Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
skytea

Any plans for in game Proximity Voice Chat?

Recommended Posts

Ugh as I stated before it does not have to be turned off if they use a system similar to PS2 where you can mute the individual thus allowing people to use the feature as intended. 

 

And, as has been stated, in the middle of combat you're going to waste a button press on Mute? I don't in PS2. I just turned all of it off. The idiots, on my team and opposing, were too stupid to deal with.

 

Same with every game I've played with this feature. It is a waste of time and money to develop. You dev team's talent doesn't matter. The playerbase does.

Edited by bairloch

I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people started talking about the vietcong and napalm I knew it was time to facepalm.

Pretty sure no one mentioned Hitler or nazis yet


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, as has already been in this thread, relying on third-party programs won't be enough to meet the demands of the Crowfall community. There are many situations where unnecessary violence can be avoided thanks to integrated voice chat. Such as when unaffiliated players meet in the field for the first, or even when rival guilds attempt to coordinate an attack against another group. Making sure that all players have access to the same voice chat technology will climate all these problems. So, it's a good use of resources for ACE to implement integrated voice chat within Crowfall, survival games have already gotten voice chat right it's time for MMORPGs to do the same.

 

While I get your point of view, I have to ask what personal experience you have that leads to such conclusions.

 

"3rd party won't be enough to meed CF community demands"

 

How do you know this? Why is CF different than any number of games old or recent that have functioned just fine with 3rd party, even with in-game options are available?

 

"Many situations where violence can be avoided thanks to voice chat" "survival games have voice chat"

 

Have you played any survival games? Honestly don't know how you can put those two comments into the same train of thought.

 

What could someone say that would stop me from randomly attacking them?

 

You are either ally, enemy, or random. Which should all have visible character indicators and any questions can easily be typed to clear things up.

 

No clue what games you've played, but the idea that we can just talk it out (assuming everyone has a mic and is willing) seems a bit off and not how these games work from my experience. If two individuals or whatever don't want to attack each other, they won't and can communicate just fine with text. If one or both sides want to attack each other, not likely that the power of speech will change that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, as has been stated, in the middle of combat you're going to waste a button press on Mute? I don't in PS2. I just turned all of it off. The idiots, on my team and opposing, were too stupid to deal with.

 

Same with every game I've played with this feature. It is a waste of time and money to develop. You dev team's talent doesn't matter. The playerbase does.

The idea is that players will be using integrated voice chat to minimise the rate of unnecessary conflict. So that unaffiliated players can quickly form groups, even with people they've never met before, instead of mindlessly attacking somebody who could turn-out to be a reliable ally. Communication is key in an MMORPG; the potential for voice chat is that it will allow better coordination amongst players at all time. No longer would players be forced to choose whether to control their avatar or type-out some text, voice chat allows players to accomplish both at the same time. Making integrated voice chat a worthwhile feature for ACE to develop, as the whole Crowfall community stands to benefit from such innovation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I think some are VASTLY underestimating the amount of smacktards you will have to put on ignore on a daily basis. No amount of scorn or positive group think will reduce the number, it will be a daily occurrence guaranteed. If I have to spend more time clicking on crap to ignore people on the VOIP then actually playing the game... Yeah not good.

 

Didn't have to do this in DayZ or Rust.

The whole "I'll spend more time muting people than playing" is such an exaggeration it's not even worth addressing.  Especially seeing as once muted, you'll never have to mute the same person again.  It's just logically flawed.

 

And, as has been stated, in the middle of combat you're going to waste a button press on Mute? I don't in PS2. I just turned all of it off. The idiots, on my team and opposing, were too stupid to deal with.

 

Same with every game I've played with this feature. It is a waste of time and money to develop. You dev team's talent doesn't matter. The playerbase does.

 

I'm sorry to hear that you always turn of voice chat every time.  That sounds a lot like a personal choice though.  I know that in survival games voice chat has been essential to my success.  Same for BF2:Project Reality, and in fact Dota 2.  Despite how awful that community is, I still find it valuable to be able to communicate with more than just text.

 

While I get your point of view, I have to ask what personal experience you have that leads to such conclusions.

 

"3rd party won't be enough to meed CF community demands"

 

How do you know this? Why is CF different than any number of games old or recent that have functioned just fine with 3rd party, even with in-game options are available?

 

"Many situations where violence can be avoided thanks to voice chat" "survival games have voice chat"

 

Have you played any survival games? Honestly don't know how you can put those two comments into the same train of thought.

 

What could someone say that would stop me from randomly attacking them?

 

You are either ally, enemy, or random. Which should all have visible character indicators and any questions can easily be typed to clear things up.

 

No clue what games you've played, but the idea that we can just talk it out (assuming everyone has a mic and is willing) seems a bit off and not how these games work from my experience. If two individuals or whatever don't want to attack each other, they won't and can communicate just fine with text. If one or both sides want to attack each other, not likely that the power of speech will change that. 

 

Honestly, I don't know what survival games you have played. DayZ, Rust (and Crowfall) have made zero indication that there will be any indicator of ally or enemy or otherwise.  And in the former two, voice chat reduced KoS situations.  

 

That is a fact.

 

Let me repeat for maximum emphasis.

 

THAT IS A FACT.

 

Devs have literally called out that adding voice chat to DayZ and Rust increased players working together and reduced KoS situations.  So how can you keep on insisting this isn't a thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really is the absurdity of this thread.  Many of the naysayers' arguments seem to basically boil down to "in game voice chat never works," when in fact there are real concrete examples of where it has.  And yet they continue to argue that it can never work.

 

Fun fact: most of the people in favor of voice chat aren't claiming that it will work, we're just claiming that it can and that if it were done right, it would absolutely add value.  So as long as we have concrete examples of games where it did work, and it did add value, I find it hilarious that there's still so much insistence that we're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys really not figured out Kintor is trolling the poorly made socks out of Voice Chat and VR threads?


☆ We are in a positive posting drought, so just post. Be the change you want the forums to be. Go wild. Just follow your positive posting star. ☆
☆:*´¨`*:.•.¸¸.•´¯`•.♥.•´¯`•.¸¸.•..:*´¨`*:.☆

(¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯) Member of the Pro-ACE Club (¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with voip isn't trolls.

 

At least its not just trolls.

 

Its the consistency of quality of the sound you get from players, and how that affects your experience.

 

No one likes listening to a static-y darth vader, or worse the guy with the passive sound-capturing mic with his mom yelling at his sister to stop teasing her brother.

 

Its stuff like that, and because you're not socially close like in a guild, its just a downer you can't really feel like there's progress in the quality getting better. There will be a % of players with crap mics, crap gaming set-ups where you hear the tv or their family aggro, and thats not fixable.

 

That creates an inconsistent quality of experience for the player.

 

 

VOIP is probably the most inconsistent piece of technology being introduced to high quality highly polished products out there, and the quality-drop is noticeable.

 

 

To begin to fix it you need a rating system for someones mic, and some way to filter for quality, and not just player behavior.

 

Costs money.

Edited by Zomnivore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't have to do this in DayZ or Rust.

The whole "I'll spend more time muting people than playing" is such an exaggeration it's not even worth addressing.  Especially seeing as once muted, you'll never have to mute the same person again.  It's just logically flawed.

 

 

I'm sorry to hear that you always turn of voice chat every time.  That sounds a lot like a personal choice though.  I know that in survival games voice chat has been essential to my success.  Same for BF2:Project Reality, and in fact Dota 2.  Despite how awful that community is, I still find it valuable to be able to communicate with more than just text.

 

 

Honestly, I don't know what survival games you have played. DayZ, Rust (and Crowfall) have made zero indication that there will be any indicator of ally or enemy or otherwise.  And in the former two, voice chat reduced KoS situations.  

 

That is a fact.

 

Let me repeat for maximum emphasis.

 

THAT IS A FACT.

 

Devs have literally called out that adding voice chat to DayZ and Rust increased players working together and reduced KoS situations.  So how can you keep on insisting this isn't a thing?

 

That really is the absurdity of this thread.  Many of the naysayers' arguments seem to basically boil down to "in game voice chat never works," when in fact there are real concrete examples of where it has.  And yet they continue to argue that it can never work.

 

Fun fact: most of the people in favor of voice chat aren't claiming that it will work, we're just claiming that it can and that if it were done right, it would absolutely add value.  So as long as we have concrete examples of games where it did work, and it did add value, I find it hilarious that there's still so much insistence that we're wrong.

 

My issue is the priority of it compared to other features. They have limited funding, time, talent. In time, sky's the limit, but in the short term, what "needs" to be added compared to what some "want".

 

I'm assuming a decent chunk of CF players will come organized or will relatively quickly. Playing as a random, even when factions are concerned, is a pretty big disadvantage. Running around trying to gather folks together (voice or text) to compete with those already on the same page is going to be tough.

 

Lobby & Survival games are not apples to apples when comparing to Crowfall. Lobby games come with predetermined small numbers, all talk & easy to control communication options, ability to server hop, change names, etc. Survival games also have the server hoping, permadeath, not many folks ever in the same area aspects to them.

 

Not sure if some people foresee Crowfall as playing out like DayZ or Dota2? I'm hoping for organized groups roaming the land, huge battles, siege, etc. Not two individuals meeting in the woods and having a nice long voice chat. Actions should have consequences, if you run around KOS people, not so easy to run and hide like other game that do have VOIP baked in.

 

Not sure what concrete examples there are that share much of what Crowfall is shaping up to be. Halo has working VOIP so it will work in CF? What examples are we using to compare?

 

Players will have identification. Already seen guild emblems on shields, capes, banners, maybe more. No clue on name visibility, but if it is anything like most mmos, we'll have names + guild tag. If I HAVE to chat with someone to figure out all this info, ya that would cause some issues and voice would be handy, but I doubt that is the case.

 

Voice would help, but how much and to how many is my question. Believe we'll need a bit more context and see how players organize themselves as time goes on.

 

How quickly will players "need" to join a group of any size when a campaign forms? If I can solo or PUG for 6 months in the Dregs, something is probably wrong. Not too different when it comes to factions, if people are just zerging with 200 vs 200 vs 200 or whatever and no organization, gameplay is going to be pretty meh.

 

Facts are fun and subjective apparently.

 

For a fact, I had no problem talking to someone in DayZ, even helping them, just to attack them when I got bored. VOIP didn't make that choice for me either way. Not everyone plays with a mic (or so they don't say). I didn't instantly attack them because of that. 

 

I'm all for in-game voice. Organized groups run 3rd party for a reason. Voice is better than text. Common sense. As it is always an option, ACE "needing" to add it so random people can talk to others isn't a necessity from my POV. CF isn't going to internally combust without it.

 

However, I don't know the ins and outs of it when it comes to ease to implement at a quality that is worth the cost, nor what those costs are and their impact on the rest of development. Only ACE knows these things. I could list a lot of unannounced features that would (in my mind) add to the experience for some if not all players. I'm not making them game, not my vision, design, funding, company/personal reputation, etc.

 

Maybe ACE wants players to think before they act and by having to type, it slows down gameplay and attacking randomly. Those running around swinging at anything that moves might be doing it wrong.

 

For me, I care about my experience above all others. If VOIP causes any performance issues or would delay any features already announced or to be that I would enjoy more, I'd rather they don't add it. I've gotten by just fine with text and 3rd parties for a long long time.

 

Hopefully they address it more in the future as clearly many would appreciate the feature, but until then, we can continue to type away without it...

 

I like the fact that people think that their views will some how convince others on a forum and that debates should just end with them being the victor. How I love the the internet. Luckily we have the deciding factor aka ACE and all of this discussion is rather pointless without them chiming in.

Edited by allein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming a decent chunk of CF players will come organized or will relatively quickly. Playing as a random, even when factions are concerned, is a pretty big disadvantage. Running around trying to gather folks together (voice or text) to compete with those already on the same page is going to be tough.

 

Not sure if some people foresee Crowfall as playing out like DayZ or Dota2? I'm hoping for organized groups roaming the land, huge battles, siege, etc. Not two individuals meeting in the woods and having a nice long voice chat. Actions should have consequences, if you run around KOS people, not so easy to run and hide like other game that do have VOIP baked in.

 

Voice would help, but how much and to how many is my question. Believe we'll need a bit more context and see how players organize themselves as time goes on.

 

How quickly will players "need" to join a group of any size when a campaign forms? If I can solo or PUG for 6 months in the Dregs, something is probably wrong. Not too different when it comes to factions, if people are just zerging with 200 vs 200 vs 200 or whatever and no organization, gameplay is going to be pretty meh.

 

I'm all for in-game voice. Organized groups run 3rd party for a reason. Voice is better than text. Common sense. As it is always an option, ACE "needing" to add it so random people can talk to others isn't a necessity from my POV. CF isn't going to internally combust without it.

 

Nicely written post, but I wanted to provide some additional context to one of your consistent points.  You mention often (as I have quoted) that people will be pre-organized.

 

And you are right, I don't expect to be running in the Dregs completely alone.  I plan to join with at least 10-20 people.

 

But it's not just individuals meeting individuals.  It's groups meeting groups.

 

Even if my group is pre-organized, what happens when we meet another pre-organized group that isn't in our voip?  There will always be the opportunity to combined groups, and that's where the dynamic grouping is still a scenario even when people are pre-organized at the start.

 

I guess if some people think they'll never need the assistance of anyone other than their predefined guild to accomplish any tasks, then they may not see the value of proximity voice.  But I don't think that's going to be the way the game plays out.  Yes it will be guilds roaming, but sometimes if Guild A runs into Guild B, they may both be en route to attack Guild C.  And in that scenario, being able to voice chat for a small specific situation in game would be cool.

 

 

As to your question about examples, I believe Day Z and survival games are solid examples of what the game play with be similar to, but that's my interpretation of the features that ACE have announced.  I agree, Dota/Halo w.e aren't examples of the kind of gameplay, but I do feel they illustrate the point that VOIP isn't inherently evil.

 

There is, I believe, a really amazing example of proximity Voip being a brilliant enhancement to a game, but sadly very few people have played it.  It's called the Project Reality Mod for BF2.

 

This involved incredibly slow moving, real-to-life (think ARMA before arma ever existed), large army wars on massive maps.  There was a heck of a lot of teamwork and coordination required to accomplish tasks.

 

In general, the way voice worked is you had voice chat within your squad, and that was all you needed probably 3/4ths of the time.  But sometimes, your squad would come upon another squad at an objective, and since you didn't have some shared voice, you used proximity voice to plan out attacks/cover fire or to coordinate actions.  And when that did happen, it was awesome.

 

Not only that, but the fact that you could end up eavesdropping on enemy squads doing just that was a really awesome immersive feature, but I don't think that's necessarily what makes pvc so valuable.  Just kinda cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah in those survival sandbox games I doubt there are ever that many people in the same place very often. In a PvP objective based MMO though you can realistically expect Hundreds of players if not more in the same area on a regular basis all in the same VOIP range. Viability of this feature is directly proportional to the amount of players in the same area.

 

I think it's a great option to have, it allows people the time to work together instead of just KOSing everyone. THIS is what builds in-game community and alliances. :)

Still have as always have had text chat. Its worked fine all these years. Besides like been said by others, whether or not you are going to attack someone is based on enemies, name, guild, faction affiliation and not whether you hear someone yell "don't attack me" over a chat channel.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah in those survival sandbox games I doubt there are ever that many people in the same place very often. In a PvP objective based MMO though you can realistically expect Hundreds of players if not more in the same area on a regular basis all in the same VOIP range. Viability of this feature is directly proportional to the amount of players in the same area.

 

Still have as always have had text chat. Its worked fine all these years. Besides like been said by others, whether or not you are going to attack someone is based on enemies, name, guild, faction affiliation and not whether you hear someone yell "don't attack me" over a chat channel.

 

To you first point, why not just mute/reduce range of PVC when in large groups?  There are untested potential solutions to this problem, and they'll continue being untested as long as people keep saying "No, don't do it, it won't work."

 

To your second point, I think you're just wrong.  If that is true, then why has PVC reduced kill-on-sight situations in Rust and DayZ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess if some people think they'll never need the assistance of anyone other than their predefined guild to accomplish any tasks, then they may not see the value of proximity voice.  But I don't think that's going to be the way the game plays out.  Yes it will be guilds roaming, but sometimes if Guild A runs into Guild B, they may both be en route to attack Guild C.  And in that scenario, being able to voice chat for a small specific situation in game would be cool.

 

Despite having possibly one hundred players talking in this scenario, isn't Guild C hearing everything Guild A and Guild B are saying?

I am asking out of curiosity... or are you talking about some more complex VOIP with channels etc in-game?


y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite having possibly one hundred players talking in this scenario, isn't Guild C hearing everything Guild A and Guild B are saying?

I am asking out of curiosity... or are you talking about some more complex VOIP with channels etc in-game?

 

Yes, assuming Guild C has snuck up close enough to overhear the chat.

 

That's also something I would stress: when I say PVC, I personally imagine the distance at which you can talk to be pretty close.  This is clearly a rough ballpark, but I imagine you can't hear someone after 3/4ths the average range of the med/log range archetypes.  Basically, closer to melee range is what you'd want to have a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite having possibly one hundred players talking in this scenario, isn't Guild C hearing everything Guild A and Guild B are saying?

I am asking out of curiosity... or are you talking about some more complex VOIP with channels etc in-game?

Would have to have separate channels and/or still use 3rd party VOIP. Because any smart guild would never talk strategy in the in game voice channel so will still need to have a 3rd party VOIP anyways. Having to manage multiple voice channels, multiple push to talk buttons to only talk in one channel and not the other certainly doesn't help the case of in game voice being widely used that's for sure.

 

So yeah as I see it in game voice chat has its uses in certain games and certain situations but the overall usefulness is just not where it should be to justify spending time and resources adding it to this game.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would have to have separate channels and/or still use 3rd party VOIP. Because any smart guild would never talk strategy in the in game voice channel so will still need to have a 3rd party VOIP anyways. Having to manage multiple voice channels, multiple push to talk buttons to only talk in one channel and not the other certainly doesn't help the case of in game voice being widely used that's for sure.

 

You're still assuming you have all this time to set up/join the same VOIP.  In a pinch, I'd risk being heard so I could maybe grab these extra 10 dudes to help me out, rather than waiting 5 minutes to make sure everyone is on the same voip/channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, assuming Guild C has snuck up close enough to overhear the chat.

 

That's also something I would stress: when I say PVC, I personally imagine the distance at which you can talk to be pretty close.  This is clearly a rough ballpark, but I imagine you can't hear someone after 3/4ths the average range of the med/log range archetypes.  Basically, closer to melee range is what you'd want to have a discussion.

 

Doc I would prefer the system to be integrated dependent on the specific campaign. If the campaign is faction vs faction i would prefer it be PVC that only your side can hear. If its a free for all campaign then PVC that everyone can hear makes sense. 

 

Although what you are talking about does open up for interesting game play, since I normally spy/scout i could sneak close enough to hear plans i guess  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're still assuming you have all this time to set up/join the same VOIP.  In a pinch, I'd risk being heard so I could maybe grab these extra 10 dudes to help me out, rather than waiting 5 minutes to make sure everyone is on the same voip/channel.

Nope, you just misunderstood what I said.

 

Any guild that's is smart and wants to play smart won't ONLY use the in game VOIP. They will still use a 3rd party VOIP for guild only to talk strategy and coordinate in battle. They would already be in this channel before they even log into the game. So then if there is in game VOIP, you'll then have to manage multiple channels so you can talk in one but not the other. It's just an extra hassle many won't bother with, so they will just continue to use 3rd party and ignore the in game one. Its again not necessary enough to warrant dealing with the in game VOIP on top of what's already available.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, you just misunderstood what I said.

 

Any guild that's is smart and wants to play smart won't ONLY use the in game VOIP. They will still use a 3rd party VOIP for guild only to talk strategy and coordinate in battle. They would already be in this channel before they even log into the game. So then if there is in game VOIP, you'll then have to manage multiple channels so you can talk in one but not the other. It's just an extra hassle many won't bother with, so they will just continue to use 3rd party and ignore the in game one. Its again not necessary enough to warrant dealing with the in game VOIP on top of what's already available.

 

You're right, I don't understand what you are saying.

 

Yes, I won't use only in game voip, I'll use 3rd party for my premade groups, and proximity for dynamic grouping.

 

So I have 2 hotkeys.  One for in game, one for Teamspeak.  This is already true in a ton of games I play (Dota, Battlefield, DayZ, Evolve...literally any game with in-game voip), so how is this a major issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...