PDA

View Full Version : Realistic In-game communication - Why it needs to be implemented



SpectretheGreat
11-19-2015, 02:55 AM
The American Civil War was the pinnacle of Line vs Line combat, that being so, one of the aspects of this type of warfare has always been overlooked; communication. Games like Mount and Blade Napoleonic Wars have set the, what I shutter to say, "standard" for what to expect as the base game. That being said, War of Rights will be nothing like it in the long run but we see some basic concepts like character customization, unique uniforms, musicians and some little bits here and there. One of the big things however that was also overlooked in Mount and Blade was a realistic communication system, and you may never have noticed but most games opt for a channel system where you can select a set group of people from 'Squads' to 'Team' to 'All' depending on who you intend to talk too. But how realistic is that? My hope for War of Rights is to take the Civil War experience one step further and introduce a realistic communication system, and you be asking yourself, "What would a realistic communication system be in that time period?" and to you my friend I have this to say;

What I suggest is that the game focuses on making players use the in-game voice chat as the main method of communication, what that also means is that the game doesn't use channels but an open world constant feed. So anything one player said can be heard only those around him, creating a need not only for tight formations to efficiently move around and combat the enemy but allows for the musicians and colour bearers to be EXTREMELY useful instead of just a gag joke or a bonus multiplier. This I believe would add a huge amount of depth to the game and would make for some interesting gameplay. This has been done before as a mod for the mil-sim games Arma 2 and 3 where a mod called "ACRE" and/or "TaskForceArrowheadRadios" effectively created a realistic radio system in the game, but made so without a radio only people within a few metres could effectively hear you and if you died, you were silenced until respawn. I see this not only as a tool used for adding more realism but adds new ways to combat the enemy.

Skrimishers or Sharp Shooters are usually smaller in size and only engage for short amounts of time until they fall back or effectively route their enemy, in a game where voice is heard by all it means keeping a lid on chatter amongst the men may be the deciding factor between a successful ambush, or a bloodbath. It also means that by taking out the chain of command at the start of an engagement may result in the entire company or platoon routing as they need time to reorganize. This adds an entire dynamic to the game, adding more focus on what each type of unit needs to do to be effective in the face of turmoil and extreme stress. Failure to communicate orders may see some companies fall apart whereas more trained and tight formations will be able to keep it together and push on under fire. Lastly, with all the chaos of the battlefield nothing rings louder than the glorious sound of music! Musicians would now be seen as a must so commanders can effectively communicate orders so that retreats and charges can be coordinated at a moments notice, and colour bearers will be needed amongst all the smoke and dirt to see where the unit is headed.

EDIT: There has been a lot of people who have pointed out that third-party chat programs are going to be more effective and useful, but the point isn't about what is going to make communication the easiest, but about how realistic and fun it would be doing it this way. Games like 'Project Reality' and 'Squad' do it and the entire community loves it, it allows for a lot more diverse combat and allows for random squads to link together to complete an objective. This system relies on YOU, the players, to make it work and happen. If the game was about doing the easy way then why wouldn't everyone just be skrimishers? They're allowed to hide and take cover so why not just have everyone do that? Because that's not how its meant to be played, we're all here because we want epic line battles and mass charges, so don't be a debbie downer and dismiss this idea because there is an easier way, that just isn't the point. This system allows not only for new players to be able to hop into a server, join a company and be able to communicate with everyone, but gives new options for commanders to fight the enemy. Having Sharpshooters target messengers is a valid tactic that could be used with a system like this, if we use Teamspeak all you have to do is poke the guy. Its meant to make the experience more fun, it may be a hassle at some point but it'll make for a more immersive experience in the end. Imagine explaining to your friends this game how you and your company were cut off, no way to communicate to your general, holding the hill to the last man, completely surrounded firing your rifle to the last bullet before you fall in the heat of battle. It makes the game almost cinematic.

I would really like to hear your guys' opinion on this, bad or good I want too hear what you guys would like to see instead, added too and whatever else you can think of. Ill leave a youtube link to a video of the Arma mod I mentioned previously to help clarify what I am talking about.



https://youtu.be/4BsQBTQtiQQ?t=2m56s - I time stamped it to where the local chat is demonstrated, any more questions on how it works just ask :)

Octavian360
11-19-2015, 03:26 AM
I would absolutely love to see something like ACRE being used in this game, along with using musicians for their intended use and not for a trolling mechanism.

Machoman44441
11-19-2015, 03:31 AM
I would absolutely love to see something like ACRE being used in this game, along with using musicians for their intended use and not for a trolling mechanism.

agreed.As a drummer, even in reenacting, people don't bother actually listening to us because there is isn't the kind of where if you didn't know the commands you wouldn't know what to do scenario.

Arkansan
11-19-2015, 04:37 AM
3rd Party communication makes this non-important. Especially when the time and effort is needed elsewhere right now.

SpectretheGreat
11-19-2015, 04:38 AM
3rd Party communication makes this non-important. Especially when the time and effort is needed elsewhere right now.

Thats the problem however, it makes it easy for ghosting and unrealistic for those trying for mil-sim

JaegerCoyote
11-19-2015, 06:20 AM
I like the idea but at the same time I agree that third parties like TS would most likely be used. The thing is how to make people want to use the system.

Szotu
11-19-2015, 07:12 AM
ACRE shiet would be nice.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-19-2015, 08:12 AM
there is another thread where we discussed the same and a guy said there is a software which look if Ts is running.

by installing WoR you could be forced to install acre.

if the software see you running Ts without acre WoR could lock you for joining servers.


I hope you understand me. sry for my really bad English

Jamez
11-19-2015, 09:11 AM
there is another thread where we discussed the same and a guy said there is a software which look if Ts is running.

by installing WoR you could be forced to install acre.

if the software see you running Ts without acre WoR could lock you for joining servers.


I hope you understand me. sry for my really bad English

That would be a stupid thing to implement, some people do not even have teamspeak and forcing them to download two applications sperately just to play the game would be very off putting.

I do love the idea of there being a VoiP which is something like ACRE but it would be so difficult to force it onto players when just using teamspeak would be so much more preferable. The only possibility for everyone on a server to use it at once would be a community event with that set as one of the rules. Even then people still have to follow the rule which is unlikely to happen

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-19-2015, 09:22 AM
You Can say in your rules that you have to use xy. but how will you control it?

They can also integrate a ingame VoIP but nothing will stop you to use Ts instead of the ingame VoIP. so you will have a big advantage against others because only your guys he's your orders.

so there must be a way which stop the player using other communication software

Jamez
11-19-2015, 09:27 AM
You cannot force people to use only one type of VoIP, it just doesn't work like that. You can implement your own and see if it's appealing enough for people to use it but a lot are already so comfortable with TS3 anyway

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-19-2015, 09:40 AM
But then is there no possibility for this sound system because some will use another VoIP system to get a advantage. the others will use this system in the future to avoid disadvantage. in the end: campfire can safe time and money with don't integrate a feature like that.

You must force the player to use xy or you don't use that

Jamez
11-19-2015, 10:10 AM
It is up to the developers if they want to implement a VoIP but I highly doubt they will force you to use theirs in order to play the game. And yes it is almost certain not everyone will use the VoIP provided giving them an advantage when playing the game but there is no way to prevent them from doing that in a fair way.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-19-2015, 10:20 AM
I don't see the problem to force the player to use the ingame system.

there will be nothing with channels, rights, groups etc. which you must handle. if you are close to a other player will hear you and somebody who is far away will not.

they could use a script which you don't let you run Ts when you are in a event. this script could be only active when the event hoster start a specific server mode.

that could be a solution. if the rules of an event say use ingame VoIP you could activate this script on your server.

if its indefferent (like the public server in NW or you don't have a rule like that) you don't activate this script


I hope you can understand me :/

Jamez
11-19-2015, 10:27 AM
I can understand fine, and it's not that they wouldn't have the ability to do that.

The problem with that is it reduces the target audience of the game to just realism players, if people buy this game and then find out they can't talk to their friends casually over something like TS3 it would be very off putting. If this person and others with the same view then went on to make a bad review because of this feature it could harm WoR's potential.

Making the force VoIP server side instead of the entire game may be a solution but it is up to the devs if they want to look into doing that.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-19-2015, 10:45 AM
you're right. I don't have this sight so far.

I thought about this "mode" for events from this community. I think there will be events where only regiments will be accepted to participate. in this events you can use this mode because I think the biggest part from us want a realistic and epic feeling.

for events or servers for casual players you don't use this mode.

Jamez
11-19-2015, 10:57 AM
That's what I would think the best solution would be. But that does put trust in the participants of the event to follow the rules and not use VoIP outside of WoR's which can be hard to prove they are doing so.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-19-2015, 11:06 AM
and that's why I thought about a script like that ^^

in my post above I mean the script with mode

SpectretheGreat
11-19-2015, 01:23 PM
you're right. I don't have this sight so far.

I thought about this "mode" for events from this community. I think there will be events where only regiments will be accepted to participate. in this events you can use this mode because I think the biggest part from us want a realistic and epic feeling.

for events or servers for casual players you don't use this mode.

I think the system should be there for realism, and if you want to use it go for it. But for events I think it could easily be enforced. All I want is for it to be an available option for those who want to use it.

Gandalf
11-19-2015, 04:21 PM
TS3 already works for individual companies, as all the members are close to each other. As for inter-company communication, wasn't a courier system going to be implemented?

SpectretheGreat
11-19-2015, 05:05 PM
TS3 already works for individual companies, as all the members are close to each other. As for inter-company communication, wasn't a courier system going to be implemented?

The thing is not whether it is needed for the sake of practicality but for realism. Ts3 works but it's always noisy and if you give talk priorities it gets out of hand sometimes. Also, not everyone has access to a dedicated teamspeak so this would allow for smaller communities to play on par with bigger communities.

The thing is that the opportunity for players to go full realistic should be there, people have expressed interest and it changes not only how companies would communicate but how they will fight.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-19-2015, 06:19 PM
As for inter-company communication, wasn't a courier system going to be implemented?

Exactly. If the general of the army, corps or whatever talk via teamspeak with the regiments instead of using the ingame mechanic it would be like cheating because you use a unfair advantage against the enemy team. This is what i want to prevent because if one started more and more will do it as well and then this great feture would be unnecessary. This is what i want to prevent with my idea.

I think War of Rights has the anspiration to be quite realistic. If you want a arcade game you have to look for a other game. From the other side: You dont aticipate from Need for Speed to be realistic like a simulation. You expect something from a specific type of game.

i think War of Rights want to be in some parts rrealistic. not in all. I dont say that. Yeah there is a respawn but the gameplay, the feeling of the game, want to give you the feeling of a poor soul in the ranks of a divided nation which is in war with itself. In my opinion the devs want to give us the feeling of a yankee charging upon the batteries which is almost glorius seen ^^ or a rebell yelling the rebell yell while he fight. They want to bring you in this time period.


Pls correct me if i am wrong buti think thats it.

A. P. Hill
11-19-2015, 06:39 PM
... Pls correct me if i am wrong buti think thats it.

Pretty sure you nailed it!

Well said Sir!

Celt
11-19-2015, 07:14 PM
I don't want to give keeping on about it, but it's hard not to: Squad is coming out on steam early access sometime in December and I encourage many of you to play it or even just watch it on youtube just to see the mechanics because I think the big thing you're going to notice is that there's no 3rd party voice system used in that game. It's all in game and the community expects everyone to use that in game system and not something like Teamspeak.

Ultimately, all you should need to play the game is the game. You shouldn't need addition application just so things function "normally". I know the Mount and Blade folks are used to using Teamspeak, but that's a separate game with a separate culture. War of Rights is going to have it's own culture.

Looking at it from purely just the gameplay aspect, not the community aspect: I don't want to be required to have to be in secret channels just to get into a good game. I don't want to be required to be apart of a clan just to have a decent round. If the only way you can play the game is by being apart of a clan with their own teamspeak server, then very, very quickly you're going to find out that it's going to be hard to attract new players and casual players.

Again, I know I'm going against the flow of how things operated in Mount and Blade, but when this game launches, I think the average player should be able to start as a private on day 1, join a server and being able to hear what his commanding officer is saying to him and the other men in his unit without the need for any 3rd party stuff.

Teamspeak was a necessity for Mount and Blade because there's no domestic VOIP within the game, and that's the mindset I think many people are still in with War of Rights. But actually it could be completely different with War of Rights.

To play North and South you more or less have/had to do quite a bit: You had to get M&B, then the mod, get everything going on your pc, join the forums, join a clan, do training and then finally you get to play a battle.

War of Rights should be, in my view, pick up and play, with the option for hardcore players to join the clans (companies) and take things to a higher level, and the in game voice system should reflect that.

Jamez
11-19-2015, 07:19 PM
It's not whether or not there should be VoIP, I think there certainly should be for a game like this.

It is how that VoIP is used which is what people are unsure about, e.g. only being able to hear people close to you instead of being on a certain channel to listen to people in your regiment.

SpectretheGreat
11-19-2015, 07:54 PM
It's not whether or not there should be VoIP, I think there certainly should be for a game like this.

It is how that VoIP is used which is what people are unsure about, e.g. only being able to hear people close to you instead of being on a certain channel to listen to people in your regiment.

It really doesn't add up to be honest, the game is built around a Chain of Command structure relying on people you dont even know. This game is made for a pretty small demographic who want a realistic game set in the Civil War era, this just adds to the massive pool of cool features that would take this game from being semi-realistic to hardcore-realistic, which is what the demographic is catering too since the game is built around troop sizes of atleast 15-20 people. The game almost requires you to join a Company and with that I feel the VoIP system like this makes the game all the more fun. E.G is you're the last of your company wouldn't it be cooler to regroup with another company and join them instead of stumble around asking for TS3 IP's?

Jamez
11-19-2015, 07:59 PM
I agree that it is an interesting concept but there is the problem of changing the habits of people being used to and comfortable with their current VoIP.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-19-2015, 08:07 PM
But it doesnt say that you never ever allowed to use a other VoIP its says only that you must use this VoIP for the ingame but when you dont ingame you could use teamspeak.

Example:

If there is a ingame VoIP i will use that in my company for all events but i will rent a teamspeak for only talk or play some other games. Primary you use your TS but when you join a event with your companyyou will switch to the ingame VoIP to get the best feeling.

SpectretheGreat
11-19-2015, 08:26 PM
I agree that it is an interesting concept but there is the problem of changing the habits of people being used to and comfortable with their current VoIP.

With a game as different as this, all I can say is that the entirety of the game will probably feel new to veteran gamers and new ones alike. So by adding this system now, itll only be one more thing to get used too along with all the other new features.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-19-2015, 08:37 PM
With a game as different as this, all I can say is that the entirety of the game will probably feel new to veteran gamers and new ones alike. So by adding this system now, itll only be one more thing to get used too along with all the other new features.

Indeed.

We all will be newbies in this game it doesnt matter if you have played NaS, NW etc.

SpectretheGreat
11-19-2015, 09:09 PM
I don't want to give keeping on about it, but it's hard not to: Squad is coming out on steam early access sometime in December and I encourage many of you to play it or even just watch it on youtube just to see the mechanics because I think the big thing you're going to notice is that there's no 3rd party voice system used in that game. It's all in game and the community expects everyone to use that in game system and not something like Teamspeak.

Ultimately, all you should need to play the game is the game. You shouldn't need addition application just so things function "normally". I know the Mount and Blade folks are used to using Teamspeak, but that's a separate game with a separate culture. War of Rights is going to have it's own culture.

Looking at it from purely just the gameplay aspect, not the community aspect: I don't want to be required to have to be in secret channels just to get into a good game. I don't want to be required to be apart of a clan just to have a decent round. If the only way you can play the game is by being apart of a clan with their own teamspeak server, then very, very quickly you're going to find out that it's going to be hard to attract new players and casual players.

Again, I know I'm going against the flow of how things operated in Mount and Blade, but when this game launches, I think the average player should be able to start as a private on day 1, join a server and being able to hear what his commanding officer is saying to him and the other men in his unit without the need for any 3rd party stuff.

Teamspeak was a necessity for Mount and Blade because there's no domestic VOIP within the game, and that's the mindset I think many people are still in with War of Rights. But actually it could be completely different with War of Rights.

To play North and South you more or less have/had to do quite a bit: You had to get M&B, then the mod, get everything going on your pc, join the forums, join a clan, do training and then finally you get to play a battle.

War of Rights should be, in my view, pick up and play, with the option for hardcore players to join the clans (companies) and take things to a higher level, and the in game voice system should reflect that.

This is something that I didn't even think of but thanks for the input! (I made an edit to the original post due to this) The system would actually make it easier for drop in drop out multiplayer, if a Company allows for random players to join them in a match they shouldn't have to give them a heap of TS info just to be on the same page, just drop in and hear your commander give orders and follow them to the best of your ability. It makes it much easier to get people into the hardcore circuit as well since they wont be needing 3rd party software just to get started.

Arkansan
11-19-2015, 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by Arkansan:
"3rd Party communication makes this non-important. Especially when the time and effort is needed elsewhere right now."


Thats the problem however, it makes it easy for ghosting and unrealistic for those trying for mil-sim

Just give admins the option to limit spectators after death so they can only view their team. Problem solved. Like I said, this is not important right now in development.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
11-19-2015, 10:16 PM
Nobody say its important but it would be very cool. it must be now but for the future.

( I and other posted enough reasons)

SpectretheGreat
11-19-2015, 10:52 PM
Originally Posted by Arkansan:
"3rd Party communication makes this non-important. Especially when the time and effort is needed elsewhere right now."



Just give admins the option to limit spectators after death so they can only view their team. Problem solved. Like I said, this is not important right now in development.

The option to spectate a fellow soldier from your company will probably be available and by following them you can easily just issue commands from watching them, a dead commander may aswell just be an entity since they can just use TS non-stop. I personally see this as a must for this game, TS3 just isn't an option in-game for a proper Civil War experience. Out of game sure, but in-game just wouldn't deliver the same experience as with a realistic VoIP.

SpectretheGreat
11-19-2015, 10:55 PM
Pretty sure you nailed it!

Well said Sir!

Anything you can confirm for us peasants Major General Ambrose Powell Hill? ;););)

A. P. Hill
11-20-2015, 01:45 PM
Anything you can confirm for us peasants Major General Ambrose Powell Hill? ;););)

Sorry.

I cannot confirm anything. He asked whether his thought process was in error, and I basically affirmed that I agreed with his thinking. Do not construe my comments to mean anything more than they are.

Thanks.

SpectretheGreat
11-20-2015, 04:16 PM
Sorry.

I cannot confirm anything. He asked whether his thought process was in error, and I basically affirmed that I agreed with his thinking. Do not construe my comments to mean anything more than they are.

Thanks.

I understand, sorry for the misinterpretation.

SpectretheGreat
12-12-2015, 11:27 PM
I can understand fine, and it's not that they wouldn't have the ability to do that.

The problem with that is it reduces the target audience of the game to just realism players, if people buy this game and then find out they can't talk to their friends casually over something like TS3 it would be very off putting. If this person and others with the same view then went on to make a bad review because of this feature it could harm WoR's potential.

Making the force VoIP server side instead of the entire game may be a solution but it is up to the devs if they want to look into doing that.

Overall target audience isn't much of an issue, the game already has already established itself as a realistic civil war game that focuses on "Clan vs Clan" as a main attraction. The whole point is that the game should be brave and go the whole nine yards instead of cutting some realistic features out to try and grab a few more buyers, the game was already funded so there is no dire need for more and more players just yet. This system has proven effective in the past and the possibilities are endless in terms of what gameplay would be like. I personally believe that the game should make this a priority, this is one of the features that could really make it one of those games you play and forget, or one of those games you remember years down the road.

William F. Randolph
12-13-2015, 06:34 AM
I just hate it when my damned privates in ts talk over my orders :L

SpectretheGreat
12-16-2015, 10:14 PM
I just hate it when my damned privates in ts talk over my orders :L

I would actually concur with that, it was a huge problem when I played Mount and Blade. I don't think this would make things easier but it would make it more important for everyone to pay attention to whats going on, failure to do so and you may miss key info.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-16-2015, 10:17 PM
Look at proximity voice chat in games like planetside its never sued for tactics instead its used to spam music and stuff like that. Pretty funny actually.

Ryker
12-16-2015, 11:31 PM
I agree that there needs to be a more realistic communication system implemented into the game. I just find it annoying that a general can pretty much shout across the battlefield and the enemy cant hear him. Also how dead men can talk.

MrAmerican
12-17-2015, 12:11 AM
Here's an idea.
No 3rd party extensions... how about they implement voice chat within a certain range you can hear it, that being if you have a very large company you would need people to relay the command down the line... but you all get on teamspeak, then then do a channel mute so you are forced to use the ingame voice chat...

SpectretheGreat
12-17-2015, 02:28 AM
Look at proximity voice chat in games like planetside its never sued for tactics instead its used to spam music and stuff like that. Pretty funny actually.

I counter that with two other examples, Project reality and Squad. Please look them up as they're fantastic games, they both use local chat systems that are constantly used for communication related to the game, Planetside is a mess to begin with but with so many players on one server you're bound to end up with a clusterfuck. This system obviously would allow for that but with a game as community oriented as this the concern for such a thing is very low, and the payoff would be fantastic. I think that a lot of games are experimenting with it and if the community is right the system is almost flawless, and I feel this is one of those games.

William
12-17-2015, 11:13 AM
I would absolutely love to see something like ACRE being used in this game, along with using musicians for their intended use and not for a trolling mechanism.

same here !
Realism for the win :)

Maximus Decimus Meridius
12-17-2015, 11:39 AM
Here's an idea.
No 3rd party extensions... how about they implement voice chat within a certain range you can hear it, that being if you have a very large company you would need people to relay the command down the line... but you all get on teamspeak, then then do a channel mute so you are forced to use the ingame voice chat...

I think so too. When you read the thread from the first page on you will find a discussion with the pros and cons and other problems

SpectretheGreat
12-17-2015, 01:26 PM
Overall I do think that this is extremely plausible, is it %100 full proof? Not at all, but with everything a game does to try to replicate a certain time period, style of fighting or tactics comes some problems as it needs to ultimately be fun and enjoyable as a game. Will we see people who don't actually line up and just run around on the battlefield? Probably, but don't let a few bad apples take this game away from you. Ultimately we see a devoted community and with that on the devs side I hope they add some features like this that rely on a good community because I believe that not only do we have one but the possibilities only grow with a more involved and active community that can be relied on.

A lot of people are concerned with how "negative players" shall we call them are going to react and abuse the game, but name a game where we have seen absolutely no trolls? To my knowledge, none. People will be people and we can't change that, but with a smaller and more tight-nit community we will not only be able to single them out but just flat out ignore them. We shouldn't limit our ideas because we think it'll be abused by trolls, as of right now in the development phase we as a community have the power to influence game design so if you have an idea get out there and post it. Sometimes people will disagree and its up to you to defend your stance, and with this thread i'm glad to see that there is an overwhelming support for it and although some people disagree thats good too, it opens up for discussion on how to improve or make it more of a realistic idea (realistic in the sense of it being a "realistic goal" that could actually happen) so don't shy away or dismiss things because you see what can go wrong or if there is already a method in place, reach for the stars my friends.

Shadow765
12-18-2015, 10:35 PM
Though for the chat with close range, is the enemy suppose to hear? or is it like only for team?

EDIT: Also someone could abuse it on a line by voice spamming and the Company CO won't be able to mute him. (Maybe we can use some sort of admin panel in game if this was implemented on the game)

Maximus Decimus Meridius
12-18-2015, 10:51 PM
In ArmA it still works. think about a event full of companies which want historical accuracy. do you think you will hear something like in planetside? I think not

or it could be possible to mute people. ( or you kill them :p )

it would be great if the server administrator can turn it on and off.


I have one situation in mind

a rebel line charging against my boys and me crying out the rebel yell. we force them to be silent. because with a minie bullet in your head it's not easy to cry ;)

SpectretheGreat
12-19-2015, 01:54 AM
Though for the chat with close range, is the enemy suppose to hear? or is it like only for team?

EDIT: Also someone could abuse it on a line by voice spamming and the Company CO won't be able to mute him. (Maybe we can use some sort of admin panel in game if this was implemented on the game)

It would be awesome if the enemy could hear each other, imagine hearing actual players screaming patriotic slang running at the enemy. But if the Devs choose to do this but not allow enemies to hear one another that works out fine too, its ultimately up to them.

An admin panel would be awesome, it would be good for event coordinators to see who is and isn't talking. This would allow them to see who is probably using a third party chat software and not the in-game chat.

SpectretheGreat
12-19-2015, 01:59 AM
( or you kill them :p )

A man can't talk if his head isn't on anymore ;)

Willie Fisterbottom
12-23-2015, 12:57 AM
It would be awesome if the enemy could hear each other, imagine hearing actual players screaming patriotic slang running at the enemy. But if the Devs choose to do this but not allow enemies to hear one another that works out fine too, its ultimately up to them.

An admin panel would be awesome, it would be good for event coordinators to see who is and isn't talking. This would allow them to see who is probably using a third party chat software and not the in-game chat.

Oh please dont admins in most games are cancerous and abusive.

SpectretheGreat
12-23-2015, 03:22 AM
Oh please dont admins in most games are cancerous and abusive.

If you reference M&B Napoleonic Wars all their events used admins as a sort of referee to make sure that units weren't cheating by spacing out if they weren't a light infantry unit ETC...

To coordinate a huge event as a community how do you expect to manage things and keep everything running according to the rules ETC... You just have to have an admin panel, will some admins be abusive? Probably, but just don't play on their servers.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-23-2015, 04:08 AM
If you reference M&B Napoleonic Wars all their events used admins as a sort of referee to make sure that units weren't cheating by spacing out if they weren't a light infantry unit ETC...

To coordinate a huge event as a community how do you expect to manage things and keep everything running according to the rules ETC... You just have to have an admin panel, will some admins be abusive? Probably, but just don't play on their servers.

No im not talking about the event admins, i'm talking about your standard pub random match admins.

SpectretheGreat
12-23-2015, 04:12 AM
No im not talking about the event admins, i'm talking about your standard pub random match admins.

By taking the option out it ruins it for the event coordinators, I don't see any other way than to just have a universal admin panel. If Pub admins are being nasty just don't play on their server, and if their server is very popular than it may be a sign its not them thats being nasty. If they're being buttholes than nobody will play on their server so problem solved, they ruin their server for themselves.

To clarify: I just don't see a way to have it so community organizers can have it but public server admins can't. Plus, for the good servers with admins that need to monitor their server how do they do so? Its just something to put up with.

William
12-24-2015, 12:21 PM
Sry Gents that i say thtat but this thread about Realistic In-game communication not NW

A. P. Hill
12-24-2015, 02:26 PM
It's sad to see today's generation of players so crippled in their thinking regarding technology and being so hampered to not have the courage to do away with "that technology" in place of experiencing what "REALISM" is all about. Just think, you all claim you want 'realism', then you balk when it comes to period communications which from what I have read in the Kickstarter, as well as many threads here, the developers have given great consideration and time to.

They have a plan in mind on how THEY, want THEIR product to run and be presented to the public. It has been detailed in these reports, and while it is true many of us have not experienced it, how bout we wait and try it out from the Developer's point of presentation first?

Now if you're so dependent on your technology that not having 'team speak', or any other 3rd party communications capability will "ruin" the experience for you, then I say, I'm sorry to hear that, and wish you all the success and fun with whatever else you decide to play and do, because apparently "realism", including "realistic period communication" just isn't going to get it for you.

Granted there are pros and cons for each, and it's not my place to decide 'Yay' or 'Nay'. I am however, perfectly happy in the thought that the Developer's in their desire for "AS REAL AS IT GETS!" approach to this endeavor.

The way I see this discussion currently is as a waste of time and bandwidth. The Developers have said No Third Party Communications. Whether that changes in the future or not is yet to be seen. For now however, its strictly communication as devised in game by the Developers. I don't see them changing paths any time soon.

As an example of how real time period communications work, take reenacting. You do not see today's reenactors out there with walkie talkies or two way radio communications. communications is handled in reenactments the same exact way it was handled in the civil war, as well as any other time period that is reenacted. Just because this is on a computer network makes it no different than if it were played out IRL as a reenactment. If people can still do that today at reenacting events, we should be able to do the very same thing on a computer network.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-25-2015, 12:56 AM
With realistic in-game communication how are you gonna be able to stop someone from using team speak Skype or anything else.

FirstDiv2Corps
12-25-2015, 04:25 AM
As an example of how real time period communications work, take reenacting. You do not see today's reenactors out there with walkie talkies or two way radio communications. communications is handled in reenactments the same exact way it was handled in the civil war, as well as any other time period that is reenacted. Just because this is on a computer network makes it no different than if it were played out IRL as a reenactment. If people can still do that today at reenacting events, we should be able to do the very same thing on a computer network.

You don't see them with walkie talkies?

1944

SpectretheGreat
12-25-2015, 11:53 PM
Overall I am glad to see an overwhelming support for this idea, and I agree one hundred percent that people are too scared with drastic changes to their gameplay style. For games like Counterstrike and Call Of Duty I see no reason to force a system like this since that's not what the game is trying to aim for, and the playerbase is not looking for an ultra-realistic setting. But with War of Rights it's a different case entirely, this is a game that is aiming for an ultra-realistic setting with gameplay that revolves around people playing fairly amongst one another. It would be very easy for everyone to act like a skrimisher and run and gun but that just isn't what the game is about, its about staying true to the way the fighting actually was in the Civil War. I really would love to see this game utilize a system like this and take some other great ideas from the community as well, one of which is someone suggesting accurate accents for characters. The community has some fantastic ideas floating around, and some that are very hot topics like the one about DLC and Expansions. I was a pretty big opponent to the idea but I recognize the main points, and one of which is that if the game aims for ultra-realism, it is realistic to have to buy special accessories for your uniform with real money. That was something that I was willing to relent on, as long as the game goes all or nothing I will be okay with certain choices like that since it will ultimately mean one of the most realistic gameplay experiences possible for a PvP oriented game.

I think that if you want to see true game innovation you have to be open minded enough to see that this is something that may make the game more difficult to play, but won't take away from how much fun you'll ultimately have because of it. I won't repeat my main points as you can scan through the pages to see why I believe what I do but I really do think that games are almost stuck in a purgatory state, where very few, if any innovations are being made. We see very copy paste shooters and very copy cat like indie games flooding the market making a few quick bucks so they can sit pretty for the rest of their lives. But games like War of Rights are made with the community in mind and we should support the Devs regardless, however we shouldn't shy away from voicing our opinions either. Concerns have been made about the idea but concerns have followed almost any great innovative change since the dawn of fire. If the idea is as great as I say I really don't think I need to worry since the devs are very (and I mean VERY) good at scanning the forums and ultimately must've taken notice of this thread, and if they think it'll work they'll probably test it out. With great devs come new and exciting possibilities and they've probably put it on the list of things to try out, and if they think its doable we may see some more on it soon. We have to put some faith in the developers that they'll ultimately make the right decision in the end to release a "Realistic Civil War FPS with an emphasis on the community" since they're the only ones with the current version and are the only ones who have the qualifications and skills to make the game. Lets just do our part by throwing ideas out there and trying to get some of our ideas to the devs, and if you have concerns voice them. But don't try and limit possibilities because they're outside your comfort zone, and in this case that comfort zone is leaving behind third-party software.

TL;DR - Don't get so upset with new and innovative ideas just because they go against the norm, innovation is how games become more advanced and if they stay the same forever than we have failed as a gaming community to move forward.

SpectretheGreat
12-26-2015, 12:00 AM
With realistic in-game communication how are you gonna be able to stop someone from using team speak Skype or anything else.

If you reference why I said an admin panel would be good you would see one of the main reasons why I believe we need one;
An admin panel would be awesome, it would be good for event coordinators to see who is and isn't talking. This would allow them to see who is probably using a third party chat software and not the in-game chat.

Most games have an icon that lights up when one is talking so you know who is saying what so you can mute them, the use here would be to see who ISN'T talking so event coordinators can scope out who is probably not using the in-game chat. Most people mute in-game chat since it overlays when you hear in-game plus third party so it will be easy to scope out when an entire company hasn't said a word for the past 3 minutes but have been doing coordinated drill.

Hatchmo
12-27-2015, 12:23 AM
I think it's a great idea. It would definitely add to the realism. I'm sure a lot of people would use TS but it would give those "hyper realistic" groups more realism would they chose to actually be "hyper realistic".

Landree
12-28-2015, 04:50 AM
Whether with or without TS, I'm all for local voice and the usage of flags, musicians, and bugles to communicate across the field. Adding a bit of text at the bottom (that can be turned off if a player wants to go full screen no distractions for realism purposes) that go along with these messages would be great.

Imagine seeing another player signal out WITHDRAW with their banner from 500m away while they see Confederate reinforcements arrive. That'd be awesome.

Johann GŁnderson
12-28-2015, 06:52 PM
I would love in-game local voice chat! In events it would be awesome for the officer being next to his color bearer and musicians giving orders and the NCO's echoing his commands so men down the line can hear or the musicians playing the tune to fit the orders. It would become very realistic if local voice was a feature. Although teamspeak is preferred by many I think that many would use this system just to be more immersive...

Landree
01-14-2016, 02:37 PM
If there is a way to make this work in harmony with TS, it'd be grand. Many people do not want to abandon TS while playing a game and I'm one of those.

SpectretheGreat
01-16-2016, 01:15 AM
If there is a way to make this work in harmony with TS, it'd be grand. Many people do not want to abandon TS while playing a game and I'm one of those.

As a Teamspeak user myself I can vouch for that, however for the sake of ease of use and time constraints I think overall this would have to be its own program packed into the game, or just a VOIP. Getting Teamspeak onboard with allowing the devs to implement Teamspeak or use a variation would cost a lot most likely, but I truly think this may be for a better gaming community. Teamspeak is fine and dandy for communities, but getting newer players into these communities can be pretty daunting and pain staking. I know the devs said that they want to make the game stand on its own, which means that it shouldn't need anything but the game to get the full %100 experience. I'm all for change, it'd be nice to see newer players be able to join a game, join a company and instantly be able to get into the action.

I believe that its time for gaming to go social again, so if they do decide to do this I hope they make the game have an almost social platform of its own so programs like Teamspeak or Mumble will not only be pointless, but obsolete.

R21
01-16-2016, 03:11 AM
Signaling flags would be so cool. Utterly impractical given third party voice app's, but really cool to just have them there as an option.

Like the Signaler would choose which Officer he wanted to communicate with and that officer would get a UI prompt basically telling him to look in the direction of the Signaler to receive the message.

SpectretheGreat
01-16-2016, 02:23 PM
Signaling flags would be so cool. Utterly impractical given third party voice app's, but really cool to just have them there as an option.

Like the Signaler would choose which Officer he wanted to communicate with and that officer would get a UI prompt basically telling him to look in the direction of the Signaler to receive the message.

Well thats the point, to make these features not just a gimmick but an actual mechanic that needs to be used to win.

Just imagine through all smoke and gunshots you see a flag bearer just running at you and slowly more and more people start appearing through the smoke to charge at you. Thats true fear my friend.

Rithal
01-16-2016, 02:57 PM
Well thats the point, to make these features not just a gimmick but an actual mechanic that needs to be used to win.

The only problem with that is you wouldn't need signalers to win unfortunately. Anyone can use a third-party communication program to their advantage at any time (Team Speak, Mumble, Skype, ect.). While historically accurate features for communication may be interesting and cool, it seems like one of those things that is really awesome at first, but eventually everyone will just get lazy and use a VOIP program unless VOIP is built into the game.

Also you have the issue of player count. If servers can only get a few hundred in at a time (not confirmed yet) then it seems like a bad idea to sacrifice even one enlisted slot so someone can go swing flags around on a ridge. :p

Edit: Just to be clear, I would love if realistic communications were in the game, but knowing gamers, only "hardcore" players would touch these systems. I have thought of a situation in which signalers or couriers would be useful however. In organized events where there are usually a ton of different units all in different teamspeaks, each team is usually in disarray and not working together. I suppose couriers and signalers could provide a kind of fun way to communicate effectively with other brigades/regiments/companies or what have you.

SpectretheGreat
01-16-2016, 03:49 PM
Thats where the problem lies, people are too focused on how to make this as simple as they can. There is really nothing stopping everyone from trying to skrimish as hard as possible, but its expected that people will follow orders and do proper drill and tactics. In events it will probably be enforced by the event coordinators like in other games.

Squad is a great game too prove that communication like this is a popular feature, everyone uses it and you're actually a bad player if you use TS3 because it probably means you're only listening to those on the Teamspeak server and not the rest of the team. Which makes you, or your entire squad, a bunch of self centred useless run arounds. (I don't intend to be mean but that's what ends up happening)

The problem with sacrificing players to be flag bearers and musicians is only as big of a problem as the devs make it, if we have massive maps and few players to fill it then every rifle counts. But if the map is proportional to player count I see no problem having a company of 15 players with one as an officer, one or two musicians and one flag bearer. That would mean ten rifles and five extras, which is pretty decent for what I feel is an average size for a company. Overall its a matter of how serious the devs want to make this feature, if at all. We're seeing games today becoming much more complicated and different, Star Citizen is an example that a game that is ultra large, confusing and complicated can attract a massive audience. People are really looking for unique gaming experiences, why not make one, and do it to the fullest extent possible? Developers should really start pushing the boundaries with their projects to make bigger and badder games, in all areas, from the setting to the community features.

As a great warrior poet once said: "JUST DO IT"

stuka
01-16-2016, 04:12 PM
Whether with or without TS, I'm all for local voice and the usage of flags, musicians, and bugles to communicate across the field. Adding a bit of text at the bottom (that can be turned off if a player wants to go full screen no distractions for realism purposes) that go along with these messages would be great.

Imagine seeing another player signal out WITHDRAW with their banner from 500m away while they see Confederate reinforcements arrive. That'd be awesome.



The way I would suggest to accomplish this would be when the appropriate sound is heard a text goes on the screen as suggested but for visual ques, you would have to actual see the visual queue before text would appear. Also for communication I would suggest, assuming there wasn't already going to be a list of quick commands to say "retreat, fire company left" etc. for example you would press C then 1 to say fire, or c and 2 for retreat etc as that would help with quicker communication especially for those without microphones

SpectretheGreat
01-16-2016, 08:45 PM
The way I would suggest to accomplish this would be when the appropriate sound is heard a text goes on the screen as suggested but for visual ques, you would have to actual see the visual queue before text would appear. Also for communication I would suggest, assuming there wasn't already going to be a list of quick commands to say "retreat, fire company left" etc. for example you would press C then 1 to say fire, or c and 2 for retreat etc as that would help with quicker communication especially for those without microphones

I love the enthusiasm, especially the quick commands for people with no mics! (GREAT IDEA) But I feel the idea is straying away from the intended goal, to make this game a more cooperatively driven experience. On screen text sort of takes away from the whole teamplay aspect, meaning people don't really need to put much effort into the job they're doing and it ends of being a gimmick. Just click your mouse and everyone gets the signal to retreat, I feel that is too easy. In reality, the colour bearer uses the flag as an indicator to the general for where the company is, and for the soldiers to find their unit if they get a little lost, the musicians are the ones who signal what is going on, certain tunes mean certain things. Instead of just playing the tune and everyone gets a visual prompt why not just have nothing, its up to the individual to remember what that means. This means that companies who train harder and more frequently will do better, because their men will remember the tunes and be more aware.

Not only am I an advocate for realistic communication but an advocate for a new genre, the realistic competitive market is opening up and this should be one of its newest additions. Everyone wants grand scheme battles without the realism to make it happen, whats so grand scale about a bunch of text prompts leading you through the game while your commander yells at you from the grave? Nothing, but imagine through all the gunshots and screaming, you see your commander cut down an enemy, looks at you and calls for you to follow him, he rallies another few men from another company and together you lead a charge to take back your position and infront of you a company plays the signal to retreat and you courageously smite them down as they retreat.

Thats what this game should be, not just another shooter.

R21
01-17-2016, 01:27 AM
Even if they boiled a feature like it down into it's simplest most user friendly form (Flag waved and Players instantly getting a text prompt) it's still quite impractical:

Who would play the Flag Signaler? It'd probably be fun to do for a bit but the novelty would wear off

Terrain: If Units were over a hill and didn't have LOS with a Flag Signaler (Given all the variation in the terrain and the size of the map this would definitely become and issue) Signalers would have to be quite close to troops

"But that's the point, you had multiple signalers!"

This just compounds the problem.

Even if they did come up with a really well thought out and practical way of doing, I bet even the realism people would use it once or twice then not bother with it.

stuka
01-17-2016, 05:40 AM
Well I am sure the people who would do flags/musicians would be people of clans who were assigned to the position.

Lots of "clans" or regiments are preparing for this game so while I am sure many will jump into the public games, it seems that private matches will at least at the start be more common.

That being said, while this game will obviously appeal to the hardcore audience, they will still want public play and for public play, not everybody is going to remember that three horns mean retreat, two means attack etc. which is part of the reason I suggest text, if nothing else it should be at least server side rules.

The pressing C and 1 to say X is really vital however in my opinion. whether or not to add subtitles, I am not sure but I feel like this would be critical for both public and private matches.

The problem becomes what should be had as a command. Coming from M&B Napoleonic line battles, I have limited experience in what orders would be actually necessary but I can imagine it would be dependent on the soldiers class/rank, for example the NCO could give squad level orders and simple "enemy left, right" etc. while the typical ranking soldier could have "reloading, fixing bayonet, enemy left" so on.

The reason I think you should have different commands available for the higher rank is because, well they have more things to say (typically) during the fighting. You may argue that if they don't have a mic then they shouldn't be NCO or CO or etc. well again, this is two fold in allowing those that are micless to participate at a higher level as well as helping those who wish to do the order more expediently. You also have to bring in public matches as there would undoubtedly be micless people taking these rolls.

If you have ever played games with flying vehicles where infantry is involved, you'll know that you pry got yelled at for crashing a few times because you still didn't know how to fly but you should "know how to fly before you jump into the chopper".

Well this helps decrease that poor player interaction and shortens the time you would have people yelling at you(depending on how the whole rank/class system is set up upon entering the match like if you can only have 4 ncos per 20 people or w/e)

That is all I can think of at the moment

SpectretheGreat
01-17-2016, 03:36 PM
I value the input and perspective, I do like how we're seeing people like myself who are fans of games lasting up to an hour - to two hours, against those looking for a more public version that is more user friendly to those that don't want to be that hardcore.

Terrain actually makes this the fun part, properly following orders from Chain of command means that if the team leader (Like the General) positions everyone too far away, they cant properly communicate and runners will be working like no tomorrow, so this adds a new strategic aspect to the game. (Please take no offence when I say this) I feel like people are too concerned with things going wrong and having problems in their match but I believe thats the point, we see games like Total War where you can communicate with your army no problem all the time, but that isn't what it was like at all. I want a game where things can go wrong and logistics and communication make up the same portion of the game than shooting and killing, this means that more avenues are opened for how to play strategicly and effectively, from positioning your companies to targeting key troops like runners so their communication breaks down. This opens up a giant new playing field, and just because its not as user friendly and requires a learning curve doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. You don't play flight-sims because theyre easy.

However, it really depends on your interpretation of the games goals. I think theyre aiming for as real as you can get, which is what I really hope for. Re-enactments are actually some of the best times ive had with friends, fiercely fighting in a time period along with your best friends in the most real setting you can get without getting a time machine and going back is some of the greatest memories I have, and these took hours, and I was the bloody water boy. In my opinion I see that if they were to go with my interpretation they would need to make these games last a very long time so you can accommodate the massive amounts of people theyre aiming to house on a single server, (Im pretty sure theyve said a couple hundred) so its reasonable to expect with that many people that these systems would not only be necessary if you didnt have text chat/server chat but it could be made fun. You already see a flag bearer in their trailer so its a given it will be in, why not now make it a necessity?

If it were all text prompts it takes away the value that would be bestowed upon them if they actually had to run on a hill and wave it so the commander could see. This does create the problem that it means that players will have more responsibility and being micless would create a problem, but the quick command is a great idea, as long as it works like you said but only those around can hear it, I see this as a great addition to include micless people into the game. But I don't believe text prompts from them would be fair, because then their voice is actually over-riding those who do have a mic. If someone is talking and a micless person goes "RELOADING" and it pops up and you miss what the other guy is saying and he is closer to you, that just seems silly.

Regarding how to make it fun, they arent defenseless, they did have swords to my knowledge... but regardless of their weapons playing music could be key combinations so that it isnt just a menu or something boring, and for flag bearers you're at the front of the action if not leading it, the game isn't all about getting kills and having an awesome K/D so it is what it is. Regarding actually knowing what signals and what-not mean, this could be fixed with a simple "hardcore mode" and "Casual" mode, but that splits the already tiny community and we should avoid this.

My overall point is that there are ways to include them that make them important, and how much fun they are depends on how they're used by players and those players "clans" which is a giant part of the game, and too get the whole %100 experience you will almost have to join one. I personally liked using them in M&B NW since they did give buffs, and were semi-important but if they had the effect now of being used for actual command purposes I would play them in a heart-beat if I wasnt the most senior NCO in my company.

By all means however keep the thread going! Publicity is good and I love a civil argument :)

SHoGUN
01-18-2016, 01:54 AM
Always +1 to realism. Flag bearers could be made to work well. Although I've been told they ruled out runners, having a runner was one of the smaller suggestions I added here: http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?1175-Campaign-General
I suggested ways around it, like just a Private having to take place of the runner, or General being able to ride up and communicate (if cavalry was in). I like the idea of utilising instruments though, as I know players would be keen to give it a go, and you could make it work for both hardcore and casual alike. Each different call through whatever instrument could just give a notification to the General if within range. This could be turned off for those willing to go without the messages.

I definitely would love to see communication being a bit of a struggle, not relying on radio comms etc. Runners or musicians would be good for distant communication, and I guess it would be a matter of the General making sure he's not too far behind the infantry line, but far enough back not to receive pot-shots without someone having to sneak past the line. Also General would have to fall back if the line falls.

Perhaps one other way would be to allow for an NCO class who stays near General as a type of body guard and perhaps even adviser, and when the need for giving orders etc, the NCO could ride in and communicate on the Generals behalf. The problem with a runner class is they'd be on foot simply running too much haha. It would get boring, even for those willing to try it. Cavalry would be needed imo.

SpectretheGreat
01-18-2016, 02:04 AM
Perhaps one other way would be to allow for an NCO class who stays near General as a type of body guard and perhaps even adviser, and when the need for giving orders etc, the NCO could ride in and communicate on the Generals behalf. The problem with a runner class is they'd be on foot simply running too much haha. It would get boring, even for those willing to try it. Cavalry would be needed imo.

Definitely, a horse would make it a bit less of a haul and would make it less boring. With maps being made to accommodate so many players running constantly would even bore myself, but with a horse I see no reason not to do so. Cavalry has been confirmed so I feel like this is a great compromise!

stuka
01-18-2016, 06:53 PM
The text prompt following the music being played for attack/retreat etc is more for public matches/server specific private matches (It should be turned on/off for private servers)

As for the prompt being obtrusive, assuming that the game has some sort of chat system with text, the text can simply go there. The game needs to have some sort of text system, I understand the want to be as realistic as possible, this game is already going to have a significantly lower player base, not allowing this without mics to text chat beyond the campaigns is going to push away people who don't have mics and are on the fence.

An example of why this is necessary is again, if a micless person is NCO/CO. While we can have a good amount of quick commands, we can't have a command for "We are going to take that hill for 2 minutes, shoot twice and retreat" as an example.

You can have only so many commands otherwise you risk the quick command system becoming intrusive and it not being so "quick" to use.

The obvious problem here is figuring out the distance text would be received and making sure the text itself isn't obtrusive like how mount and blade. The biggest problem there is that the chat "box" is way to big to the point where you will have it nearly half way up the left side of your screen, that is too much.

A possible fix to this is one limiting the height and width of the chat box and two limiting the amount you can chat but this should be more so towards the enlisted as NCO/CO chats are typically more important in battle

SpectretheGreat
01-18-2016, 08:20 PM
The text prompt following the music being played for attack/retreat etc is more for public matches/server specific private matches (It should be turned on/off for private servers)

As for the prompt being obtrusive, assuming that the game has some sort of chat system with text, the text can simply go there. The game needs to have some sort of text system, I understand the want to be as realistic as possible, this game is already going to have a significantly lower player base, not allowing this without mics to text chat beyond the campaigns is going to push away people who don't have mics and are on the fence.

An example of why this is necessary is again, if a micless person is NCO/CO. While we can have a good amount of quick commands, we can't have a command for "We are going to take that hill for 2 minutes, shoot twice and retreat" as an example.

You can have only so many commands otherwise you risk the quick command system becoming intrusive and it not being so "quick" to use.

The obvious problem here is figuring out the distance text would be received and making sure the text itself isn't obtrusive like how mount and blade. The biggest problem there is that the chat "box" is way to big to the point where you will have it nearly half way up the left side of your screen, that is too much.

A possible fix to this is one limiting the height and width of the chat box and two limiting the amount you can chat but this should be more so towards the enlisted as NCO/CO chats are typically more important in battle

I think you're misinterpreting what I mean, I love the quick command idea!

My only concern is people exploiting it by using quick commands because they'll be not only be hear by audio, but seen in a text log. So people who want to clearly communicate instead of using their mic will just cheat and use quick commands and that isn't realistic. Quick commands are great, just no text with them. The devs already said that kills and deaths wont be tracked and a killfeed is highly unlikely, so I don't think that text should be in the game at all if theyre doing this realistic communication.

However, typing is always in games so thats just me wanting to get my way %100, your idea is still a bit more realistic in the sense of seeing it implemented that way. I just don't like exploitation of systems aimed to aid players with deficiencies in computer equipment.

LTC Philip A. Work
01-19-2016, 05:44 AM
In game VOIP is a must for this game.

stuka
01-20-2016, 06:42 AM
Again, my whole thing about text is it could be server rules dependent.

They could simply add a timer to how often you could do the quick commands as regular infantry as, far as I can tell, your chat isn't super important to begin with =P

In terms of VOIP, you could argue that it is required in pretty much every multiplayer game but they all have a way around it for those that don't have the money for the mic, haven't had a chance to buy one or theirs just broke.

It's like making a flight game that requires you to ONLY use a joystick, yeah you are going to have a more dedicated player base but at the cost of the player base itself.

For this game to work as they seemingly want it to, their going to need/want 100-200 people (or more) per server, restricting who can play makes that difficult to consistently accomplish and thus driving down the player base more because "Nobody/not enough people play".

As of current, there is 2408 backers, at most you could have ~24 servers of 100 people or ~12 servers of 200 people ASSUMING they are always online at the same time, obviously we can see this as an impossibility as we have at least two main regions for backers, NA and EU.

If we were to guess what the initial full servers would be(assuming no more backers or no immediate buyers on steam), I would guess ~12 at 100 players each or ~6 at 200 players per server. It may be better, it may be worse, people forget they had the game, they can't play it, they don't want to play it anymore and thus we are stuck with a reduced quantity initially.

We will likely see this come to light when the initial Alpha opens as that will show an even smaller amount of people who bought the appropriate package who will actually pay as it was more expensive.

Making it a requirement, ie no text options significantly reduces the ability for this player base to expand.

IF the devs just want to do only quick commands as the only non Mic option, then so be it, it will be more realistic and maybe that will draw in more people but if there is no text option at all, then I feel like the community may have issues with people staying around.

It may seem trivial but in Multiplayer games, especially one with servers intended to house 100+ people, we are going to need communication to keep players on point and effective, it's easier to get away with in CoD because you can just run in and kill everybody in one fell swoop. In this game, that will likely be close to impossible, even if they were to add gatling guns.

Sorry for the text wall but basically we need text or we potentially risk this dying quicker then it needs to. Limitations can be put on keyboard text (time delays between messages) and quick command text(server specific rules allowing or disallowing), but it is incredibly vital in my opinion.

SpectretheGreat
01-21-2016, 03:41 AM
I definitely see your point, but when you say text do you mean that the entire team/whoever its directed at can see it regardless of where you are?

If so I stand to say I disagree, and I have addressed that quite a bit in the earlier posts. It would ultimately defeat the purpose of what I have been saying throughout the thread.

If you mean to say that text, but within the vicinity of other players then by all means I have to agree. It is a bit trivial to try and get everyone talking on mics %100 of the time. As long as the text isn't broadcasted to people across the entire map I see no harm. If your text reaches the same distance as 'audible' voices then I feel like its well balanced and fair game, and would easily solve the micless problem along with quick commands.

It would be cool to be able to classify this game as an "Infantry Simulator". A lot of games go super hardcore with Flight Sims and Tank Sims but there are never games that try and do infantry to the extreme, and Arma doesn't really count as people only ever play RPG servers with Arma. It would be neat to see a game where instead of learning how to start up the aircraft and how to lock on, you had to learn drill commands and learn how to properly fire and remedy your gun.

Just an afterthought :)

stuka
01-21-2016, 04:45 AM
There are intense "sim" servers on ARMA that account for windage, temperature and all that jazz.

They also have specific radio channels and what not on certain servers but yeah, the text would be the same range as voice chat.

While ARMA is a simulator, it is much more moldable than this game will likely be.

This game I don't see having a whole ton more modes than napoleonic war does (assuming people don't know the modes):

Siege; Attackers with unlimited lives, defenders in a fort with limited lives. You must capture the fort within the time limit.

Battle; Basically everybody has one life and you have to kill the other team

Humans vs bots; Basically what it sounds like with a few "commanders" to give the glitchy AIs orders

"zombie" mode; One team with only melee weapons versus "humans" with muskets. If you die you switch sides

I think that is at least the major game modes from M&B napoleonic wars. I hope to see similar modes and more for this game but I feel it would be difficult.

SpectretheGreat
01-21-2016, 06:04 PM
Arma uses mods like "ACE" and "ACRE" to achieve that, and you need a milsim group or its just chaos. (Arma player here) Most pub servers descend into chaos quicker than I would like to admit.

Regarding the modes, I do hope to see some creative objective play and some events like for Halloween a zombie mayhem where they actually add zombie skins and spooky maps and stuff.

stuka
01-21-2016, 08:44 PM
Well I don't think a zombie mode should only occur on halloween, some people like the challenge of fighting a horde with muskets and bayonets all days of the year

Historical Player
01-24-2016, 09:30 PM
The obvious problem that comes to mind is trolls who get on and play music or scream in their mics while everyone else is trying to be serious. I wish each regiment had their own courier and send them out for messages.

A. P. Hill
01-25-2016, 12:28 AM
... I wish each regiment had their own courier and send them out for messages.

There is nothing that the we as developers are going to prevent each and every company from doing. IF you as a group of players decide you want to assign individuals as couriers, then more power to you, for it will be as realistic as it can get.

But as you may have seen from the earlier link from a Kickstarter update, there is already a function in place for transmitting directives from superior officers.