off for all multiplayer modes (especially for player). Both since we tend to use VoIP/TS to report contacts, but also to quickly silence the extreme reporting bugs that has been recorded. Proper fixes could come later on.

The old system never worked for me. First you get the minicompass popping up, then you get an o'clock message, then the compass would switch to new direction which never seemed to fit the actual formationDir, adn the information became grossly inaccurate.

That being said, I think this is due to a bug in Arma1. Often the formationDir would be waaaay off when I was leading, where i.e. a line formation would have half the team in front of me, scanning hard left :S I wish there was a quick key as leader to align formationDir with the current direction I was looking (or pointing, doesn't really matter).

Edited June 2, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[{SAS}Silentkiller 0]

You will always get an error with any kind of directional pin pointing:

Unless the AI give bearings with you as the center, or it just appears as an enemy on the map.

Edited June 2, 2009 by {SAS}Silentkiller

[EricM 0]

Enemy man, 35 by 20" meaning 350° by 200 meters

Please no... while totally precise, It's way too technical and counterintuitive...

I would say the ideal solution would be to split the system according to the distance or context :

- When "directly ordered" to do something or for short distances make the referential "player-centric" : "Target that man to your left, 50m (or 9'O clock, but YOUR 9 O'clock), so that there's no translation needed and no compass or clock showing. The order is instantly usable.

- When "reporting facts" or for far objects, make the referential "world-centric" : "BMP Spotted North, 2000m"

[bravo 6 0]

Could you please post some concrete example of how which radio message from OFP and Arma you found good and useful, and its Arma II counterpart you do no like?

We have tried to make the radio communication more human, and for this it was necessary to make it somewhat less precise (e.g. to contain less numbers), but our goal was to maintain approximately the same level of information wherever possible.

source

Sounds like the radio communications needs to be more human for ArmA2 and in a same way it must be also effective.

Post in this thread what was asked.

Far distances: (>200 (?!))

Compass coordinates + Distance

There is good point to use Compass Coordinates over certain distances, and in some vehicles, bearing is best.

• Enemy man, North, 500m.

• Enemy men (machinegunner/At soldier/etc), South East, 500m.

Close distances: (<200 (?!))

I agree that Compass Coordinates are just no good in quick situations.

Right, Left, Front, Back, Up, Down.. should be used in these particular cases.

• Man, 50m left!

• Machinegunner, 10m right!

Please help out and input examples.

Ps- I liked how you input the text in OFP.

edit: @mods: feel free to change the title of the thread.

Edited June 2, 2009 by bravo 6

[cross 1]

This is about accuracy..

- "NSEW or left-right-ahead-behind close"(this is according to your approximate location & general orientation you as a squad have and this is generally facing the next waypoint)

-"enemy NW-NE-SW, close" it gets more accurate but still have vagueness. But you have the general idea where the contact might be

-"enemy-235-800mtrs" is only good if you have the time to stop, bring out your compass, bring out your map, mark the calling person correctly on your map, find the coordinates for the target, convert for your location.

They all take the general orientation into account, for example say;

- You are moving north as a squad

- You are on the right covering east.

- You see a contact

What do you call out?

Contact right, friendly (enemy) infantry, close, 100 mtrs. NOT Contact ahead (or 360)

So Calling contact is vs your squad orientation.

Also you tend to skip distance measurements that will require a bit of time...you say "next to us" instead or 13mtrs or "far" instead of 348 mtrs (simply if important you still have time to assess & act if necessary).

Reporting enemy position is something different tho..you need to provide a reference point and provide coordinates and distances vs that ref point for anyone to be able to mark on map. Or the exact map coordinates should suffice.

btw..what was the topic again :butbut: :o

Edited June 2, 2009 by Cross

[MBot 0]

Could you please post some concrete example of how which radio message from OFP and Arma you fould good and usefull, and its Arma II counterpart you do no like?

We have tried to make the radio communication more human, and for this it was necessary to make it somewhat less precise (e.g. to contain less numbers), but our goal was to maintain approximately the same level of information wherever possible.

What I liked better in OFP and ArmA was:

1. Reports with precise clock position and distance.

2. That little clock at the bottom that would indicate the orientation reference of the reporting unit.

I agree that the old system was a bit sterile and somehow "unhuman" and the effort to improve that is appreciated. But unless the the system is able to give "intelligent" reports like "man about 20m left of that single tree ahead" or "man between those two bushes on our right", the old numbers-approach is better in my oppinion. Especially in a computer game, where you have a very limited perception of your environment, it is important to have those precise calls. Another problem is that we do not have the option to ask quick questions to the AI like "where do you mean, left of that house?" and similar that we so often use in Teamspeak when playing with other humans.

I think playtesting Arma 2 shows that the "humanised" calls are bad for gameplay, though they do sound better.

[EricM 0]

Agreed, here's my thought about it :

For short distances, Right, Left, Front, Back... is better but the reference point should be the PLAYER.

So that "Man 50m left" is YOUR LEFT. Though it may be "cheating" a little, it would make everything so much easier and quicker (no popping compas or clock needed, which is cheating too) to translate the coordinates.

This small "cheating" would only compensate the loss of environmental awareness of being a computer game and not a real life situation where the guys can "point out" target with gestures, where you have more "sound spatialisation" (where do the sound come from) or say things that are more context sensitive like "next to that little rock that looks like a roast turkey"...

It would also compensate for the fact that you can't ask "Where again ? This way ?"

Edited June 2, 2009 by EricM

[{SAS}Silentkiller 0]

How about having the bearing & distance in the message, that way you can asses the dangerfrom the distance then you know rough direction, then perhaps it would come up on the main map as a red circle (no directional indicators though)

[dreday 1]

What I liked better in OFP and ArmA was:

1. Reports with precise clock position and distance.

2. That little clock at the bottom that would indicate the orientation reference of the reporting unit.

I agree that the old system was a bit sterile and somehow "unhuman" and the effort to improve that is appreciated. But unless the the system is able to give "intelligent" reports like "man about 20m left of that single tree ahead" or "man between those two bushes on our right", the old numbers-approach is better in my oppinion. Especially in a computer game, where you have a very limited perception of your environment, it is important to have those precise calls. Another problem is that we do not have the option to ask quick questions to the AI like "where do you mean, left of that house?" and similar that we so often use in Teamspeak when playing with other humans.

I think playtesting Arma 2 shows that the "humanised" calls are bad for gameplay, though they do sound better.

Yep, you stole the words right out of my mouth. The only thing that I would like to add, is that perhaps some element of error could be added to the AI reporting (on higher difficulty settings of course). This could be based on the skill level so that a rookie soldier would be over/under by a few hundred meters and something like 30 degrees, while an experienced spotter would still be very precise. This would introduce a certain element of realism and randomness while still keeping things playable.

BTW, big props to BIS for asking for our opinion on this!

Peace,

DreDay

[whisper 0]

Huhu; seeing the lot of different opinions here, I begin to see BI's difficulty to get a proper system. It seems some of us, whatever solution found, will be unhappy unfortunately.

[dreday 1]

Huhu; seeing the lot of different opinions here, I begin to see BI's difficulty to get a proper system. It seems some of us, whatever solution found, will be unhappy unfortunately.

I am not sure that I agree. How many people were really unhappy with the system from OFP and ARMA?

Peace,

DreDay

[Shadow NX 1]

As unrealistic as the OFP and ArmA aproach were you knew pretty quick where to look for what.

And in ArmA2 the nature is so dence that sucha system would save you quite often.

Id say bring back the old system and maybe make the current one optional.

OFP was so successfull because many things werent extremely realistic but felt right when playing...

[Placebo 29]

I'll move this back to general as it's a bit more pertinent than simply a suggestion thread :)

[4 IN 1 0]

well, i agree by using player as reference point in close contact the "man, 50 meters to your left" is useful, but if in long distance clock reference should be better as the area you need to search is much larger, so make use of it in the distance--say, 300+ meters above should not destory the realism factor too much but still gives player enought situational awareness all they need to do is to choose a reference point for the clock indication, let it be the player, leader, or base on compass bearing