127 replies to this topic

[Obikirk]

SlagMaster, on 05 April 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

I think it would be cool if it actially added to the realism...ie, lost comms when damage can affect a system(s) use... Lost comms when in battle...

This would be really cool, but then the people using teamspeak/skype/whatever would have an advantange

[Tyrant]

If this ends up in the game, allow players to turn if off.

[Spooky]

Integrated Voice Chat (that actually works well, like in Steam/Source Games and not like in Crysis (Warhead)) is simply a must, especially in the way MW:O will work. Getting all random participants of a match to use the same application and join the same server and the same channel will simply be very improbable.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Kay Wolf, on 17 April 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Also, there IS a way to block out other programs so they can not be used, so cheating and extra-unit info sharing are not allowed, etc. Would it be a wise idea to block them... in the final analysis, I would say yes. It may lose a few customers but, most likely, many of those are the malcontents and spies you really don't want in the game, anyway

I'm sorry, for this particular game, it just doesn't make any sense NOT to have VoIP.

Pretty sure there is no way to block the other programs from running that can not be circumvented with stupidly easy measures. VPN's running it on a Laptop next to you etc etc.

Also the legality of such a thing may be questionable, Legally can PGI enforce that people can not run alternate VOIP programs on their machines, i would doubt it.
The most that would be done, would be said player would be removed from games where the option was on, much like what happens with Punkbuster and hacks etc.

But like i say its far too easy to get around.

[Tyrant]

Spooky, on 18 April 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

Integrated Voice Chat (that actually works well, like in Steam/Source Games and not like in Crysis (Warhead)) is simply a must, especially in the way MW:O will work. Getting all random participants of a match to use the same application and join the same server and the same channel will simply be very improbable.

While I agree that VOIP is a nice feature, 'Must' is a very strong word and I would disagree that its a requirment to play open games.

The nice thing about private VOIP servers is that you choose who you want to join. The point is that people dont actually want to communicate with random people or be forced to communicate with them, an example of a badly implemented VOIP system is in W40K: Space Marine.

[Lailoken]

Without in game voip, non-premade teams are reduced to typing. Most people can't be bothered to type, there often isn't time in the heat of the moment. A lot of people don't even seem to read text chat.

However I'm impressed with the amount of typing/teamwork that happens in MWLL. BF3 is a resounding fail for teamwork on pub servers.

[Spooky]

Tyrant, on 18 April 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

While I agree that VOIP is a nice feature, 'Must' is a very strong word and I would disagree that its a requirment to play open games.

It's a strong word yes. But under the assumption, that you absolutely want to have this in game, either from the dev's or the player's perspective, good working integrated voice chat is simply a must, especially in MW:O.

Tyrant, on 18 April 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

The nice thing about private VOIP servers is that you choose who you want to join.

But that's not a nice thing, that's an utterly bad thing. You have to

• get the people you want to communicate with to choose the same software
  
• get the people you want to communicate with to join the same server
  
• get the people you want to communicate with join the correct channel

You reall want to go that ordeal every time you get matched up with people in MW:O? It's simply impossible

Tyrant, on 18 April 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

The point is that people dont actually want to communicate with random people or be forced to communicate with them, an example of a badly implemented VOIP system is in W40K: Space Marine.

I have no idea how it is in W40K, but so far I haven't experienced an integrated voice chat system where you are "forced" to listen to any participant. All games that use SteamWorks and/or the Source engine and all games that use the Crysis Engine for instance have the option to turn it off completely (individually) or mute specific players. Those are completely basic features that I think are simply a standard for such things and thus I am not worried about these things not being there.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Spooky, on 18 April 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

But that's not a nice thing, that's an utterly bad thing. You have to

• get the people you want to communicate with to choose the same software
  
• get the people you want to communicate with to join the same server
  
• get the people you want to communicate with join the correct channel

You reall want to go that ordeal every time you get matched up with people in MW:O? It's simply impossible

I think his point was that he wouldnt invite people except for people he knows. There are people out there who simply do not care what happens in pub games, and will only play as part of their unit who already have the comms info and will recruit more people into the fold.
They simply do not want to talk to random pub players.

Edited by DV^McKenna, 18 April 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[Spooky]

DV^McKenna, on 18 April 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

I think his point was that he wouldnt invite people except for people he knows. There are people out there who simply do not care what happens in pub games, and will only play as part of their unit who already have the comms info and will recruit more people into the fold.
They simply do not want to talk to random pub players.

Sure, but that's a niche case. i.e. the exception of games that are played in MW:O throughout the day, hopefully. (Otherwise it would mean that not a lot of people play MW:O . Thus it can't be a benchmark here.

[SirDenOfYork]

Voted option #3...works best in my humble opion...

[Outlaw2]

I wouldn't use it much, but no reason not to have it (as long as I can mute it and/or players). I might use it now and then when in pubs. I think it would help server rabble work together better.

However if there is some technical issues with it that reduce game stability or server performance, then no.

If it will delay launch, then no...post launch yes.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 18 April 2012 - 10:51 AM.

[Lorcan Lladd]

Obikirk, on 18 April 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

This would be really cool, but then the people using teamspeak/skype/whatever would have an advantange

Pretty sure PGI could just write or purchase a sound driver to go with MechWarrior Online capable of interfering with all sound playback - including, if those were available, in game and third-party voice comms - on a computer running the game, or logged into a match.
So they could implement the kind of communication warfare and jamming gameplay they originally had in mind, with some technical difficulties and extra expenses, since it's not just the built-in voice service, but also a potentially complex driver which would be implemented.

Y'know, in theory, it's possible, though it would be very novel.

But that's not the issue, of course; we just don't want to work together here, or we'd all be part of the same House or Mercenary Corporation.

Well, I, for one, can't possibly be expected to keep up with half a dozen third-party voice services just so I can coordinate with that mercenary lot, maybe, if they're even willing to inform me of their private channel.
Happycore will keep my comms busy enough.

So, yeah, if there were a mute buttom, I'd use it.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Lorcan Lladd, on 18 April 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Pretty sure PGI could just write or purchase a sound driver to go with MechWarrior Online capable of interfering with all sound playback - including, if those were available, in game and third-party voice comms - on a computer running the game, or logged into a match.
So they could implement the kind of communication warfare and jamming gameplay they originally had in mind, with some technical difficulties and extra expenses, since it's not just the built-in voice service, but also a potentially complex driver which would be implemented.

Y'know, in theory, it's possible, though it would be very novel.

But that's not the issue, of course; we just don't want to work together here, or we'd all be part of the same House or Mercenary Corporation.

Well, I, for one, can't possibly be expected to keep up with half a dozen third-party voice services just so I can coordinate with that mercenary lot, maybe, if they're even willing to inform me of their private channel.
Happycore will keep my comms busy enough.

So, yeah, if there were a mute buttom, I'd use it.

Not sure i understand the fascination with this, its alot of expense/coding for nothing. Run the TS through VPN or laptop...coding has just been circumvented.

[Lorcan Lladd]

[Samuel Maxwell]

If enough people mute the in-game VOIP, it is useless. If people are kicked out of games for not using an in-game VOIP, then it puts pressures on those that don't want it. I voted for the third option because if it's in, I don't care (even though I rather have resources diverted elsewhere) as long as I can mute it and not be kicked. However, I'm leaning towards the second option in case I don't get what I want.

[UncleKulikov]

It should be in. As well as proximity voice.

"Hey there, good lookin'...."

[Volthorne]

Lorcan Lladd, on 18 April 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Well, I, for one, can't possibly be expected to keep up with half a dozen third-party voice services just so I can coordinate with that mercenary lot

8/10 people have one of the big four installed: Skype, Ventrilo, Teamspeak or Mumble.
5/10 have two or more installed.
3/10 have three or more installed.

Where the hell are you pulling this "half-a-dozen" nonsense from?

Edited by Volthorne, 18 April 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[Spooky]

Volthorne, on 18 April 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

8/10 people have one of the big four installed: Skype, Ventrilo, Teamspeak or Mumble.
5/10 have two or more installed.
3/10 have three or more installed.

Where the hell are you pulling this "half-a-dozen" nonsense from?

Probably out of the same place, as you are pulling your numbers from . And these numbers do not even matter, that's just one of the many obstacles.

[Lorcan Lladd]

Volthorne, on 18 April 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

8/10 people have one of the big four installed: Skype, Ventrilo, Teamspeak or Mumble.
5/10 have two or more installed.
3/10 have three or more installed.

Where the hell are you pulling this "half-a-dozen" nonsense from?

I'm not going through any more inconvenience just to cater to your lot; if I were interested in playing by your rules or following your commands, I would have, as many have, come begging for a place in your gaming clan.
I hardly see how other unnaffiliated players are expected to behave any differently.

Good dam­n luck dealing with that.

[Rejarial Galatan]

DV^McKenna, on 18 April 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Not sure i understand the fascination with this, its alot of expense/coding for nothing. Run the TS through VPN or laptop...coding has just been circumvented.

Problem. If matches are like 10 to 15 to even 30 minutes, are you REALLY going to want to spend a half hour PLUS getting your random group onto a TS/Vent/Skype/W-E else VOIP just so you dont need an ingame voip? I dont think so. If you want a team that can win PUG or Guild or what ever, you really do NEED an ingame voip. pure and simple. its faster and more efficient.