45 replies to this topic

[Davers]

Next Ask the Devs someone should ask what priority (after CW and UI2.0) is integrated VOIP, and then everyone should upvote it.

[aniviron]

Davers, on 15 November 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

Next Ask the Devs someone should ask what priority (after CW and UI2.0) is integrated VOIP, and then everyone should upvote it.

That'd be great, except there is no more ask the devs, and when this has happened in the past the question gets ignored.

[Deathlike]

aniviron, on 15 November 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

That'd be great, except there is no more ask the devs, and when this has happened in the past the question gets ignored.

Well, it's selective answering.

It's easier to answer the dumb questions early, because it gets less than a 10 word answer. Then you answer anything you have no ideas/plans for with "soon™" or "maybe™" or "possibly™".

[Silent]

Everyone already knows the answer to the integrated VOIP question: Maybe sometime soon in the near future maybe we're looking into it stay tuned someday.

This is also the answer to every other question you could possibly ask, in case you're wondering. Hope this helps you on your journey to enlightenment!

Edited by Silent, 17 November 2013 - 05:42 AM.

[CrashieJ]

Randalf Yorgen, on 04 November 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

C-3 WAS put inthe game by MW:O, but you had to log in before you joined the game for it to work. Most people who are today complaining about "Evil Premades" or who are always crying that VOIP is SOOOOOO unfair are the same people who, while C-3 was being tested, either refused to use it or were the "12 year olds" who were always screaming, yelling, shouting profanities in that system.

People asking for integrated voice should really be careful what they are asking for. Integrated into the game means that anyone who is dropping on your team can use it, ANYONE. most of the TS3 servers need a password and have a small and simple user request form that you have to fill out once. Then there are moderators who can ban/kick/block and users who abuse the system or who don't follow the rules. Integrated voice, you either turn it on or off, and suffer for your choice.

mute button?

[Saori Arai]

I hope it would be done right. Integrated VoIP in most games is questionable at best. This one needs to be reliable or fanatical. (get it? lulz)

[Karl Streiger]

is a integratet VOIP necessary - or would a command wheel or any kind of order / short cuts:

: hit STRG R:
send message = "attacked by Atlas H sector E6" - could even be a accustic transmission in game vocie or similar.

[0rca]

Wieland, on 03 November 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

As soon as they say "Soon©®™", it will only be one or 2 more years.

"It is hard only first twenty years"

[Gypsy Hunter]

Karl Streiger, on 18 November 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

is a integratet VOIP necessary - or would a command wheel or any kind of order / short cuts:

: hit STRG R:
send message = "attacked by Atlas H sector E6" - could even be a accustic transmission in game vocie or similar.

Well there is supposed to be an implemented comma rose soon to do quick messages (maybe like BF3/4...) but its gotta work smooth. Even sending commands on the map is awkward, hence the lack of use or commanders for 1/4 of the battle. I like this idea though, as you could potentially have only a couple hotkeys for reporting, and it would bring a lot more awareness if people are reading. The voice transmission part would be the icing on the cake... Great idea!

For now, I stick to VOIP over google hangouts. You can easily have multiple people in video chat, you can also limit bandwidth and shutdown the video to reduce bandwidth. Works great, especially with people you play a lot with, as you can have a "hangout" people can hop in and out of with you at anytime.... only have to setup once and works on phones, tablets, and computers, so no one has the "I don't have a mic" excuse.

[Sidekick]

Google Hangouts?

Okay, I was/I am part of the small C3 community that conciders itself as a failed concept. We are basically unicorns for not using Teamspeak.

Hangouts? I cant what is this how...... WOW!

You should get payd for suggesting that in this forum. Not Teamspeak, Not Mumble. Not C3.
Googles gawd-forbidden Hangouts.

[Chemie]

Davers, on 15 November 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

Next Ask the Devs someone should ask what priority (after CW and UI2.0) is integrated VOIP, and then everyone should upvote it.

except there is no more AtD. (Also no more monthly updates either apparently)

[Davers]

Chemie, on 29 November 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

except there is no more AtD. (Also no more monthly updates either apparently)

Well, allegedly it will be in video format. But since they haven't even started polling for questions who knows when that will be. I guess there is still time to make a 'November update'.

[Nick Makiaveli]

SchwarzerPeter, on 03 November 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Is it currently worked on, or at least somewhere in the develop plan? I know there is Teamspeak and this C3 thing, but this don't solve the problem to communicate in pugs.

So i would love to hear something about this.

Do you really think that a built-in system will actually help more than it will be used to grief? Sure some players may be new to this type of gaming and thus not familiar with TS etc, but then they are not likely to use it, especially once they hear all the [redacted by a now blind Comstar acolyte] screaming about your Momma's [redacted] etc.

All kidding aside, even though I wasn't kidding above, I think a built-in system would be worse than nothing. There's no way they could moderate it, and how would you even begin to report people?

Ask them their name? Yea, that'll work.

Have it show who is talking? Only work if only one person at a time is talking.

If only one person at a time, then someone will just leave their mic on the whole time and not allow anyone else to use it. Then of course claim technical difficulties when reported.

No, there are plenty of options out there, from Houses to merc units to No Guts, No Galaxy for the truly unaffiliated.

[aniviron]

Nick Makiaveli, on 01 December 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

Do you really think that a built-in system will actually help more than it will be used to grief? Sure some players may be new to this type of gaming and thus not familiar with TS etc, but then they are not likely to use it, especially once they hear all the [redacted by a now blind Comstar acolyte] screaming about your Momma's [redacted] etc.

All kidding aside, even though I wasn't kidding above, I think a built-in system would be worse than nothing. There's no way they could moderate it, and how would you even begin to report people?

Ask them their name? Yea, that'll work.

Have it show who is talking? Only work if only one person at a time is talking.

If only one person at a time, then someone will just leave their mic on the whole time and not allow anyone else to use it. Then of course claim technical difficulties when reported.

No, there are plenty of options out there, from Houses to merc units to No Guts, No Galaxy for the truly unaffiliated.

This community isn't exactly the same as call of duty's. The text chatter in-game (which, incidentally, isn't that much easier to moderate than a voip system would be) is rarely juvenile in this game; most of the time, it's limited to "gl, hf" "gg" and "assaults f6." Given that the text chat isn't full of people screaming about one another's mothers, I don't think it's a terrible assumption that giving everyone the ability to talk will suddenly bring out their inner infant.

And, um, there are plenty of games that go 16v16 or larger and show who is talking. It's really not that big of a deal. A little icon pops up in the corner of your screen with a name, or if you hit tab, a speaker icon is lit up next to the talking individual's name. I'm not sure why these are such alien concepts to you, they've been pretty standard features in almost every shooter and MMO since about 2002.

I'm also unsure of how it would be worse than nothing. If you really really hate hearing tactical info from your team that much, you could always turn it off, or mute the offending player (another feature that has been standard since about 2002). Not to direct this at you personally, but almost everyone I have seen who is against VOIP is really really upset, "But people will talk and they might be mean and how will we deal with this new information coming at us aaaaa help!!!!" Well, PGI doesn't exactly have to reinvent the wheel on this one. Just use the same systems that have worked well for every game in the last decade.

[Henry Morgan]

aniviron, on 01 December 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

This community isn't exactly the same as call of duty's. The text chatter in-game (which, incidentally, isn't that much easier to moderate than a voip system would be) is rarely juvenile in this game; most of the time, it's limited to "gl, hf" "gg" and "assaults f6." Given that the text chat isn't full of people screaming about one another's mothers, I don't think it's a terrible assumption that giving everyone the ability to talk will suddenly bring out their inner infant.

Except there are those individuals in the community who are that infantile in their online behavior. I've seen the streams of profanity, slurs, mindless babble, and the all-caps meltdowns in the text chat. At least with it being text, its kept to my screen, and is not blasting through the speakers for everyone else to hear.

aniviron, on 01 December 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

I'm also unsure of how it would be worse than nothing. If you really really hate hearing tactical info from your team that much, you could always turn it off, or mute the offending player (another feature that has been standard since about 2002). Not to direct this at you personally, but almost everyone I have seen who is against VOIP is really really upset, "But people will talk and they might be mean and how will we deal with this new information coming at us aaaaa help!!!!" Well, PGI doesn't exactly have to reinvent the wheel on this one. Just use the same systems that have worked well for every game in the last decade.

I think your generalization is incorrect. Just as mine of those rallying for it are "But I don't want to have to do anything myself, I expect to be catered to because I want it!" are an unfair stereotype based on perception.

I think a lobby system of sorts would be a good idea. Or, rather, a pre-launching grouping area if you will. It would let players not in Guilds/Clans team up and coordinate a bit with grouping before a match.

What I argue against is that many seem to present the inclusion of in-game voice and the unrealistic expectations of it. And, the broad (and mostly inaccurate) claims about the powers of the evil, pre-mades. And, retro fitting an addition like that is going to be a lot more consuming on the budget and development time, than if it was included in the planning stage. In that regards, I argue against it because I think there are more important things to be fixed in the game with the limited resources available.

But, lets say they did add in-game voice, and all the features people wanted. The ability to turn it off. The ability to mute and ignore a player both voice and chat. Will the land of milk and honey appear? I think reality is going to rise up like a 2x4 and start smacking people upside the head. Over time I think it will turn out to be nothing but a waste of time and money that is largely ignored by the player base as a whole.
Lets start a match as a PuG in the land of milk and honey:
Player 1) Part of a pre-made, using their own TeamSpeak server
Player 2) Part of a pre-made, using their own TeamSpeak server
Player 3) Part of a pre-made, using their own TeamSpeak server
Player 4) Uses in-game voice
Player 5) Part of a pre-made from the lobby system, hooked up with player 6, and thinks they should be in command.
Player 6) Part of a pre-made from the lobby system, hooked up with player 5
Player 7) Has disabled in-game voice
Player 8) Uses in-game voice, but has player 10 on ignore
Player 9) Uses in-game voice but speaks the same language as their friend, player 11.
Player 10) Uses in-game voice, and thinks they should be in command.
Player 11) Uses in-game voice, but speaks the same language as their friend, player 9
Player 12) Has disabled in-game voice, due to players who act like player 10.

The pre-made lance of players 1-3 are going to proceed like they do today. They choose to use a 3rd party system as part of their guild/clan/group and aren't going to let the babble from the in-game voice interfere with their grouping.
Players 7 and 12 are wild-cards, as they aren't using any voice. Like PuG's today.
Players 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 are all on the in-game voice. Players 5 and 10 start bickering over what the plan of attack and defense will be. Player 5 wants to defense, player 10 wants to attack. Player 8 only sees the plan from player 5, and goes with the plan to defend.
Players 9 and 11, while using the in-game chat, speak a different language and have no idea what is being said. Or maybe a few words here and there. They basically become wild-cards like players 7 and 12. Or, wind up just disabling the in-game voice since they can really use it to communicate in their own language.

The match starts:
Player 10 runs off to attack, after disagreeing in voice with player 5.
The pre-made of players 1, 2 and 3 was going to attack, and moves out in how they had planned.
Players 4, 5, 6, and 8 remain at the base to defend.
Players 9 and 11, hearing the voice chatter, and seeing player 10 take off, follow player 10.
Players 7 and 12 decide to follow the pre-made of players 1, 2 and 3.

Match will probably end quickly, with lots of yelling and blaming in the in-game voice. And this is the 'better' solution? I think more matches will go like this, than the hand-holding and everyone singing Kumbaya in harmony. And how many other things would have had to be pushed back (new maps, new mechs, new additions, bug fixes, etc...) for this feature to be added in?

[aniviron]

Henry Morgan, on 02 December 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:

Except there are those individuals in the community who are that infantile in their online behavior. I've seen the streams of profanity, slurs, mindless babble, and the all-caps meltdowns in the text chat. At least with it being text, its kept to my screen, and is not blasting through the speakers for everyone else to hear.



I think your generalization is incorrect. Just as mine of those rallying for it are "But I don't want to have to do anything myself, I expect to be catered to because I want it!" are an unfair stereotype based on perception.

I think a lobby system of sorts would be a good idea. Or, rather, a pre-launching grouping area if you will. It would let players not in Guilds/Clans team up and coordinate a bit with grouping before a match.

What I argue against is that many seem to present the inclusion of in-game voice and the unrealistic expectations of it. And, the broad (and mostly inaccurate) claims about the powers of the evil, pre-mades. And, retro fitting an addition like that is going to be a lot more consuming on the budget and development time, than if it was included in the planning stage. In that regards, I argue against it because I think there are more important things to be fixed in the game with the limited resources available.

But, lets say they did add in-game voice, and all the features people wanted. The ability to turn it off. The ability to mute and ignore a player both voice and chat. Will the land of milk and honey appear? I think reality is going to rise up like a 2x4 and start smacking people upside the head. Over time I think it will turn out to be nothing but a waste of time and money that is largely ignored by the player base as a whole.
Lets start a match as a PuG in the land of milk and honey:
Player 1) Part of a pre-made, using their own TeamSpeak server
Player 2) Part of a pre-made, using their own TeamSpeak server
Player 3) Part of a pre-made, using their own TeamSpeak server
Player 4) Uses in-game voice
Player 5) Part of a pre-made from the lobby system, hooked up with player 6, and thinks they should be in command.
Player 6) Part of a pre-made from the lobby system, hooked up with player 5
Player 7) Has disabled in-game voice
Player 8) Uses in-game voice, but has player 10 on ignore
Player 9) Uses in-game voice but speaks the same language as their friend, player 11.
Player 10) Uses in-game voice, and thinks they should be in command.
Player 11) Uses in-game voice, but speaks the same language as their friend, player 9
Player 12) Has disabled in-game voice, due to players who act like player 10.

The pre-made lance of players 1-3 are going to proceed like they do today. They choose to use a 3rd party system as part of their guild/clan/group and aren't going to let the babble from the in-game voice interfere with their grouping.
Players 7 and 12 are wild-cards, as they aren't using any voice. Like PuG's today.
Players 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 are all on the in-game voice. Players 5 and 10 start bickering over what the plan of attack and defense will be. Player 5 wants to defense, player 10 wants to attack. Player 8 only sees the plan from player 5, and goes with the plan to defend.
Players 9 and 11, while using the in-game chat, speak a different language and have no idea what is being said. Or maybe a few words here and there. They basically become wild-cards like players 7 and 12. Or, wind up just disabling the in-game voice since they can really use it to communicate in their own language.

The match starts:
Player 10 runs off to attack, after disagreeing in voice with player 5.
The pre-made of players 1, 2 and 3 was going to attack, and moves out in how they had planned.
Players 4, 5, 6, and 8 remain at the base to defend.
Players 9 and 11, hearing the voice chatter, and seeing player 10 take off, follow player 10.
Players 7 and 12 decide to follow the pre-made of players 1, 2 and 3.

Match will probably end quickly, with lots of yelling and blaming in the in-game voice. And this is the 'better' solution? I think more matches will go like this, than the hand-holding and everyone singing Kumbaya in harmony. And how many other things would have had to be pushed back (new maps, new mechs, new additions, bug fixes, etc...) for this feature to be added in?

While I agree that implementing VOIP won't bring us to a "land of milk and honey," I think your predictions of VOIP making teams less organized are wildly off the mark. No, there is no panacea that will make pugs as good as premades. But given the team composition you give above, your predictions seem pretty pessemistic to me, and because it's all hypothetical, it means nothing. I'll just say that almost every premade I run into, when asked, will at least say "we're going theta," if not more about their plan, and voice makes it easier to coordinate with them. I'm not sure if we will ever get a lobby system or if it will be implemented mixed with random drops like we have now, so I see no reason to fret about that. Players 7 and 12 absolutely have the right to disable in-game voice, and will presumably just follow their teammates like they do now; however, their teammates are now better coordinated, directly benefitting them. Player 8 ignoring one person is unlikely to have a major impact on the comms as a whole. 9 and 11 probably also speak English, since the game is only available in English (unless that's changed lately?). Players 5 and 10 can probably work out their command dispute, and worst case scenario, one takes company command and the other takes lance command, and the team benefits greatly from having two people coordinating instead of just one.

See? It's easy to make up hypotheticals about completely imaginary people, especially if they're not terribly representative of an average in-game population.

I just can't see how giving the players more communications options, specifically ones that have been designed to allow the users to rapidly communicate a great deal of info while engaged in other tasks, could be a bad thing for overall team communication and coordination.

[Nick Makiaveli]

aniviron, on 01 December 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

This community isn't exactly the same as call of duty's. The text chatter in-game (which, incidentally, isn't that much easier to moderate than a voip system would be) is rarely juvenile in this game; most of the time, it's limited to "gl, hf" "gg" and "assaults f6." Given that the text chat isn't full of people screaming about one another's mothers, I don't think it's a terrible assumption that giving everyone the ability to talk will suddenly bring out their inner infant.

First I'm glad you have had a better experience than I have, and it has gotten better. I like to think it's because the worst offenders have been warned/banned. Second, it's a lot easier to press a key and mouth off than it is to type. Typing also provides a moment to reflect on what you are about to "say" and so it automatically reduces the amount.

aniviron, on 01 December 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

And, um, there are plenty of games that go 16v16 or larger and show who is talking. It's really not that big of a deal. A little icon pops up in the corner of your screen with a name, or if you hit tab, a speaker icon is lit up next to the talking individual's name. I'm not sure why these are such alien concepts to you, they've been pretty standard features in almost every shooter and MMO since about 2002.

Before you start implying, perhaps you should make sure that you understand what the other person is talking about. Did I say it couldn't be done, or did I say it wouldn't work? If your name and mine are both lit up on the screen, how is someone who doesn't know us to know which of us said "Good game!" and which of us said 'Die in a fire ****!"?

aniviron, on 01 December 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

I'm also unsure of how it would be worse than nothing. If you really really hate hearing tactical info from your team that much, you could always turn it off, or mute the offending player (another feature that has been standard since about 2002). Not to direct this at you personally, but almost everyone I have seen who is against VOIP is really really upset, "But people will talk and they might be mean and how will we deal with this new information coming at us aaaaa help!!!!" Well, PGI doesn't exactly have to reinvent the wheel on this one. Just use the same systems that have worked well for every game in the last decade.

Again, make sure you tracking before firing off. DHB has a quite nice home on TS and we regularly run multiple "dropships" for both 4 mans and 12 mans.

The reason I said it could very well be worse than nothing was listed in the post you quoted but apparently didn't read too well. It seems to me, and your post hasn't convinced me otherwise, that it would be full of immature jerks, or at least enough to scare off new players. At least now, new users can be directed to TS servers that self-police.

I tried to not be too snarky in this, as I get you assumed I as was some whiny cry-baby thinking that in-game VOIP would lead to more evil 4mans etc. However, that was a false assumption.

[Belorion]

This issue is way down on the order of importance.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Belorion, on 02 December 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

This issue is way down on the order of importance.

Let's hope

[Tekadept]

Belorion, on 02 December 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

This issue is way down on the order of importance.

I honestly dont think its even in the order at all let alone way down.nothing has been mentioned on it.