1
Kay Wolf, on 31 December 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:
Okay, but you will never satisfy all of the people all of the time. My point was that inborne voice commo would improve the game for a good many people a hundred fold, a good many more people than external sources do, now. There will, of course, be those people who will decry everything, and those people and units that will not use internal commo no matter what, nor should they be forced to. However, in-game commo means it's already there, all you have to do is check the box that you want to use it, or uncheck it if you don't; no set-up otherwise. PGI said, in the beginning, they wanted to put in-game commo so they could introduce things like static, cutting commo for particular hits, such as from PPCs, etc., for that immersion factor. To the best of my knowledge, this is something that remains on their list, but it's way at the bottom if it is still there.
Oh, I agree with this. But I also think its not going to have as much of a positive impact as some seem to think. It will have some, certainly. But teamwork isn't going to just magically appear because of voice communication. Voice communication is a tool of teamwork, not the cause of teamwork. The latter comes from the player and their attitudes.
Just some of the challenges with an in-game voice solution and the assumption it will bring greater teamwork to the game:
- Linquistic differences. Not everyone speaks the same language.
- Voice disabled. Some people will just disable it because of the garbage.
- TeamSpeak. Units are going to continue to use 3rd party voice applicaitons because they can control that environment. They're not going to use in-game voice.
- Disruptive players. There will be some who just enjoy being disruptive, as they crave any attention (even negative) they can get.
- Too many Chiefs. We see this in PuG's at times, and voice isn't going to be any different. Except louder arguements.
Kay Wolf, on 31 December 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:
Agreed. You're right. I have blamed stupid {Scrap} for losses, before, but it's usually just the inability of a bunch of PUG buttheads to follow orders; in Conquest, for example, I try to get people to perform combat on their way in-between caps, "Fight between caps, ladies!" Unfortunately, there are those who will ONLY fight, no matter what, they end up dead, and then they blame evil pre-mades or something else ridiculous. I see it all the time.
Which is why I don't think an in-game voice is going to make teamwork magically appear. We've all seen the players that appear to have no situational awareness, are simply stubborn, clashes of egos, etc... Or, perhaps they've just become too conditioned to simply ignore the in-game chat because of the garbage on it. Players who actually want to put an effort into trying to be better, will. Voice or not. The lazy ones will continue to be meat for the grinder, and then howl about "<something> is over powered, nerf it" based on whatever is killing them. Players like that suffer from permanent victimhood and will always have soemthing, or someone else, to blame for their own actions and results.
To put it bluntly, stupid people are simply just stupid.
Kay Wolf, on 31 December 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:
I think you would find the opposite would happen; your ability to find a game would be gradually diminished. I consider the idiots I run into to be patience training, and rarely find one individual in a game to be so stupid that I wish I could *****-slap them into next year. Like the HPG map, which I despise with a passion, I still play it, and I play all of the game modes, whatever comes my way, as training to make my play better, more diverse, more thoughtful. That doesn't mean I like it, but it does mean I acknowledge I have to work with everyone and everything in-game in order to become better; you know what? It's working.
I still think an ignore feature would be unwarranted, but perhaps if they made a report feature in-game for abuses of in-game voice, that would work. You, and any children that might be around, are always going to be around, as are the ignorant jackasses who have no self-respect, and so it comes down to the idea that, if you're easily offended, or you're offended because of kids around, or because of your faith, you should invest in a good pair of headphones or play in a closed room at particular times so no one else has to listen to the bad behavior. It's going to happen, period and there are so many people who act stupidly that, if you put every one of them on a list so you don't have to play with them, you're going to find yourself alone VERY quickly.
I still think an ignore feature would be unwarranted, but perhaps if they made a report feature in-game for abuses of in-game voice, that would work. You, and any children that might be around, are always going to be around, as are the ignorant jackasses who have no self-respect, and so it comes down to the idea that, if you're easily offended, or you're offended because of kids around, or because of your faith, you should invest in a good pair of headphones or play in a closed room at particular times so no one else has to listen to the bad behavior. It's going to happen, period and there are so many people who act stupidly that, if you put every one of them on a list so you don't have to play with them, you're going to find yourself alone VERY quickly.
I'd disagree with that. I depends on the level of tolerance of the individual player. If a players skin is so thin that they wind up ignoring everyone and can't play the game, then thats their own fault. And, I've actually seen the players able to self-regulate with ignore features actually work in some games. Thats something players have to accept with an ability to self-regulate like that. Sure, you ignore a player and you won't see them again. However that can also impact you as well. Honestly, I think we'd see more people complaining about how their queue times are higher (because a lot of people put them on ignore for their poor behavior) rather than people complaining their queue times are high because they put too many on ignore.
The other problem I have is this attitude that the poor behavior players have a "right" to come into other people's homes and be hear. The whole suggesiton of having to buy 3rd party hardware, or redesign my home, just to accomodate these players is wrong. If it was an occasional thing, and the game company did something to address that, that is one thing. But when you see players who behave poor still around after being reported multiple times, I have little to no faith it would be any different/better with an in-game voice client.
As for in-game reporting, I agree with your point that if it was done that could be a viable alternative. However, PGI would really need to step it up in the regards of taking action. I only say that because I've seen a player drop slurs in multiple matches, streams of profanitiy (not the lightweight, PG-13 stuff) in others, and engage in sexually harrassing behavior in another match. All of which were reported. And guess what, that player is still around. And with in-game voice, I'd get to look forward to this sort of stuff come blasting through my speakers?
Just as an interesting side item. If they do implement in-game voice, and are going to respond to it, does that mean they'll be recording all the voice conversations during a match as well? In game chat is easy, and could probably even be split off to a txt file for compression. Voice chat is going to be a significant disk/space impact if they're going to record every match so its available to review. And, being an international game, I wonder how that fits in with the different countries wiretapping laws?
Kay Wolf, on 31 December 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:
I think you're going to find, once April rolls around and if PGI sticks to their purported time schedule, that units being able to explicitly fight other units is going to change a LOT. In fact, Bryan was saying -at the launch party in September- that PUG matches, as we have them now, are going away. People in a unit are ten times more likely to speak with respect and treat one-another better than those who just drop in for a game. IIRC, he was saying that players will be able to stick with groups formed during the evening, so if you find a good group -like the one I was a part of last night, really good, so good- you like, you'll be able to stick with them, or you can jump groups until you find one you like. I think all of this is going to change in the next four months, and we'll see if there are still complaints, then.
Oh, I agree, a lobby system would make it easier for grouping, etc.. However, I also think teamwork is more of a players attitude than a physical tool. People in units now act a certain way because right now it is all handled by the players outside of the game. As a player, if you join a unit to play with, you are expected to follow their rules and regulations. Failure to do so can result in a player being removed from that unit. Since units are something players actively seek out to find like-minded players, the threat of removal is one that holds more sway.
What would have been nice (hindsight always being 20/20) is if they had incorporated a "find a unit" feature into the game interface. Given how the game has a more heavy emphasis on unit play. It might make it easier for newer players to get into a unit and playing with one, rather than relying on them to visit the forums, sign up out of band, etc..
Kay Wolf, on 31 December 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:
This is actually how it's supposed to be, in accordance with the lore and the stories. Besides, I've seen plenty of brawling in all of the matches I play in... however, and I might just be in a higher ELO bracket, though I seriously doubt it, but the fighting is a lot more skillful, and a lot less "Gronk beat 'Mech!" There should be room for brawling, for peek-a-boo, for limited boating -thank you, ghost heat-, for LRM throwing with limited results -I'll address this in a moment-, etc. I think you're going to find that the Gronk types are going to rediscover brawling in a way that will be so much more fulfilling than what that abomination MechWarrior 4 did in the past.
Oh, I like brawling. And better yet, I like brawling in my medium mechs.
From what I've observed the key is watching the flow of the battle and knowing when it's time time to jump in a brawl and when not to. And where to jump in, and what target to brawl with. When it all comes together, with even a fair team, brawling is quite fun.Kay Wolf, on 31 December 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:
Sniper gameplay has actually grown a set of balls in this game, but you can't just hide behind a hill, jump up and fire, that ACTUALLY takes skill, now, unlike in MechWarrior IV -can you tell I hated that game-, so people aren't even bothering with pop-tarting, now. They simply aim better and hit their targets. I do it all the time, and I don't need to hide behind a hill. However, I also need to ensure that I hit them, first, because if I don't, my cockpit is all over the place, and I can't hit anything until I'm clear of fire, hehe.
There are good snipers, thats a given. But I also see a rash of poor snipers as well. Snipers who pick a spot and refuse to move, and only engage the enemy when they come into their range. Snipers in Assaults decked out with medium lasers, SRM's and two AC/5's, that decide the AC/5's make them a "sniper" and refuse to engage the enemy except to snipe, while the rest of the team is engaged and maybe losing. Snipers who can't his the broadside of a barn. Snipers with no close range defenses that get just chewed apart by the enemy light that has found them.
