Project Reality Forums

dtacs wrote: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.

Arguing based on semantics doesn't make you look smarter.

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.

You don't want to start comparing experience with me.

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

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

You contradicted yourself right there. This also shows how limited your use of mumble is because of the 1 channel system.

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

Pretty much, yeah. Every single enemy squad that's ever talked on mumble within earshot of my squad(Or just me at times) has been completely annihilated.

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?

I thought assuming was a bad thing. And even with a single utterance on mumble I can pinpoint the location of someone, and that utterance will give me enough information to know what he's up to. You not being able to do this is not an argument.

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

Ad hominems are the refuge of the losing side in an argument.

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?

Read Web Cole's reply.

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

Retarded fruit.

Tartantyco wrote:Arguing based on semantics doesn't make you look smarter.

Semantics? Its 1/3 of your original post. Don't state something if you aren't going to back it up.

Either dismiss it as something you shouldn't have said or explain it, rather than turning it around for purpose of insults.

You don't want to start comparing experience with me.

Did I? No. However judging by your ability to assume that if I use mumble I will be killed indefinitely, I don't want to waste me time comparing.

You contradicted yourself right there. This also shows how limited your use of mumble is because of the 1 channel system.

No I didn't, I use it when I'm talking specifically to a squad member for purpose which only concens them, rather than using VOIP to do it. Not everybody is within decent mumble range so if they're next to me, I may as well instead of letting everyone else hear it.

Pretty much, yeah. Every single enemy squad that's ever talked on mumble within earshot of my squad(Or just me at times) has been completely annihilated.

Big call there, too bad there's no way to prove it.

I thought assuming was a bad thing. And even with a single utterance on mumble I can pinpoint the location of someone(1), and that utterance will give me enough information to know what he's up to.(2) You not being able to do this is not an argument.

(1) What if they're moving?
(2) I sigh over mumble. What now eagle ear?

Ad hominems are the refuge of the losing side in an argument.

Which was why I was tempted, rather than saying it.

Read Web Cole's reply.

Web_cole wrote: Yes, because:

Hand signals are used in patrolling, and in situations where you don't have a defined objective. To simplify that, if I'm going to build a firebase, I would talk on mumble (if its needed in the first place), since its going to be incredibly obvious anyway. If im moving through a forest or area with cover, I'd definitely use VOIP only.

Would you use hand signals here?


Answer? No. Your presence is already known, so there is no point.

How about here? Same answer.

Retarded fruit.

Aaaaaand I'm out.

2 channel; no arguments.

It's unrealistic that the US know what the Chinese are saying, and 1 channel renders mumble useless in CQB ('Go in through that door! Oh no how'd they know we were coming?!').

Prevents 'teabagging' and gloating, and in general is far better for tactical decision making.

2 channels, yes its not realistic the other side cant hear you, irl they would probably use handsigns though and irl you can tell if an insurgents is saying in arabic behind you or if it is a teammate.

Lets tone down the heated arguments gentlemen.



I'd have to say, gamers will always be gamers. It WOULD be sweet, but sufficient testing would be needed in order for it to work efficiently.

Gosu-Rizzle wrote:1 channel
Its more realistic (you have to be a bit carefull with what you say, and you can fool your enemy if you're smart) And i dont really see any reason to have separete channels as long as the SLs can talk tactics in their on private channel.

language barrier, i kno translators, not everyone is one

Tartantyco wrote:Pretty much, yeah. Every single enemy squad that's ever talked on mumble within earshot of my squad(Or just me at times) has been completely annihilated.

BS. Obviously you dont remember the times your squad gets annihilated by me.

2 Channels. Pretty much the same reasons/justifications given before me.

Communication will ALWAYS be where IRL and Gaming disagree.

L4gi wrote:BS. Obviously you dont remember the times your squad gets annihilated by me.

Location and intent determined. Exterminate! Exterminate!

1 channel, its realistic to hear enemy talking. And its really nice to be able to tell the enemy how nicely you owned him after his death =)

One nice mumble moment i had was in muttrah when i found enemy firebase which was still being built, i sneaked next to it and started to wait behind corner that builders would come out and i would shoot them and then i could destroy the firebase, but instead of moving they started shitchatting and one of em shot pistol twice on the ground and second one said "stop shooting they can hear that, deer could be right behind the corner ready to come kill us if he hears us so be quiet"... and there i was, got em surpriced They were so mad at me when i laughed at them in mumble after i shot em =)

1 channel.
it's just bringing u more atmosphere to the game in short distance firefights situations

I would have to say 1 as long as the enemy can only hear you talking if they are within earshot. Not sure if the BF2 engine can be integrated with this feature so it would be safe for me to go for option 2. Option one would hurt the game in my opinion.

However, if BF2 can support such a system, there needs to be a button to only speak to everyone within earshot, and not over squad chat. Too many times have I spotted an enemy squad moving towards my postition whilst I am surrounded by a friendly squad (all of whom are facing the other direction), and I find myself in dire need of a "talk to vicinity" function.

After further reading I find that Mumble accounts for earshot distance in game so people around you can hear you talking and i feel retarded.

zebra.actual wrote: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.

The second option could incorporate the "chat scrambling" as well, to account for the ingame nationality differences.

So you would have to have four (or five) buttons for the second option
1. Squad chat (everyone in 30 meters + squad)
2. Local chat (everyone in 60 meters)
3. Shout (everyone in 120 meters)
4. SL&Commander chat (squad leaders and commander)
5. (optional) Yell (everyone in 180 meters, and yes you can hear from that far in rl)

I mean holy ****, just think of that...the immersion factor would increace dramatically, and the "epic scale" of the game would go up an equal amount...the communicability would make new strategies possible...

Pardon me for the multiple posts, just giving my two cents.

Hearing a bunch of testosterone-deprived kids on either side is pretty unrealistic and non-immersive, so it doesn't really make a difference to me.

Darknecron wrote:The second option could incorporate the "chat scrambling" as well, to account for the ingame nationality differences.

So you would have to have four (or five) buttons for the second option
1. Squad chat (everyone in 30 meters + squad)
2. Local chat (everyone in 60 meters)
3. Shout (everyone in 120 meters)
4. SL&Commander chat (squad leaders and commander)
5. (optional) Yell (everyone in 180 meters, and yes you can hear from that far in rl)

I mean holy ****, just think of that...the immersion factor would increace dramatically, and the "epic scale" of the game would go up an equal amount...the communicability would make new strategies possible...

Pardon me for the multiple posts, just giving my two cents.

1. In game voip handles squad chat perfectly fine.
4. Already used in mumble with the use of the squad leader channels and force center button .

One channel makes mumble useless in local speech if the enemy is too close. How are you supposed to tell if somebody is giving orders, or if it is the enemy team sorting itself out.

Ive just stared using mumble and its rally great. Ive only used it on 2 channels on TG. But i voted 1 as in my opinion i think it would be more funand kinda relistic

myles wrote:Ive just stared using mumble and its rally great. Ive only used it on 2 channels on TG. But i voted 1 as in my opinion i think it would be more funand kinda relistic

Is hearing people through an entire mountain 70 meters away realistic? No. 1 channel is not realistic, at all, and all it does is remove communication options from mumble. Stop thinking 1 channel is realistic damn it.

Neither is realistic, people need to end that debate. We are ALL (or most, apparently) aware of the realistic and non realistic aspects of both.

Its down to game-play and personnel preference.