Proposed Community Meeting talking points

[Wombat]

Community Meeting date has been set 15:00GMT Sunday 11th March.

The purpose of this thread is to enable members and guests of the community to propose points of discussion to be raised during the meeting. If you have a question you wish to raise or a subject you wish to discuss during the meeting, you can propose it here.

[Eagle-Eye]

1) Air asset reorganisation.
Proposal: Group the air assets instead of each being a separate "squad" (Vector 1 - Vector 2 - ...). On older missions using the V1 - V2 - ... setup, assume they are in fact one group, with V1 being the leader.

Reasoning:
A) Realism:
Similar to an infantry buddy team, you would almost always have at least a formation of two. In the formation, you always have 1 leader (Vector 11) and his wingmen (Vector 12, 13, ...). In a fourship formation, Vector 11 would lead the overall flight (V11 - V14) and Element 1 (V11, V12), whereas V13 would lead Element 2 (V13, V14), cfr. fire teams.

B) Slotting up:
Should go faster on first GN-missions. Currently, even with enough blue tags present, not all of them are confident in their level of flying or they prefer ground work, so it sometimes takes a while before air assets are filled up. Only requiring 1 blue tag to step up for a flight of up to 4 solves that issue. Green tags / guests may feel comfortable in their flying, but not in their communication / coordination skills, so they may be hesitant to lead a "team" as well.

C) Comms / coordination:
Are impacted heavily... A certain change in mindset is required, from the "I want helicopter 1 to do this, while helicopter 2 does that" towards "I want this and this done, by any helicopter available". The end result should be that Command / FAC can achieve more, by (micro-)managing less themselves, as that is delegated to V11 / V13. This is identical to the way an ground unit currently operates in the ZEUS-community, as it's only SL or the RTO that is in touch with Command.

On standard S1, only Flight Lead would be on Command channel, but comms are generally only between Command / FAC and Flight Lead anyway, while task delegation would be done over Teamspeak... This reduces situational awareness of all those not on comms, but it's the Leader's job to forward the necessary information, and assign tasks to his subordinates (whether they are Team Leaders or wingmen) to complete the objective given by Command.

On S2, situational awareness is less impacted, since you can have all pilots listen in on LR, but still, only Flight Lead should communicate over LR with Command / FAC (exceptions may apply), while in-flight coordination is done on SR. That being said, using Signals on S1, this exact setup can be achieved as well.




If the above is not feasible, I would like to discuss whether it's possible to open air assets (all, or V2 - V3 - ...) for non-blue tags on first GN-mission, either by default, or sooner than is the case now. As mentioned above, at times, there are unnecessary delays in slotting up because no blue tags (are able to) step up.

This proposal could also be extended towards smaller teams (say, no more than 3-4 people, as is often the case for dedicated MG, AT, Mortar), as there are quite a lot of green tags waiting for FMTs to get their blue tag, and they already have some experience with the way things work. While they wait, the smaller size of the squad makes it a whole lot easier to learn the ropes of interacting with Command, squad leading, GN-dynamics etc., and such small teams are not always available in 2nd, 3rd, ... GN-missions.

[Eagle-Eye]

Second topic possibly worth discussing:
Currently, the rule is "the dead don't talk, it's up to your buddies to look after you and know you're down", which essentially, I agree with. But what about the unconscious state?
Though I've never taken a bullet (thankfully), I do believe they wouldn't knock you down entirely and immediately almost every single time. Instead, you'd probably be screaming, which would be very audible to everyone around you. The exact opposite of what we do now...

Obviously, the last thing I want is some actor to start wailing, mumbling his dying "tell my mom"-speech over the comms, but could we be allowed to hick-up a short, single and immediate "I'm hit" or similar? If it's lost in the confusion of the moment, so be it, but if it's picked up, the buddies can act quicker, so the mission flow doesn't grind to a halt every time a squad needs forever to know if / where someone died.

A possible downside is that there's less incentive to play it safe and not get shot in the first place, which may be balanced by reducing the bleed-out timer, lowering casualty counter and/or enabling instant death after taking vital damage (multiple hits, headshots, chest etc., assuming that's possible in ArmA).

[Snowman]

My initial thoughts..

In all honesty I'd not be keen to introduce this or back the suggestion for a few reasons:

- Those who've done the FMTs know this, the medic should be near the rear of the squad paying attention to casualties, injuries, fatigue and general squad health etc rather than being up front engaging enemies and not noticing when people go down.

- SLs, should be putting people into Fireteams AND Buddy teams. It's the buddy pairs responsibility to keep an eye on each other and call for medical attention when their buddy is injured or downed. It is also the Fireteam leaders responsibility to know where their team is and their status.

- After short or protracted engagements SLs should be performing a squad ''sitrep'' anyway to ascertain the health of their squad as this will identify those who are either down or just not paying attention.

- Comms is usually busy enough without having additional traffic thrown in, be it squad or direct channels. Even a single shouted "I'm hit!" when done by a full squad anytime one of them is hit will pretty quickly become very annoying and may interfere with other comms.

- This would circumvent the need for specific roles and procedures mentioned above being employed as people will just rely on shouting to get attention. There's no way to police how many times people shout out when downed and in all honesty I don't think anyone will do it only once if they still haven't been noticed after a minute or two.

The only positive thing I can pick from the suggestion is that it will allow a buddy (if paying attention) to recognise sooner that someone is down, reducing the risk of bleed out and increasing casualty count.... But... this MUST be balanced with maintaining procedures, squad discipline and our milsim approach to ARMA.

In short, I think this would actually reduce the 'quality', emersion and standards we've all worked so hard to raise over the years.

As always, willing to entertain other thoughts and suggestions from the community.

StealthySnowman.

[Ender]

B) Slotting up:
Should go faster on first GN-missions. Currently, even with enough blue tags present, not all of them are confident in their level of flying or they prefer ground work, so it sometimes takes a while before air assets are filled up.

I did send a PM to StealthySnowman about one reason and my person opinion on why I personally don't feel comfortable taking pilot even if I would practice in the editor and know I can fly safely. This might apply to more people. The suggestions and ideas I sent isn't necessarily a complete solution but it will solve a part of the issue, on good roads to it.

[Steven]

-Cranking up the PR

-Update the website. If you look up ZC on Google you get our website but once you get on it you get a lot of text and if you scroll down you get the donation button. For people that see the website for the first time that would be a downer. People would think "Why would I want to donate to them?" and just leave.
The forum is already a maze for me. The guest will probably never reach the video and screenshot thread if they can.
Our website is our billboards. I think we should change into something more interactive of what happens in the community. And to begin with a promo video to tease the visitors.

[OneNanArmy]

Sorry to change subject a bit but...

1) How would people feel about a ZGM night?
Proposing a ZGM night with pre-made missions.
ZGM missions would need to be made like a standers game-night mission. With an objective, loadout, location ect.
I would then propose that the ZGM would have a set amount of units and unit types he can use. Set by the mission maker. (limited so that the ZGM can’t just add a tank or fast mover unannounced)
The idea is that the ZGM will be there to enhanced the experience and make a sinarior more immersive rather than just ridiculous unbalanced.


2) Thoughts regarding T v T.
What’s stopping you from taking part in T v T?
Is it you just don’t like T v T.
You don’t like the one life aspect.
T v T missions are to long with not enough action.
And if you do like P v P but T v T is not you thing, how would you change it?

3) Regarding partoll ops on server 1 I think most of us are aware that partoll ops 4 is not what we thought it would be and with patrol ops 3 being a bit dated is there any suggestions of other seader missions that people have played or thing would work well on server 1?


I hope to hear people's thoughts and ideas.
And I also hope that as many of you as possible at the meeting.

[Folau]

1) ZGM

2) TvT

3) Patrol Opps

On 1 - I wouldn't mind making ZGM missions, and actually won't really mind if the person playing it were more free to select units. As long as they "got" the thrust of the mission it may be they had a new interpretation or idea that improves it. Would certainly save time creating AI reactions etc if a player was responsible, you just need a player you trust as it could go wrong very quickly. I would have no problems with someone taking control of one of mine.

Arguably I have a few ideas that I could script but it may be tricky, so someone able to just run the AI for me (and react better) might save me a lot of effort. I think it becomes a tradeoff between a mission being "safe"/predictable/repetitive and one which is more reactive and repeatable but could go badly wrong.

On 2 - I generally don't go for TvT because I've had some bad experiences with missions. Well, actually some have been fantastic however there isn't often a middle ground and it feels like a roll of the dice. Whilst all missions have an element of that I just feel TvT are too inconsistent. I do enjoy fighting against players but generally either I get frustrated by the design - such as bad respawns, perceived imbalance etc. I've never tried making a TvT mission nor do I have much interest in it compared to larger coop ones.

On 3 - Don't know, not experienced enough with it all.

==========

EDIT:

The only thing I would want addressed (and it can likely be done on the forums or in a couple of sentences) is the following:

Last Saturday I finished testing of two new Server 1 missions, but it was late so didn't get anyone to upload them to the main server. Didn't see an admin on Sunday morning early so left it for the afternoon and went out for a walk in the snow. Came back about 1hr 15mins before Gamenight and was informed that it was now past cutoff for the missions being uploaded for that night - which is 2 hours before the first mission.

Whilst obviously a little down that I didn't get new content out when planned I have no problems with that being a policy. Quite the opposite it is poor form to be scrambling to test/upload missions as that is when mistakes are made. I did have a comments as follows:

• It had not been applied in the past/consistently - I had had conflicting opinions/actions on the matter previously so this must have been recent or not applied. I had heard estimates from admins down to 30 minutes before was fine.
• I have been unable to easily find out what the previous status quo was on the forums.
• This was not communicated to me and I felt this was avoidable within my knowledge - had I known I would have been online at 1630 instead of watching Bojack Horseman when I got home. I am aware there was an Admin meeting at 1700 so it could have been implemented/reiterated mere minutes before, in which case I'll gladly say this was just bad luck/timing on my end.

Now I don't want to specifically discuss changes (I'm happy with it being a policy) however I just want this to be communicated to all players and admins, consistently applied by all, and admins be continue being available to help out when available.

[Eagle-Eye]

Might not be able to attend during the meeting, so will put my thoughts down here.

-Cranking up the PR

Has a Discord-server ever been considered?

ArmA 3 has a Discord-server where people from all over the world get together, talk about all sorts of stuff, help each other with mission developing, scripting, hard- and software issues, ...

There's a community feeling (more so than on a forum or Teamspeak, since it's available 24/7, people can read back on what was discussed earlier if it's set up as such, ...) and perhaps the biggest bonus of all, you can arrange to play together at a certain time. E.g. "I'll be on from ... until ... GMT. Anyone joining?"

1) How would people feel about a ZGM night?

2) Thoughts regarding T v T.

3) Regarding partoll ops on server 1

1. Very interested in ZGM's. As a newbie mission maker, I also see it as a way to make missions more easily, as I don't yet have much experience with defining the AI behaviour / reactions. (Also why my first completed mission was a TvT-arena. )

Having a ZGM take care of (part of) that, lowers the threshold for those who are just starting to pick things up.


2. Wouldn't mind seeing more of them. They generally play out differently than a coop does, which is a welcome change every once in a while.

3. Not a lot of experience, so no comments.

Last Saturday I finished testing of two new Server 1 missions, but it was late so didn't get anyone to upload them to the main server. Didn't see an admin on Sunday morning early so left it for the afternoon and went out for a walk in the snow. Came back about 1hr 15mins before Gamenight and was informed that it was now past cutoff for the missions being uploaded for that night - which is 2 hours before the first mission.

How about creating a topic in the Mission & Editing board where people can inform admins when a new mission is ready for transfer to main server? A few hours prior GN, an admin checks that topic, transfers all the missions indicated as ready, then cleans the topic.

[Snowman]

Last Saturday I finished testing of two new Server 1 missions, but it was late so didn't get anyone to upload them to the main server. Didn't see an admin on Sunday morning early so left it for the afternoon and went out for a walk in the snow. Came back about 1hr 15mins before Gamenight and was informed that it was now past cutoff for the missions being uploaded for that night - which is 2 hours before the first mission.

How about creating a topic in the Mission & Editing board where people can inform admins when a new mission is ready for transfer to main server? A few hours prior GN, an admin checks that topic, transfers all the missions indicated as ready, then cleans the topic.

I like this idea. Much smoother way of doing it. Will bring it up at next admin meeting.