Project Reality Forums

Two channels. Not everyone on the battlefield understands English. With one channel I would be less tempted to use mumble to talk to other players and share information for fear that the enemy might hear.

It would still be 2 channel with your team in the same channel and the other team in their channel. The people in your channel hear what you say when you talk local. The enemy hears some sort of radio sound when you talk in mumble near them. That way the enemy could hear the radio sound but would not know what you said.

OR

You get 2 local buttons. One talks to everyone and goes 50-60m. The other talks to your team alone and only goes 20-30m.

yea i agree with zebra that does sound like a good idea

2. all reasons have been told here. less retards, more teamplay.

@ zebra: Its hard enough to get people to use mumble at all. Although I love mumble with PR and would do pretty much any kind of tiny trick to get the experience to be better, but I do not want to because as I said its hard enough to get the people used to having TWO DIFFERENT OMGZ VOIP buttons and their proper use.

While I understand the merits of having 2 channels, I have come to realize that a lot of people won't bother with Mumble, except for the L33T servers and players, because it's just such a hassle. Honestly, I am already dealing with enough CTD's trying to get PR up and running that I don't want to risk it to Alt-Tab in and out to be in the right channel or bother an Admin to do it, or God-forbid, get dropped by PB. I'm finding that on a lot of new Mumble servers, where everyone is not necessarily enamoured with Mumble yet, everyone just crowds into the main channel or doesn't use Mumble.

So.... 1 Channel FTW.

Ca6e wrote:In RL they use 2 chanel comms, 1 is used between squad leaders or SL -> Comm, and second is inner comms between squadmates, so i support 2 channel.

While it is not completely accurate, the In-game VOIP already does this, so if this is all you're after, why use Mumble? That's a lackluster at best reason for having two channels, in my opinion, Mumble should be used for Inter-squad communication so there is more Teamwork overall, not just more squad-work. That plus it would be awesome to be able to talk to the enemy, i.e. downed pilots, unarmed soldiers, civies, etc.

Farks wrote:Yeah, cos it's really hard to ALT+TAB... And the downsides with one channel has been mentioned several times; immature behaviour, people stopping to use it during combat (when you need it the most) cos the enemy can hear you, and so on. You might as well be in the same TS-channel.

Well then, maybe you can give a better explanation for why I find some Mumble channels empty as a desert, with the exception of a few servers like TG. I don't think you should eye-roll, because the Mumble population is not anywhere near exciting or even impressive. I am an avid advocate for Mumble and I'm sorry, but it's no fun when I'm the only one on the server using it... That's major !

1 channel has it's pros, it's nice to be able to talk to and hear the enemy. But it leads to Mumble being used less in combat situations, so I have to say 2 channels are better.

2 channel system is better. How often does all the soldiers have straight channel to their commander? Not very often think. Besize, Squadleader will have to deliver info and messages between soldiers and commander. That is more realistic.

I just want to know why, outside of TG, other servers have trouble getting people to use Mumble. Never played on any European servers like Reality Teamwork or what not though...

DaKillerFox wrote:I just want to know why, outside of TG, other servers have trouble getting people to use Mumble. Never played on any European servers like Reality Teamwork or what not though...

1. TG is a cohesive community built around teamwork where such tools are more likely to be embraced on a large scale.

2. RT prioritized mumblers, making more people start using it. Exponential growth and all that.

Both communities also have a lot of known players and great teamwork that attracts more players, and these then start using mumble as well.

The reason why most other servers do not have a large mumble user base is because they rely more heavily on casual players, they do not have the same strong communities, and they do not advertise or enforce the use of mumble. When we were just starting to use mumble there was such a large portion of the population that thought it was pointless and didn't want to get mumble for no reason whatsoever(Most of which changed their opinion later ). This is also the case with casual players, they don't see any reason to invest any effort into getting and trying to use it, and those who do are faced with the barely populated channels get discouraged.

The only way you get people to use mumble is through having a large portion willingly start using it, advertising it, and enforcing it.

search, this repost. i made this exact thread but i only got about 4 pages worth of repsonses. whats up with that?

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... nnels.html

Meza82 wrote:search, this repost. i made this exact thread but i only got about 4 pages worth of repsonses. whats up with that?

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... nnels.html

Because this one has a


which means everytime someone votes it gets bumped, and voting takes alot less effort than typing a post.

2 by far

One is just asking for stupid taunting. Something I don't particularly play PR for.

When people talk about 1 the only thing that seems to come up is you can taunt anyone you've just killed, but you can't talk to friendly's with it cause you might be overheard.

2 allows for actual blue to blue communication, which is far more worthy and useful, and encourages teamwork.

Web_cole wrote:When people talk about 1 the only thing that seems to come up is you can taunt anyone you've just killed, but you can't talk to friendly's with it cause you might be overheard.

Which is part of the realism. I play on a one-channel mumble and don't complain at all, plus I've used TG's system among other servers and didn't mind it either, I'll still find ways to communicate to the enemy. The tool of misinformation is terrific, I've often communicated things to a friendly when a dead enemy is within range, discussing lies which have on occasion actually caused the enemy to fall right into my trap.

I like the way the fox puts it in Antichrist.

2 allows for actual blue to blue communication, which is far more worthy and useful, and encourages teamwork.

Umm....so does 1? Obviously hand signals are used mainly in warfare until a contact breaks out, but in real life you're going to be screaming to the bloke next to you with guns blazing.

its hard to use mumble in 1channel because the enemy can and will hear you. Its too much of a hinderance in that respect. 2 channels allow teamwork and bypasses taunting. and the above issue.

dtacs wrote:Umm....so does 1?

No, because the enemy can hear you and will kill you because they know where you are, just like what always happens when somebody opens their mouth in a 1 channel system. Here's how it works:

Your squad gets close(And by close I mean 200m or so, to be sure) to the front, "stop mumble chatter."

In-game VOIP is used exclusively from then on.

Some inexperienced person on the other teams talks over mumble. Everyone knows where he is and what he's doing. He/Squad dies shortly after. With 1 channel nobody used mumble properly, and those who tried using it got themselves killed. It's as simple as that.

Obviously hand signals are used mainly in warfare until a contact breaks out, but in real life you're going to be screaming to the bloke next to you with guns blazing.

Yes, because the sound doesn't travel that far when loud bangs are going off all around you, so the enemy won't be getting perfectly clear conversations fed right into their ears, if they can even hear any dialogue at all, garbled or not.

Which is part of the realism.

You can't call it realistic if it doesn't simulate sound realistically, like you just pointed out in the previous quote. Not to mention the constant spam from dead people to throw you off, conceal other sounds, or just annoy you. Are talking corpses realistic? Is hearing someone talk through soundproof barriers realistic? Mumble is not realistic enough for a 1-channel system to be viable, the closest it gets is with a 2 channel system where it can be used properly and where is also simulates other forms of communication, such as hand signals and so on, that don't transmit right into the ear of the enemy 50m away.

It's not realistic, it never has been, and it won't be in the near future, stop using this pointless argument.

Tartantyco wrote:can hear you and will kill you

I would like you to prove that if I even say one word on mumble with an enemy within range, that they will kill me 100%.

If that isn't what you're insinuating, learn to use better terminology.

Here's how it works:

Don't patronize me. I'm exposed to using one channel every time I play PR, so I know how it works, and you obviously don't.

Your squad gets close(And by close I mean 200m or so, to be sure) to the front, "stop mumble chatter."

My squad doesn't use mumble as there is no point when we have the ability to keep quiet using VOIP.

In-game VOIP is used exclusively from then on.

Exactly. I use mumble for green-blue conversation, or if I want to speak specifically to a squad member.

Some inexperienced person on the other teams talks over mumble

So by your logic, anyone to speaks over mumble when there could be someone within range is 'inexperienced'? Good one.

Everyone knows where he is and what he's doing. He/Squad dies shortly after. With 1 channel nobody used mumble properly,

Read this again and point out your own folly. Assuming is a dangerous game.

For the enemy to know 'where he is and what hes doing', he would have to literally explain EVERYTHING. Mumble chatter is kept to small bursts of 'enemy around corner', not their life story. But I don't have to explain that to you, do I?

and those who tried using it got themselves killed. It's as simple as that.

I'm tempted to call you a downright idiot after reading that one. Its not as simple as that at all.

Mumble is not realistic enough for a 1-channel system to be viable, the closest it gets is with a 2 channel system where it can be used properly and where is also simulates other forms of communication, such as hand signals and so on, that don't transmit right into the ear of the enemy 50m away.

With a two channel system, people can be speaking actively and there could be an Insurgent around the corner. The Insurgent cannot hear them. Is that realistic?

It's not realistic, it never has been, and it won't be in the near future, stop using this pointless argument.

There is no pointless argument here, mine clearly bears fruit.

dtacs wrote:For the enemy to know 'where he is and what hes doing', he would have to literally explain EVERYTHING. Mumble chatter is kept to small bursts of 'enemy around corner', not their life story. But I don't have to explain that to you, do I?

Scenario 1: You are walking along, there's an enemy on the other side of the hill from you, you are unaware. 2 channel mumble system, anything that enemy says over mumble is unknown to you.

Scenario 2: You are walking along, there's an enemy on the other side of the hill from you, you are unaware. 1 channel mumble system, he says something on mumble. Now you know he's there, and roughly where he is (positional audio + within 70M)

It's pretty clear to me that that sort of thing is going to severely limit mumble usage for TW(except amongst SLs), leaving it for taunting and as you suggested, trapping people. Which is a ridiculously narrow purpose for something that could be so much more useful.

dtacs wrote:With a two channel system, people can be speaking actively and there could be an Insurgent around the corner. The Insurgent cannot hear them. Is that realistic?

Yes, because:

Tartantyco wrote:it also simulates other forms of communication, such as hand signals

dtacs wrote:With a two channel system, people can be speaking actively and there could be an Insurgent around the corner. The Insurgent cannot hear them. Is that realistic?

My squad doesn't use mumble as there is no point when we have the ability to keep quiet using VOIP.

Both systems are unrealistic, 2 system I prefer as it doesn't have a) stupid taunting, and b) silly scenarios like this:

I'll still find ways to communicate to the enemy. The tool of misinformation is terrific, I've often communicated things to a friendly when a dead enemy is within range, discussing lies which have on occasion actually caused the enemy to fall right into my trap.

Also, generally my voip is quite quiet, no matter how much I turn it up, so I prefer using mumble as it's louder.