Enigmatic Sage wrote: » To be honest, I probably wont use it much versus inviting someone to a discord or group.
Aerlana wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » To be honest, I probably wont use it much versus inviting someone to a discord or group. There is various way to feel with it. Personally, i finished by having lot of discord serv only for completing a party of people... i cleaned all recently, 36 serv... so yes, a good VOIP directly ingame to use with "unknown" could be fine. (over 4 years on "solo-MMORPGs) for the pushtotalk vs voice activation, i think there will be both option... and while i use voice activation, i think for VOIP in game, would be better to have only push to talk... between hearing the keyboard or the breaths...
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Now imagine there is a beautiful button, just one button, that allows you to mute prox chat so you don't have to hear. Here is the great part, you can press it again and it does opposite and unmutes it. Yeah, but most people are just going to turn it off. Adding an icon for if someone is using prox chat is just adding more screen clutter. In any situation in which prox chat would be used (ie, not in a group, raid or guild situation) there is no inherent need for voice chat. Text is sufficient. Adding voice chat is just adding layers upon layers of needlessness (mute buttons, icons etc) for no actual functional gain. If you are running around people you don't know and want to communicate, there is a non-intrusive method for doing so that most people will leave on.
mcstackerson wrote: » Now imagine there is a beautiful button, just one button, that allows you to mute prox chat so you don't have to hear. Here is the great part, you can press it again and it does opposite and unmutes it.
Aerlana wrote: » For all other part of your message, so you admit that you won't discriminate people on the fact they use or not proximity chat? Maybe you are a good guy, but it would be a fool to consider people to stick to this... Most people considering "proximity chat is the best way to enjoy games" will just discriminate those who will say "no" when invited to activate proximity chat... Nothing about seeing furture, just reading the past. Also, why should i have to unmute people to hear them if i just don't want hear anyvoice right now ? This is a part from your message that matters me, you don't want to be forced to type, but you think people have to hear the voice of the other anytime... What would you do if you are trying to share your cute voice to me, and i say "if you want to speak to me, just type" ? And i pass about people who doesn't use their mic in 1001 toxic ways we all know, but have a bad microphone, or all kind of reason making them hard to understand... Text chat get this good side : no problem to understand anyone you speak with.
mcstackerson wrote: » I don't think the use case is for organized stuff. it's for random encounters in the world or while in town.
Aerius wrote: » To address the oft-exaggerated counter-claim of annoyances, it should be easy enough for players to quickly mute those who abuse the voice system. After sufficient reporting, a GM can look into it. If necessary and just, a temporary mute-ban can be applied.
Dygz wrote: » Which is why the Ashes devs have chosen to not have proximity chat and instead use an opt-in in-game VOIP system. It's easy enough to just ignore the text chat box. Not as easy to ignore random, extraneous sounds. Proximity chat is like having that giant global text appear when Steven gives us Siege Notifications - only the text would be some crap about football scores or who got booted from The Bachelor. It's like your mom barging into your room and screaming at you to finish your chores. There's nothing at all immersive about proximity chat. In-game VOIP in the manner the devs are planning will probably work well. Specifically because it's not random.
Aerius wrote: » If speech/noises not intended to be broadcast is the issue, the compromise solution seems to be that open prox voice would require push-to-talk rather than voice detection or open mic. What say you to this hypothetical?
Aerius wrote: » Prox chat is a convenience but doesn't net you anything on it's own. If someone doesn't want to play with you because you don't use it, that's there loss.
Aerius wrote: » I would say this enormous boost to immersion and ease of communication would bolster their claims and their purpose.
akabear wrote: » Going to do a 360 on this one.. whilst there were plenty more randoms than not in New World really breaking immersion in the general world and towns, when it came to pugs.. the lack of need to go to new discord channel every time grouping up with some new group.. well. it was a great addon that would be muted most of the time.. So.. all for it.
Alarion wrote: » I experienced and loved the feature in past games
McShave wrote: » I hope we can at least test the idea of proximity chat in a beta or Alpha-2. I see a lot of doom-and-gloom about any possible way of implementing it. I think the use cases for it in random encounters far outway the annoying aspects of muting players or just turning it off momentarily when needed.
Noaani wrote: » McShave wrote: » I hope we can at least test the idea of proximity chat in a beta or Alpha-2. I see a lot of doom-and-gloom about any possible way of implementing it. I think the use cases for it in random encounters far outway the annoying aspects of muting players or just turning it off momentarily when needed. The problem with this as a notion is that testing like this only works to test if systems actually function - you can never use an alpha or a beta to test more social aspects of a game - such as how players are going to actually use a system once it is in a live game.
McShave wrote: » Noaani wrote: » McShave wrote: » I hope we can at least test the idea of proximity chat in a beta or Alpha-2. I see a lot of doom-and-gloom about any possible way of implementing it. I think the use cases for it in random encounters far outway the annoying aspects of muting players or just turning it off momentarily when needed. The problem with this as a notion is that testing like this only works to test if systems actually function - you can never use an alpha or a beta to test more social aspects of a game - such as how players are going to actually use a system once it is in a live game. If there are 10,000 players in the alpha 1, i can't imagine how many players will be in the betas. I know my strategy for the beta will be to gimmick the systems so i have the advantage upon release. This is gonna be as real of a scenario as we could possibly get