68 replies to this topic

[DEN_Ninja]

Solahma, on 15 April 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Spoiler

I'm a supporter of seperate VOIP channels for Lance and Company as well, but I would take it a step farther and default players to Lance Only VOIP. Lance Commander would have another channel and key to speak with the rest of the team.

Another option is to include a more detailed Chain of Cammand (CoC) that would have the following restrictions:
-Regular player: Lance voip only (BLUE INDICATOR)
-Lance commander: Lance voip, and voip between the other two lance commanders (GREEN INDICATOR)
-Company commander: Lance voip, voip between the other two lance commanders, and company-wide voip. (YELLOW INDICATOR)

This would add a lot of incentive to take up the leadership possitions as keep the airwaves from getting too cluttered with mic-spam. Communication would be very controls and limited.

I also agree that there should be a mute option for individual players as well as a setting toggle to switch voip off completely.

Dead players should have voip deactivated as soon as their mech is destroyed (to avoid potential whining as well as general commentary) there is not reason to have dead players talking, they can type what they want at that point. I understand it could be an aid to the team if they are contributing help, but it would clutter the airwaves with their "usefull input"


could you ellaborate?

FelixBlucher, on 15 April 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Spoiler

A blacklist would be great, maybe a thumb up or down button for each player. If a person is well liked, then one person down voting them should not affect them very much. If a person is regularly down voted, then they could have the following happen:
1. Have an automated time out based on their negative votes. Like 13 negative votes equals 3 days on the blacklist. Their reputation indicator would be turned yellow.
2. If they get another 13 votes, then they will be given 7 days of being on the blacklist, and their indicator would be turned orange.
3. If they still kept at it, then they would be blacklisted for a month, and have their indicator turned red.
4. If a player kept at it after that, then they would be permanently added to the blacklist, unless they ask PGI for another chance.
5. Each indicator level would require a timeframe equal to the punishment in order t get their indicator back to a lower level. So, a red player would have to go 30 days without being blacklisted in order to go orange again.
Instead of a thumb up or down, a person being blacklisted could be used as part of a rating system.

Arggh

Don't overcomplicate it. Just allow for people to mute individuals.

The system needs to be robust and simple so that anyone can use it or bar themselves from using it.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 April 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Do people really see much "lance" play in this game?

I mean I guess Conquest...but for the most part, like 99% of the time, everyone is in the same general area.

The maps and objectives really aren't there for having us split up.

I'm going to say use the KISS method.

One channel for the team, everyone can talk, mute options are available for twits.

No talking to the opposing team.

Done.

Maybe PGI can evaluate that again 3 months later and see if we need more options.

As a a player that mostly plays PUG matches you would be surprised. The most common scenario in my games is that an 8 to 4 split occurs more often than the 12 Ball.

And often a Four Man lance is very capable of holding off the 4/8 groups that occur. I would say that the efficiency of the four man would increase with VOIP in a PUG match.

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 15 April 2014 - 11:19 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Having voice coms is not going to be about all kinds of crazy manuevers by the way. It still requires a team that practices together to do that.

What voice coms will do is allow "Atlas in the open, focus fire", "Scouting B4, enemy sighted", and such.

I don't think we should overthink it.

[Almond Brown]

FelixBlucher, on 15 April 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

A blacklist would be great, maybe a thumb up or down button for each player. If a person is well liked, then one person down voting them should not affect them very much. If a person is regularly down voted, then they could have the following happen:
1. Have an automated time out based on their negative votes. Like 13 negative votes equals 3 days on the blacklist. Their reputation indicator would be turned yellow.
2. If they get another 13 votes, then they will be given 7 days of being on the blacklist, and their indicator would be turned orange.
3. If they still kept at it, then they would be blacklisted for a month, and have their indicator turned red.
4. If a player kept at it after that, then they would be permanently added to the blacklist, unless they ask PGI for another chance.
5. Each indicator level would require a timeframe equal to the punishment in order t get their indicator back to a lower level. So, a red player would have to go 30 days without being blacklisted in order to go orange again.
Instead of a thumb up or down, a person being blacklisted could be used as part of a rating system.

BlackLists! The ultimate Community builder. Those penalties would be the lack of VOIP use I assume... So Team A could have Teams B leader blacklisted for 30 days, say just before a BIG Tourney say? NOT! Please ffs.

[FelixBlucher]

True, such a system could be abused. What if the system didn't punish players, but simply changed their indicator?

[Thejuggla]

Chat between lance and company commander to lance commanders would be ideal but not practical unless everyone has a mic and those lance leaders will relay orders so I figure a simple team chat would work best. On a side note finally happy we're getting voice it is probably the most needed thing besides cw and reg issues.

[Solahma]

Almond Brown, on 15 April 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

BlackLists! The ultimate Community builder. Those penalties would be the lack of VOIP use I assume... So Team A could have Teams B leader blacklisted for 30 days, say just before a BIG Tourney say? NOT! Please ffs.

There is a lot of potential in a well executed system like this, but it may be too much to ask from PGI to manage. It is better suited for larger games with a lot more players tbh, but the idea is in the right place.

Before you rag on the idea, watch the extra credits video I posted on the last page.

Tichorius Davion, on 15 April 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

Arggh

Don't overcomplicate it. Just allow for people to mute individuals.

The system needs to be robust and simple so that anyone can use it or bar themselves from using it.

Seperate lance and company communications is not very complicated, sure the extended version is a bit more, but every suggestion will have its flaws and potential fixes. I agree my suggestion with a 3-level voip CoC about as complex as it could get. Let's use that as a ceiling for "too complicated".

[DEN_Ninja]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 April 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

Having voice coms is not going to be about all kinds of crazy manuevers by the way. It still requires a team that practices together to do that.

What voice coms will do is allow "Atlas in the open, focus fire", "Scouting B4, enemy sighted", and such.

I don't think we should overthink it.

In a PUG match this is the only reason voip is needed. Or a Command Wheel. Calling targets and assists.

More often than not I wish I could hit the talk key and tell the other 3 guys on my lance to hit my target or to assist another lancemate with a target. There totally is room for teamwork but probably not much strategy. (lol, actual strategy in pug matches)

Solahma, on 15 April 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Seperate lance and company communications is not very complicated, sure the extended version is a bit more, but every suggestion will have its flaws and potential fixes. I agree my suggestion with a 3-level voip CoC about as complex as it could get. Let's use that as a ceiling for "too complicated".

I agree with lance chat and company chat but do not bar people or make anymore unnecessary layers.

The extended version you proposed was needlessly complicated.

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 15 April 2014 - 11:23 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Solahma, on 15 April 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

There is a lot of potential in a well executed system like this, but it may be too much to ask from PGI to manage. It is better suited for larger games with a lot more players tbh, but the idea is in the right place.

Before you rag on the idea, watch the extra credits video I posted on the last page.


Seperate lance and company communications is not very complicated, sure the extended version is a bit more, but every suggestion will have its flaws and potential fixes. I agree my suggestion with a 3-level voip CoC about as complex as it could get. Let's use that as a ceiling for "too complicated".

Is it really needed for 12 people that probably will not drop together again though Sol? I know it is nice but an extra layer of communication could backfire for some folks like myself who doesn't always hit the button I wanted to.

[FelixBlucher]

I would not be against us starting with teams being the only ones really able to use VOIP with each other, then seeing where we go from there. Simply having build in VOIP would be great. I still think that Company commanders should be able to chat. It could allow them to agree on terms, or other things.

I still like the idea of people being able to tune into a channel or channels. Basically, if people want to general chat, then that is fine, but the rest of us should not hear them unless we want to.

Another thing that I want to see is, Dead People Can't Talk. If you are dead, your team should not be able to hear you, Dead people should join the dead people channel.

[Solahma]

There are two reasons I would like to see a slightly more complicated system than a team-only voip (everone can speak).
1) It has the potential to be too crowded. Although an individual is not abusing his mic, combined with several other people it would be equally as annoying and difficult to speak.
2) Lance only communication encourages lance-only activities. It will help a lance act indipendantly from the team to accomplish mission objective. Perhaps a flank or taking a defensive position to meet an enemy flank. Inter-lance coms would allow those 4 players to coordinate. With a single open comm, the entire team might turn to follow that lance or chase the one mech called out. It is not in the best interest of the team at that point.

This is why I suggest and agree with 2 options: Lance-only and Company-only. This way a lance can coordinate, then share their action if needed. Perhaps everyone can speak in their own lance with zero time restrictions, but a company-wide message must be delivered in 5-10 seconds and then cannot speak again for another set time (numbers not specific).

[Solahma]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 April 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Is it really needed for 12 people that probably will not drop together again though Sol? I know it is nice but an extra layer of communication could backfire for some folks like myself who doesn't always hit the button I wanted to.

Yes, I believe a 2-layer system would be needed for MWO. The game lasts long enough and a team benefits from independant, corrdinated groups. Do you have issues with All Chat, Team Chat, and Lance Chat when in-game Joseph? I think having only 2 buttons is even easier than that, but that's just me. I rarely see people messup the text chat system...

Think about it this way, when you are in a 4-man group in TS and you drop with pugs, do you plan your actions based on what the rest of the team does? Do you expect the entrire team to follow your lead? Do you take advantage of your group's independant nature and work apart from the team to a certain extent?

My experience dropping with pugs as a 4-man group tell me that lance-only communications has a lot of benefits.

Edited by Solahma, 15 April 2014 - 11:41 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

You are making this way too complicated.

[Solahma]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 April 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

You are making this way too complicated.

How so? do you have any constructive feedback for any of the suggestions? What is your suggestion for how voip should work?

[Jon Gotham]

Ok:
Unit only channel (auto joined in mechlab) + some way to link it into 3rd party voip if possible.

In game:
Lance chat channel with a Lance commander for each lance who can talk to team, but only Lance commander.

Company (team) commander can talk to anyone

Ability to instantly, and permanently mute a person. This also prevents you from being grouped with them again. Mute list needs to be very large too, if not infinite.

Teams CANNOT talk to each other.
Push to talk mandatory.


That way only 4 people will be talking over anyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comms rose would need:

Attack <targetted player here>=Player
Help me <player's grid location here>=Player
Help <moused over friendly>=Player

Move to <grid location here-grid pops up around option>= Lance commander, Team commander
Advance/Flank <left or right option>Lance commander, =Team commander
Retreat= Lance commander, Team commander
Defend <grid location here>=Lance commander, Team commander
Deploy <UAV,ARTY,AIRSTRIKE-grid location here>=Lance commander, Team commander

Edited by kamiko kross, 15 April 2014 - 12:20 PM.

[BoBo Jones]

only between your 4 man lance........ then forget it . no insult , but pgi do tend to {LT-MOB-25} s**t up . so how ever it turns out , teamspeak will be better to use then there in game voise.
whats needed here is to be able to talk to your whole team . you cant do that unless we are playing 12 man games .spend 20 -30 mins to get a group going , one game . someone drops out . 11 players are screwed.
no , if pgi are going to do ingame voise . then it has to be for your whole team and then give the option to mute players that are a pain.

[Solahma]

Another reason to support Lance only voip and Company voip is leadership. If everyone is talking at once, the team will spend more time figuring out what to do than if they were smaller groups communicating amongst themselves. In Lance-only voip you only have to worry about your lance as far as orders and objectives go. You still have to coordinate with the team, but most of the work will get done within the lances. This way you can have 3 groups calling targets and orders between themselves without confusing the other players. What if a lance is split off from the rest of the group and engaging another lance? That would get confusing really quick because you now have 2 groups engaging separate targets and calling out separate priorities. It would get far too cluttered with a single team-wide channel.

BoBo Jones, on 15 April 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

teamspeak will be better to use then there in game voise

No one is debating that TS is the best solution for voip if you are in a pre-made group. But you cannot suggest TS as the solution because the other people you are playing with have absolutely no way of knowing: A.) That you are in TS B.) What TS server you are on.

Sure there are some cases where you might randomly run into a player or a group and know that they are on TS, but this is extremely rare AND it requires you to do something outside of the game during a match.

I find it hard to believe there is a legitimate argument against in-game voip as long as it can be disabled for people who do not want to use it and a mute option to deal with troublesome or personally distasteful people.

Edited by Solahma, 15 April 2014 - 12:38 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Solahma, on 15 April 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

How so? do you have any constructive feedback for any of the suggestions? What is your suggestion for how voip should work?

I already said.

Drop into game. Whoever has VOIP turned on in options is now in his team's VOIP channel for the game.

There is an option to mute people.

There are no options to talk directly to the opposing team.

Done.

Simple.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 15 April 2014 - 12:44 PM.

[Solahma]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 April 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

I already said.

Drop into game. Whoever has VOIP turned on in options is now in his team's VOIP channel for the game.

There is an option to mute people.

There are no options to talk directly to the opposing team.

Done.

Simple.

but how is an added lance-only feature much more complicated? It would dramatically reduce chatter and confusion. What counter-points do you have for all the benefits of a lance-only option WITH a company-wide option?

If you have taken part in 12 mans, you would know it requires discipline to communicate with 12 people. Only certain people take command, issue orders, and call targets while the rest remain silent unless they have something quick and emergent to say. Short, sweet, and to the point. Now you are asking potentially 12 random people to achieve this sort of coordination without any previous discussions? It would be chaotic.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Solahma, on 15 April 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

but how is an added lance-only feature much more complicated? It would dramatically reduce chatter and confusion. What counter-points do you have for all the benefits of a lance-only option WITH a company-wide option?

If you have taken part in 12 mans, you would know it requires discipline to communicate with 12 people. Only certain people take command, issue orders, and call targets while the rest remain silent unless they have something quick and emergent to say. Short, sweet, and to the point. Now you are asking potentially 12 random people to achieve this sort of coordination without any previous discussions? It would be chaotic.

Have you ever done 12 man pick ups in teamspeak?

It's not a problem. You are overthinking it.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 15 April 2014 - 01:03 PM.

[Solahma]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 April 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

Have you ever done 12 man pick ups in teamspeak?

It's not a problem. You are overthinking it.

That situation is completely different. Of course when you are organizing a 12-man with your group or picking up players to fill positions there will not be problems. This is a group of people with similar mind-set who want to partake in a 12-man group. They know how to behave and know their place (so to speak). You CANNOT equate that to 12 random people who have no affiliation with eachother. You will have alpha-males take charge and others who disregard and argue decisions. A group of 12 pugs simply WILL NOT have the discipline that a 12-man premade group will have. You are kidding yourself to think otherwise.

12-man premade =/= 12 random players