45 replies to this topic

[Henry Morgan]

aniviron, on 02 December 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

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.

Don't get me wrong. If there are abilities to disable it, and an in-game mute feature that puts a player on ignore for both voice and chat, I wouldn't be 'against' it. My points in debating it can be pretty much boiled down to two major ones.

Prioritization:
I think there are more important things that the development and resources spent for in-game voice could be used for. Things that I think would have more of a positive impact. And not just new things, but also the fixing or analysis of existing issues within the game as well. As there is already a free solution available to players, that is why I rank in-game voice as a lower priority. If there was no third party solution, then perhaps it might rank higher.

Exaggerations/Inaccurate statements:
The other point I argue is the over dramatization by some posters on the subject. The concept of a pre-made has been morphed into some boogie man in their minds. The boogie man they see in every loss they're in. A rather convenient scapegoat that can be accused without a shred of evidence having to be provided. They seem to enjoy attempting to create a rift in the player base, by constantly attempting to turn the discussions into an "us versus them" type of argument. Where, of course, they're the poor, downtrodden victims.
They present in-game voice as the solution, and frequently refer to it as "the huge advantage" a pre-made group has over a PuG. All while ignoring the elephants standing in the middle of the room, called teamwork and situational awareness. Things that every pre-made has because the players make an effort to participate in a group of players they wish to play with. Voice communication is a tool, not the reason that pre-mades are successful at times. The reason boils down to the players themselves, their attitudes and willingness to check egos at the door and work together.

Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic on the results of an in-game voice implementation in MWO. However I've seen this done in number of games and the results weren't pretty. Granted, people tend to remember the negative over the positive more readily. But the games I was in, the in-game voice became a feature that the majority of players quickly learned to disable (if on by default). Much like the present 3rd person view in MWO. Not because the feature is broken, or substandard, but because of the behavior of other players.

As for the example match drop, it was to show what happens if not everyone is on voice on the teams, and when its a group of random people and not a Guild/Clan environment. You think I might be pessimistic but I think you're overly optimistic in thinking that players will just naturally fall in line and follow whatever the players using the in-game chat do. PuG matches are rolling the dice. Sometimes you get a great team together and everything just clicks. Other times its herding cats. Players who purposely ignore requests now, aren't suddenly going to pay attention with voice.

Edited by Henry Morgan, 03 December 2013 - 03:01 AM.

[Dirus Nigh]

Henry Morgan, on 03 December 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong. If there are abilities to disable it, and an in-game mute feature that puts a player on ignore for both voice and chat, I wouldn't be 'against' it. My points in debating it can be pretty much boiled down to two major ones.

Prioritization:
I think there are more important things that the development and resources spent for in-game voice could be used for. Things that I think would have more of a positive impact. And not just new things, but also the fixing or analysis of existing issues within the game as well. As there is already a free solution available to players, that is why I rank in-game voice as a lower priority. If there was no third party solution, then perhaps it might rank higher.

Exaggerations/Inaccurate statements:
The other point I argue is the over dramatization by some posters on the subject. The concept of a pre-made has been morphed into some boogie man in their minds. The boogie man they see in every loss they're in. A rather convenient scapegoat that can be accused without a shred of evidence having to be provided. They seem to enjoy attempting to create a rift in the player base, by constantly attempting to turn the discussions into an "us versus them" type of argument. Where, of course, they're the poor, downtrodden victims.
They present in-game voice as the solution, and frequently refer to it as "the huge advantage" a pre-made group has over a PuG. All while ignoring the elephants standing in the middle of the room, called teamwork and situational awareness. Things that every pre-made has because the players make an effort to participate in a group of players they wish to play with. Voice communication is a tool, not the reason that pre-mades are successful at times. The reason boils down to the players themselves, their attitudes and willingness to check egos at the door and work together.

Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic on the results of an in-game voice implementation in MWO. However I've seen this done in number of games and the results weren't pretty. Granted, people tend to remember the negative over the positive more readily. But the games I was in, the in-game voice became a feature that the majority of players quickly learned to disable (if on by default). Much like the present 3rd person view in MWO. Not because the feature is broken, or substandard, but because of the behavior of other players.

As for the example match drop, it was to show what happens if not everyone is on voice on the teams, and when its a group of random people and not a Guild/Clan environment. You think I might be pessimistic but I think you're overly optimistic in thinking that players will just naturally fall in line and follow whatever the players using the in-game chat do. PuG matches are rolling the dice. Sometimes you get a great team together and everything just clicks. Other times its herding cats. Players who purposely ignore requests now, aren't suddenly going to pay attention with voice.

Voice communication is essential for teamwork, and enhancing awareness. This is not an exaggeration. The team with voice coms have a clear advantage over a team with out them. Clear, reliable, and quick communication is the largest factor in any competitive game, military action, emergency response, or any other activity requiring multiple people.

Quite frankly I think your argument is that of a person on team speak who does not care about those who do not use the program. The arguments against have no real merit. If voice coms were not important to the game then merc units would not be using TS3. It's as if people with your argument want casual players to be in the dark. It makes it so much easier to grind C-Bills by pug stomping.

If you think "just being aware" is enough to compete against people on voice coms, then I challenge you to prove it. Play 12 man groups, with out any voice coms, against teams with voice coms. Do this for a day. I am willing to bet the team with out voice coms will get stomped the majority of the time.

I'll even make this a direct challenge to all units who play in Run Hot or Die. Play with out any voice coms for one team, and then both teams in all matches for one week end. Not only in a match, but in all aspects of playing the game. That is organizing teams, getting teams to drop together, and reviewing tactics both before and after matches. Then share the results.

It is by no means an inaccurate statement to say that a team using voice communication has a huge advantage over teams with out.

[Henry Morgan]

Dirus Nigh, on 03 December 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Voice communication is essential for teamwork, and enhancing awareness. This is not an exaggeration. The team with voice coms have a clear advantage over a team with out them. Clear, reliable, and quick communication is the largest factor in any competitive game, military action, emergency response, or any other activity requiring multiple people.

You're making the assumption that the attitude and receptive nature is already in place. In the hands of organized groups like clans and guilds, it is a good tool to be used. Using your examples, there is a reason why the communication channels used for military action, emergency response, etc... are not open to the general populous to broadcast on. They don't want the garbage cluttering up the communications that would interfere with their abilities. The same applies to guilds and clans who run their own team speak servers, which is why they want a private solution they can control.

Dirus Nigh, on 03 December 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Quite frankly I think your argument is that of a person on team speak who does not care about those who do not use the program. The arguments against have no real merit. If voice coms were not important to the game then merc units would not be using TS3. It's as if people with your argument want casual players to be in the dark. It makes it so much easier to grind C-Bills by pug stomping.

Actually I'm on TS maybe 25% of the time. If that. The rest, I'm not. So your assumptions would be incorrect, and seemed to be based on nothing but your preconceived opinion.

And, where did I say voice communication wasn't an important tool? If you're going to refute a point, at least make it an accurate one.

Dirus Nigh, on 03 December 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

If you think "just being aware" is enough to compete against people on voice coms, then I challenge you to prove it. Play 12 man groups, with out any voice coms, against teams with voice coms. Do this for a day. I am willing to bet the team with out voice coms will get stomped the majority of the time.

I'll even make this a direct challenge to all units who play in Run Hot or Die. Play with out any voice coms for one team, and then both teams in all matches for one week end. Not only in a match, but in all aspects of playing the game. That is organizing teams, getting teams to drop together, and reviewing tactics both before and after matches. Then share the results.

It is by no means an inaccurate statement to say that a team using voice communication has a huge advantage over teams with out.

Or, better yet, run a 12 man of one of the high level competitive guilds/clans, versus 12 random people.. Take away all voice communication. I'll put my money on the guild any day of the week. Because it emphasizes the point that voice is just a tool, it does not create the attitude for team work and coordination. That resides with the player.

And, like the other inaccurate statement attributed to me, I never said "just being aware" is enough to compete. I said it was a tool. The players who choose to actually get off their duffs and find a group of like-minded people to play with, set up a team speak server, and actively coordinate between themselves before entering a match will always have the huge advantage before voice even enters the equation.

[Ian Grahame]

This game rewards teamwork to a high degree. Even without coms, the team that works together and stays close, focuses fire on limited targets instead of each pilot shooting whoever they have an angle on will have a huge advantage. All of us know what it is like to be the focus target of several mechs at once, and how fast even a fresh Atlas drops in the face of it.

Voice coms make coordination a damn sight faster and easier. Saying "Targeting Charlie" is fast and clear, and you don't have to try to find a way to type it without getting shot up.

Sure, there are disadvantages to voice coms on a public server, Yes, there are idiots, people who act childish, griefers, people who curse and use slurs, play music, and in general act like jerks. So? It's not like this ground has not been plowed before elsewhere. Go play Counterstrike on Steam, you'll get all that... and if someone is doing it, you click on the mute button by his name and shut him up midsentence. If he's obnoxious enough, you pull a kick vote and poof he's gone.

It's not rocket science.

Anyone who drops with TS *knows*, without a doubt, how much easier and more efficient lance communication is. Four mans kick butt at least in part because they can say what is needful quickly and clearly. Sure, most of the guys playing four mans and certainly twelve mans are on average better than the average pugger... but as has been said above, put evenly matched teams out there, one with voice coms and one with what is in game now and keep score. We both know the team with voice will be at a huge advantage.

[Aim64C]

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

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.

There's this new feature implemented on most games. It's called the 'mute player' button.

If someone is the type of jack-*** who frequently disrupts audio coms - he can be muted or listened to by various players as they see fit. If he/she is disruptive, causes everyone to mute him/her - then decides to try and be useful, later - then it's too bad.

Honestly - the original goals of this game were to make it very team and information oriented. Many balance concepts simply don't exist because the game has been shrunk from its original goals to be Call of BattleMech in maps barely big enough to warrant splitting up into lances. Why they would build and launch this game (a community warfare game, no less) without community warfare, chat lobbies, guild systems, and some solid plan for tying VOIP into their game.... is beyond me.

I'm beginning to suspect the team who developed MWO is under employ with Sebelius and was also responsible for the Obamacare web site.

[Novakaine]

Soon©®™ yes sir.