Jump to content
Kytheum

In-game voice.

Voice?  

196 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want to see in-game voice?



Recommended Posts

the focus isnt politics, or trade or movement of information. the focus is building the other stuff is bonus :-P if the focus was on politics it would be more like eve in the set up.

It really is about all of the above.

Its in the game description, rebuilding civilization. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not expecting in-game voice early considering they have to test the servers without it first, and this voice at range system could be a challenge too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some range base sound system would be great.

This would make the environment more realistic.

Given the game architecture a range-based system should be relatively easy.

 

Besides this organisation based chat and/or sound could be made, but there are alternatives to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<Late to the party of in-game voice>.

Although I would love ranged base sound system for environment although also as well as player voice system to be in some radius, how far x player from 100m can't hear.

 

So anyone between 1 meter ~ 30 meter can hear the voice clearly. (we can test this out, if it gets annoying they can reduce  from 30 to 20 or a sweet spot..)

Cheers :)

Totally liking the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to voice an unpopular opinion :)

 

1) I do wonder how much of an issue that will be when it comes to the open world nature of the game as well as the single shard system. MMO games that include in-game voice, generally have it "group / squad / by invite only" for a reason, and since you are playing in the first person view here, I don't know if such as system would be possible. Considering the significantly less populated games that don't particularly do this exceptionally well.

2) How many groups / squads / clans will use open coms type system? Heck, even if it's squad only and whatnot - how many people would actually use it in their communities - considering things like having to be in the actual game to use it, lacking various options that third party voip software provides, the ability to have various channels, etc.

3) How much resources would need to be required to be used making a decent voice system? Remember, software like Teamspeak, Ventrillo, Mumble etc. is a standalone software, developed by an entire team on it's own. And it's fair to say that unless as much time, effort and resources is put into an in-game voice system, it's not going to be as well designed and thus have major disadvantages. Which does ask the question of - would it actually be worth it, and what is going to be sacrificed in the end?

4) So basically, I feel that having Arma style system, is a bit of wishful thinking for this model of the game - unless people are willing to compromise on other things. Now if that's not the case, fair enough, it would be a good thing to have. If it doesn't work as well when it comes to voice detection and whatnot as TeamSpeak is for example, I don't see myself or many others using it. If it can be made as good, without sacrificing elsewhere, then great - but I personally would rate it as in list of one of the lowest possible priorities for me, in what I'm looking for in a game such as this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bring up some good points Volkier.

The biggest reason I would like to see it in the game is the ability to communicate with other players easily. I will be honest, if I have to send you a text-chat message to get the IP address of a TeamSpeak channel I can talk to you on, wait for you to respond, then open teamspeak and type in the jumble of letters and numbers you gave me; I just won't.

I did this once while playing Arma, and was less than impressed. Sure, the audio was clearer than using Side Channel in-game, but I could have solved that by using Group Channel or even the local chat.(For those unfamiliar with Arma, Side Channel is everyone on your "team", Group Channel is a selected group from that, and local is just speaking out loud.)

 

I agree there would be some challenges implementing it, especially if they went the whole nine yards: multiple channels, ship radio, intercom, etc.

 

Personally, I would be happy with local chat and ship radio/intercom. Anything above and beyond that is icing on the cake!

 

This game's primary focus is working with other players and being creative. This will require some kind of streamlined way to communicate with strangers in order to be efficient at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fine as an option but personally I find it a bit distracting. I actually find voice can spoil the immersion, especially when you can here people around you talking about random stuff.  

 

This is why I really like the idea of hailing a player or a ship (pilot/comms officer on a construct).  And having the comms patched through to other interested people on the same construct or within telecommunications range.

 

People that don't want to listen can just not pick up the phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not bad, but maybe they could make that an option instead of the only way to communicate. So those who want "normal" voice communication(talk and everyone in range hears you,) can still have that while those who don't could use something like you suggest, where you have to approve an incoming "call".

 

If they decide to go that route and NOT have "normal" voice chat, they need to give property owners / authorized individuals the ability to force a connection. That way property owners / organization police can still communicate with people to let them know they need to stop doing XYZ action or there will be consequences, instead of being forced to just punish someone because there was no way to ask nicely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... instead of being forced to just punish someone because there was no way to ask nicely!

If people keep blocking hailing attempts, you got to assume they are hostile. Without a way to say otherwise of course punishment will happen.  But it depends on the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people keep blocking hailing attempts, you got to assume they are hostile. Without a way to say otherwise of course punishment will happen. But it depends on the circumstances.

Or they just don't want to talk. Or the are heavy rp-gamers and their antenna is broken. But I see what you did there - kill em all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple system for enabling open communication areas via push to talk. When entering an open comm area it gives you an option to accept. If you accept your helmet is lowered or removed and you can speak normally. If you decline then you helmet stays up and you can only communicate via direct communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple system for enabling open communication areas via push to talk. When entering an open comm area it gives you an option to accept. If you accept your helmet is lowered or removed and you can speak normally. If you decline then you helmet stays up and you can only communicate via direct communication.

This might be fine, the only problem I see is what I mentioned before; if someone is doing something that needs to stop, it leaves the possibility that authorities will be unable to communicate with them and be forced to move directly to punishment after failed attempts to warn that person.

 

However, it was also mentioned that if you continue to turn down hails to communicate, it will be your own fault if something happens to you as a result. I actually kind of agree with that. With one condition: the person should be aware that it is an authority figure attempting to contact them. Maybe the request to "connect" could have a prefix to denote different people, or just be a different color, or both.

 

For example, if they were to use the "prefix" method:

~Player (or no prefix) = normal player

~T-Owner = Territory owner. This would only show up if you are on their property.

~C-Owner = Construct owner. This would only appear if you are on / in / near their construct.

~Org Auth = Organization Authority. Only appears on organization land or on / in / near one of their constructs. Basically a trusted Organization official.

~T-Police = Same as T-Owner, only these would be the police hired / authorized by the owner.

~C-Police = Same as T-Police, just for constructs.

~Org Police = Same as Org Auth, but their job is specifically rule enforcement, and as such have greater discretion and authority in dealing with violators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be fine, the only problem I see is what I mentioned before; if someone is doing something that needs to stop, it leaves the possibility that authorities will be unable to communicate with them and be forced to move directly to punishment after failed attempts to warn that person.

 

However, it was also mentioned that if you continue to turn down hails to communicate, it will be your own fault if something happens to you as a result. I actually kind of agree with that. With one condition: the person should be aware that it is an authority figure attempting to contact them. Maybe the request to "connect" could have a prefix to denote different people, or just be a different color, or both.

 

For example, if they were to use the "prefix" method:

~Player (or no prefix) = normal player

~T-Owner = Territory owner. This would only show up if you are on their property.

~C-Owner = Construct owner. This would only appear if you are on / in / near their construct.

~Org Auth = Organization Authority. Only appears on organization land or on / in / near one of their constructs. Basically a trusted Organization official.

~T-Police = Same as T-Owner, only these would be the police hired / authorized by the owner.

~C-Police = Same as T-Police, just for constructs.

~Org Police = Same as Org Auth, but their job is specifically rule enforcement, and as such have greater discretion and authority in dealing with violators.

I'm sure there will still be an option for text chat and direct communication channels.

 

Also my post was only just accepted I replied to a comment about a dozen posts back.

 

So with my helmet off or down/up or whatever I can hear and speak to players in the direct vicinity with helmet on I can only speak voice with an open comms channel to someone.

 

Also please enforce PTT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, PTT would be great!

I actually wasn't referring to text channels in my post. I am assuming that if they implement a direct-line voice comm system, you will get an on-screen text notification that someone is "calling" you. (Maybe as some kind of holographic display inside the helmet?) My post was based on this assumption, and was referring to what that notification would look like based on who was trying to contact you. I suppose it would be a good idea to do the same in text-chat too though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fine as an option but personally I find it a bit distracting. I actually find voice can spoil the immersion, especially when you can here people around you talking about random stuff.  

If done nicely, it will fit as IRL. You must own 5.1/7.1 headphones though, but it would be really immersive. Only the guys passing near you would distinctly hear of, the rest would sound like a crowd sound, like in other video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think it should be opt in. I don't think the immersion that would be gained by half-hearing potentially thousands of irrelevant conversations around you outweighs the additional strain on servers and connectivity. A simple GUI could be used to start a conversation by tuning into a channel and others would have to do the same. Channels could be dynamically created and invites to join various channels could be sent. Mute/ignore functionality would also be required. I have less of an issue with push to talk but having that as a default sounds like a good idea.

 

I would envision such channels to only function within line of sight unless they are extended through the use of an element or item.

i think it would be better to have it where you can only hear like 3 players ahead of you and the more crowned the place is the more muffled the noise is to be more like ambient sound, and when you wish to speak directly to someone then you make a channel...and push to talk of-course,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of having an optional normal voice talk. My suggestion would be to have radio/antenna/comm chat that works over long distances same as calling someone on a phone, person has to answer. In addition I really like the idea of having actual sound mechanics but with a whole bunch of people it gets super annoying. To fix this you could make it an option. So a group of friends might decide to use actual voice mechanics while working on a house/mining in a cave for the immersion it provides but they don't have to. To break it down, have the ability to hail/call people to talk to them probably a communicator type thing that allowed you to call people who you have basically their phone number even if it looks a little different from regular ones and this option should not have a range limit, and have a channel that players could choose to enter that let them hear other people in that channel as if they were talking in real life with voice fall off and ambient conversations etc. This allows for cool stuff like eavesdropping and such while still allowing people to have private conversations without having to worry about how far away they are or how many people are talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Idea occurs, what if when you first spawned all you could use was talking with voice falloff, you have to be near a person but then as you progressed you built antenna and what not and radio communication towers that let you use communication further and then onto satellite and space communication relays, this would add more targets to take down and provide realistic communication and if someone wanted to communicate without this hassle just let them use 3rd party. Large orgs would prefer to have a communication network because a 3rd party conversation of that size would be very difficult to get everyone on board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad idea, except that your space suit would have ranged communication if it were real life, so I doubt they won't include that. (Assuming they implement in-game chat at all, of course.)

 

However, I like the thought behind what you suggested. The range of your character should be limited without a network or other equipment to boost the signal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An old topic, but this is almost expected in a game in 2017. 

I doubt it will happen by release, but my money is betting that eventually, Dual Universe will have voice chat. It's just a matter of priority at this point, and there are tons of things people want more than voice (and even more things that are still on the roadmap that needs to be finished). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...