Forums » Suggestions
Voice Chat in Activated Channels
Very much similar to voice chat in group but you can have it activated while in only one active channel. But if you have a group running, you can have the option to either listen to the group or the active channel.
Criticisms?
Criticisms?
I'm not sure what you mean. Like connecting it with the "chat channel" system we use for normal non-voice chat?
Keep in mind, part of the limitation is that we don't want to have more than 8-10 people able to "hear" any one person at once. Otherwise the multiplicative problems of mirroring out the voice chat data to all listeners could make bandwidth use on our side kind of prohibitive.
Keep in mind, part of the limitation is that we don't want to have more than 8-10 people able to "hear" any one person at once. Otherwise the multiplicative problems of mirroring out the voice chat data to all listeners could make bandwidth use on our side kind of prohibitive.
I was suggestion being able to use VC on channels but if you had a group running then you would have to toggle between both if you wanted to listen/talk.
EDIT: Maybe put a limitation on VC for channels where it will only work if there are a maximum number or less of people on that channel.
EDIT: Maybe put a limitation on VC for channels where it will only work if there are a maximum number or less of people on that channel.
a guild Voice Chat would be nice =)
The idea was, Inc, that in a 12 player leviathan hunting group that two guilds put together yesterday, it would have been extraordinarily helpful to have a leader give commands audibly. Instead of group or guild chat, we were using a numbered channel to coordinate. If voice was possible on a non-assigned numbered channel, we might have coordinated for the kill in half the time.
Although, that gives me an idea for a client-side plugin. Similar to the silly lies plugin that all my friends use, it could trigger useful commands for large scale coordination. I've played several games where typing numbers in a certain format triggers audio clips, and in vo it would save a lot of bandwidth.
The problem then, is that it would be a plugin. Nobody wants to close the game and install a new plugin when the fighting is already in progress. I could sit here and detail what commands would be useful, or go record them with my radio voice, but in the end- it is up to whether or not the devs will add an 'audio trigger' to the game.
If such a thing were added, group size limits could be increased- simply disable voice chat for a group larger than x, substituting audio trigger instead.
Although, that gives me an idea for a client-side plugin. Similar to the silly lies plugin that all my friends use, it could trigger useful commands for large scale coordination. I've played several games where typing numbers in a certain format triggers audio clips, and in vo it would save a lot of bandwidth.
The problem then, is that it would be a plugin. Nobody wants to close the game and install a new plugin when the fighting is already in progress. I could sit here and detail what commands would be useful, or go record them with my radio voice, but in the end- it is up to whether or not the devs will add an 'audio trigger' to the game.
If such a thing were added, group size limits could be increased- simply disable voice chat for a group larger than x, substituting audio trigger instead.
sorry i think an Audio trigger would suck
Voice chat is for talking without typing which can be very useful because then you can talk while in battle wether if you didint use VC you would be destroyed IF you were in a battle
Voice chat is for talking without typing which can be very useful because then you can talk while in battle wether if you didint use VC you would be destroyed IF you were in a battle
I understand the desire for more free-form voice chat constructs. However, like I said, we have to careful about how we go about implementing them, to prevent scalability problems.
For Border Skirmish type usage, for instance, I've been considering options like specialized channels that can "link" groups via their group leaders. As in.. each group has a leader and 7 members. Then the group leaders also have a separate channel where they communicate, allowing an overall leader to issue commands down to the "squad" level, who then recommunicate to their respective squads. It's a bit more unwieldy, as leaders have to relay and so on. But I would really rather move towards a generalized system that would be scalable and applicable to situations involving not like 10-15 players, but 50-60, coordinating togther. Other things are needed too, of course, like leadership target designation and so on, but this thread is just about specific improvement of Voice Chat.
For Border Skirmish type usage, for instance, I've been considering options like specialized channels that can "link" groups via their group leaders. As in.. each group has a leader and 7 members. Then the group leaders also have a separate channel where they communicate, allowing an overall leader to issue commands down to the "squad" level, who then recommunicate to their respective squads. It's a bit more unwieldy, as leaders have to relay and so on. But I would really rather move towards a generalized system that would be scalable and applicable to situations involving not like 10-15 players, but 50-60, coordinating togther. Other things are needed too, of course, like leadership target designation and so on, but this thread is just about specific improvement of Voice Chat.
I too was on that levi hunt , and would agree with Aramarths comments. At the same time I understand Incarnates concerns about bandwidth.
At the moment we can use vc by joining a group either manually or via a mission, and when joined vc works excellently, but of course is lost when the group disbands at the end of the mission.
Surbs idea of having a set of specific vc channels limited to a reasonable number of players is good , but the ability to see who is speaking with the -)) icon is advantageous.
Ideally the ability to have both a mission group and a vc group running in parallel would be good , though I appreciate it could clutter small screens . We use /group join "name" , using /groupvc join "name" would be intuitive.
I appreciate that you have address scaleability , but either of the above solutions would move things forward in the meantime .
At the moment we can use vc by joining a group either manually or via a mission, and when joined vc works excellently, but of course is lost when the group disbands at the end of the mission.
Surbs idea of having a set of specific vc channels limited to a reasonable number of players is good , but the ability to see who is speaking with the -)) icon is advantageous.
Ideally the ability to have both a mission group and a vc group running in parallel would be good , though I appreciate it could clutter small screens . We use /group join "name" , using /groupvc join "name" would be intuitive.
I appreciate that you have address scaleability , but either of the above solutions would move things forward in the meantime .