IRC Chat vs TacOps Chat

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

TacOps has a TCP/IP network chat window for game coordination but it is a bare bones tool and it only works after a player has successfully found and joined a TacOps network game session. It is far better to augment the limited chat window in TacOps by using an IRC network and an IRC chat program to conduct pregame as well as in-game coordination.

Typically someone who wants to host a TacOps network game session on the Internet will establish a #tacops IRC channel on one of the IRC networks for use as a game coordination mechanism. The existence of this channel and the network that it is on is usually communicated to the players by email or other means prior to game startup.

At the very least, the IRC channel will be used to communicate the IP address that will be used for the TacOps game and to coordinate game joining and setup by the host and the players. More sophisticated game sessions usually include additional private channels for use by player teams to discuss plans and tactics out of view of the enemy team.

- - - - -

Quick Start.

IRC (Internet Relay Chat ) is an Internet based system that allows computer users to exchange typed text messages in real time with one or more persons.

IRC is easier to do than it is to explain. Don't think about it - just do the following.

1. Download one of the following IRC programs.

Windows: "mIRC" from <www.mirc.com>.

Macintsosh: "Ircle" from <www. Ircle.com> or "Snak" from <www.snak.com>.

2. Install the program. Accept all default values.

3. Run the program and click on the most prominent buttons. Pick an IRC network (first try one with "IRCnet" in the title) and go exploring. There are people talking somewhere, 24/7. Find them, join them, listen in.

4. If the above doesn't work then send a message to the TacOps mailing list asking for help. - - - - -

A Bit More Information.

Internet Relay Chat (IRC) - System and Clients.

Visit www.irchelp.org for more detailed info on IRC and on IRC clients. Some of what follows is summarized material from that site.

IRC (Internet Relay Chat) provides a way of communicating in real time with people from all over the world. It consists of various separate networks (or "nets") of IRC servers, machines that allow users to connect to IRC. The largest nets are EFnet (the original IRC net, often having more than 32,000 people at once), Undernet, IRCnet, DALnet, and NewNet.

IRC (Internet Relay Chat) is a multi-user, multi-channel, text chatting system that enables a computer user to exchange typed messages with either one person or many other people from all over the Internet, in real time. IRC is based on a client-server model. You run a client program on your own computer which connects you to a server computer on the Internet. These servers link to many other servers to make up an IRC network, which transport messages from one user (client) to another. In this manner, people from all over the world can talk to each other live and simultaneously.

Generally, the user (such as you) runs a program (called a "client") to connect to a server on one of the IRC nets. The server relays information to and from other servers on the same net.

Once connected to an IRC server on an IRC network, you will usually join one or more "channels" and converse with others there. Conversations may be public (where everyone in a channel can see what you type) or private (messages between only two people, who may or may not be on the same channel). You can compare conversations on a channel to a conversation among a group of people: you see/hear everything that is said, and you can reply to anything that's said.

All you need is an Internet Service Provider to get you connected to the Internet (if you're reading this email then you're already connected), and an IRC client program. The standard IRC client programs (for use with TacOps) are mIRC for the Windows operating system, and Ircle or Snak for Macintosh. These clients are shareware with a 30 day free trial. Users are strongly encouraged to pay the client's author the requested modest registration fee. Setup and usage instructions are included with each client.

MIRC can be downloaded from <www.mirc.com>,

Ircle can be downloaded from <www.Ircle.com>.

Snak can be downloaded from <www.snak.com>.

[Krinks]

For a really interesting twist on the chat issue, I wonder if anyone has tried playing games using things like BattleCom, or Roger Wilco, or other such internet voice communications to simulate radio. I used to play Rogue Spear online with a bunch of people using BattleCom, and it worked great since you can have separate channels for each team. Or you can run each team on a separate server, using differend channels for Artillery, Infantry, Armour, etc... I'd love to get in on a CPX game using something like that. And it'd be much easier to communicate rather than having to worry about typing all of your commands.

[Slaggg]

Now THAT's a good idea. Hmmmmmm, I wonder.....

[Redwolf]

To many non-native English speakers in the CPX'es

I actually though it would be cool to have an attack scenario where the defenders had like two weeks of planning and a real HQ staff and is getting attacked by an unwashed mass with 15 minutes of preparation (in 10:1 superiority ). I guess voice comm for the defender and IRC for the attacker would spice that up some more.

I am not sure what the network connection says. TacOps4 is somewhat sensitive about network hickups, and lower Windows variants are pretty bad in distributing the CPU to competing processes and most TacOps players have crappy PCs (or Macs).

[Krinks]

If it helps to know, my computer is distinctly middle-of-the-line (these days lower-middle). When I played games like Rogue Spear, SWAT 3, or Delta Force: Land Warrior, Battlecom caused almost no trouble whatsoever. It's such a low CPU/RAM requirement that it's basically a non-issue, even with my crappy Celeron. And the sound quality is pretty good with BC as well.

[James Sterrett]

Roger Wilco is a great progam - but the trouble comes from two sources:

- When too many people are on the line, it's hard to sequence who talks next. If multiple people speak at once, you get garbage. As a result, text comms are in some respects *more* efficient, because they continue simultaneously, on multiple tracks, and because you can scroll back to double-check things you might have missed.

- When you have an umpire who wants to be talking to both teams, it's a bit of a pain to be logging into one team channel and then the other, back and forth, guessing at when a given team needs attention. On IRC, the umpire can have all the team chat-rooms open and simply read the text as it appears (or scroll up to see what has been missed.)

[LibertyOrDeath]

Is Roger Wilco similar to Yahoo Chat? Yahoo Chat has the capability to display text and broadcast voice comm messages.

[ October 10, 2002, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: LibertyOrDeath ]

[LibertyOrDeath]

Originally posted by Krinks:

I used to play Rogue Spear online with a bunch of people using BattleCom, and it worked great since you can have separate channels for each team.

I used to play Delta Force 2 with voice comm. I would pair up with another sniper and stalk our opponents, informing each other where the targets are. It was great fun. But voice comm wasn't used often because of limited bandwidth and network lag. Most players still preferred text messages. TacOps players, on the other hand, would probably benefit a great deal more from voice comm because the file sizes are much smaller and it doesn't need a continuous stream of data, at least from what I understand.

[Slaggg]

After observing Saturday's CPX, I could see how using voice comm could help in certain factors, namly calling for fire missions and giving spot reports. It could not only add an element of 'realism' to the game, but also make relating grid coordinates and unit disposition a bit faster. I agree that the potential for everyone to speak at the same time, rendering comm ineffective, is there, but if a few protocols are adhered to, there shouldn't be a problem. As for the umpire, he needn't be in on the channels, any comm between him and the players can be, and probably should be, carried out via IRC to lessen confusion.

[James Sterrett]

The umpire wants to be on the channels because reading the player's planning and confusion is half of the umpires' fun!

I'm not at all convinced voice comms would work better -- but if a team wants to try it sometime, I can run the scenario, and I do have Roger Wilco running.

I suspect you'll find some things come through better - flash reports - but that there is also a huge overhead of repeated traffic for grids and the like, which would go faster by text where people can simply look again instead of repeating a request.

If we do this experiment, the RW side should be pure voice, no text comms at all, so as to see the full impact.

[Slaggg]

I can see both of your points, and agree an experiment is needed.

[bvark]

Hi!

I figured it was time to decloak and look at the forums since my copy of Tacops4 has just been ordered.

I run a battlefield 1942 clan (2nd world war combined arms shooter), which regularly has 12-16 players per team, and after MUCH argument we've found teamspeak (http://www.teamspeak.org) to be the superior voice comms solution for audio quality, price (free), and features.

It allows keyboard shortcuts to hop between different channels, and creating your own (passworded) channels on the fly, as well as 'whispering' to people or channels. It supports a Unix based server for client-server comms (which scales _far_ better than the peer-to-peer comms of rogerwilco), and works acceptably on a 56K modem (although most of the clan have DSL).

Voice discipline is a pretty important part of it, and I agree that we need text based comms as well, but for discussion rather than detailed orders (and for a healthy bit of banter!), we find voice comms to be an invaluable bonus, particularly as you don't need to take your focus off the game (which of course is more of an issue in an FPS).

If I get time to attend a future CPX (and my copy of tacops 4 shows up , I'll host the Unix server on my colocated box (in Germany, but reasonable connection to the US), and that can be included in people's testing of solutions.

cheers,

bvark / phil sykes (3rd rate tacops v1 player, 1996/7

[Redwolf]

Most TacOpsers are married. I wonder how much longer that stays that way when they start shouting their commands through the apartment block.

But then, most probably do so without microphone anyway

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

Something else to remember on the voice comms is that a good number of TacOps CPX gamers are Mac users.

Most voice packages leave them out.

[Slaggg]

Too true I'm afraid. However Roger Wilco does have a Mac version Beta build available. No support for it, but hey if it works it works, and if it doesn't.... Roger Wilco also offers a seperate app called Team Wilco, allows the user set up multiple channels, switching easily between, very much like the prog bvark mentioned. But then, that's just that much more the ump has on his plate.