Author Topic: add a new function in 1.3.2  (Read 1253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ~SyAoRaN~

  • Major(1)
  • Posts: 2
add a new function in 1.3.2
« on: January 16, 2007, 03:08:45 am »
Here's a Suggestion:Microphones are allowed to use in 1.3.2
Any one thought this?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 03:11:42 am by ~SyAoRaN~ »

Offline Toumaz

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
Re: add a new function in 1.3.2
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2007, 03:15:06 am »
No. It ain't worth all the work (I'd bet that adding voice-over chat would be a toughie to program).

Just use Teamspeak or Ventrilo instead.

Offline ~SyAoRaN~

  • Major(1)
  • Posts: 2
Re: add a new function in 1.3.2
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2007, 03:19:35 am »
My idea is almost yours.I only want to add teamspeak cause it's useful for clan war

Offline The Red Guy

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: add a new function in 1.3.2
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2007, 03:56:07 am »
Use Teamspeak then.

Offline Fitzpatrick

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Re: add a new function in 1.3.2
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2007, 04:42:18 am »
Your idea would be useful, no doubt.
But I don't think MM has the time for coding it.
I think, if someone were to make a "clone" of soldat, this would be a feature that should be included.
But as it stands now, I don't see it happening.
But hopefully MM proves me wrong! =)
Fitzpatrick

Offline Cube

  • Camper
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Go Cube go!
    • Cube's Portal
Re: add a new function in 1.3.2
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2007, 09:52:29 am »
the idea is good, but think twice. it owns for fps shooters where tactic kills all skills. soldat is a game moved by skill and fast moving. no time to voice-chat.

but still nice idea, a teamspeak-compatibility for soldat would own ( i mean that you join a server and join the ts-server too)
Hmm, any idea what to write here?

Offline FliesLikeABrick

  • Administrator
  • Flamebow Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6144
    • Ultimate 13 Soldat
Re: add a new function in 1.3.2
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2007, 11:04:55 am »
The replies here have pretty much covered all of the alternatives and all of the reasons why it won't be implemented.