Declined MET - Callsigns

[ch4rles50]

Whomever it concerns,

Over recent days I've noticed that callsigns for DSU and RTPC have changed to use the start from 10 and work your way up. On the whole I think this is a good idea however my suggestion would be stagger the starting point for each of these division so it's easier to differentiate. This is a trick commonly used in military aviation to distinguish between different flights of aircraft and think it could be applied to this scenario. See example below.

• ERT Callsigns start from CW11 and work there way up
• DSU Callsigns start from X31 and work up
• RTPC Callsigns start from OC41 and work up

It essentially avoids having 3 different 11,12,13 etc callsigns which helps reduce confusion during busy times.

Thanks,
Charlie

 

[(B6) Crusade]

Huh?

Divisions are identified by OC, SO, X, CW, FM etc… so all will start from 10 and increase by 1

Pretty straightforward and zero confusion

 

[ch4rles50]

You make a good point, I suppose my suggestion stems from aviation safety which can get rather comprehensive at times. To further the example:

You have two formations of RAF aircraft airborne, say one formation is using the "Triplex11 flight" callsign. Even if "Warlord flight" was airborne they'd still separate numerically and be "Warlord21 flight". The reality of radio comms is that words aren't always clear.

In the context of PMP there's a a habit to speed quickly or miss preceding letters which when you've got a CW11, X11, OC11, SO11 and FM11 can mean you do miss the calling ID. The staggering of where numbers start from would just add that extra confidence in who you are speaking too.

 

[forbesee]

You make a good point, I suppose my suggestion stems from aviation safety which can get rather comprehensive at times. To further the example:

You have two formations of RAF aircraft airborne, say one formation is using the "Triplex11 flight" callsign. Even if "Warlord flight" was airborne they'd still separate numerically and be "Warlord21 flight". The reality of radio comms is that words aren't always clear.

In the context of PMP there's a a habit to speed quickly or miss preceding letters which when you've got a CW11, X11, OC11, SO11 and FM11 can mean you do miss the calling ID. The staggering of where numbers start from would just add that extra confidence in who you are speaking too.

Dont hate it, issue is we would end up in triple digits which arguably is more of a mouthful

 

[ch4rles50]

Not necessarily, below is an example of the block allocation you could use:

• Command 1-10
• ERT: CW10-CW29 (19 allocations)
• CID: SO30-39 (10 allocations)
• DSU: X40-49 (10 allocations)
• RTPC: OC50-69 (19 allocations)
• AFO: FM70-79 (10 allocations + Trojan callsigns)

Obviously you could play about with exact numbers for each division but think it works well as an example. During peak times the server does reach 120-130 players but by the time you've accounted for civs, LFB, LAS and double crewing I think you'd steer well clear of having 100 individual callsigns in game.

 

[(OS6) Larry B]

To a extent, I somewhat agree with this. Mainly however for TLs / OFCs. A bit off differentiation between a TPAC unit and a TL. Potential a reserve from lets say 13 and then +1 could be OK, 10 - 13 for being able to differentiate them

 

[ch4rles50]

To a extent, I somewhat agree with this. Mainly however for TLs / OFCs. A bit off differentiation between a TPAC unit and a TL. Potential a reserve from lets say 13 and then +1 could be OK, 10 - 13 for being able to differentiate them

I think differentiating TLs/OFCs or particular qualifications (in addition to the command callsigns we already have) with callsign numbers is probably beyond the scope of this original suggestion.

 

[(B6) Crusade]

Not necessarily, below is an example of the block allocation you could use:

• Command 1-10
• ERT: CW10-CW29 (19 allocations)
• CID: SO30-39 (10 allocations)
• DSU: X40-49 (10 allocations)
• RTPC: OC50-69 (19 allocations)
• AFO: FM70-79 (10 allocations + Trojan callsigns)

Obviously you could play about with exact numbers for each division but think it works well as an example. During peak times the server does reach 120-130 players but by the time you've accounted for civs, LFB, LAS and double crewing I think you'd steer well clear of having 100 individual callsigns in game.

I don’t dislike it but its not needed and most certainly will cause more confusion than anything currently working.

You state that on a good day at peak times, we reach server numbers of around 100/120. Once you remove LAS, LFB, Aux, Control and Civ; we will still be overlapping numbers

SO only has 10 allocations; where as on a peak period, this may see 15 officers
DSU has 10 allocations; where as on a peak period, this may see 15 officers

The issue we would have here is SO45 and OC45 - no different to how it is now with lowest callsign first

End of the day, its the letters that distinguishes a unit, not a number) overall, not a terrible idea; just dont see it feasible to change and any better than current

Hope this makes sense. Its too early to think

 

[ch4rles50]

SO only has 10 allocations; where as on a peak period, this may see 15 officers
DSU has 10 allocations; where as on a peak period, this may see 15 officers

The issue we would have here is SO45 and OC45 - no different to how it is now with lowest callsign first

Just to push back on this point, I thought I'd made it explicit that you could play around with the exact number of allocations. My example blocks have 20 spare allocations so you could easily up each division to have 20 allocations and this wouldn't be an issue at all - I just left it open for you to play around with yourself.

Fair enough if you don't think it's needed just yet - I'd be interested to get some more opinions on it.

 

[Intrise]

Hello,

Thanks for your suggestion.

Whilst I can see where this is coming from, with the current script it would make it overly complex for new players to select the right call sign. Long term we are likely to automatically allocate call-signs, where this may be more achievable.

Thanks