<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Niclas Fredriksson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0804071646370.21526@shaka.acc.umu.se"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Mark Mielke wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Niclas Fredriksson wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, Mark Mielke wrote</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is a team sport, though, and having separate plays isolated from each
other is a bit anti-team</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">No - I don't think so. Team messages have been fine for tracking team
efforts for over a decade.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is because people are lazy - not because they wouldn't benefit
from hearing the messages sooner.<br>
<br>
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. :-)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0804071646370.21526@shaka.acc.umu.se"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- Written communication is very many times faster to receive (read),
especially in netrek.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
No it isn't.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0804071646370.21526@shaka.acc.umu.se"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
- Written communication can be filtered much more effectively (by RCD's
for instance).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Voice should not replace text. For data that might need to be
referenced, it should certainly stay on text, and keep the voice
channel clear.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0804071646370.21526@shaka.acc.umu.se"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- Written communication in netrek is independent of things like dialects,
speech impediments, non-native English speakers, etc.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is an argument against audio altogether - it is not an argument
that multiple channels are required.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0804071646370.21526@shaka.acc.umu.se"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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. :-)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0804071646370.21526@shaka.acc.umu.se"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Voice is more efficient.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This is not true in netrek. In netrek, written communication is extremely
more efficient than voice dito.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0804071646370.21526@shaka.acc.umu.se"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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?".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
If that's the only message you send ... sure.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0804071646370.21526@shaka.acc.umu.se"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If you isolate voice - you end up with people NOT getting important team
messages.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Why? What kind of important messages? Have people missed important team
messages for the past 15 years due to not having voice communication?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.GSO.4.64.0804071646370.21526@shaka.acc.umu.se"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
You squelch the people that don't follow protocol.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I've lost what point you are arguing. The point I disagreed with you on
is that we need multiple channels.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
mark<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark Mielke <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@mielke.cc"><mark@mielke.cc></a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>