Project Reality Forums

I haven't used mumble yet, but I am going to wait until it is actually implemented into the game.

google wrote:That's a really pathetic and poor statement.

Now, I can see how having direct comms with other blue guys might be worth it in rare cases. For example, the chopper pilot thing. And even these rare examples can be solved through the use of TeamSpeak or typing stuff out in chat (which has always worked for me when asking a lift from chopper pilots). The problem is that mumble can get too spammy waaay to easily when you have to listen to everyone's 1 to 1 conversations (whether they be game-related or not). This is inneficient and is why only SLs should really have direct Comms with eachother.

-They are not rare events, but regardless, you're saying that you'd rather use in-game VOIP, TS, and chat instead of just Mumble and in-game VOIP? Not only does Mumble have the same capabilities as TS, it also has a load of other capabilities, better audio quality, more efficient, and open source. The argument that Mumble somehow makes people spam is simply wrong, any VOIP software makes people spam if it's not regulated. You simply regulate it just as you would regulate in-game VOIP, TS, or any other communication tool.

-The idea that only SLs should have direct comms with each other is simply a relic of TS style VOIP, because it's prone to flooding. SMs stay off TS because they can't use it for efficient communication due to the lack of any filtering system. This is what Mumble gives us, a simple way to filter out the irrelevant based on distance. Now SMs can communicate with each other without flooding anyone else's VOIP and so you instantly improve their ability to perform together on the battlefield, with untold new tactical and strategic options available to players from the squad member to the Commander.

This has clearly degenerated in to a 'oldschool TS' players Vs 'newschool mumble players'

Let it be known that servers such as iGi fully promote the use of mumble as a tool to increase communication, teamwork and realism. If servers that hybrid or google are involved with do not wish to propagate mumble, that is their choice and we should wish them well for using this proven technique.

Though Hybrid, our views on teamspeak aren't narrow, teamspeak's capabilities are narrow.

I have played in the PRT for a year or so now, and I would say, that is an effort to use TS to it's full capacity, but still it's limited.

I am a big fan of Mumble. I've been hoping for this functionality in games for a long time. But these days on many servers there are not enough people using Mumble so it can be more trouble than its worth. I will say that on the iGi servers there are often 20+ people using it which really showcases it potential and pitfalls. I'm glad the Mumble team has been supportive of PR and willing to implement needed features for competitive play. I hope that Mumble servers will eventually be able to force values on the client and that Mumble will ship with the next version of PR to hasten its adoption.

[/IMG]

Notice two squad leaders having a conversation facilitating a combined strategy that would be impossible to pull off with such clarity if you were trying to type it chat. Its just smarter.

I have one question about mumble. Can the other team hear me talk also if they are close?

TheLean wrote:I have one question about mumble. Can the other team hear me talk also if they are close?

yes, unless you are an SL and using all chat (aka 'force center') in teh SL channel for ur team.

TheLean wrote:I have one question about mumble. Can the other team hear me talk also if they are close?

As Rudd has pointed out, yes they can (as a regular grunt). This is the main thing that people who don't like Mumble don't like.

Some people would argue that it is realistic for the opposite team to hear you but Mumble is not exactly realistic. There is no sound occlusion, ie, buildings or terrain don't block the sound from travelling as far as usual.

Mumble is simply the best tool for squads to communicate with eachother for various reasons. Talking to your pilot before takeoff, asking for fire support or transport from a nearby APC and having tactical discussions with the squad next to you are just a few of the many advantages that Mumble can bring.

Although it can be fun to taunt the enemy, I feel that that each team should be in completely different channels for us to get the most out of this and to encourage more people to use it. There are many reasons people have given both for or against each team being in one channel but I feel that they should be seperated.

I agree that teams should be separated. It definitely discourages use as it is now.

# Tank/APC crew communicating directly with infantry when they are near them

that is a point that I agree with, but tbh its not often that infantry need to talk to the tanks directly as its the tanks with better observational capability etc, infantry talking to tanks would be done via SL channel.

Though When talking to APCs, I generally only do it when I need to talk to the driver when I'm already inside.

Though I would indeed love it if tank crews could use mumble and not be heard be ppl outside the vehicle (and it might be possible since I found this little bug where I started hearing everyone when I got in the Cp, I got out and in again and it stopped, but maybe its codable?) this would really help since driver-gunner coms can get pretty hectic and if you don't have apracticed crew ingame it gets really confusing on bf2 voip. Mumble (if its codable) would allow individual crews to talk without spamming the bf2 coms.

main problem I've been having with mumble is folk who cba.

You can set different channels so that you can force centre and only talk to people in the same channel, stopping the whole crazy babbling bit.

The thing that really really REALLY pisses me off is the whole "Waah waaah the enemy can hear you talking" this usually comes from the SM whos constantly bitching and whining about life in general so no wonder they're heard coming from a mile off, its great getting into enemy terretory and having to say "keep it down" really adds to the atmosphere.
Project REALITY mumble adds to the realism.

Sound quality is far better, latency is far quicker so you dont have to wait half an hour before someone hears you, immersion is far better, it does anything and everything teamspeak can do and then more.

So far any disliking of mumble I've seen just comes from stubborn players "I don't want to like it so I won't nahh nahh" I've seen a lot of mature players acting like children in response to it "I dont wanna join in on the fad, I'm unique" Sure you are, just like everyone else.

The other things these folk will do is just use VOIP then the enemy can't hear you. a VERY GOOD idea would be to make it so that whenver VOIP is held down, you can't fire your weapon, I don't know if anyone can operate a radio and fire a weapon at the same time but one assumes it's be difficult.
if possible making the rally sound come from a player when he's using the radio would also remove any chance to exploit with that, cos as far as I'm concerned that's all it is, there's a more challenging and immersive option which is to use mumble.
Cowards and lazy gits will continue to use VOIP cos its easier. Ergo imo; Exploit. why don't we just remove deviation and put the minimap back for these pansies aswell?

Christ mumble is a beta and there's so many folk who just cba to try to help progress its developement cos it's too hard or the enemy will hear us, or cos i'm an idle tossbag.

Really gets on my nerves, mumble rocks

Sadist_Cain wrote:Really gets on my nerves, mumble rocks

Yeah Cain, Mumble does rock but it gets on my nerves when people have it voice activated.

If you use VOIP, which you still do aswell dude, and you have Mumble on voice activation, we all hear your voice twice due to the latency on in game VOIP, thus making it difficult to understand what you're sayin and that's without adding the fact that you've had a lil' smoke before hand.

Sadist_Cain wrote: ...
a VERY GOOD idea would be to make it so that whenver VOIP is held down, you can't fire your weapon, I don't know if anyone can operate a radio and fire a weapon at the same time but one assumes it's be difficult.

It is possible, but then you would stand with the handphone/headset and pushing the transmit button with your left and holding the gun tucked against your shoulder with the right arm. This if you are a right eyed gunner that is. So all in all, possible. But not with any decent accuracy over range. But you could sure as hell shoot someone close range.

Something you could possible use is the same effect sprinting has on the gun, when you place it closer towards your cheast.

I'd get it but I don't like the word "mumble."

Yes!! REALISM BEATS EFFECIENCY
I just wish there was some way to use the thing that registers how loudly you're talking to determine how far the audio should transmit, so if you're yelling into the microphone it should go 70m, but if you're just talking normally or whispering it only goes 5m etc.

Sgt.Smeg wrote:Yeah Cain, Mumble does rock but it gets on my nerves when people have it voice activated.

If you use VOIP, which you still do aswell dude, and you have Mumble on voice activation, we all hear your voice twice due to the latency on in game VOIP, thus making it difficult to understand what you're sayin and that's without adding the fact that you've had a lil' smoke before hand.

But it's Cain! Cain dammit! CAIN!!!
As he well knows I just mute his Voip ingame using the Manage tab. It gives me the feeling of "Switching the radio on" as it were when he goes out of range.

Sadist_Cain wrote: The other things these folk will do is just use VOIP then the enemy can't hear you. a VERY GOOD idea would be to make it so that whenver VOIP is held down, you can't fire your weapon, I don't know if anyone can operate a radio and fire a weapon at the same time but one assumes it's be difficult.

If you remember the doctored "post Abu Ghraib" photos that brought down Piers Morgon, you'll remember one of the "errors" that gave them away as fakes was that the SA-80s in them were "the wrong version." This was visible due to the presence / absence of a radio-transmit button built into the weapon.

Clearly it would be quite possible to talk "on-the-gun" so to speak, although I can't see anyone concentrating on shooting and having a sensible VOIP conversation at the same time anyway, so that's balanced with real life as it stands, I believe.