View previous topic :: View next topic |
Which stations will be most commonly used? |
Mostly two players to a ship, with one on Sonar |
|
29% |
[ 38 ] |
Three on 1 FFG, 1 Helo, and 2 on 2 subs |
|
10% |
[ 13 ] |
Depends on how many players the game will support |
|
36% |
[ 47 ] |
4 players on a surface ship vs 4 on a sub, max teamwork! |
|
21% |
[ 28 ] |
I'm not sure I want to have an interloper aboard my fine ship |
|
3% |
[ 4 ] |
|
Total Votes : 130 |
|
Author |
Message |
Neal Stevens
Joined: 25 Jan 1997 Posts: 3517 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:56 am Post subject: Manning multiple stations! |
|
|
Since this is a new feature in subsims, I am curious as to how you think it will be most commonly used in Dangerous Waters?
Comments welcome, please.
Neal
Last edited by Neal Stevens on Fri Apr 09, 2004 10:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sonar732
Joined: 03 Jul 2003 Posts: 1358
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that this will depend greatly on the online fleets. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001 Posts: 1003 Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agree with Sonar on this one, but additionally, how many players will be practical in-game, not just how many player that the developer says it will support. I've seen several SC uber-matches in which the game experienced hiccups, lag, and dropped players during 5 and 6-player matches, but the game is supposed to support 8 players for multiplay. Not that I'm really complaining, but putting a game thru its paces is the only way to tell what it will really do, no matter what it says on the box.
Having said that, i'm mostly optimistic about the multi-station feature and can't wait to try it.
TG |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002 Posts: 4866 Location: Rochester, New York
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Multi Station is going to be very useful I think when training new players. You can control the whole boat while giving instructions on one particular subject. Also I think having two people maning sonar and classfying contacts can be helpful when there is a lot of people out there making noise. (Jim you classfy all the contacts to port I'll take starboard) Also having someone man FC durring battle can be helpful, LOTS of times I've wasted a few seconds going to FC, then the launchers for pop off a few CMs. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
XabbaRus
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 Posts: 6949
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh I can also see some fights brewing.
I actually think that 2 players per platform is maybe best.
If you have eight players in total that means 4 craft under human control.
Of course it does depend on what people agree on before hand. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sonar732
Joined: 03 Jul 2003 Posts: 1358
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TLAM Strike wrote: | Multi Station is going to be very useful I think when training new players. You can control the whole boat while giving instructions on one particular subject. Also I think having two people maning sonar and classfying contacts can be helpful when there is a lot of people out there making noise. (Jim you classfy all the contacts to port I'll take starboard) Also having someone man FC durring battle can be helpful, LOTS of times I've wasted a few seconds going to FC, then the launchers for pop off a few CMs. |
I don't know about the two sonar operators classifying in that sense. I forsee one guy on sphere & towed array and the other on narrowband. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001 Posts: 1003 Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sonar732 wrote: | TLAM Strike wrote: | Multi Station is going to be very useful I think when training new players. You can control the whole boat while giving instructions on one particular subject. Also I think having two people maning sonar and classfying contacts can be helpful when there is a lot of people out there making noise. (Jim you classfy all the contacts to port I'll take starboard) Also having someone man FC durring battle can be helpful, LOTS of times I've wasted a few seconds going to FC, then the launchers for pop off a few CMs. |
I don't know about the two sonar operators classifying in that sense. I forsee one guy on sphere & towed array and the other on narrowband. | Somehow I don't think they'll break up the stations like that (could be wrong though, will be interesting to see...); i think if you man sonar, you will be THE sonar watch, on all displays. Same for other stations... We'll see!
TG |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sonar732
Joined: 03 Jul 2003 Posts: 1358
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The online web groups should be working right now on how they will implement the multiple stations into the game and defining the rules that brought this poll to mind. Because the stations list on submarines show...
Sonar - Broadband
Sonar - Narrowband
Sonar - Demon
Sonar - Active
Sonar - Active Intercept
Sonar - SSP
This is a good example of why the number of players should be defined as soon as possible. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Furia
Joined: 14 Mar 2001 Posts: 558 Location: Spain
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is very hard for virtual Fleets to define at this stage of game developement and avalaible infrmation the way they will implement multiplayer on their online activities. Surely multimanning stations would be a very important feature for multiplayer games.
Surface /air vs subsurface would become the King of the multiplayer activities.
We still need much more information about the game "way of doing" to define the way the game would be played by Fleets.
Probably this would not be set until the game can be tested and tried. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pigfish
Joined: 11 May 2003 Posts: 2044 Location: Alberta, Canada
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sonar732 wrote: | The online web groups should be working right now on how they will implement the multiple stations into the game and defining the rules that brought this poll to mind. Because the stations list on submarines show...
Sonar - Broadband
Sonar - Narrowband
Sonar - Demon
Sonar - Active
Sonar - Active Intercept
Sonar - SSP
This is a good example of why the number of players should be defined as soon as possible. |
Geez, six seperate stations? Six players?. Imagine the thrill to "man" the SSP station on a Seawolf. How exciting. :nope: I think having control of all of sonar would be more enjoyable... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sonar732
Joined: 03 Jul 2003 Posts: 1358
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Furia wrote: | It is very hard for virtual Fleets to define at this stage of game developement and avalaible infrmation the way they will implement multiplayer on their online activities. Surely multimanning stations would be a very important feature for multiplayer games.
Surface /air vs subsurface would become the King of the multiplayer activities.
We still need much more information about the game "way of doing" to define the way the game would be played by Fleets.
Probably this would not be set until the game can be tested and tried. |
Understood. I personally don't think that it should be more than 3v3. A person on bb, other sonar, and then the lucky one who takes all the others. Go figure as to why I'm partial to splitting sonar...we had someone dedicated to nb, ta bb, and sphere bb on the boat. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Zerogreat
Joined: 17 Aug 2003 Posts: 819 Location: Czech Republic, Prague, coordinates are sumthin like 50,10 North 14,25 East, not much accurate
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pigfish wrote: |
Imagine the thrill to "man" the SSP station on a Seawolf. How exciting. :nope: I think having control of all of sonar would be more enjoyable... |
Lol, who takes the shortest straw will man the SSP station. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002 Posts: 4866 Location: Rochester, New York
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are worse things than having to man the SSP on the Seawolf Pigfish... Like manning the SSP on the 688(i)! Just one button "Launch XBT" at least on the Seawolf you got a depth scale to fiddle with.
Gentlemen lets not forget just how important the SSP station is. With out it we would never know where a thermocline layer is.
That said, I’m not manning it.... :wink: |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sonar732
Joined: 03 Jul 2003 Posts: 1358
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TLAM Strike wrote: | There are worse things than having to man the SSP on the Seawolf Pigfish... Like manning the SSP on the 688(i)! Just one button "Launch XBT" at least on the Seawolf you got a depth scale to fiddle with.
Gentlemen lets not forget just how important the SSP station is. With out it we would never know where a thermocline layer is.
That said, I’m not manning it.... :wink: |
Hey TLAM,
How about manning the depth sounding station while leaving and entering port? That was more stressful then the shack! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
skriblz
Joined: 10 Jan 2002 Posts: 286 Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@ Sonalysts: How will control be managed? Will everyone viewing a station be able to click buttons on it? Will there be one person per platform who controls each other players permision to operate a station?
Having features that regulate permission of control would be important. Imagine you are manning a platform with some player you don't know. Let's say this player just wanted to annoy you for the hell of it (it's not hard to find annoying people on the internet) or maybe he got into an argument with you and the other players in the game and got mad. If he wanted to, he could just go to FC and launch a few snapshots to ruin your stealth. Or maybe he would go to the TMA station and screw around with your firing solutions or, worse, drop a few (or all ) contacts. Permission management would help prevent something like this. Please Sonalysts don't overlook this. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|