Now That Sound Mods Are Allowed Can We Have A Sound Back Of Closed Beta Sounds.p
#21
Posted 28 August 2015 - 03:46 PM
#22
Posted 28 August 2015 - 03:52 PM
#23
Posted 28 August 2015 - 04:36 PM
#24
Posted 28 August 2015 - 04:39 PM
Sound mods are technically not allowed, and there has never been any statement from PGI saying that the MW2 mod was okay.
If someone at PGI was having a bad day, they could still ban you for using something like this.
The general consensus most people arrived at with the mod was that it didn't really give you a tactical advantage in any way and so PGI wouldn't specifically hunt people down with it and would let people use it. Banning someone for using something like this wouldn't particularly go down well. With that said, it's still not something you want to wave around a lot on the official forums.
With that all said, I will admit I still use the computer voice part of the MW2 pack, and I have wanted PGI to consider monetizing sound packs for sometimes. I'll leave this here, food for thought :
#25
Posted 28 August 2015 - 05:11 PM
#26
Posted 28 August 2015 - 05:23 PM
Kh0rn, on 28 August 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:
Just a taste.
Wow, the glow effect, the missile spirals, those autocannons, closed beta looks amazing... Why did they change everything?
#28
Posted 28 August 2015 - 05:29 PM
Aresye Kerensky, on 28 August 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:
Could someone please link me to this source of information?
Someone I know who's name rhymes with Rhino Smight happens to use the MW2 mod and loves it. Your mileage may vary, but he considers it a worthwhile risk and low on the priority list for sniffing out "game file modifications."
One could argue it gives an advantage in battle, because the pilots are more thrilled with the nostalgic feel, and those positive emotions translate into increased focus and battlefield prowess, but this guy I'm talking about needs all the advantages he can get, right?
Edited by Dino Might, 28 August 2015 - 05:29 PM.
#29
Posted 28 August 2015 - 05:30 PM
#30
Posted 28 August 2015 - 05:35 PM
Dino Might, on 28 August 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:
Someone I know who's name rhymes with Rhino Smight happens to use the MW2 mod and loves it. Your mileage may vary, but he considers it a worthwhile risk and low on the priority list for sniffing out "game file modifications."
One could argue it gives an advantage in battle, because the pilots are more thrilled with the nostalgic feel, and those positive emotions translate into increased focus and battlefield prowess, but this guy I'm talking about needs all the advantages he can get, right?
And good on that Rhino Smight guy. Personally, I am too cowardly to risk my (far too much) monetary investment into MWO to run it, even though I would literally buy a Gold Mech Pack if PGI would sanction the MW2 Sound Mod.
#31
Posted 28 August 2015 - 06:05 PM
Dingo Red, on 28 August 2015 - 04:39 PM, said:
Sound mods are technically not allowed, and there has never been any statement from PGI saying that the MW2 mod was okay.
If someone at PGI was having a bad day, they could still ban you for using something like this.
The general consensus most people arrived at with the mod was that it didn't really give you a tactical advantage in any way and so PGI wouldn't specifically hunt people down with it and would let people use it. Banning someone for using something like this wouldn't particularly go down well. With that said, it's still not something you want to wave around a lot on the official forums.
With that all said, I will admit I still use the computer voice part of the MW2 pack, and I have wanted PGI to consider monetizing sound packs for sometimes. I'll leave this here, food for thought :
If you are talking about Modifying pak files that is bannable... cool idea though
#32
Posted 28 August 2015 - 06:10 PM
Dino Might, on 28 August 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:
Someone I know who's name rhymes with Rhino Smight happens to use the MW2 mod and loves it. Your mileage may vary, but he considers it a worthwhile risk and low on the priority list for sniffing out "game file modifications."
One could argue it gives an advantage in battle, because the pilots are more thrilled with the nostalgic feel, and those positive emotions translate into increased focus and battlefield prowess, but this guy I'm talking about needs all the advantages he can get, right?
IMO, the pros of experiencing a little bit of nostalgia isn't worth ANY risk of potentially losing $500+ invested into this game, no matter how unlikely that may be.
I want the a-okay straight from someone at PGI, so that way I can snap a picture of it, frame it, and be able to present it in a small claims court if I ever got banned because of it
#34
Posted 28 August 2015 - 06:30 PM
Aresye Kerensky, on 28 August 2015 - 06:10 PM, said:
IMO, the pros of experiencing a little bit of nostalgia isn't worth ANY risk of potentially losing $500+ invested into this game, no matter how unlikely that may be.
I want the a-okay straight from someone at PGI, so that way I can snap a picture of it, frame it, and be able to present it in a small claims court if I ever got banned because of it
Yup my thoughts exactly.
#35
Posted 28 August 2015 - 06:36 PM
#36
Posted 28 August 2015 - 06:40 PM
Aresye Kerensky, on 28 August 2015 - 06:10 PM, said:
IMO, the pros of experiencing a little bit of nostalgia isn't worth ANY risk of potentially losing $500+ invested into this game, no matter how unlikely that may be.
I want the a-okay straight from someone at PGI, so that way I can snap a picture of it, frame it, and be able to present it in a small claims court if I ever got banned because of it
Totally reasonable and logical approach. I think this guy I was talking about figures that if he gets banned, he'll just leave the game and consider the $700+ invested as money spent for 3 years of entertainment and call it a day. Hopefully they don't do that to him, but at some point, it's no longer that much of a sunk cost. He totally agrees with your rationale and would be in the same boat if he was still obsessed with this game. At this point, it's a fun-to-do-with-friends thing and that's about it.
#37
Posted 28 August 2015 - 06:41 PM
And it's been mentioned more than a few times directly by the devs that file modification isn't allowed.
Just a heads up on that bit.
I was inquiring because I actually wanted to fix the sound files they have currently in the game so they aren't unintentionally wrecking peoples speaker drivers with unnecessary out of range frequencies - there's is simply no point in leaving sub 20hz, or really under 25hz in ANY audio files and the 18.5kkhz and up should be cut out as well because when that starts to saturate it just kills peoples ear drums.
Edited by sycocys, 28 August 2015 - 06:43 PM.
#38
Posted 28 August 2015 - 07:12 PM
#39
Posted 28 August 2015 - 09:20 PM
Dingo Red, on 28 August 2015 - 04:39 PM, said:
Nice mockup.
This sort of thing, like the "visual customisation" stuff that's getting a lot of chatter at the moment (atlas heads etc), seems like a bit of a no-brainer for PGI to implement.
Of course, to use the SFX from the old games they'd have to track down and license the recordings, which could be tricky so may not be do-able, but things like alternative computer voices, closed beta SFX for those that are interested, and possibly even the custom screen stuff (although I'd still personally much prefer they make up a bunch of suitable chart graphics and stick those on) feel like they ought to be relatively low effort for PGI to implement, and while there are no guarantees, they probably wouldn't have to sell tons of that stuff to recoup their investment.
George LeDoux computer voice, anyone?
#40
Posted 28 August 2015 - 09:58 PM
The modification of game PAK files is not permitted in any form. This restriction extends to modifications that may not provide any tactical advantage, such as a sound pack.
We all agree that custom sound packs would be a sweet feature to implement, but we do not currently have plans to do so. As far as I'm aware the file system is not designed to support end-user modification right now, and with all the other tasks currently at hand we don't have the development resources available that would be required for implementing that kind of functionality.
Regarding dynamic/functional cockpit monitors, well....I've seen some things.....
5 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users