Niclas Fredriksson wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Mark Mielke wrote:
>> Niclas Fredriksson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, Mark Mielke wrote
>>>> It is a team sport, though, and having separate plays isolated from each 
>>>> other is a bit anti-team
>>> This comment of yours is a comment on netrek, not the audio part. It's a 
>>> fact that there are several separate plays going on continuously in netrek.
>> No - I don't think so. Team messages have been fine for tracking team 
>> efforts for over a decade.
> You're ignoring the difference between written and spoken communication in
> netrek:
> - For most people (everyone but the super clue) written communication in 
> netrek is not received (read) by everyone at the same time. Most people 
> read messages when they have the time.

This is because people are lazy - not because they wouldn't benefit from 
hearing the messages sooner.

Voice communication, being MORE EFFICIENT, can be received in near real 
time, without creating a hinderance. It relies on people staying on 
topic, and not interrupting with stories about blisters on their toes or 
whatever that nobody wants to hear anyways. :-)

> - Written communication is very many times faster to receive (read), 
> especially in netrek.

No it isn't.

> - Written communication can be filtered much more effectively (by RCD's 
> for instance).

Voice should not replace text. For data that might need to be 
referenced, it should certainly stay on text, and keep the voice channel 

> - Written communication in netrek is independent of things like dialects, 
> speech impediments, non-native English speakers, etc.

This is an argument against audio altogether - it is not an argument 
that multiple channels are required.

> Voice messages only will never be enough to (as you say) "tracking team 
> efforts". If you had ever played a netrek game using voice communciation 
> this would be more apparent to you. Voice messages can only be seen as a 
> compliment to written messages and a very poor one as such.

The effectiveness of a person at communication has little to do with the 
medium. Great communicators can use both effectively. Most people, 
cannot type as fast as they can speak. Most people, communicate more 
effectively with voice. I challenge your claim - I've played fun team 
games where the members of the team sat in the same room, and we talked 
over top of the monitors. If you can't perform team communication with 
your voice - I suggest practice. :-)

>> Voice is more efficient.
> This is not true in netrek. In netrek, written communication is extremely 
> more efficient than voice dito.

No it isn't. The proof is simple - newbies don't read messages. They 
need to learn to use text, and even then, people don't read what they 
write until seconds or more later. The most effective netrek players are 
right on top of the message window - but the most effective netrek 
players would also be on top of a voice channel. You are not performing 
a legitimate comparison. Voice is active and in real time - text is 
passive and read in batch. It is true that some content is more 
effective in each, but it is not true that "written is extremely more 
efficient than voice". You are incorrect.

> How can you even begin to claim that voice communication in netrek is more 
> efficient? Ctrl-T on the keyboard instead of holding the "send message 
> button" and saying "Ok guys, I'm now carrying five armies to orgus, no 
> sorry I mean Organia. Is anyone up for giving me an escort? Hello? Do you 
> guys have sound activated?".

If that's the only message you send ... sure.

>> If you isolate voice - you end up with people NOT getting important team 
>> messages.
> Why? What kind of important messages? Have people missed important team 
> messages for the past 15 years due to not having voice communication?


>> If the team captain says something important, and isn't heard, because 
>> you are off doing your own thing on a separate channel - whose fault is 
>> that?
> What if the team captain says something important and you miss it because 
> there are seven other guys on the channel and you don't recognize his 
> voice and even if you could recognize it you can't hear it over supervisor 
> swearing at everyone for not escorting his cloaking DD+5 to KLI?
> Like I said earlier, voice communication is a good idea. It would give 
> people a chance to chat and give the game a more social feel. But it will 
> never be able to replace written communication in netrek, and the game 
> play situations where voice communication is helpful (and slightly 
> superior to written dito) can be counted on the fingers of your right 
> hand.

You squelch the people that don't follow protocol.

I think this is a problem of imagination and tradition. Because you've 
relied on written for so long, people have made written more efficient. 
This does not mean voice is not a healthy complement, and it does not 
mean we *need* multiple channels.

I've lost what point you are arguing. The point I disagreed with you on 
is that we need multiple channels.

You have changed the debate into efficiency of voice vs text. I don't 
care to debate the value of voice - everybody else in the world knows 
that voice is valuable. It's done. Text is also valuable and has evolved 
to a point of efficiency in netrek out of necessity. This is also done. 
There is nothing for us to debate here.


Mark Mielke <mark at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...