218 replies to this topic

[Henry Morgan]

Okay, I'll bite, as Trout appears to be able to actually intelligently debate the issue, rather than some of the others who resort to nothing but name calling and feeble attempts to make any disagreement some personal affront towards them.

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

C3 exist but I've never used it. Why? Because it's not built, and likely no one else uses it. TeamSpeak / Vent is also a non-option because trying to get PUGs to join your crappy server within 30 seconds is nigh impossible.

Agreed, but do you think pre-mades do the same thing? No, they meet up in their TeamSpeak servers, form up their groups, send out in-game invites, and coordinate in advance. It's an apples vs oranges comparison on the actual action. Instead, a more valid comparison would be you have set up an open, and public TeamSpeak server, advertise it on the forums, and let PuG's coordinate that way before dropping.

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

To make this game truly accessable, we need VOIP. It's been around for over a decade now, majorly since the original Counter Strike. It's an essential part of any good team game, and at the moment it's giving premades with 3rd party Voice comms an insane advantage.

The game is already accessible to every player. Every player who downloads the MWO install package has the same level of access to the game. Some players choose to use freely available tools outside of the game. Some players choose not to. The key word being 'choice'.

And, as was pointed out in another post in the thread, voice communications is not what gives pre-mades an advantage. Its team work and coordination, with other players that have formed a friendship/bond/etc... over time and choose to play together. A pre-made isn't a mishmash of different personalities, egos, and maturity levels thrown together every match. Its a group of like-minded people, who enjoy playing with each other, and choose to play together.

Any sort of in-game voice isn't going to fix that. Nor is it going to fix those with egos that refuse to listen to anyone, and are usually the first to complain how 'fail' their team is, with the (Dead) next to their name. And it's not going to fix situational awareness, like those three Atlas's on your team chasing a Spider around while ignoring the enemy Assaults just firing away at them at will. Its not going to fix the pure stubborn nature of some players who refuse to adapt their play style to benefit the team, but rather expect the team to conform to them.

Players can not be 'fixed' by any in-game feature. Humans, and their personalities and traits are going to be vast and different. And like reality, people gravitate to like-minded people, and the same is with the pre-mades, and is the foundation of things like Guilds/Clans/etc...

The other item I think I see with the quoted part above, and with some other players, is this mythical assumption that being in a pre-made magically activates a God-mode. Its been pointed out a number of times, but some of those using this argument in debating refuse to _listen_ to other players. Not all pre-mades mean a guaranteed victory, or an "insane advantage" over other players. I've been in pre-mades that have done well. I've been in pre-mades that have been ROFLstomped. I've been in pre-mades that all died, but the team won. I've been in pre-mades where we survived but the team lost. And guess what, I've been in PuG's that have done all of these things too.

I've also been in PuG matches where no pre-mades were present, and the other team got ROFLstomped, and a player on the losing team insists the evil, pre-mades were the cause of their loss. Even when told there were none present, they continue one. One match I was in had such a player, who also posts in the forums rallying against the evil "pre-mades".

This is where those debating in favor of VoIP and using pre-mades as a supporting justification lose credibility. And it becomes apparent when seeing such stubbornness and their ego in action, that its not the presence (or lack of) voice communication, but rather their own behavior that is a bigger factor in how and why they seem to be on the losing end of things. Especially when they make such generalizations, it is pointed out that the data doesn't match their claims, and they either just ignore the facts, or resort to name calling. If you can't debate your position with supporting arguments and facts, then it should be no surprised why the position is not taken seriously.

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

All good VOIP games now use a quick one-click mute system, meaning any players abusing the system won't be heard for long. And, if you really hate voice an option to completely disable would work fine too. However for the rest of us VOIP would go a long way towards making MWO a much better game. An option to party up at the end of games would be another awesome feature, but that's for another thread.

Except the problem with a mute feature is, the offender gets unfettered access first, before they are muted. With a TeamSpeak server set up, some can have established rules that govern them. And, as mentioned above, by playing with like-minded players, a player in a pre-made has an understanding of what is and what is not allowed. The player has the option to choose to find a group that meets their desired game play style, and can play within an environment they enjoy.

The mute feature of a built-in voice ability is a reactive measure, not proactive. That means the player may have to have the f-bomb blasting through their speakers before they mute someone. Or whatever voice/sounds they wouldn't wish to have come into their residence or place they're playing at. One objection over the in-game voice is that it takes away the right of a player to proactively regulate what comes into their environment, and instead favors the immature and annoying people to that player.

I'll conjecture a step further, to even say the lack of an in-game /ignore feature has started conditioning people to ignore the in-game text chat messages. An in-game voice feature would make it easier to talk instead of type. And, it also makes it easier for those who choose to be annoying.

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

Push to Talk

Push To Talk into what? A microphone? I don't see a microphone included with the MWO software download. Are you implying that a player must go purchase additional hardware for their system in order to use a built in game feature? TeamSpeak is a player option they can do on the side, and not an in-game feature. TeamSpeak is also an option that can be leveraged for a number of other uses, not just a single game. An in-game voice IS an in-game feature that requires players purchase additional hardware in order to use, and for that game only.

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

Click a player on the scoreboard to mute / unmute them

So, players will have to stop in the middle of a match, pull up the scoreboard, search for the offending player, and mute them? Not something I'd look forward to, in the middle of a brawl, while some clown decides they want to spew garbage into my speakers.

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

Currently talking players names appear on the HUD and have an speaker icon on the scoreboard

Not a bad idea, if it was implemented.

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

Can communicate much faster, and with much more information
Can communicate even when in combat
PUG's will be able to communicate with the same effeciancy as premades with 3rd Party VOIP

I'd disagree, based on the above. A pre-made is group of people with like minded attitudes and an understanding of the rules (if any) that apply to their group. A member of a pre-made that goes into full disruptive mode isn't going to be around in that pre-made long. So the statement/claim of "same efficiency" is not entirely accurate.

And, with a mute feature, how does a PuG communicate with the "same efficiency" if members have muted each other? A pre-made doesn't need that, as people who have to be muted don't get invited back.

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

Requires no additional setup which means players will actually use it, unlike C3

Actually it does. You're now proposing an in-game feature that requires hardware that isn't included on many computer systems. TeamSpeak is an out-of-game option, and not an in-game feature included.

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

Team work and communication will increase (many cannot be bothered to type)

Disagree, and an inaccurate statement. Team work depends on the player and their attitude, not a voice communication feature. As has been pointed out by many people, in the many threads involving in-game voice. Voice communicaiton is a tool of team work, but doesn't create team work. That is the players job.

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

Number of PUG stomps will decrease
New player retention will be higher

Disagree with both, as both are speculative and an opinion without factual evidence. They are unproven "benefits".

Edited by Henry Morgan, 24 November 2013 - 05:45 AM.

[Henry Morgan]

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

Extra strain on the servers
Requires development time

Now this is where it gets a bit more complicated than just "do it".

First, take the business model. Its Free To Play, and not a subscription based system. That means the income is not a constant, and is going to fluctuate, and not be as predictable. However, the monthly expenses are going to remain more constant. For any business to remain in business the income has to meet or exceed the expenses.

I bring this up because retro-fitting an in-game voice feature into a game is going to add to the expenses. And not just up front expenses, but to the continuing expenses required for the business to function. Thus, the income generated by the expenses in adding the feature should meet or exceed the costs.

So, lets look at the expenses:

Recoding of the client and servers. With retro-adding a new feature into the game, the feature is going to have to be coded in. And coded so that it doesn't interfere with existing code that may not have been written to accommodate this feature at the time it was written. This means either hiring more coders to do this task (an expense), or putting other planned features on hold while resources are reassigned for this to be done. Which isn't an up front expense, but delaying previously announced features will have a negative reception.

Testing and troubleshooting. With this new feature, it is now an extra thing to test and troubleshoot in the code should anything go wrong. This can require additional staff, which is going to be an regular expense for salaries, equipment, etc...

Support. New feature means new support. This is going to require training for the support team(s) and additional staff. This will be an upfront expense as well as an ongoing expense with staffing salaries, equipment, etc...

Server loads. The servers and bandwidth were not built for this feature to be included. Now the servers will need to be matched for new specifications to be able to handle not just the game processing, but the now extra traffic generated by the voice feature. The same applies to the bandwidth that will increase with this added feature. This will be an ongoing expense with the increased capacity requirements.

Business continuity/Disaster Recovery. Increased requirements on the front end will also push increased requirements on the back-end such as backups, disaster recovery plans, business continuity plans, etc... This will be an ongoing expense.

Client requirements and bandwidth. Right now TeamSpeak is an option for players and not required. Embed a voice feature into the client, and now its a system requirement to support. Will CPU, RAM, disk requirements go up? What about end user bandwidth? If a player chooses to not use it, is it killed at the server side, or the client side? The latter will still impose bandwidth increases on the user.
(Just as a side note, one of the most amusing points I saw someone bring up was that their system couldn't handle TeamSpeak, but they were rallying for an in-game Voice feature. As if that is going to magically be less overhead on their system)

Copyrights. How much of VoIP processes are protected by copyrights, and how much are considered to be open, or public domain? Going to require some legal research into this before it can be implemented, so the design isn't crossing a copyright violation. This would be an up front expense.

Global laws. Some countries of the world treat voice and data differently. This is something else that would need to be researched and would be an up front cost. And, depending on the results, it could be an ongoing cost as well. Some countries my prohibit voice over IP. Will PGI now have to block access to their game for those countries? Some may require encryption or certain security measures for voice traffic. That can impact the coding and client/server capacities as well. Some countries may impose tariffs for voice communications, which would be an ongoing expense in that its either paying the fees, or blocking access from that region. One region may require a security level that is prohibited by another.

Language differences. Right now people who speak Language A can choose to use TeamSpeak and converse with those who also speak the language. An in-game voice system that defaults to open channels is going to have many languages mixed together. This would be as successful as the Tower of Babel. So, is the solution to have separate voice servers or channels for the different languages? If so, where does the "team work" that in-game voice is supposed to bring to the masses?

Regulation and monitoring. An increased communication channel will also net more complaints and violations of players violating the EULA and TOS associated with the game. Now, support must be fluent in not just written, but verbal languages that are supported. Ongoing expense with the additional staff required.

The negative consequences. There are some who say that adding an in-game voice will create more new players. However, I also maintain that adding such a feature will also lose players who don't wish to deal with the hassles that are associated with. And unlike "potential" income, some of the players who would leave have proven to be financial supporters of the game.

Given the above, now the company needs to look at it all (and anything not included) and look at it as:

Do we need to do all of this for an feature that is already created and available to the players for free? All because a few players can't be troubled to download a free client and install it? Is the potential positive revenue stream going to be greater than the negative expenditures required for such an endeavor?

[Jon Gotham]

Two simply excellent posts Henry +1 for each.

[ATF Griff]

I'd really like the option of built in voice chat. If you don't like it turn it off. Simple as that.

[XphR]

Its a shame no developers ever figured out a way for this to work.

[Troutmonkey]

Hey Henry. You have some very good arguments written up very well. Especially the second one about problems facing it's implementation regarding legal, time, and resource concerns.

However, few things I still disagree with.

Henry Morgan, on 24 November 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Push To Talk into what? A microphone? I don't see a microphone included with the MWO software download.

Neither is the mid-range gaming PC required to play the game. Most gamers have a mic of some sort, even el cheapo ones.

Henry Morgan, on 24 November 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

So, players will have to stop in the middle of a match, pull up the scoreboard, search for the offending player, and mute them? Not something I'd look forward to, in the middle of a brawl, while some clown decides they want to spew garbage into my speakers.

I currently have to stop in the middle of a fight just to communicate at all, and many times this isn't possible, leading to the early demise of either me or my team mates, or both.

While VOIP may not magically make every gamer super coorperate and helpful overnight, it will help those who are already to do so more efficiantly, and more often. Good tools a technician do not make, but with the right tools they will work that much better.

Assuming that at some point PGI / IGP will have the time, money and resources to implement VOIP, I still believe that they should, as the benefits still far outwiegh the negatives. MWO is the sort of game that attracts what I would like to hope are more mature gamers, so I believe that the system will be used for good far more often than for being annoying. Everyone makes VOIP out to be the devil, filled with prepubescent teens and shrill annoying voices, but it's not really all that bad. In my time in Gears I sure did mute my fair share of people, but the good guys more than made up for it, and ultimately made it a better gaming experience, something that I hope MWO will be able to offer in the near future. Maybe the teams being held back by UI 2.0, or just general lack of people in general, but I do think this feature should see the light of day.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 25 November 2013 - 04:47 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Yes the game could use it.

Probably not use it often as The Law has its own TS Server, but when I PUG I could/would use it.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 25 November 2013 - 05:38 AM.

[Atheus]

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

squish

Spoiler

Yes, there are a few of these threads. However none of them are new, or have working polls.
http://mwomercs.com/search?q=voip . For such a requested and core feature, how is this not in the game already?

I don't have any friends who want to play MWO, for various reasons (it's kinda buggy, and has a steep learning curve). So for me to play MWO in any sort of coordinated fashion, I have to communicate with PUGs via text chat. Now this is all well and good at the start of a match where I can say " Lights go kappa", but the whole form of communication rapidly breaks down the moment I get into combat. You just want to call out for help or warn your allies not to walk into the Atlas blob at Theta, but you're too busy torso twisting to find the time to type your way out of that.

C3 exist but I've never used it. Why? Because it's not built, and likely no one else uses it. TeamSpeak / Vent is also a non-option because trying to get PUGs to join your crappy server within 30 seconds is nigh impossible.

To make this game truly accessable, we need VOIP. It's been around for over a decade now, majorly since the original Counter Strike. It's an essential part of any good team game, and at the moment it's giving premades with 3rd party Voice comms an insane advantage.

All good VOIP games now use a quick one-click mute system, meaning any players abusing the system won't be heard for long. And, if you really hate voice an option to completely disable would work fine too. However for the rest of us VOIP would go a long way towards making MWO a much better game. An option to party up at the end of games would be another awesome feature, but that's for another thread.

Implimentation:

• Push to Talk
  
• Click a player on the scoreboard to mute / unmute them
  
• Currently talking players names appear on the HUD and have an speaker icon on the scoreboard

Benefits:

• Can communicate much faster, and with much more information
  
  • Can communicate even when in combat
    
  • PUG's will be able to communicate with the same effeciancy as premades with 3rd Party VOIP
• Requires no additional setup which means players will actually use it, unlike C3
  
• Team work and communication will increase (many cannot be bothered to type)
  
• Number of PUG stomps will decrease
  
• New player retention will be higher
  
• No need to spend time searching for a group or find an active TeamSpeak/Ventrillo/Mumble server.

Negatives

• Some players may abuse the system and spout obscenities, music or make stupid sounds (you can easily mute these people)
  
• Extra strain on the servers
  
• Requires development time

TLDR: We need VOIP, because teamwork is OP.

Just wanted to commend you on your saintly patience responding to all these nonsensical arguments. Threads like these really make me wonder what portion of the forum is here to actually discuss what is good for the game rather than just entertain themselves by typing nonsense into a thread.

Here are the arguments I see: (I went ahead and wrote in how I would have responded...)
"VOIP is bad because people might say bad things to children."
- They can already type bad things to children without VOIP.

"VOIP is annoying."
- Then turn it off.

"Certain people are annoying."
- You're one of them. If only I could mute you in the forums too!

"VOIP won't help anything because gamers won't listen to each other."
- Oh, despair! The humans won't listen to words!

"VOIP is a waste of time because nobody will use it."
- There are plenty of examples where adequately designed VOIP is used. This game is one where communication is vital to being competitive. If it's made well enough, it will get used.

"PGI is too busy to make VOIP"
- That's really irrelevant, and frankly not something you should be worried about.


How you managed to coolly and respectfully respond to this drivel is beyond me. Kudos.

To the negative Nancies:
VOIP has the potential to truly transform the gameplay experience of MWO in a very positive way. Imagine being able to do premade groups of any size again, because your premade will be up against ELO matched players with the same communication advantages. Imagine being able to form and modify groups on the fly both in-game and in mechlab (not strictly VOIP-enabled, but it's related). Imagine being able to push one button to talk to your lance, and another to talk to your whole team. This game would basically be 3.333 repeating times cooler with VOIP whether you're a casual player, or a dedicated try-hard, so if you Nancies have any more thoughtless nonsense to scribble down, please save it up in your private journal until you find something worth writing in a public space.

[Jon Gotham]

What an arrogant post Atheus. Simply disgusting attitude.

Personally I'd be fine with it IF it did not interfere with existing 3rd party voip and we had the option to completely disable it. If you couldn't, it would be a slap in the face to everyone who has bothered to sort something out already.
And then, when most people ignore you or have it turned off completely-don't you dare to complain on the forums about it.
People on TS WILL ignore you. Most organised units use 3rd party and they will most likely not use in game voip at all.
Also as long as it did not use any more bandwidth or put any more strain on the servers-some of us are borderline with it already.


From my own experience of online games with built in voip-hardly anyone uses it because they want to talk and interact with their own clans/units/guilds. I've had nothing but negative experiences with it over the past 10 years. A 400 strong raid alliance on wow NEVER used it I was part of, because TS was perfectly fine and we had no interruptions.


People have put forward perfectly valid counter points about voip, dismissing them in the arrogant manner you did is not wanted.
Right now, nothing is stopping you from joining one of the numerous casual units or joining one of the open ts servers-except willingness. Because whatever they bring in, most of the pre organised units won't use it-unless it has a serious feature list, and most of the ts users use it for general socialising out of the game as well......I don't want to have to log into MWO so I can casually chat with my unit when trying to play Skyrim for example...

[Atheus]

kamiko kross, on 25 November 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

What an arrogant post Atheus. Simply disgusting attitude.

Personally I'd be fine with it IF it did not interfere with existing 3rd party voip and we had the option to completely disable it. If you couldn't, it would be a slap in the face to everyone who has bothered to sort something out already.
And then, when most people ignore you or have it turned off completely-don't you dare to complain on the forums about it.
People on TS WILL ignore you. Most organised units use 3rd party and they will most likely not use in game voip at all.
Also as long as it did not use any more bandwidth or put any more strain on the servers-some of us are borderline with it already.


From my own experience of online games with built in voip-hardly anyone uses it because they want to talk and interact with their own clans/units/guilds. I've had nothing but negative experiences with it over the past 10 years. A 400 strong raid alliance on wow NEVER used it I was part of, because TS was perfectly fine and we had no interruptions.


People have put forward perfectly valid counter points about voip, dismissing them in the arrogant manner you did is not wanted.
Right now, nothing is stopping you from joining one of the numerous casual units or joining one of the open ts servers-except willingness. Because whatever they bring in, most of the pre organised units won't use it-unless it has a serious feature list, and most of the ts users use it for general socialising out of the game as well......I don't want to have to log into MWO so I can casually chat with my unit when trying to play Skyrim for example...

Why on earth are you suspecting that PGI would make the first ever VOIP solution that can't be disabled? Is that even a point you need to make? You are aware that you're just spouting nonsense, right? Arrogance has nothing to do with it. Those arguments are garbage.

The fact that you're pretending that the current option to join team speak is somehow equivalent to integrated VOIP just shows how little you're trying to understand the issue. Since you're having trouble, I'll explain. You can't communicate with your entire team when you've launching with only 4 people. Even if they already have team speak installed, they will not have the time or energy to find your team speak server, and get in your channel.

The rest of what you're saying "this hypothetical solution that doesn't even exist yet is definitely not going to be good enough" is more nonsense. Why don't you spend your energy talking about what would make it good enough, rather than fighting people over an inadequate feature set that doesn't even exist?

[Jon Gotham]

And the second highly aggressive answer. I have already stated what would make it good for me.
You seem to want to casually hop into the game solo, but still want to have group benefits. What we are saying is that many,many,many of us have this already......
Also people will rage and whine when the realise that most people are ignoring them/have it turned off. That is the norm for every game I have played online in the last decade-people just tend to turn in game voip off.
Hence the positive effect you rightly wish for will probably be very minimal for a select few. You state that peeps who wish to work together will use it-you might be right, but then generally peeps who are inclined to play like that do tend to join units and go onto things like tS/mumble even when there are built in options....
I play defiance currently, that has built in voip and crikey is it irritating! It keeps turning itself back on and I often hear people talking when I'm in a group with a few of my buddies-it's REALLY annoying when I'm trying to have a conversation with my friend and I hear some under mature fool jabbering on in the background...
For example: in a lot of pug games you will have one premade lance. They will turn voip off. Then you'll probably have 4 peeps who also turn it off-because they find it annoying. that leaves just 4 people, 2 of which will probably ignore you anyway.....
PGI seems to be really struggling ATM and it is worrying at how slow they are progressing-wether you like it or not, putting this option in will spend dev time and resources and they have to weigh up wether that time is better spent getting cw and ui 2.0 ready or doing in game voip that I'd gamble the majority won't even use.
that communication you crave already exists on open ts servers run by kind peeps in our community and in most units. Why the stubborn resistence to that?

From what I understood of this thread, people want to play solo yet still group up in premades.....but then they could,have joined a unit and done that already...using TS.....
I'm not saying don't put it in, but some of the reasoning for it is flawed and the aformentioned pug stomps will still happen just as often (hint: it's NOT lack of comms causing this), now with added muting and abuse action. How will they moderate the voice chat? Typing is one thing but hearing someone effing and blinding at others is another matter!
You mention forming premades etc, how are you going to get to know people in game? You going to chatter away about the weather etc when others are trying to play? Or do you suggest a free chat zone in the mechlab?
Being as dismissive and aggressive as you are is not helping.

My wanted feature list:
#1 The option to disable it utterly. (or you have to enable it in the first instance)
#2 An infinite ignore/mute list. (would love a one click system for that)
#3 The option to create your own "channel" out side of the public.
#4 No extra drain on bandwidth whatsoever.
#5 An option to have a standalone client/channel creation maybe? But one that is for MWO, with a TS -like feature list. This would, be for units/clans so they could chat outside of matches.

And you have to remember, this is PGI we are talking about-nothing is out of the question:)

[Atheus]

kamiko kross, on 25 November 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

Spoiler

And the second highly aggressive answer. I have already stated what would make it good for me.
You seem to want to casually hop into the game solo, but still want to have group benefits. What we are saying is that many,many,many of us have this already......
Also people will rage and whine when the realise that most people are ignoring them/have it turned off. That is the norm for every game I have played online in the last decade-people just tend to turn in game voip off.
Hence the positive effect you rightly wish for will probably be very minimal for a select few. You state that peeps who wish to work together will use it-you might be right, but then generally peeps who are inclined to play like that do tend to join units and go onto things like tS/mumble even when there are built in options....
I play defiance currently, that has built in voip and crikey is it irritating! It keeps turning itself back on and I often hear people talking when I'm in a group with a few of my buddies-it's REALLY annoying when I'm trying to have a conversation with my friend and I hear some under mature fool jabbering on in the background...
For example: in a lot of pug games you will have one premade lance. They will turn voip off. Then you'll probably have 4 peeps who also turn it off-because they find it annoying. that leaves just 4 people, 2 of which will probably ignore you anyway.....
PGI seems to be really struggling ATM and it is worrying at how slow they are progressing-wether you like it or not, putting this option in will spend dev time and resources and they have to weigh up wether that time is better spent getting cw and ui 2.0 ready or doing in game voip that I'd gamble the majority won't even use.
that communication you crave already exists on open ts servers run by kind peeps in our community and in most units. Why the stubborn resistence to that?

From what I understood of this thread, people want to play solo yet still group up in premades.....but then they could,have joined a unit and done that already...using TS.....
I'm not saying don't put it in, but some of the reasoning for it is flawed and the aformentioned pug stomps will still happen just as often (hint: it's NOT lack of comms causing this), now with added muting and abuse action. How will they moderate the voice chat? Typing is one thing but hearing someone effing and blinding at others is another matter!
You mention forming premades etc, how are you going to get to know people in game? You going to chatter away about the weather etc when others are trying to play? Or do you suggest a free chat zone in the mechlab?
Being as dismissive and aggressive as you are is not helping.

My wanted feature list:
#1 The option to disable it utterly. (or you have to enable it in the first instance)
#2 An infinite ignore/mute list. (would love a one click system for that)
#3 The option to create your own "channel" out side of the public.
#4 No extra drain on bandwidth whatsoever.
#5 An option to have a standalone client/channel creation maybe? But one that is for MWO, with a TS -like feature list. This would, be for units/clans so they could chat outside of matches.

And you have to remember, this is PGI we are talking about-nothing is out of the question:)

When you're responding to someone, please quote them so they get a notification that they have been responded to.

You are still mistaken in some of your assertions, though, mainly "You seem to want to casually hop into the game solo, but still want to have group benefits.", "From what I understood of this thread, people want to play solo yet still group up in premades.....but then they could,have joined a unit and done that already...using TS.....". What are these "group benefits?" you speak of? Are they some sort of sacred advantage reserved only for those who are willing to run additional software before they start their chosen game? Is it just coincidence that the software that procures "group benefits" is voice software? What people want is not complicated — they want to be able to communicate with their team using their voice. It has nothing to do with whether you're a solo dropper, a lance dropper, or full 12v12. The result is the same. You will play better when you can talk to your team. Not everyone will use their voice effectively - it requires some experience and proficiency just like every other aspect of gaming. That doesn't need any discussion, though. That's for the individual to deal with. What the game company needs to deal with is providing players all the tools they need to play the game.

Your second wrong assumption is that I don't use TS. Of course I use it — not every time I play, but I do use it regularly. Otherwise how would I know that voice is such an advantage? TS is an inadequate solution, though. It is not capable of letting me communicate with my entire team, since I'm not willing to go through all the trouble of chasing down enough players to drop 12v12. If my TS channel for my 4 man group would merge with other groups to allow me to communicate with the entire team, that would be adequate, but it doesn't do that. The only people who can make something like that work is PGI, which is why we lobby for integrated VOIP.

Now let's look at your fetaure list:
#1 - you really don't need to say this. It's like saying you want it to have push-to-talk.
#2 - this shouldn't be an issue either.
#3 - this also sounds ok, but how much bandwidth do you want PGI to devote to non-game chat?
#4 - this is not your problem, is it? PGI has to purchase as much bandwidth is needed to run their game. Or were you talking about your personal bandwidth? If that's the case, it surely wouldn't take any more than any other VOIP service.
#5 - any group should theoretically be able to communicate whether they are in a match or not, but I agree a little more flexibility is needed. That's part of a bigger picture reworking of the whole social interface, such as a lobby - another feature set that is overdue.

Now, regarding dismissive and aggressive — is making flimsy and meaningless arguments (whatever their intention) helpful? It is tiresome coming to a forum for suggesting features only to find that sort of useless noise clogging the works. It is disrespectful to the OP to come in here and bog down a good idea with a mess of thoughtless posts that aren't even worth consideration, but which seem to necessitate a response. Responding is yet another complete waste of time, yet slouching to do so is only rewarded with the same stupid points re-asserted five posts later. For that sort of thing, there is no reason to be kind.

[Henry Morgan]

Troutmonkey, on 25 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Neither is the mid-range gaming PC required to play the game. Most gamers have a mic of some sort, even el cheapo ones.

True, microphones are more common amongst PC users present day than earlier years. However, if a voice feature is included in the game, it now becomes a game feature. A game feature that a player can not utilize unless they purchase third party hardware for their system.

And, some of the same argument can now be used by those without microphones, as those who are pushing for an in game voice system. Players who have gone out and purchased third party hardware now have an "unfair advantage" over those who haven't. If players presently utilizing an entirely optional third party solution (Teamspeak, Vent, etc...) have an "unfair advantage" over players who don't, then the same would apply to an in-game voice solution. In which case, the argument could be made that those pushing for in-game voice are actually pushing for an 'unfair advantage' over other players.

Like I said, microphones are more common, but the argument is being made because someone doesn't want to download and install a free, third party software application to assist them. Then the same argument should be supported for someone who doesn't want to go out and buy third party hardware to assist them.

Troutmonkey, on 25 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

I currently have to stop in the middle of a fight just to communicate at all, and many times this isn't possible, leading to the early demise of either me or my team mates, or both.

True, I'll give you that. The default communication is clunky in-game and the lack of preset commands is not a plus. Nor is the extremely small mini-map radius for situational awareness. However, learning situational awareness can be just as beneficial as voice commands. I tend to PuG a lot, and see that as being a major issue with a lot of teams.

Troutmonkey, on 25 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

While VOIP may not magically make every gamer super coorperate and helpful overnight, it will help those who are already to do so more efficiantly, and more often. Good tools a technician do not make, but with the right tools they will work that much better.

True. But a good technician (or one striving to be good) will also go out and get the tools they require to do the job. Especially if the tools they require are already free.

Troutmonkey, on 25 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Assuming that at some point PGI / IGP will have the time, money and resources to implement VOIP, I still believe that they should, as the benefits still far outwiegh the negatives. MWO is the sort of game that attracts what I would like to hope are more mature gamers, so I believe that the system will be used for good far more often than for being annoying. Everyone makes VOIP out to be the devil, filled with prepubescent teens and shrill annoying voices, but it's not really all that bad. In my time in Gears I sure did mute my fair share of people, but the good guys more than made up for it, and ultimately made it a better gaming experience, something that I hope MWO will be able to offer in the near future. Maybe the teams being held back by UI 2.0, or just general lack of people in general, but I do think this feature should see the light of day.

When I was in the beta's I would have probably agreed with this point, about the player base. Unfortunately, when the release happened the quality and maturity of the player base dropped quite a bit. I'll still have to disagree with you on the positive versus negative benefits, based on my own personal experiences and opinion. I've been in games where the players clamored for in-game voice, it was added, and wound up not being used except for a very small subset. I've also been in games where the in-game voice was so horrible (due to players behavior) that I just stopped playing that game and moved on.

If PGI had the backing (and deep pockets) of some major shop, where resources weren't an issue, I'd probably not argue against it as much. Nor would I use it. But, with the PGI's present situation, I think there are a lot more pressing things the developers could be using resources on that would be greater improvements to the game.

[Henry Morgan]

Atheus, on 25 November 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

What people want is not complicated — they want to be able to communicate with their team using their voice. It has nothing to do with whether you're a solo dropper, a lance dropper, or full 12v12. The result is the same. You will play better when you can talk to your team. Not everyone will use their voice effectively - it requires some experience and proficiency just like every other aspect of gaming. That doesn't need any discussion, though. That's for the individual to deal with. What the game company needs to deal with is providing players all the tools they need to play the game.

If voice is a tool players "need" to play the game, should the game company also provide microphones to those players who may not have one?

And I think you missed the point Kamiko was making about talking with your PuG team in reality. The reality is, teams will not all be communicating over an in-game voice option. And a player who is assuming they're going to be able to is going to be in for a surprise. Organized groups enjoy their standards/rules they have with their group, and will continue using their third party software. Annoying players will get put on ignore/mute lists, based on whatever personal criteria that player uses. And, if PGI refuses to have an in-game ignore feature that permanently silences a player (not just a mute-for-the-match), more players will move to just disable the in-game voice entirely than deal with the hassles.

Atheus, on 25 November 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

#4 - this is not your problem, is it? PGI has to purchase as much bandwidth is needed to run their game. Or were you talking about your personal bandwidth? If that's the case, it surely wouldn't take any more than any other VOIP service.

The bandwidth they presently use is for the game and the data between the servers and the clients. Adding another layer of data into that is going to be increased bandwidth requirements. Which costs money. And while technically it may be "not your problem", the fact that increase expenses incurred by a business mean increased revenue to offset it, the latter part is a concern for me. Where does that monthly expense offset come from, with a Free To Play model?

And personal bandwidth can be an issue from some. Not everyone happens to live in area's where its unlimited volume of usage per month. Some ISP/NSP companies put limits on how much data is included with a monthly cost, and tack on penalties if it is exceeded. Some players also happen to not be fortunate enough to live close to a broadband provider, or close to the server locations.

If implemented, and a player wishes to disable the in-game voice, it would depend on how it is coded in regards to personal bandwidth impact. If I wanted to disable the voice feature, and it killed it at the server side, then personal bandwidth becomes a non-issue. However if disabling the feature only functionally mutes it on the player end, then that data is still being transmitted across the player end.

When things like this are brought up, it isn't to "bog down" an idea, but rather further explaining a position. These are things that some haven't thought of, and are going to be impact to the idea.

[Troutmonkey]

Henry Morgan, on 25 November 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

True, microphones are more common amongst PC users present day than earlier years. However, if a voice feature is included in the game, it now becomes a game feature. A game feature that a player can not utilize unless they purchase third party hardware for their system.
And, some of the same argument can now be used by those without microphones, as those who are pushing for an in game voice system. Players who have gone out and purchased third party hardware now have an "unfair advantage" over those who haven't. If players presently utilizing an entirely optional third party solution (Teamspeak, Vent, etc...) have an "unfair advantage" over players who don't, then the same would apply to an in-game voice solution. In which case, the argument could be made that those pushing for in-game voice are actually pushing for an 'unfair advantage' over other players.

I don't know how to argue with this, because it's nonsensual. I have a gaming mouse, a gaming keyboard, surround sound headphones and a powerful rig that doesn't lag. I already have an "unfair" advantage over those who don't, but I shouldn't have to give up these because there's nothing stopping anyone from going out and also getting those things, same with headphones. Currently premades have a massive communicational advantage over PUGs, and there is absolutely nothing in game that can balance this issue, except to also give the PUGs VOIP. Those without mics will still benefit from those on their team with mics, as (assuming they own speakers) they will be able to hear their feedback in real time, without any in game cost to the speaker.

On the rare occasion I group up with some friends I'll use VOIP, or be in the same room. However, most of the time I PUG and I do my best to help my team win with vital communication via text chat. Many times it has worked, saving our team from a suprise flank I spotted or a group of enemies hiding over the next hill. However many times I find text woefully inefficient and that's why I want to change that.

[East Indy]

Troutmonkey, on 13 November 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

As stated, any unhelpful or disruptive players could simply be muted.

They could, but let me put it this way: before I switched my Xbox Live settings to "hear friends only," Call of Duty lobbies involved a mini-game of muting every stranger before a random comment, a racist epithet, gibberish, bad music or buzzing fed into my headset. It was enjoyable to fool myself into believing that other players — especially those on the opposing team — were focused and respectfully quiet.

Productive exchanges just didn't happen often enough to countervail the totally unwanted communication. Mechwarrior has a more civil audience, but it's still not one I would trust with default access to my ears.

Honestly? Pickup groups either have it or they don't; some players just know their way around a map and can improvise, others can't perform as a team no matter how much information is being shared.

[Henry Morgan]

Troutmonkey, on 25 November 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

I don't know how to argue with this, because it's nonsensual.

Nonsensual?

But I get the drift. I just had a chuckle over that.

The point is, its opinion. What you consider a nonsensical argument is the very same opinion someone else may have by those who have stated they refuse to use existing third party software.

Troutmonkey, on 25 November 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

I have a gaming mouse, a gaming keyboard, surround sound headphones and a powerful rig that doesn't lag. I already have an "unfair" advantage over those who don't, but I shouldn't have to give up these because there's nothing stopping anyone from going out and also getting those things, same with headphones.

No you shouldn't. Your 'unfair advantage' with the above is due to your own work and efforts. Just like there is nothing stopping anyone from going out, installing Teamspeak/Vent/Whatever, and finding a guild/clan or group of players to drop with. The point is, where does the "unfair" argument stop? At what point does "unfair" become a legitimate complaint that should be addressed, to one that the player needs to accept some responsibility for their own end?

I can understand the point you're trying to make, even though I may not agree with it. But its the terminology I tend to take some issue with.

Troutmonkey, on 25 November 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

Currently premades have a massive communicational advantage over PUGs, and there is absolutely nothing in game that can balance this issue, except to also give the PUGs VOIP. Those without mics will still benefit from those on their team with mics, as (assuming they own speakers) they will be able to hear their feedback in real time, without any in game cost to the speaker.

And has been mentioned previously in the thread, that advantage isn't due to voice. That advantage is because they went out and found like-minded individuals to play with. They found the right group of people they can coordinate with, and fits their play style. Before a match starts, they log into a third party service, and coordinate with their group and drop together. Before the match starts they can even coordinate who is playing which mech types to better support each other.

This is team work, and is all effort and activities done by the pre-made _before_ any match is started. This is a combination of attitude and effort, not just having voice. Voice is certainly a tool they use, but its not the foundation of why they are successful. And that is the 'advantage' pre-mades will have over PuG's, even if an in-game voice is added.

Troutmonkey, on 25 November 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

On the rare occasion I group up with some friends I'll use VOIP, or be in the same room. However, most of the time I PUG and I do my best to help my team win with vital communication via text chat. Many times it has worked, saving our team from a suprise flank I spotted or a group of enemies hiding over the next hill. However many times I find text woefully inefficient and that's why I want to change that.

I'll conceed the in-game text options are pretty limited and weak. However I've been in games where all the text alerts in the world don't stop some players from walking into ambushes, coming back to help their teams, etc... And voice isn't going to change that. More and more I find myself ignoring most of the text chat in PuG matches, as it seems to become more and more garbage filled. The same garbage I don't want blasting out of my speakers in my home.

[Jon Gotham]

Atheus, on 25 November 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Now, regarding dismissive and aggressive — is making flimsy and meaningless arguments (whatever their intention) helpful? It is tiresome coming to a forum for suggesting features only to find that sort of useless noise clogging the works. It is disrespectful to the OP to come in here and bog down a good idea with a mess of thoughtless posts that aren't even worth consideration, but which seem to necessitate a response. Responding is yet another complete waste of time, yet slouching to do so is only rewarded with the same stupid points re-asserted five posts later. For that sort of thing, there is no reason to be kind.

You were doing so well up until that paragraph:(
Your opinion differs from mine, that is all. My opinions are neither weak, nor flimsy-just different to yours.
What you lambast me for, the people on your side of the fence are every bit as guilty-if not more so.
Why do you have to be this way over this issue?

[Troutmonkey]

Henry Morgan, on 25 November 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

And has been mentioned previously in the thread, that advantage isn't due to voice.

Don't you dare tell me that voice communication isn't a HUGE and main advantage of grouping. Playing a premade without VOIP is almost as bad as pugging. While you may be playing with a higher caliber player as a result of grouping, without the ability to effectively communicate with those people you're going to lose out on the valuable, real time information they could be feeding you. Most people won't even bother grouping without VOIP, because there really isn't much point.

East Indy, on 25 November 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Call of Duty lobbies

Call of Duty lobbies
Enough said really. Teamwork and coordination isn't required in CoD at all. As I said before, I played Gears of War - another game very similar to MWO with no respawns - and found it extremely useful.

And stop trying to compare a match to match game with MMOs. In an MMO taking time to find a good group, band together, and then roll dungeons is par for the course. They are time consuming games and grouping up with TeamSpeak is perfectly fine in these cases, as you will often roll from instance to instance with just your group, and no one else.

In MWO every game you are paired with up to 11 random team mates, all of which you must communicate with for a team to function well. You don't have the time to group up or join an outside VOIP client with these guys, nor do you have any easy option to group up for the next round (like Halo 3 does).

If PGI can't make VOIP happen due to time, money or people restraints, I can live with that. However if they can but they won't, I can't see a very good reason why'd they do that.

[Troutmonkey]

East Indy, on 25 November 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

— especially those on the opposing team —

VOIP Communication should be limited to Lance / Team until the End of Match screen, where the two teams can exchange GG's and what not