VOIP SOPs

**WhiskeySix** · 07-03-2011, 09:58 AM

I know its still pretty early to be thinking about this,since details are still sketchy... BUT... It seems like we might get two VOIP channels, one for squad, and one for team-wide.

If this is the case, what would people think about making the team-wide channel a Squad Leader-only channel?

**Specterr** · 07-03-2011, 10:26 AM

If we do get two channels in BF3 I personally think teamspeak is still the better option for squad leader only channel just because if its an in game team-wide channel we can't really control the 50% of non-TG members on the server, just a couple that don't respect it will be very disruptive for everyone else.

**Jeepo** · 07-03-2011, 11:15 AM

Well, I have a few thoughts on this.

One way to do it is as Whiskey says, use one as SL only. However, that means everyone talking over each other, the entire team hearing the mess of comms.

So I propose THIS:

Mumble. Use it. IF it gets BF3 compatibility (which I am led to believe it will) then it is a easy call. It REVOLUTIONISED the way people play PR. For those of you not sure what mumble is:

Mumble has many benefits. It is a positional audio comms system we use in BF2 PR that gives us two channels. One of these is local. So if they are close you hear them, and you get their position. The other is a SL only channel where only SL's can hear it. It saves clutter. This is a MUST HAVE I feel for BF3 if it is compatible. Mumble also has a better latency than TS3, so there is less delay on the comms, which is essential.

Make the VOIP team only channel off limits, and admin only. This is not hard to do. Either we will get an option to disable it on the server, or we make it admin only in the rules. This was done in ArmA and it cleaned up the comms hugely.

**Exploding_Silver** · 07-03-2011, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

I know its still pretty early to be thinking about this,since details are still sketchy... BUT... It seems like we might get two VOIP channels, one for squad, and one for team-wide.

If this is the case, what would people think about making the team-wide channel a Squad Leader-only channel?

I would say it is a bit early because we probably wont know how many 'working' voip channels until we get into the beta, however we do like to talk tactically dont we

In terms of what to do with teamwide voip, a few thoughts
> SL to SL is the obvious and awesome use
> we cant assume teamwide voip is turned on by default, individual players may have to choose to turn it on
> reporting to admins on team wde ? as well as teamspeak

**FBmantis** · 07-03-2011, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

It seems like we might get two VOIP channels, one for squad, and one for team-wide.

Where did you hear this?

**WhiskeySix** · 07-03-2011, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by FBmantis

Where did you hear this?

hmmm... good question... I think it was in one of the interviews @ E3... maybe with @zh1nt0? <squint>

more thoughts...

1) team-wide probably wouldn't work for SL-only since everyone would be hearing it... and without some intrusive roger-over protocol, it would be hard to distinguish SL-SL from other voip.

2) mumble seems like it would be nice except that server-visitors wouldn't be able to take part in the talking teamwork (I assume you need a mumble client installed and configured?)

**Skud** · 07-03-2011, 01:24 PM

Third party programs, no matter how fantastic, will only exclude people from playing WITH us.

If a first-party option is decent and is available, we should always use that. It ensures that everyone from the moment they're on the server can hear and communicate with us.

Hopefully first party options are as good as Whiskey hopes.

**Jeepo** · 07-03-2011, 02:00 PM

I agree. The less 3rd party stuff the better. But I do feel that mumble should be used on at least one server, perhaps a hardcore or realism server? That way people can "progress" to that. That is of course if there are multiple servers. A lot of this is still to be decided by the bosses and the actual game features at launch. Mumble IS great, but it does require a small download. That being said, the entire PR community, not just at TG now uses it, and that is a lot of players. However I reckon you can point to PR players being a more dedicated bunch, and more knowledgeable than your run of the mill pew pew pubby player, and more likely to invest the extra time to make it worth it.

**WhiskeySix** · 07-03-2011, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by FBmantis

Where did you hear this?

I can't check video right now, but:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

Sounds like Squad-VOIP and teamwide VOIP?

Squad-talk starts at the 50min mark: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/15232665

**Exploding_Silver** · 07-03-2011, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

I can't check video right now, but:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix
Sounds like Squad-VOIP and teamwide VOIP?

Squad-talk starts at the 50min mark: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/15232665

I just checked it and he sidestepped the question about ingame voip channels and moved the conversation to his list a "approved" DICE topics to talk about, which was the website battlelog having voip of some sort

**Ven** · 07-03-2011, 08:48 PM

Skuds dead on....third party sucks if there's a viable in game feature.

sent by a large bird with a stone tablet....like the Flintstones

**Feriluce** · 07-04-2011, 07:28 AM

Mumble should be required on at least one server imo. Its simply too good to not have it. I dont get why more games does not include these kinda voip options, especially positional audio. Arma had the right idea with its different channel system.

**Harlequin** · 07-04-2011, 09:24 AM

I agree. Positional audio/VOIP should be/become standard in multi-player FPS's. You should even be able to hear the enemies talking in your vicinity.

**Wicks** · 07-04-2011, 09:48 AM

I personally prefer a SL exclusive team wide channel and squad based for the squad members. If the built in voip does this we are golden imo. If it does not and anyone being able to broadcast to the whole team is merely a button press away then we aren't golden.

If we can't lock down the channels then a third party alternative is something we can look at for one of the servers, its not like third party apps are an insurmountable barrier plus the non mumble server will act as a stepping stone. In addition I don't think we are going to have population problem.

Barriers to entry are one thing, it is arguable that Vanilla settings provide the least obstacles to getting into TG. That does not preclude from offering another server with our own particular evolution of the title if server/tech allows.

Either way a free for all on comms is a big no for me, we finally get some semblance of a command structure back with SL's (as opposed to BC2), let's try to avoid undoing that with 31 people talking at once. As I regularly tell people in PR, "wanna be in the SL channel, lead a squad, otherwise seeya".

**Skud** · 07-04-2011, 09:50 AM

We do not allow you to hear the enemy team in PR because in many cases it's unrealistic. Even if there's a enemy 2 feet from you on our PR server you won't hear his mumble.

It's assuming that every single soldier understands their opponents language.

EDIT: Also, have you ever heard a whole team using mumble? Can you imagine hearing everyone?