Poll for removal of ACE hearing

Any Topics related to the No.2 Server
Post Reply

Do you want ACE hearing to be disabled by default on Server 2?

Yes
13
45%
No
8
28%
I don't care
8
28%
 
Total votes: 29

User avatar
Swede
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:48 pm
Contact:

Poll for removal of ACE hearing

Post by Swede »

EDIT: The poll has been edited, the question now is whether you want ACE hearing to be disabled by default on the server, the mission maker can override this if they wish. For more info check out Dmitry Yuri's post below. Re-voting is now allowed (edited 2018-05-27 20:16)

This is something i have been whining about for some time and after a suggestion from Wombat I'm staring a poll to see how others feel about this. For those unaware, ACE hearing is the deafness mechanics/earplugs that comes with ACE3.

It is basically impossible to play without using earplugs atm due to the size of our games, as soon as the platoon or a vehicle starts firing if you don't have your earplugs in you are going to go deaf, meaning that it is basically a requirement to constantly use earplugs. To not use the earplugs is to render yourself combat ineffective and unable to coordinate with your squad.

All our missions provide us with earplugs, those that don't are deemed bugged and not played. What this means is that all ACE hearing is currently doing is reducing your game volume by 25% (that's what the earplugs do), 50% if a vehicle crewman (crew helm). It provides nothing else, just the reduction of the game volume. Some might argue it is realistic to be forced to use the earplugs but i would counter that today earplugs exist that filter louder noises such as gunfire and explosions while not dampening speech, i suspect armies nowadays use these.

What mostly happens now is that some forget to put them in and in the first firefight of the mission get a rude reminder and put them in, or the more unlucky have for one reason or another not received their earplugs (faulty gear due to mission or perhaps JIP) and are forced to suffer until a friendly unit dies so they can take theirs.

I just don't see this part of ACE adding anything positive to our sessions. At best it just lowers our game volume without providing any benefits and at worst it can completely ruin one or multiple peoples game night.

Rant done, do people feel that there is some truth to what I'm saying or am I just being a whingy cunt?
Last edited by Swede on Sun May 27, 2018 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dmitry Yuri
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll for removal of ACE hearing

Post by Dmitry Yuri »

Ace is fairly modular so removing ace_hearing from @ZAce is probably possible.

However, the config for the earplug item and more importantly the depreciated settings module are held within this pbo. If we remove it then any mission with the hearing module in it will not be able to load. Any virtual arsenal loadouts people have saved that contain earplugs will no longer be able to be loaded. I don't think gear scripts would break as attempting to add an item that does not exist does not produce an error.

I think there are some other things we can do before we resort to the nuclear option anyway. Personally I don't want to remove functionality that could potentially be useful in some mission concepts, even if 99.9% of our missions could have this feature removed and nobody would even realise.

A few months ago ACE3 switched to CBA settings for its... settings. This allows us to have server defined defaults for these settings that mission makers can override if they want to, or forced server settings that (mostly) cannot be overridden.

ace hearing has a few settings that we can play with. One of them turns the system off.

ace_hearing_enableCombatDeafness = false;

We could have this as a server default. Because as you pointed out the earplugs don't really have any additional gameplay benefit in the vast majority of cases. This setting would not break any current missions and would disable the combat deafness system, provided that the mission maker has not set their hearing settings to override the server defined value. If we wanted to we could make this a forced server setting.

there are also settings for the effects volume reduction of earplugs. By default this is set to 0.5. But if we defined the default or forced the setting to 1 then the earplugs would not reduce the effects volume at all.

ace_hearing_earplugsVolume = 1;

We can also disable ear ringing. If we wanted to.

ace_hearing_disableEarRinging = true;


Even if nothing is done to the addon pack, mission makers still have access to these settings and can define these options however they want.
A personal favourite of mine is to set ace_hearing_earplugsVolume to 0 so that when you have earplugs in you can't hear anything. But if you take them out you go deaf when you fire your weapon xD
Cobra.
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:31 am
Location: Sagittarius A*
Contact:

Re: Poll for removal of ACE hearing

Post by Cobra. »

What are you saying? I can't hear you over this game play enhancing feature!
[3:33 PM] BOTMEE6: Hey @Cobra! Please don't use bad words!
[3:33 PM] BOTMEE6: Hey, sorry about this but... you got banned from Zeus by MEE6#4876 for 'Too many infractions..'

please do not swear on my christian youth server.
User avatar
Swede
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll for removal of ACE hearing

Post by Swede »

If the new swap to CBA settings by ACE allows us to just by default disable it and then the mission maker can override that and use it if they please then i actually prefer that option rather than simply removing ace hearing now that i know about it. Thanks for the info Dmitry
Rory
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll for removal of ACE hearing

Post by Rory »

You might want to add that option to the poll. I voted no but would vote yes to that option.
User avatar
Swede
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll for removal of ACE hearing

Post by Swede »

Poll and top post has been edited. Voting yes to remove it has been replaced with making it disabled by default on the server, re-voting has been activated.
lawman
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll for removal of ACE hearing

Post by lawman »

How does a mission maker override ACE settings?
It used to be done with modules but last I checked these were gone and I haven't figured out how it works now
Dmitry Yuri
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll for removal of ACE hearing

Post by Dmitry Yuri »

lawman wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:12 pm How does a mission maker override ACE settings?
It used to be done with modules but last I checked these were gone and I haven't figured out how it works now
At the top of the editor you have a category for `settings`. At the bottom of that list you have an option called `addon options`.
All of the ACE settings and ACRE settings are in there.

The system isn't very intuitive and someone should probably write a document that is easier to follow than the CBA github page on it.
CBA Settings System

Basically the settings you want to change are in the mission tab. Those stay with the mission. There are some red exclamation marks to the right of each option, if you hover over them you will get a tooltip stating whether the setting is overridden by the server or the client. But if you tick the override box then your mission settings take priority. You should "generally"leave any option that says overridden by clients as these are things that the client should have the option to change if they want eg; ui size, interaction display method, pain display method etc..

If you press the load button at the bottom of the settings window you can load saved settings, you should have an entry in there for the #2 server as those settings get saved to your client whenever you join a CBA enabled server. You can load those settings to see what our server defaults are and then change what you want to.
lawman
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll for removal of ACE hearing

Post by lawman »

Thanks Dmitry, that's good to know.

In light of that, I can see it being sensible to have it off by default but to keep the facility there in cases where it is pertinent to mission concept, since it is likely there will be fewer cases of the latter than the former.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests