Personally I think the Axis were trying to give us Oudenaarde; they’re not usually such a bunch of pushovers.

I jumped off my Bedford truck and it didn’t seem like a whole lot was going on.


This is definitely one of those times, tho, where screenshots just don’t do it justice. It takes you a moment or two to start absorbing all the sounds going on around you. Heck, maybe I even hit the ground in a lull, cause there was something going on here ;)


I followed the ant trail and thought that maybe I’d just found one of those “Allied camps” they’re always warn us about.


But it seems the Allied armor had been edging up as part of a well co-ordinated “unified attack” with combined French and British troops on the offensive. The problem was that the Germans, having no regard for the few remaining civies left in town, had blown the bridge.


What’s a freedom loving Ally to do but …


Start swimming. Around half way across, I think someone noticed us. Those darn long-handled potatoe mashers started whirling over the opposite riverbank. They could have been aiming for us or the guys working on repairing the bridge, but either way their aim was way off.


… until they started cheating and using their rifles. It’s a long swim, and like I say, the screenshots lack the terrifying whoosh of bullets, the crump and boom of explosions far and near, the hiss of the water as fighters try to strafe you, the clawing tear of the sound of a diving fighter or bomber…

oud7.jpg oud8.jpg oud9.jpg oud10.jpg

I was one of the few lucky ones to survive the river and find Oudenaarde little more than a ruin in which the Germans had hunkdered down and found themselves good defensive positions. Silhouetting yourself by coming over that riverbank was as good as strapping a bullseye to yourself and yelling “shoot me”.


However, those of us who braved a foray, however brief, onto the far side were able to take down members of the opposing high command and disrupt their positions in readiness for the real advance when the bridge was repaired. Most importantly, we drew fire away from the bridge builders. At last, the bridge up and the cry went out to cross. Armor streamed across, the sound deafening. A Messerschmitt 110 dove on the bridge and let go a bomb, everyone held their breath a moment. Fortunately he was a mere rookie and his bomb went sailing off towards Germany.

Still, some of the drivers got a little overexcited.


There was still some resistance on the far side, Allied troopers only slowly pushing out from the beach-head around the bridge. But the arrival of French troops from the other direction forced the Germans to fight on two fronts and made our job easy.

oud13.jpg or easier oud14.jpg

Somewhere in the battle, with the bridge restored, the Germans ordered their troops to fallback. Can’t help but wonder if its some cunning plan or if the renewed vigor of French and British co-operation is unnerving them.

Who knows? We captured Oudenaarde more easily than my cat catches fleas. And I’m headed off to hunt grey things at Firebases…


You know, a year or two ago, the battle at Oudenaarde wouldn’t have been easy. Both sides had relatively even numbers at this fight, the Germans were at a slight disadvantage in terms of supply, but they also had air superiority for most of the fight.

The difference seems to lie in the work of small squads using the tools that the modern game provides to best effect. Contact reports were being used well, and there was a minimum of “banter” overall. It’s not quite the same game in a casual sense it was back then, but its still a long way from the cold, hardcore atmosphere of some other war games.

There is still a bit of a trick to actually finding a fight in the first place, and its not unusual to run into some “getting started” issues – after despawning, the game tells you that you have an SMG but it spawns you a rifleman – sometimes; or you get spawned in and discover you’re on an FB mission with a rifle. Or you just plain fall foul of people doing strange things – MSPs to shuttle infantry between armybases with not so much as a word in the /orders.

Someone commented that they felt the game has eliminated “the squad”. I know that a couple of years ago CRS was trying to do that, but I fought pretty hard to represent the concept of the squad internally and, despite me, the key players came round to the idea of squad anyway – and hopefully for 1.26 a key part of the client work will be some squad-recruitment loving.

But I’m finding it relatively easy to find fun in the game these days, mostly just by following the little “squad member” icons – or by going to the squad tab, clicking a member and using the join buttons to go directly to where squadmates are playing.

I see light at the end of this tunnel. God help me if its the muzzle flash of an 88 ;)


Don’t relax. The game still lacks of the true tactical layer for fast comunication. We do it with TS now, but Team Speak has some faults, like the border imposed by different language speakers. Sometimes you are next to a guy in a battle that isn’t in the same TS channel than you and he speaks another language than you. In the infantry tactical layer, every second in urban combat is important… you can’t use the text chat or the map contacts to lead a good coordinated fight in urban close quarters. Of course with TS you can… but it has the limits exposed.

Is easy to become dead in any Urban combat, and you usually finds that you are fighting side to side with a player that isn’t in your squad.

I understand that the features that i’m discussing for the fast tactical comunication of players in the 100 meters radious of you, are a bit far away of the pure server coding tasks.

But you played so many MMOG that you can figure how important is the group cohesion to get a more funny experience.

I’ve played Brother in Arms online this weekend, and i still remember the cool tool implemented for fast tactical orders withing your squad in Operation Flashpoint.

In WWIIOnline we have now excellent strategical and operational tools. But infantry squad tactics are more about the next point to move and the fast comunication of the fire orders to the players just arround of you. You need to do it in times under 1 or 2 seconds, ina an intuitive way, and without need of any knowledge of the lenguage spoken by any player around you.

Comunications with the people in less than 100m should include the commands to point a place to move or fire, really fast. We have very narrow fields of view in our monitors, in a true tactical combat your head has almost 300 degrees of FOV just in 1 second. Your SA is much higger, and you can see where one of your side soldiers is pointing and calling for fast fire or move.

Add to those easy signals the original german, french and british orders, and you will find very inmersive the role of NCO player.

Ummm… i forgot to mention that with TS you can’t point to another players arround of you the exact & correct direction from where the danger comes in less than 0.5 seconds without misunderstandings and complex compass references (spelling the cardinal points).

In real life, you can check the face of the guy just at your side in less than 0.2 seconds, and see where his eyes or his face are looking while he shouts “enemy ahead!, open fire!”.

Even if Toto adds animations for hand signals to point an area with your hand, the very narrow Field of View of our Screens and our very limited degree of liberty to move our neck and our eyes in-game, makes important to find other ways to make possible to point things comming at close range to other players involved in fast action engagements. When you are at fire ranges of the enemy you jus haven’t the time to use the map to add a waypoint because you will be dead in the process.

Much better than my bad english speech, is a video displaying how you can give easy move and fire orders just with a right-mouse-click, interface. It can work with the people arround you, only at close ranges, just like the area chat. Enjoy the video:

yah need voice commands.

*great AAR*. Good problems pointed out. Solutions added in lately identified. You are watching the allies at work with an RDP advantage, and a re-motivated AHC. Very good for the players and the battlefront. Particularly, you were in a Unified attack. That cuts out a lot of side play. I hope that AHC / GHC gets an ICON for the players to spawn into the *1* attack, that is considered the primary fight. Not insta-spawn. Just a colored choice for the player. OR – allow a mission icon like the squad icon that shows where the AHC / GHC supported mission is.

I do wish for minor tactical commands – but they are gravy at this point compared to the other needs we have.

Well if YOU still find it difficult to find a battle sometimes, you know what it must be like for other people!

You really need to push the “guided action” interface that you have described before. None of you Rats (and none of us) can really imagine what this game looks like to a newb, nor understand all the barriers that stand between a dude and the fight that is right for him.

You dont have to answer this of course, but do the other rats actually think there IS a problem with how the game points people in the right direction?


Yes, they do; a lot of the UI work going on for 1.26 is focused on Squad Recruitment and trying to make it easier to (a) find a squad, (b) use your squad as a way to get to the action

TBH, the 1.26 version of this stuff is cheese; I don’t know if it’ll be 1.27 or 1.28, but we have a fresh, clean UI flow design that we’re all fairly enthusiastic about a key element of which is making what your squad is doing relatively prominent rather than something tucked away on a tab.

Of course, the downside is that it pushes actually giving more to squads a step or version or two further away.

your in-game map has a BUNCH of undocumented good stuff. Changing the tabs and looking at the contact points and new players spawning in and out of the mission is amazing. Its buried and not intuitive, but powerful – kind of like your keymapper.

This is grognard war, with grognard programming, and grognard like like of documentation/help.

DO get some test players each version and WATCH how they fight the interface. Then train them by walking them to the information, and see how they react to the game. You’ve got the tools and info – its just hell in a bottle to find it, and then understand, and deploy it into your game.

EVE and WoW have shown that you can make money by FAST and SIMPLE. Then let the veterans discover all these deep tools. But get that new player into the UI and fighting.

BTW – noob players should have more stamina and be a little more survivable for just that first rank. You want the first spawn in to let them live a bit longer. imho

Nice AAR w/pics :-)

CRS needs to give a newb some cash and watch him (CRS with note pads) try to play.

But seriously it is getting better.

Cid250 writes some good points. Never really thought of BinA troop orders in WWIIOL, don’t know why, really. BUT it would be could to have some sort of system for near troops.

Nice read, thanks

Never really thought of BinA troop orders in WWIIOL, don’t know why, really. BUT it would be could to have some sort of system for near troops.

Perhaps you didn’t think of it because the expectation that other players would follow the orders is very low?

I’ve thought of it but haven’t made a proposal internally. I know several of our staff have tried BinA, and other games that have a similar mechanic. There are several challenges. The command things would have to be Server Tracked Objects to see them in game, I believe. And then there’s the matter of who gets to give orders? Rank based? Mission leader only? Everyone?

Perhaps first an understanding would have to be created among the customer-base of substantial functional, C3I and tactical supply advantages for troop proximity to their mission leader and to other mission members?

It also might be useful to ditch the old-school rank system, and shift to a seniority/skills rating that places a tactical player at a particular rank and role in the mission he joins.

Harking back to Gophur’s three-tier infantry KOTH concept from several years ago, there would be a separate tier for ground mission leaders, and a third tier for operational leaders and the HC structure.

Bloo did a correct analisys of the main problem for implementation and use.

The problem is complex, and it needs a complex solution in order to make the game enought easy… the last thing that we should add to the game is: complexity. The solution should be intuitive and natural, and that makes it hard form the implementation point of view.

And then there’s the matter of who gets to give orders? Rank based? Mission leader only? Everyone?

It shouldn’t be done as a full implementation on one big and risky patch, we need to provide a minor feature to make a gameplay test before to progress with more advanced functions.

Steep I:

Implementation for Everyone…

The “warning enemy pointing tool” should be the first steep in a scalable implementation.

A warning must be a Server Tracked Object limited to a time to live of 30 seconds, and each player can place only one at a given time… in other words, if a player place a warning and he try to post a new warning, the previous one is deleted. The system must allow only one warning per player, and you can limit the time to place a new one to limit spam.

The functional description of a “warning” is a fast call for friendly infantry players that are at chat area range, to warn them about an enemy presence in close proximity. The warning must be placed in short ranges only 10m to 300m (max), and it should work with any weapon but the binocs. To place a warning, you can hold the space bar, or may be the middle mouse button… the warning will be placed releasing the hold, at the position aimed by your left hand finger in first person 3D model.

For increased SA, a warning will place an instant blinking yellow/orange arrow in the compass of any player close to the warning placement, this arrow points to the exact relative position of the warning to him (and if it’s possible it gives the number of meters), simultaneously an automatic voice advice will be launched in English, French, or German, as typical soldier speech: “enemy ahead” that can be heard also by the enemy.

As a last comment about functionality, if you place an “ignore” order in the text chat for this player, you also avoids any “warning” coming from this player.

Steep II:

Implementation for NCOs only…

This second Steep will never happen if the Steep number one isn’t confirmed as a valuable tool by the players, giving the enought time to evaluate the gameplay impact (negative or positive).

The main options for creating a pure NCO role in the game are two:

Option A) Make the Mission Leader the NCO.
Option B) Make the NCO a separate infantry Class limited by pool restrictions and player’s rank.

As Bloo points, the expectation that “all” the other players would follow the orders will be low… in the same way that is low the number of players that are interestend in the placement of contact reports, and it’s also low the number of players that really checks the map contact reports of other players.

But contact reports does exists, even if not everibody pays attention to them, fortunately for the players that are more interested in the cooperation as team.

Is very possible that the players that want to keep playing solo, will ignore any NCO, and they can cancel any NCO incoming order just with a text chat command: .NCO off

Or may be a player will desire to tune only one NCO that he wants to follow into action, to filter the orders coming from other NCOs, for example with the command: .NCO Jwilly, i will get only the imputs of Jwilly in combat.

If a player wants to hear any NCO imput arround him, may be he can use also a dot command to open the default promiscuity mode: .NCO on

Once the “soldier point of view” about the functionality of NCOs was exposed, i will go more in deep about the NCO side implementation.

NCOs should get atleast two new features in addition to the warning placement. Move and Fire orders are more than enought for the task. But only one of them: Warning, Move, and Fire; can be placed at a given time by the NCO. This means that the NCO only can place one Server Tracked Object at a given time with similar rules explained about the Warning STO placement earlier in this post.

NCO’s Move orders placements, are the waypoints that the infantry needs (short in range, and right to the next terrain spot or feature)… for the infantry is much more important which cover to get, and how long to make a bound jump, than it is for tanks (in a battle escenary). An 1Km far away Waypoint doesn’t give much info to an infantry player, specially if he is a n00b, to move and progress in the field. In Urban combat, it’s even more important to don’t lose contact as a result of the very limited SA that you have in a narrow computer screen. A Move orders placement, can even be seen as a tool to establish the next Meeting Point for the players interested in act as a coordinated team. (Remember that once you place a new one, the previous one is deleted). A good range placement limit for Move orders is 1m to 100m… since you doesn’t need to place move orders when you’re in an aproach march to the battle without enemy contacts, the situation is enought clear for the players to doesn’t get confused when they are still far from the enemy.

When a Move order reach a player, he gets feedback about the position marked in his compass (displaying range if it’s possible). A voice order in german, french, or english, will make that you doesn’t miss the chance to check your compass every time that your NCO updates the orders.

To place an NCO’s order, you should make it more intuitive than the Ctrl+1 … Ctrl+4 emotes of Toto… just the mouse must be enought. The most intuitive way is to cycle the kind of order with the “Tab” key (cycling: warning, move, fire) and using the hold space bar or middle mouse button to place the order on release. Other posibilities can be evaluated, but it should be the more intuitive, easy, and fast, that we can find.

NCO’s fire placements can be allowed at bigger ranges from 10m to 600m or even more, since the infantry range of fire can reach that far. If the range is hight, and the fire action isn’t that urgent (like in long range open field infantry engagements) the NCO can give an approach on range setting moving the mouse wheel (or PgUp/PgDown) on increases of 100m to place the fire order with a specific range setting info (valuable for the players that are next to him)… this will be specially important if the NCO is modeled with a new kind of binocs provided with a historical mills rangefinding reticle (like the one modelled in some light AA/AT guns in the game) … in such case, if the NCO gets the Binocs with mills reticle, he should be forced then to a loadout of short ranged weapons such as the SMG to doesn’t take advantage of the special binocs for himself but for the group of players that follow him.

More details can be discussed, but i doesn’t speak enought english to develop more the concept.

I just forgot to mention that the Warnings must have also a dot comand to disable all of them if You doesn’t want any imput, something like: .Warning off

Thinking in the implementation of the NCO aproach… i just saw another posibility. If one player isn’t an NCO at spawning, may be he can be promoted to NCO if some player tune him as NCO with a dot command like this: .NCO bloo

If this happens, Bloo becomes NCO for the player that tuned him even if he wasn’t NCO before. This is a pure alternative way that doesn’t change my earlier post, but adds a voluntary method to join with a senior player as your NCO in a pure voluntary way… this can be a good option to consider if the original NCO deads as result of a firefight and the players want to promote one of the friendly soldiers to the role of NCO for that sortie.

I’ve also thought about the “what if…” the mission leader just spawns a tank. Those features are only usefull for infantry, so a player spawning a tank shouln’t be the NCO of an infantry team because his SA is very different than the one of a grunt. That’s why i think that will be good to give the NCO role also to players that aren’t mission leaders, but that are interested in leading actively a small group of players… mainly because the posible death of the initial NCO, shouldn’t limit to the group of players in that sortie, like in real life another player with enought will can take the NCO role, and it’s important that the game allows to the players to use this option on the field as a fast replacement of a dead NCO.

The player that gets the .NCO command, can accept or decline, to be promoted as NCO if he isn’t interested in leading the group.

Does anyone else think even just a few audible voice emotes would help player coordination within 200m immensely?

I don’t mean radio-style ones like in BF2, which are annoying as hell because everyone hears them, but in-gameworld sounds, just like gun, foot, and engine sounds, which are affected by proximity and direction. I have tried to bring this up before but nobody seems to understand how useful it would be in this game, I suspect because they equate it to BF2 and the like and that brings negative connotations.

It wouldn’t have to be very complicated, just a few like “contact”, “cover me”, “need ammo” etc. would be immensely useful. They could just be options in the keybinding menu, and players could choose to bind them or not, so no need for a complicated implimentation. These could boviously also translate, so that you’d hear a different version based on what language version you play.

That whole pointer system you’re advocating would largely be accomplished this way, as you could tell what direction the voice is coming from, turn around (or turn your head) and SEE what direction they’re looking, like IRL.

Ideally, there’d be a whisper, talk, and yell version of each, with a finite limit on range and a limit on how many times an emote can be used in the same area per X amount of time.


Perhaps you didn’t think of it because the expectation that other players would follow the orders is very low?

Why not make it a squad feature then? If you don’t follow orders in our squad, you’re OUT! :)
It would help our cohesion and cooperation as infantry a lot. As has already been touched upon, you can’t get all the information out there through TS, or at least not exact as you want. It gets kinda crowded at times on TS as well and it would be great if some of the orders could be none-verbal.


Why is there no preview?.. *sob*


we have some emotes for ammo, etc. bound in the infantry portion of the keymapper under alt-F1, alt-F2 already.

Check ’em out. Especially “need ammo” tends to get you a response if you give your exact location at the same time.

I have to say that I really love the way text/audio commands are handled in Red Orchestra. Numpad FTW.

Text/Audio commands are good. But as Joker007 said, there are some good text commands already in the game. They aren’t of much use in a fast urban combat (for example) due to the fast changing environment (because there isn’t an easy interface of access to those good emotes).

I own Red Orchestra, and NumPad is better than CTRL+1, CTRL+2, etc… but even NumPad functions are way more difficult to use since your infantry move are in the W, A, D, S keys, with your left hand, and you hold your mouse with you right hand.

Brother in Arms has a good mouse-only interface because you can do 3 different commands: Move, Fire, Assault with only the mouse… and you still can bring your aiming and fire at the same time with the Mouse. The thing is intuitive enought for the people with bad memory.

May be you can move all the Toto emote commands to the NumPad and add voice to them… but you still lack the main feature that gives to you the use of the Mouse… The “Vector thing” that gives to your voice commands not only immersion, but also a deep sense of direction, which is a great feature for a 3D environment… specially because it complements the lack of field of view of a monitor with respect to the human eye: a factor that is essential for the infantry but not for the tanks when his crew is behind a slot of an optic system by nature.

The best commitment, is to move the great work of Toto to the NumPad adding voice and some more emotes, for all of those commands that “giving a 3D vector info” isn’t that essential in the heat of a fast combat environment (need ammo, take cover, etc…). This game shouldn’t be shy to explore the Mouse interface posibilities and exploiting it in the 3D world. Sentences like: Enemy there, Move to that point of cover, and Fire to those targets… are sentences that express a “3D vector” informative content, that in real life you can express more easily with your arm pointing to the area to make the guys arround of you clearly see where you said without much verbose. We can’t expand the Field of View of a computer screen over 180 degrees, and our infantry animations and lack of stereoscopic image can’t give us a easy idea of the deep of field or relative positioning, in fact an computer infantry animation or a voice can’t never match capacity of communication of the human body without some aids. You can’t replace the human neck & torso response at looking really fast everywhere you need in less than a tenth of second.

Without all of this, you miss the “vector” content of some important comunications between persons.

See what happens when someone gives tank keys to a Dog?

Rather than moving the keys to the numpad, why not make it so that ctrl brings up a “radial” menu that maps Q/W/E, A/S/D and Z/X/C to a virtual numpad that could gradually be extended to various “voice” and other commands. E.g. it could be used for easy waypoint entry, weapon selection, etc.

Why not make it so you can decide in the keymapper. :) It would also be cool to let people customize it, so do it all in XML and give the predefined voice/chat ones an ID property. That way they can bury commands in a way they like and create custom chat macro commands.

I think the reason keys are often favored is how well Tribes implemented them. Three key presses and you could issue any voice binding. Plus, it was very action intense and you were using your mouse to look around, etc. However, no reason not to do both, though the key pressing is really, really simple and fast (lot faster than a mouse), especially since a handful of voice bindings are going to be use 90% of the time.


V opened voice list showing categories

The categories were:
v Offense
t Target
d Defense
f Flag
r Need
e Team
g Global
a Animations
z Command Response

Each category has several options, all triggered with one final keypress, e.g., the attack category:

* a Attack!
* w Wait for signal
* c Cease fire
* m Move out
* r Retreat
* h Hit deck
* e Regroup
* v Cover me
* g Going offense
* z APC ready

v-v-a Attack!
v-v-r Retreat!
v-d-i Incoming Enemy!
v-r-t Need Ammo!
v-e-y Yes
v-a-o Over Hear (Animation)
v-a-f Salute (Animation)
v-a-g Come Get Some! (I think this was voice and animation)

Tribes Vengeance expanded the list:

“Someone get a spatula!”

Kfsone, any idea to speed up the interface of communications without need of typing in a chat with a national language barrier, and any idea that adds easy, intuitive, and speedy tools… will improve the game a lot specially for the new green players.

The problem isn’t only the national language spoken… it’s also the great amount of “slang” that this game has, wwiiol specific abbreviations, specific military terms that not everyone it’s familiar with it… TeamSpeak over-dependency to enjoy the game to his full potential.

Any new player will see a much more user friendly interface if he can get inputs in his compass about what to do, coming from an NCO. But to be of any use… the game must complete a design that adds very easy to use, and really useful, set of reduced commands (close enemy warnings, move, and fire, it’s more than enough). You must surpass the effectiveness of voice TS, to make the kind of tool that most players become interested in use.

Kfsone your virtual NumPad idea is excellent and surpass what Red Orchestra has… because you can place there a lot of useful tools. But you shouldn’t put there the 3 main ones that you will need in a very speedy combat environment… because you must keep the W,A,S,D infantry keys working as input for your infantry mobility while you do the command execution with pure Mouse input. The players will not use an interface that needs to lose time switching with the control key between the command that they need urgently and the basic keys to keep the basic infantry movements (in a live or dead scenario). WWIIOL can make a world leading in-game communications design surpassing by several years the implementations that you can find in a several separate games.

Please don’t discard the mouse as complementary tool for improvements in our players communications, we can remap a lot of functions of our current mouse to get a lot of easy accessible functions, for the most urgent task in the heat of a combat. If you just never played Brother in Arms, i can give you a graphic schema of the communication functions mapped into the mouse without losing the easy handle of your weapon, aiming, and fire functions.

With some tunning & adaptations wwiiol can improve the use of the mouse functions in benefit of the player’s fast communications reducing our TS dependency by several orders of magnitude:


Less “slang” like EI behind AB, Enemy UMS at NW of FB, AT just in the Depot. Will benefit to any new player, because he can get a much better input of the players involved around him in close combat with a proper design of the tools.

Sorry Bloo, your post was displayed latter in my computer, and in the las two i didn’t saw your post.

I can agree with you Bloo that the key press system that you described can be much faster than a mouse… but in reality only few persons can get a huge amount of combinations in his mind, and several key press makes it more hard for some players. It adds complexity, that isn’t needed for everybody.

I like the system, Bloo. And is much better may be than the one that we have just now. But you must think also that to be a good system of communication, it must surpass the TeamSpeak features. With the Voice command keys you surpassed TS in the national language barrier, and also in the immersion that the player gets inside of WWII ambient. But, even with those advantages you still will see a lot of people reluctant to use it, just because they are old TS players with old habits.

In our game, like in real life, we can need to express a lot of different messages, but there are a minimal set of the most repeated and most used, while in the other hand… the other communications will happen with less frequency. For example, “give me ammo”, happens less than “enemy ahead”.

What i try to explain, is that the set with more numerous variations should keep in the Keyboard terrain, but the set with the need of some additional “3D vector/direction information” should be moved to the Mouse domain.

Better With examples over your own proposals of commands:

Commands that fit well with Keyboard input
Those commands doesn’t need to add additional information about directional position in the 3D world, they just work excellent as key bind voice commands:

* Wait for signal
* Cease fire
* Retreat!
* Hit deck
* Regroup
* Cover me
* Going offense
* APC ready
* Need Ammo!

Commands that fit well with Mouse input
You can feel that those commands in particular will be much improved if you add to them some degree of directional info, to expand the communication between players with some “pointer thing” or “vector” in the 3D world that the players will find of a great importance to understand the message between players with much higher precision about relative positioning in the 3D world.

* Incoming Enemy! -> From where?.
* Attack! -> Where exactly?.
* Move! -> To what point or area?.

The set of directional commands must be narrow enough to be available with mouse only operation (BiA makes possible at least 3 commands via mouse implementation only). And it must be reduced also to the minimal set of commands that are of most valuable use in the field, with a considerable amount of use.

The problem with me it’s that i doesn’t know if the concept is explained enough clear in English, because it isn’t my main language. Sorry :(

But you must think also that to be a good system of communication, it must surpass the TeamSpeak features.

I don’t think that at all. Not everyone uses TS. I am confident that most players do not. We don’t make changes to the game with TS in mind. Players are “reluctant” to use the map system to mark enemy locations too, that doesn’t mean we should pull it out.

The idea of voice bindings to keys and visible markers are separate ideas. We can have both.

BiA’s set of commands was limited to what was convenient for the Xbox controller. We don’t have that limitation.

I understand you well. The point you bring up are already well understood. :)

So you do see the merits of voice emotes bloo?

Do you mean the kind I was talking about, where they are in-game sounds like rifle shots, footsteps etc, in that they are affected by distance and direction?

Is this a difficult thing to add?

I am a sound engineer, and have access to at least one decent voice-over guy if you just need audio clips I’d gladly do it for nothing.

I see the need for these as very high, because TS or not it is next to impossible to even get the atention of the guy next to you on the berm, let alone convey andything useful to them.

Of course, I see the merits of voice “emotes”. I thought that was clear in my earlier posts.

Whether they get played in-game with attenuation and all that, to be honest, I don’t care. If they can be, great. But I only want you to hear these from guys on your side (to avoid griefing hazard – you wouldn’t want a ‘friendly’ behind you going “here I am, here I am, here I am” alerting the enemy to your precise location). And I would only let you hear them within a certain radius (perhaps greater for mission leaders).

I doubt we’d be paying for any voice over talent. Messy unions and rights, blech.

Well, the thing is, if they are not played in-game with attenuation etc. then they will be only marginally more effective and useful than regular typed chat. The big problem with communicating effectively, especially for infantry, is being able to easily decifer who is speaking and from where so you can tell if its relevant to you. With current typed chat and even TS the only way to where the info is coming from is to already be aware of where the person speaking is.

The griefing thing is….well….it seems like a small price to pay. Not to mention the fact that you can already DO that by shooting your gun to say “here i am, here i am!” I think it woul dbe necessary to make sure that only X amount of these per X amount of time could be played within earshot as well.

The other factor is the immersion factor. How much cooler would a loud raging battle be with a bit of soldiers yelling out contacts, etc???

Thanks Bloo.

A last question, how can be implemented the possibility to add some positional information to those voice commands if they are keyboard only?. When you report enemy ahead, it’s very important to be able to point your hand in the enemy direction to give that info to the people around of you. But in a computer screen we miss a lot of peripheral view and also the stereoscopic sense of deep in 3D.

To say “Move” without the possibility to give some detail of the direction of that intended move puts some limits in the gameplay usefulness. “Move There” is always much better than just “Move”.

I’m glad to hear this. Nice discussion Bloo :)

Bloo quote was lost…

Bloo: “We don’t make changes to the game with TS in mind. Players are “reluctant” to use the map system to mark enemy locations too, that doesn’t mean we should pull it out.”

I repeat… I’m glad to hear this.

quote=The other factor is the immersion factor. How much cooler would a loud raging battle be with a bit of soldiers yelling out contacts, etc??? / DRKPATCH quote

I agree. Let the enemy yell, as they did on the battlefield, and thereby give away position. Let the players turn this on or off as they desire, and griefing is limited.

What an exciting idea. I wonder how hard this would be to code?


Well, the thing is, if they are not played in-game with attenuation etc. then they will be only marginally more effective and useful than regular typed chat.

“Baby steps to three o’clock.”

Not to mention the fact that you can already DO that by shooting your gun to say “here i am, here i am!”

Fair enough.

The other factor is the immersion factor. How much cooler would a loud raging battle be with a bit of soldiers yelling out contacts, etc???


A last question, how can be implemented the possibility to add some positional information to those voice commands if they are keyboard only?

There are plenty of possibilities.


I agree. Let the enemy yell, as they did on the battlefield, and thereby give away position. Let the players turn this on or off as they desire, and griefing is limited.

What an exciting idea. I wonder how hard this would be to code?

Ask instead, “Once coded how easy would this be to break?”

I’m flashing back to the days when you could track down EI machine gunners because of the firing bug. Just think, tracking down the EI while he is shouting Achtung over and over as he runs through the countryside.

LOL (really) @ Breed.

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: