68 replies to this topic

[Boris The Spider]

Thejuggla, on 15 April 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

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.

If you have a mic and nobody else on your squad has a mic, you take the lance command. You can then speak to the other two lance leaders... provided they take lance lead. If they nobody on the other lances takes lance lead then you can safely assume that nobody wants to talk anyway. Its not an issue on the Battlefield games which use the same system.

For me, its the only way it can work. If there is even an option for anyone (possibly other than the commander) to talk to the entire team, I'm out, and I won't be the only one who finds 12 people trying to talk over each other, possibly in several languages, too distracting to be worthwhile. While I want the ability to communicate with my entire team, its about the level of information I need/can process. The guys in my immediate vicinity, or my lance, I'm happy to know exactly what they are doing, where they are standing, who they are shooting at, their thoughts on strategy, etc.. the guy 2KM away, at most I only need a rough gist of what he is doing, something his lance commander can relay to me if needed.

The games only last an average of 7 minutes, by the time you have filtered out and muted all the players who are not providing information that is directly pertinent to what you are doing its going to be half way through the game.

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

Have you ever done 12 man pick ups in teamspeak?

I have, and it doesn't work anywhere near as well as a structured system does. Structured systems are also scalable should they decide to increase player count.

Edited by Boris The Spider, 15 April 2014 - 01:17 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Solahma, on 15 April 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

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

Huh?

I'm asking, have you done a 12 man pick up? I'm not in a unit. I've been involved in multiple PUG 12 mans, where random people join up in Teamspeak.

Sure some know eachother, but it's not organized at all. And we all use one channel, and it's not a problem at all.

Boris The Spider, on 15 April 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

If you have a mic and nobody else on your squad has a mic, you take the lance command. You can then speak to the other two lance leaders... provided they take lance lead. If they nobody on the other lances takes lance lead then you can safely assume that nobody wants to talk anyway. Its not an issue on the Battlefield games which use the same system.

For me, its the only way it can work. If there is even an option for anyone (possibly other than the commander) to talk to the entire team, I'm out, and I won't be the only one who finds 12 people trying to talk over each other, possibly in several languages, too distracting to be worthwhile. While I want the ability to communicate with my entire team, its about the level of information I need/can process. The guys in my immediate vicinity, or my lance, I'm happy to know exactly what they are doing, where they are standing, who they are shooting at, their thoughts on strategy, etc.. the guy 2KM away, at most I only need a rough gist of what he is doing, something his lance commander can relay to me if needed.

The games only last an average of 7 minutes, by the time you have filtered out and muted all the players who are not providing information that is directly pertinent to what you are doing its going to be half way through the game.

I once again think you are really overestimating how much chatting is going to go on in these channels.

And if it's REALLY that bad and we have a ton of chatter boxes, add in lance level chat later.

But based on the boards, most people won't even bother turning on voice and want nothing to do with it.

[FelixBlucher]

If we have a leveled chat system, I might suggest having the system assign the topmost ELO players as lance and Company commanders. The assumption being that the players with the best ELO would make the best commanders. Of course there could also be some other way to have leaders be automatically assigned. I would recommend that the automated assignments only be finalized once the round starts. Until then the suggested players would have some sort of indicator next to their name, or a command score.

Putting aside the complexity of the system, could we discuss how a "dream" system would work? Just imagine for a moment that PGI would implement the system of your dreams, now describe that system.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

FelixBlucher, on 15 April 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

If we have a leveled chat system, I might suggest having the system assign the topmost ELO players as lance and Company commanders. The assumption being that the players with the best ELO would make the best commanders. Of course there could also be some other way to have leaders be automatically assigned. I would recommend that the automated assignments only be finalized once the round starts. Until then the suggested players would have some sort of indicator next to their name, or a command score.

Putting aside the complexity of the system, could we discuss how a "dream" system would work? Just imagine for a moment that PGI would implement the system of your dreams, now describe that system.

This is PGI.

We need simple and working.

The more features, the less likely it's going to work and the longer it will take them to implement it.

[Solahma]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 April 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

Huh?
I'm asking, have you done a 12 man pick up? I'm not in a unit. I've been involved in multiple PUG 12 mans, where random people join up in Teamspeak.
Sure some know eachother, but it's not organized at all. And we all use one channel, and it's not a problem at all.

I think you fail to see the point. Those are all people agreeing to form a group. They know how things work and what to expect.
I'll say it again: They know their place
You all have a mutual understanding of why you are grouping together. You cannot expect the same of random people literally dropped into a match together.

(and yes, I have done pick-up matches, joined 12-man groups that needed someone, and been part of my groups 12-man drops. I know how it works, and I agree that there is no problem in that environment, but we are talking about two completely different groups of people.)

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 April 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

I once again think you are really overestimating how much chatting is going to go on in these channels.
And if it's REALLY that bad and we have a ton of chatter boxes, add in lance level chat later.
But based on the boards, most people won't even bother turning on voice and want nothing to do with it.

now THIS is a point that is more constructive. It would be interesting to see how many people actually use their mics, just listen, or turn it off. If 8/12 people on average are actively using the voip, I would agree that a single channel would be adequate. But lance voip, from a team-work and coordination view alone would still be beneficial even if not necessary.

Working as a lance AND a team also adds immersion to the game.

Edited by Solahma, 15 April 2014 - 01:29 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Solahma, on 15 April 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

I think you fail to see the point. Those are all people agreeing to form a group. They know how things work and what to expect.
I'll say it again: They know their place
You all have a mutual understanding of why you are grouping together. You cannot expect the same of random people literally dropped into a match together.


now THIS is a point that is more constructive. It would be interesting to see how many people actually use their mics, just listen, or turn it off. If 8/12 people on average are actively using the voip, I would agree that a single channel would be adequate. But lance voip, from a team-work and coordination view alone would still be beneficial.

No, it's literally, someone jumps from TS channel to TS channel asking for groups to join the 12 man, we join. Clusterflucks ensue, but I've still yet to do that and think "Crap too many people are talking".

A TRUE PUG 12 man, not one of these "My unit is running a 12 man and needs more people", different situation entirely.

Like I said, simple to start, then add layers if necessary.

Get it working with a single channel.

[Solahma]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 April 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

No, it's literally, someone jumps from TS channel to TS channel asking for groups to join the 12 man, we join. Clusterflucks ensue, but I've still yet to do that and think "Crap too many people are talking".

A TRUE PUG 12 man, not one of these "My unit is running a 12 man and needs more people", different situation entirely.

Like I said, simple to start, then add layers if necessary.

Get it working with a single channel.

Again, I know exactly what you mean. And it is STILL a group of people who know how things work and are already used to a voip, or else why would they be in TS? You still cannot compare that to the average player who now has voip enabled by default. They no no prior experience with teamwork at this level because it hasn't been available until voip is added. Are you assuming that most people who play MWO also use TS to play with people? According to PGI's statistics you would be largely mistaken.

I can't argue with baby-steps though. My only thought on that is, why not just include both? If company-wide voip is used more often then great! But you still have Lance-only to fall back to if needed. This way if a particular match does get too intense, you can always use the lance-only voip.

The same argument can be said about the text chats. We have team and lance chat, but team chat is used more often. But that can't be reason to assume that team voip would be used more often than lance voip because speaking is a lot easier than typing during a game. Imagine if twice the amount of people were actively typing team messages. It would get cluttered. At that point a player has the option to communicate important and noticeable messages to his lance only with lance chat.

Edited by Solahma, 15 April 2014 - 01:40 PM.

[Bobzilla]

There should be team and group channels with separate PTT keys. Only 1 of a group needs to listen in both (this cuts down clutter,

Ideally, also add in drop grouping and remove group restrictions.

[Mykaelous Wolf]

They have global voip in a tech demo called rust made by 2 guys. You guys still haven't gotten it together after 2 years.

[Davers]

While having separate chats is nice, there should be a general team chat for everyone. Ability to mute players and turn VOIP off. I would say push to talk would work best.

[Ardney]

Gave a bit of thought to this a while back and made a thread. Posting the link here because why not? Gave my train of thought under each heading but the major points are all bolded for easier skimming.

Edited by Ardney, 15 April 2014 - 02:58 PM.

[Rashhaverak]

I would love it if VOIP worked like it was an in-game mech to mech team communications system. Mechs affected by ECM would have static or garbled incoming and outgoing transmission. Pilots who's mechs had been destroyed would not be able to speak. There would be three channels to speak on depending. Channel one is a lance channel. Channel two is a team channel. Channel three is a full broadcast to all listeners in range. Muting selected individuals is definitely a necessary function.

For those who don't want the realism of ECM and death affecting chat, there should be a toggle that in private matches can be used to turn off the realism.

Edited by Rashhaverak, 15 April 2014 - 03:33 PM.

[Solahma]

I like the immersion that would bring. I saw in the other thread that something similar was suggested:

-Voip would be effected by: PPC and ECM
-Transmission range (possible benefit for enhanced range on light mechs)

Once again, if executed properly and used correctly, it would add a lot to some player's game experience.

Thanks for the suggestions

[Jon Gotham]

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.

Except it isn't that simple!
Your way I have to listen to loads of randoms and their dogs, cats, children,wives/husbands etc or random languages I don't understand.....I'd spend valuable time muting half of each team.
If I get sick of that I could turn it off completely but then I'd be missing out on something potentially useful. But also a question I must ask of you-if we had 12 man chat, how can I chat to my mates whilst playing?
Remember in game VOIP is NOT SOLELY for the benefit of single players who don't want to group up properly.
It's supposed to be for everyone.

That means CLANS and UNITS too!

[Solahma]

It's a very good point that needs to be realized, even if we have no issues using TS and how things work with an open voip with no restrictions, we are not the ones who will benefit the most from in-game voip.

We have to keep in mind that those who frequently use TS are NOT the majority. The majority of players can be assumed to not have the best voip discipline or etiquette. We cannot compare how things work for units or individuals finding groups in TS. We go out of our way to utilize 3rd party voip because we recognize the advantage and have similar interests to do well.

We have to think of good ways a voip can be added, without bias, for the typical player.

Don't think about what would work best for yourself, instead what would work best for the majority of players (ones that don't use TS)

[Typhon27]

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.

Agreed a blacklist would be needed but I believe Effectz is probably right. Some trolls will just down check everybody they drop with. Especially if they are already dead with nothing else to do.

How about a player can get a "time out", from comms or play, if a certain number (not sure what that # is at this time) of teammates down check him during a single match? I think that may help sweep out the comm abusers.

[Jon Gotham]

Solahma, on 16 April 2014 - 02:10 PM, said:

It's a very good point that needs to be realized, even if we have no issues using TS and how things work with an open voip with no restrictions, we are not the ones who will benefit the most from in-game voip.

We have to keep in mind that those who frequently use TS are NOT the majority. The majority of players can be assumed to not have the best voip discipline or etiquette. We cannot compare how things work for units or individuals finding groups in TS. We go out of our way to utilize 3rd party voip because we recognize the advantage and have similar interests to do well.

We have to think of good ways a voip can be added, without bias, for the typical player.

Don't think about what would work best for yourself, instead what would work best for the majority of players (ones that don't use TS)

Good point-but...and it's a big but.....if you cater exclusively for the "majority" then the minority could potentially have their experience ruined utterly.
Anything put in place absolutely HAS to cater to everyone. Also ask yourself this question:
I went from solo player to dropping on TS inside the space of 30 mins a month after I first started, why is that so very difficult for the "majority" of people?

We need to get away from catering to people who want the benefits without the effort. Things like CW will thrive or die on clans and units, not casual solo players who don't really care to start with. Anything put in place must cater to all players not one group. Those of us who have started units/clans and communities are engaged with the game and have taken an interest in it's future and are likely to stay and spend. Would you prefer we are alienated from the social experience so casuals who might leave the game after a month can have an effort free time of things?

Sorry to come across as rude, I honestly don't mean to but this is VERY important to me and I want everyone in a unit or a clan to benefit from Voip without their enjoyment of the social aspects being penalised in any way.
That's why I suggested clan channels and the like, a way to keep pre organised groups together and not spread into pugdom.

[Solahma]

kamiko kross, on 16 April 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

I went from solo player to dropping on TS inside the space of 30 mins a month after I first started, why is that so very difficult for the "majority" of people?

Honestly it's not hard at all, you know it, I know it, and most other people know it. Even people who don't use it know it is easy to pick up. The people who don't use it either: Don't know where to start, find it too much of a hassle, or don't want voip at all and just want to play. We have no way of knowing how many people fit into each category though. In-game voip at least helps 2/3 of the categories who don't currently use voip. The people that just want to play can still turn it off.

Going back to what I said before, just because we found it natural and easy to set-up Team Speak and solve the communication issues on our own, most players do not for the various reasons.

I wish more people used TS, no idea why it's so difficult...

kamiko kross, on 16 April 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

We need to get away from catering to people who want the benefits without the effort.Things like CW will thrive or die on clans and units, not casual solo players who don't really care to start with.

Although you have a point, I have to disagree to some extent. solo players should have a reason to care and to participate as much as they can. I would assume factions will be the primary driving force of CW, so engaging the typical players with their factions is essential. Of course this all depends on how CW is implemented.

kamiko kross, on 16 April 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

I suggested clan channels.

Another good, different suggestion. Way to think out-of-the box
This type of voip would be closer to an in-game version of TS where the individual player finds a persistent channel Instead of putting people in the same drop into a voip channel automatically? I'd love to hear more about your idea.

kamiko kross, on 16 April 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

Sorry to come across as rude, I honestly don't mean to

I don't think you came across rude at all, we are just discussing our opinions here

Edited by Solahma, 16 April 2014 - 06:33 PM.

[Rick Rawlings]

They really just need to duplicate the Red Orchestra 2 chat system. You can have up to 32 (!) players on a side and I never have any trouble seeing who is talking. Even with that number of players, there really isn't much crosstalk. The system tends to self-organize. There is also an easy way to mute players via a pulldown menu. It's a slick-as-snot system that could be basically dragged and dropped...

[Psydotek]

The only thing I believe that must be implemented is an easy to use/find "Mute Player" option when the spam and/or insults start to fly.