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

Biased opinion vs biased opinion = thread.  This thread should have been locked a while ago.

 

Not until we get a comment from a Dev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah pretty sure you are vastly underestimating the expense. 3rd party VOIP like TS and Ventrilo require hosted servers so don't see how you could get away with some kind of peer to peer thing in the game. Doesn't sound physically possible as we are talking thousands and hundred's of thousands and even a million players. So yeah ACE will need to rent/purchase server space just like they will for the game servers. Rent cost, maintenance etc.

 

Skype is peer-to-peer. It does group chat. It is very commonly used in conjunction with online gaming with negligible performance loss. This portion of your argument is invalid.

 

Yes, you might start seeing performance losses as more people start talking at once, but there are ways around this. Such as limiting the radius in direct proportion to the number of people talking in the area, much like it is hard to hear or be heard by all but those really close to you in a crowd. And in small groups, peer-to-peer is actually more efficient, as it leaves out the middle man of the server.

 

Also, for those of you arguing that in-game PVC would never be as efficient or as high quality as dedidicated, third-party VOIP services, it doesn't need to be. It's not like we need to be transmitting a loss-less compression of Toccata and Fugue in D Minor in order to effectively communicate, "Please don't kill me. I come in peace." Due to the brain's ability for pattern recognition, especially in areas that are directly conducive to survival, such as human speech, the quality of audio recording and compression can be quite low but still function as an effective means of communication.

Edited by Raizex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skype also has a limit on how many people can be in a conversation which in turn limits the impact it has on bandwidth for each person involved.

So no, the server performance arguments are not invalid. Peer-to-peer does not automagically make performance issues go away, it just spreads them out by making everyone a client and server at the same time.

Ever made a Skype session with a 50 people? No? Exactly. Once you get past  a certain point, something like TS or Vent becomes more efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id love to see it but only if people get to modify their voice ;)

Cant see me enjoying listening to a babarian warrior sounding like a 12 year old guy :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been plenty of logic stated in this thread. It is not our fault you can not see it.

 

The problem with trying use arguments of cost/player abuse/performance is not as logical as you assume. First of all as stated prior cost can be evaded if adding a stretch goal to accommodate for the cost. Also people play  the numbers game all the time so who is to say the current features they are working on or plan to have have costed the devs what they originally anticipated. Secondly, player abuse comes from gaming in general, it happens get over it. As with PVC in PS2 you can easily mute an individual abusing the feature with 1 button. Thirdly, talking about performance issues without actually possessing the game is asinine as you have absolutely no knowledge of what the game will require of your rig.

 

I can state my argument as such as I am not pushing an opinion as fact. I am giving a means to cover the cost, to lessen if not eliminate the annoyance of abusers within the feature (as it works in other games), and neither of us know what the game will require to play as of yet (I would think that if SoE can provide it for PS2 then ACE can for CF).

 

So unless you can provide ACE budget plan for the game not to mention the actual cost of a feature like this (as i doubt you have ever created a game with this feature), proof they would never think to add a mute feature or on/off in settings, and system requirements with data of it running on every type of system and isp with said feature with , as someone put it, millions of players in one area then your argument is moot.

Edited by wolfuse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all as stated prior cost can be evaded if adding a stretch goal to accommodate for the cost.

The costs of an integrated VOIP with proximity detection is not a one time cost. The ongoing maintenance costs will be passed along in some form to the consumer including even the ones not using it, unless you make it some sort of pay to use feature.

 

I would think that if SoE can provide it for PS2 then ACE can for CF

SOE has a lot more capital to utilize, and a loathsome and intrusive micro-transaction model. If that is what it takes to pay for proximity voice, no thanks. Plus, the quality was horribad.

 

So unless you can provide ACE budget plan for the game not to mention the actual cost of a feature like this (as i doubt you have ever created a game with this feature), proof they would never think to add a mute feature or on/off in settings, and system requirements with data of it running on every type of system and isp with said feature with , as someone put it, millions of players in one area then your argument is moot.
 
That argument works against proxy VIOP as much as it does for it. If one has no clue about the network hardware and software logistics it takes to make something like that work as well as the budget needed to implement it, one's arguments in its favor are moot as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The costs of an integrated VOIP with proximity detection is not a one time cost. The ongoing maintenance costs will be passed along in some form to the consumer including even the ones not using it, unless you make it some sort of pay to use feature.

 

SOE has a lot more capital to utilize, and a loathsome and intrusive micro-transaction model. If that is what it takes to pay for proximity voice, no thanks. Plus, the quality was horribad.

 

 
That argument works against proxy VIOP as much as it does for it. If one has no clue about the network hardware and software logistics it takes to make something like that work as well as the budget needed to implement it, one's arguments in its favor are moot as well.

 

 

/Facepalm

 

Again you are pushing opinion and the unknown as fact. I never stated that it would not be an accrued cost over time, but as you nor i know the revenue potential of CF who is to say its not a minuscule cost. You nor i know the cost of the feature itself or how it would directly affect players wallets as this is a B2P game and not a sub game. Nor has there been any proof provided that there is a trickle effect of a feature like this to cause any alarm as such,  which means cost is not a viable argument unless the devs tell us so. 

 

If games like DayZ, Rust, and PS2 can afford this feature then why wouldn't CF? Yes SoE has more capital to utilize but what about the smaller companies that are able to fund such a feature?

 

Lastly, the unknown works neither for nor against anything as it is the unknown we are speaking of. What i speak of are viable solutions to the possible minor problems people are currently stating against the feature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to chime in here for the whole cost argument,

 

I might be wrong but I am fairly sure PVC is client based P2P and the servers only tell the client who to connect to and when. Thus using negligible bandwidth or server resources and why so many indie games are using it. Because beside the implementation time it does not cost them ongoing costs that are significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skype also has a limit on how many people can be in a conversation which in turn limits the impact it has on bandwidth for each person involved.

 

So no, the server performance arguments are not invalid. Peer-to-peer does not automagically make performance issues go away, it just spreads them out by making everyone a client and server at the same time.

 

Ever made a Skype session with a 50 people? No? Exactly. Once you get past  a certain point, something like TS or Vent becomes more efficient.

 

You failed to read the second part of my post, in which I addressed concerns for large group performance. Also, one of the reasons why Skype doesn't scale all that well is due to everyone's mic being live, recording, and transmitting at the same time. This means that each client is not only actively transmitting to every other client in the call, but also receiving from every other client in the call. In this scenario, the usage of bandwidth scales at rate of O(n), where n is the number of clients currently in the call. In other words, bandwidth scales linearly in proportion to the number of people currently in the call.

 

However, one can improve performance in most situations by using push-to-talk. This drastically improves performance in a number of ways. First, in the ideal scenario where no one is currently talking, peer-to-peer PVC with push-to-talk takes up little to no bandwidth. Second, in the more common scenario where only one person is talking, the upload bandwidth of the person talking would still scale at a rate of O(n), as they still need to transmit to everyone else, however, the bandwidth of everyone else would remain constant, or scale at a rate of O(1), regardless of the number of people in the call. This would be due to the fact that they only have to receive data from the person talking. However, in the worst-case scenario where everyone is talking at once, push-to-talk scales just as badly as open-mic. The solution I provided in my previous post addresses this by effectively limiting how large n can get, and thus limiting the performance impact of peer-to-peer PVC.

 

 

The costs of an integrated VOIP with proximity detection is not a one time cost. The ongoing maintenance costs will be passed along in some form to the consumer including even the ones not using it, unless you make it some sort of pay to use feature.

 

SOE has a lot more capital to utilize, and a loathsome and intrusive micro-transaction model. If that is what it takes to pay for proximity voice, no thanks. Plus, the quality was horribad.

 

 
That argument works against proxy VIOP as much as it does for it. If one has no clue about the network hardware and software logistics it takes to make something like that work as well as the budget needed to implement it, one's arguments in its favor are moot as well.

 

 

We addressed maintenance issues by suggesting a peer-to-peer solution, which wouldn't require additional computing resources on behalf of ArtCraft. (See my previous post and above.) Also, from a game-play perspective, voice quality is a non-issue, so long as it is good enough for players to effectively communicate in time-critical situations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would turn it off and not use it because I always seem to find the people who don't turn on push to talk or leave their mics open. Once I heard someone using the restroom, lol. It was... well... fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think this thread deserves a comment from ACE?

Because they can either say Yes/No/Maybe and the thread can be locked. Too many people brigading this thread with their idiocy because they are afraid of human interaction in a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they can either say Yes/No/Maybe and the thread can be locked. Too many people brigading this thread with their idiocy because they are afraid of human interaction in a game.

Well it is, by my count, the 4th thread on this topic and none of the others got a comment. So good luck with that.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only reason im against it is i like at least imagining everybody is ic in games like this even if not everybody rps and it kinda ruins the immersion if a minotuar says "lol get rekt" in a voice that doesn't even sound like one


(づ ˘ ³˘)づ

Hug it Out

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...