| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
LWMaverick
    |
Posted - 2006.04.14 14:55:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
if you do this, make it so that eve cant be played with ventrilo or/and teamspeak running.
lol... drop dead
 |
Agent Kenshin
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 15:06:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
if you do this, make it so that eve cant be played with ventrilo or/and teamspeak running.
and also add a new° mechanism to ecm, when jammed, your voice coms is also jammed. as seen in several sci-fi series/films, you jam the target so it cant call for help. :P :D
Heh if you did that id simply use my headset on another pc. That really doesnt change anything.
Overall the idea sounds good in theory but putting this whole thing into the game could spell disaster... As if the servers werent laggy enough. This would need an entirely seperate server to run on. And personally typing works just fine for whats in game.
Originally by: MAXSuicide
only carebears call pvpers 'greifers'
ehehehh....
|
Ozzie Asrail
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 15:24:00 -
[33]
I cant really see a need for this tbh, TS\Vent already provide plenty of funtionality and are flexible. I dont think I'd want the Dev's recreating a wheel that millions of gamers already use.
-----
Geotech is recruiting! |
fairimear
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 17:12:00 -
[34]
ingame voice chat = worst idea ever.
a it's so inificiently laggy in every game it's been done this far.
second why bother TS and vent are much nicer to use and all but free.
besides i would rather ccp do some gigeryokery with the sound system so it make's better use of my 7.1 suround sound.
|
Rikkard Strofeldt
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 17:22:00 -
[35]
I like the idea of in-game voice. As long as it was done right.
My ideas for some of the mentioned problems:
Lag: use the old TQ cluster
ISPs blocking the VOIP: If this was the case, Skype, TS, Ventrilo, and the various games that have in-game voice wouldn't work either.
Can we at least be open minded about this. If we give the devs our ideas on how we'd like it to work, its more likely to become a success. Who knows, the addition of voice might improve the way gangs work, letting us do some mighty fine fleet command stuff.
I for one recommend using the speex codec. Its what I'm using with Ventrilo, and its really clear.
Manco Devils needs you |
SengH
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 17:33:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Rikkard Strofeldt
I like the idea of in-game voice. As long as it was done right.
My ideas for some of the mentioned problems:
Lag: use the old TQ cluster
ISPs blocking the VOIP: If this was the case, Skype, TS, Ventrilo, and the various games that have in-game voice wouldn't work either.
Can we at least be open minded about this. If we give the devs our ideas on how we'd like it to work, its more likely to become a success. Who knows, the addition of voice might improve the way gangs work, letting us do some mighty fine fleet command stuff.
I for one recommend using the speex codec. Its what I'm using with Ventrilo, and its really clear.
what about the fact that VOIP is going to be blocked in china? Im pretty sure that would affect this features deployment to the serenity cluster.
|
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 17:38:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
if you do this, make it so that eve cant be played with ventrilo or/and teamspeak running.
and also add a new° mechanism to ecm, when jammed, your voice coms is also jammed. as seen in several sci-fi series/films, you jam the target so it cant call for help. :P :D
That would be interesting, imagine futuristic flashbangs deployed by a few black ops frigs to knock out enemy fleet commander communications leaving the enemy fleet in chaos. 
-------
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Rikkard Strofeldt
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 18:06:00 -
[38]
Originally by: SengH
Originally by: Rikkard Strofeldt
I like the idea of in-game voice. As long as it was done right.
My ideas for some of the mentioned problems:
Lag: use the old TQ cluster
ISPs blocking the VOIP: If this was the case, Skype, TS, Ventrilo, and the various games that have in-game voice wouldn't work either.
Can we at least be open minded about this. If we give the devs our ideas on how we'd like it to work, its more likely to become a success. Who knows, the addition of voice might improve the way gangs work, letting us do some mighty fine fleet command stuff.
I for one recommend using the speex codec. Its what I'm using with Ventrilo, and its really clear.
what about the fact that VOIP is going to be blocked in china? Im pretty sure that would affect this features deployment to the serenity cluster.
Ummm... Wha? Voice internal to the game, on a China only cluster would be blocked? I guess that means these guys can't use TS/Ventrilo equivalents either 
Manco Devils needs you |
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 18:15:00 -
[39]
You have to look at it from a gameplay perspective, not "omg another useless feature fix _______ instead!!".
Voice communication is a must-have for EVE, because combat is so stupidly fast. I keep saying that its closer to an FPS than a massively multiplayer RTS, and voice communication is the solid proof of this statement. Take any sized gang versus any other sized gang and the one with teamspeak will always have a distinct advantage over the other.
Why?
Because anyone trying to use the user interface to get the message across is probably going to die before action is taken. As part of the new fleet/gang organizations I suggested a few things that would streamline the way combat is handled.
For example, a simple "warp to me!" hotkey that makes your name or icon flash quickly reduces the need to type out 8 letters in gang chat to pressing one button, and not requiring everyone to pay attention to channel.
What else do people use voice chat for? Target calling / prioritization, which we STILL don't have ingame, despite combat working that way forever. I'd even go as far as to say an ingame implementation of tagging is going to be better than any voice communication system because only the leader can do it (which reduces confusion) and its clearer (which bypasses sound quality/lag issues).
Lets see, then theres simple things like waypoints and setting destination, a simple "hold here" signal, and being able to accurately relay scout/intel information from another system. All the things we use voip for can be done with the UI. I don't see a reason to give up on the UI and try to implement ingame chat which is not going to be superior to teamspeak/ventrilo in any way.
All it does is break the immersion of the game, because its a standard feature that people will use even if they don't really pvp much. That turns away casual players and roleplayers who I guess enjoy the thought of being somebody they so clearly aren't.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 18:27:00 -
[40]
Yes, let's, liarboy.
Bashing the pace of combat is really not relevant to this thread. You bring your agenda into every single thread you touch. Moverover, trying to put a complex series of commands into the UI will just lead to people not using the. The key is speed and useability. For that, voice is simply irreplaceable.
You're right, but your reasoning is specious.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 19:00:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Rikkard Strofeldt
Originally by: SengH
Originally by: Rikkard Strofeldt
I like the idea of in-game voice. As long as it was done right.
My ideas for some of the mentioned problems:
Lag: use the old TQ cluster
ISPs blocking the VOIP: If this was the case, Skype, TS, Ventrilo, and the various games that have in-game voice wouldn't work either.
Can we at least be open minded about this. If we give the devs our ideas on how we'd like it to work, its more likely to become a success. Who knows, the addition of voice might improve the way gangs work, letting us do some mighty fine fleet command stuff.
I for one recommend using the speex codec. Its what I'm using with Ventrilo, and its really clear.
what about the fact that VOIP is going to be blocked in china? Im pretty sure that would affect this features deployment to the serenity cluster.
Ummm... Wha? Voice internal to the game, on a China only cluster would be blocked? I guess that means these guys can't use TS/Ventrilo equivalents either
here
It can easily be done using some form of packet shaper/ packet sniffer.
|
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 19:16:00 -
[42]
Edited by: DigitalCommunist on 14/04/2006 19:16:50
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Yes, let's, liarboy.
Bashing the pace of combat is really not relevant to this thread. You bring your agenda into every single thread you touch. Moverover, trying to put a complex series of commands into the UI will just lead to people not using the. The key is speed and useability. For that, voice is simply irreplaceable.
You're right, but your reasoning is specious.
Buhu?
My reasoning sounds truthful because it is the truth. Don't believe me? Cry a river, and go drown yourself in it.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
|
Spleef
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 19:46:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Suze'Rain
perhaps, rather than knocking the idea, as some people have done, we should list what we would like to see in such a VoIP feature, so a featurelist can be drawn up by ccp?
Ok the first feature i'd go for would be flawless drone behaviour, as this would remove the need for me to swear to corp mates, thus conserving voip bandwidth.
I think the featurelist reduces to fixing what we have already from my persepctive :)
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 19:49:00 -
[44]
Yes DC, because you have no real answer, you flame me. Lie more?
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Callistus
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 20:01:00 -
[45]
How about we don't drag this thread into a flame war?
I personally like the sound of integrated voice communication, but only if it were to provide benefits over the use of third-arty apps like TS and vent, and not conflict with them should people choose not to use it.
And I have to agree with DC in that the ingame gang command interface could do with a lot of reworking and be so much more powerful than it currently is, even if that is a slightly different topic.
--------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainfrane] |
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 20:18:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Yes, let's, liarboy.
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Yes DC, because you have no real answer, you flame me. Lie more?
Hello, hypocrite. I didn't know liarboy was a technical term that deserved proper answering.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 20:31:00 -
[47]
DC, It just happens, incidently, to be the truth.
Anyway, Callistus, I'm hard pressed to see any advantage which it'd have over Vent/TS. I can think of plenty of ways to limit it, but people would then keep using Vent/TS and I don't think it's worth it.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
|
kieron
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 23:38:00 -
[48]
Let's leave the flames and personal agendas out of a thread that is supposed to be discussing the possibility of a technology integration that is UNDER DISCUSSION between 2 companies. No plans have been made, agreements have not been signed, money has not changed hands, CCP Devs have not integrated Vivox into the client, nothing.
Don't get huffy over something that may or may not happen, and if it does, may be months to over a year before integration.
kieron
Community Manager,
EVE Online |
|
Eternal Fury
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 23:49:00 -
[49]
Don't think we need it, but if it can be done is such a way that it doesn't lag the servers, I'm all for it.
First.
Channels. All of htese are off the top of my head.
Trade:
8 Channels general/Ships/Hi's/Mediums/Lows/BP's/Mins/other
General channels.
24 channels Caldari/Min/Amarr/Gal. With sub channels for each for General/Mission/PvP/Trade/Manufactureing/Other
Alliances
3 chanels(minmum) for each alliance. 1 for leaders, one for general alliance use, one for temp alliance/potential members.
Global channels.
For PvP/Missions/Mining/Pirates/Manufactureing
you see how this is going.. If you put channels in you need to seperate them in such a way that it's easier for us to keep them on topic.
at the least you'll have 2 channels per Corp, 2 per Alliance, a few sales channels, a few mining channels, a few pirate channels, a few regional channels and so on. It's quite a lot.
|
Sir Juri
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 23:53:00 -
[50]
sweet ingame voice chat, excellent. Can't wait.
Im a noob, bear with me :P |
|
Sovy Kurosei
|
Posted - 2006.04.14 23:54:00 -
[51]
How about stream lining the tag ability in Eve Online instead of implementing VOIP? Like left alt + right click on the overview to queue up a list of targets that people should attack in the order that are clicked? Just a suggestion.
---
Punishers 4TW! |
Hermia
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 00:27:00 -
[52]
Obviously a nice idea in princible.
Most of the sucessfull corps have a TS/ventrilo, it would be great for everyone to be leveled in this way. However i would only give a 'thumbs up' if it had no effect on eve stability and/or lag.
I remember someone from CCP saying that eve only consumes 50mb/s bandwidth during peak times, so it might be ok 
 Ex-Northern Citizen
please dont mail me ingame, i cant view it |
Lucas Garin
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 00:27:00 -
[53]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Yes, let's, liarboy.
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Yes DC, because you have no real answer, you flame me. Lie more?
Hello, hypocrite. I didn't know liarboy was a technical term that deserved proper answering.
Jeez you two, get a room.
|
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 01:18:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Yes, let's, liarboy.
Bashing the pace of combat is really not relevant to this thread. You bring your agenda into every single thread you touch. Moverover, trying to put a complex series of commands into the UI will just lead to people not using the. The key is speed and useability. For that, voice is simply irreplaceable.
You're right, but your reasoning is specious.
His agenda that is shared by alot of people as well as devs? I'm not sure there's enough cheese in germany for you, Maya :|
 |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 01:34:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 15/04/2006 01:34:54
I agree that it's not worthwhile as suggested (A TS/Vent replacement). I disagree that it is really connected with other UI issues. I think you'll find that I've called for a WoW-like modable interface with appropriate features in other, more appropriate threads.
I'm also against being able to control other players actions. Player SKILL should matter, not the macro's of the gang leader.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 01:34:00 -
[56]
"Moverover, trying to put a complex series of commands into the UI will just lead to people not using the. The key is speed and useability. For that, voice is simply irreplaceable."
To be honest, i think improving the UI so it allows to quickly issue the most common commands without having to rely on voice communication (be it built-in or 3rd party) ... would be a 'good thing'
From the fleet commander viewpoint EVE is to a degree like RTS, and these games do exactly this, allow to issue rapid, precise commands with key shortcuts because screaming at the tiny computer people don't really work well. So no real reason why it couldn't be included into EVE enhancing immersion rather than breaking it... plus, there's side-benefit of less bandwidth being used by the ongoing voice transmissions compared to tiny packets needed to transmit stuff like "X is designated target" through game client... as well as less room for error and time wasted on trying to guess what system exactly the latest destination is supposed to be o.O;
|
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 01:39:00 -
[57]
Originally by: j0sephine
"Moverover, trying to put a complex series of commands into the UI will just lead to people not using the. The key is speed and useability. For that, voice is simply irreplaceable."
To be honest, i think improving the UI so it allows to quickly issue the most common commands without having to rely on voice communication (be it built-in or 3rd party) ... would be a 'good thing'
From the fleet commander viewpoint EVE is to a degree like RTS, and these games do exactly this, allow to issue rapid, precise commands with key shortcuts because screaming at the tiny computer people don't really work well. So no real reason why it couldn't be included into EVE enhancing immersion rather than breaking it... plus, there's side-benefit of less bandwidth being used by the ongoing voice transmissions compared to tiny packets needed to transmit stuff like "X is designated target" through game client... as well as less room for error and time wasted on trying to guess what system exactly the latest destination is supposed to be o.O;
qft.
One of the "holy grails" of multiplayer interface design is the "silent communication"; i.e. where the interface complements the game so well that individual team members can function with minimal, if any, communication between them. Natural Selection attempted this with their Hivemind ability, and various user modifications to World of Warcraft are also attempting it.
In EVE, this is already possible to a certian extent, but it's not helped by the interface at all. Rather, a competent gang of PvP'ers that are familiar enough with each other can, given objectives, function in combat, pursuit and all that jazz without communications. This, of course, relies on them all thinking alike (calling the same primaries), and dismantles at groups larger than three or four. With a pointed interface design, I sincerely believe that gangs up to around 10 could seriously cut down on current communication levels, reducing the chance for misunderstandings, comms clutter and latency of orders.
 |
Rorix Whitecloud
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 01:39:00 -
[58]
i dont think that counts as controling other player's actions... if the actions gives orders to your gangmates (whether they follow the orders or not is up to them) counts as controlling, then in fleet battles, the leader calling the Primary would be classified as so too... i think the ideas for giving orders that are clear and easy to understand (without possibly choppy voice chat quality) is something that should be looked into.
~I don't remember. That's the second thing they teach you. |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 01:39:00 -
[59]
Edited by: j0sephine on 15/04/2006 01:39:11
"I'm also against being able to control other players actions. Player SKILL should matter, not the macro's of the gang leader."
ehh? i didn't think of anything like that. But simply enhancement of current tagging system, that lets the gang leader to indicate waypoints and targets on the map and/or in the vicinity with simple clicks... the orders would still need to be carried out by the players on their own.
Heck, it's no different from the commander interface in Battlefield 2 or Tribes or Planetside or number of other co-operative games, for that matter... it's just this is something EVE is currently lacking even though it's supposed to be way more complex than these games. ^^;;
|
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2006.04.15 01:41:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Raem Civrie on 15/04/2006 01:41:56
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 15/04/2006 01:34:54
I agree that it's not worthwhile as suggested (A TS/Vent replacement). I disagree that it is really connected with other UI issues. I think you'll find that I've called for a WoW-like modable interface with appropriate features in other, more appropriate threads.
I'm also against being able to control other players actions. Player SKILL should matter, not the macro's of the gang leader.
I can't see where this has been said before. But already in fleet battles, individual skill is pretty worthless. It boils down to the skills of the commanders, the rest just have to know their place and activate the modules.
 |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |