Descent : Underground. Did anyone here knew about this?

ReadyMan · Post by **ReadyMan** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:41 pm

WM answered my question on the KS forums whether there would be Tri-Chording or not.
Yes, there will be tri-chording!

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:06 pm

Krom wrote:Not to mention all the extra pay to win stuff is going to make the game a lot more complicated.

pay to win? really?

/vomit.

Won't touch it.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:03 pm

I had an hour-long meeting with the CEO this morning. I'm convinced enough to back the project at one of the highest levels.

It's really clear that Eric (WM) loves Descent. I mean, the way he described the transition from D1/D2 to D3 and his frustration at the larger spaces and how they affected the "dance" of combat... he's a legit fan. Maybe not a great player, I don't know, but somebody who cares about Descent and really wants to get it right.

He was pretty explicit that there will be trichording, he wants the ship to fly like D1/D2 and not like D3 (and definitely not like Forsaken or Miner Wars), and he wants to have a "classic" Descent Anarchy mode, as well as a SP campaign and interesting bots.

Yeah, there's going to be a larger game with team-vs-team, specialized mining ships, potentially the ability to pay for powerups (but he's also insistent that microtransactions are for bling/cosmetic bonuses, and that everything functional can be unlocked by playing.) But I'm convinced they're going to put real Descent at least in one corner of this game, with little taint from any of the BS. And Drakona and I are going to be doing our best to make sure that part of the game is good. (You should read the featured post to see what we mean by that.)

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:02 am

Lothar wrote:...he wants the ship to fly like D1/D2 and not like D3...

You mean a ship that actually has some weight to it? I hated the D3 Pyro. Felt like I was flying in a paper bag.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 4:58 am

Lothar wrote:... the way he described the transition from D1/D2 to D3 and his frustration at the larger spaces and how they affected the "dance" of combat... he's a legit fan. Maybe not a great player, I don't know, but somebody who cares about Descent and really wants to get it right.

I find it very comforting that you and Drakona have stepped up in the way that you have, Lothar, but just as an outside observer I want you to know that this sounds like your own words coming back at you. I think Descent fans should fund this project and contribute to it as much as possible as long as there is hope that it won't suck, but let's not be deceived into thinking it is our own if it isn't. Talk is talk, and there is a large space between enthusiasm and execution, and so far this project is largely built up of enthusiasm. But remember that it's not only old-school Descenter enthusiasm, but Star Citizen, ... I just want to say that I hope they KNOW that it's Descent they're making, because the temptation for a developer to try to make their mark, so to speak, on the gaming world using such an established name, but with substance that may not be true to the spirit of the game is there. It takes a special effort not to go there (not to detract from the Underground project, but this special effort has clearly been made by Sol Contingency). Any one of us could take our gaming experience and pour it into a new "Descent" that ends up being a far cry from what Descent actually is... Anyway, on that note, again, good on you guys for the contribution. Way to go!

Hunter · Post by **Hunter** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 5:51 am

pay to win? really?

/vomit.

Won't touch it.

I think the idea is that any upgrades you can purchase ingame can also be purchased out of game - so it gives people who can't play all the time (i.e several hours a week) the ability to augment their ships. But that doesn't mean you can't earn them ingame, too.

Right now it's just all talk - but backing this project is pretty important for the future of Descent, and the popularity of the series will increase with it, IMHO.

homeyduh · Post by **homeyduh** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 7:48 am

The way I see it, if this project isn't what you guys really want, and is full of money making schemes and microtransactions, you guys backing it will basically let the devs know that this is what you want because your money is your vote. Throw enough money at them and they'll think that this is what the future of Descent *should* be. We as a community should really be careful with what we find because we may end up shooting ourselves in the foot for funding a project that is dubious to start with Because that vote will tell them that'd it's ok to taint the name of the game we so love with all these extras/MOBA elements. I would prefer this game not get funded if it's going to ruin the Descent rep because at least then Interplay will be more willing to give fans who really want to make a good true Descent game a chance instead of hitting them with a C&D.

ReadyMan · Post by **ReadyMan** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:04 am

Interplay is always going to follow the money (what's left of it for them). SolC wasnt giving Interplay any money, and Interplay doesnt care about them and never would unless they paid.
Interestingly, SoC is STILL going to be released, which will provide another aspect of Descent for new/old pilots to experience--further promoting the game. It's a positive situation for all Descenters.

This is the opportunity to see a mainstream Descent game, and if this fails, likely there wont be
another attempt (if the KS fails, then that sends a message that there is no interest, and who's going to want to start a project after that?).

From all I've read, there isnt a "pay to win" aspect at all. Purchase a ship with money, or unlock it ingame---it's all the same. You know we'll all have everything unlocked in no time.

The gaming industry has changed significantly and for a game to succeed and have longevity, the business model had to change also.
Flight sims are a good example of this....and shows how continued development can be supported.

I specifically asked WM about the pricing of the game and if there will be a need to continue to pay after the initial purchase.
Here's his reply:
You can pay once and never pay again, everything can be earned by playing

So Ferno and Krom, It doesnt appear that your fears of "pay to win" are a concern.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:05 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Lothar wrote:... the way he described the transition from D1/D2 to D3 and his frustration at the larger spaces and how they affected the "dance" of combat... he's a legit fan. Maybe not a great player, I don't know, but somebody who cares about Descent and really wants to get it right.
just as an outside observer I want you to know that this sounds like your own words coming back at you.

You're observing my summary, not the actual conversation. I was there. He wasn't just parroting our ideas back; he was making original statements of a similar theme but with different content. The details he described were very much "yeah, this guy actually played Descent and got bothered by this thing" rather than "this guy read that I was bothered by stuff and made something up to be bothered by".

homeyduh wrote:they'll think that this is what the future of Descent *should* be

WingMan has a pretty strong reputation as a game developer who listens to community input. I was pretty skeptical, but the way he approached me suggests this reputation is deserved. Which means we're in prime position to shape the future of Descent.

Personally, I don't mind if they build a huge team-based game built around Descent flight mechanics, with ship classes and mining and upgrade trees. It could actually become a good game in its own right. As long as there's a pure form of Descent that we can play without intrusion from that stuff. Just like I don't mind that other Descent titles had some game modes I don't particularly care for (bounty, hoard, instareap, entropy -- good concept, not real fun in practice) because I don't have to play those game modes.

ReadyMan · Post by **ReadyMan** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:14 am

Lothar--For the record, I dont agree with you or Drakona's opinions about D1 being better than D3.
I enjoyed D3 just as much (not necessarily more) than D1. I like the afterburner, and I liked the MD.
I also like that if level designers didnt want a certain weapon, they didnt have to include it.
I like the hit boxes and sizes of D3 better than D1....

I do agree with your statement that options are what makes for a good game. Yes, let's have various types of games, just like D2/D3, and people can play what they like.

BTW, Hoard and Entropy were SUPER FUN! (Entropy being by far the best gaming mode I've played in any game).

Pumo · Post by **Pumo** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:33 am

ReadyMan wrote:I...This is the opportunity to see a mainstream Descent game, and if this fails, likely there wont be
another attempt (if the KS fails, then that sends a message that there is no interest, and who's going to want to start a project after that?).

From all I've read, there isnt a "pay to win" aspect at all. Purchase a ship with money, or unlock it ingame---it's all the same. You know we'll all have everything unlocked in no time...

...I specifically asked WM about the pricing of the game and if there will be a need to continue to pay after the initial purchase.
Here's his reply:
You can pay once and never pay again, everything can be earned by playing

This. Pay attention to this as it seems there are lot of unfounded misunderstandings regardin D:U.

And BTW, I do agree that D1 is the best of all the Descent titles, but D3 was not that bad. Even if it had some issues is still one of my favorite games around and it was pretty good.

Also check this post of mine: http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?p=348497#p348497
As it seems some users here didn't pay attention to it.

I do have more hope on SolC and I'm sure I may enjoy it even more than D:U, but I'm not liking this negativity I found everywhere in regard to D:U, That's not cool at all!!

I would also recommend to support this project!
The more projects the better, show some love to our beloved franchise, don't let their KS campaign fail!

I support both SolC and D:U, even if I have a clear favorite (SolC).
Both projects deserve to exist!

Just because we don't like Interplay doesn't means we have to bash Descendent Studios as developers, what Interplay made to SolC is not their fault!

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:04 pm

I think that's well said, PUMO. I have to take a step back to look at this objectively, because I've got a lot of hope pinned on SolC, and when I first saw the announcement I was heated! I think I made a few assumptions that aren't necessarily correct, so I've been trying to be sure that I'm being fair about it. I think the truth is that the nature and size of the Descent: Underground project is going to be a boon to SolC, and I suggested as much on their forum. Unfortunately it must be admitted that it will also divide dilute the community. I've been hoping that there might be some way around that division (maybe mod communities that benefit from each other, ...), but it's not looking like it so far. A success for Underground would be great for the Descent series and community, and a success for Sol Contingency would be awesome!

Lothar wrote:You're observing my summary, not the actual conversation.

It's worse than that! I'm observing your summary on a less than ideal sized monitor 3 feet away from an uncomfortable couch on an empty stomach having only had 5 hours of sleep! To top it off my long-distance psychic powers seem to be dormant. What was I thinking!

I figured you were probably satisfied with his sincerity, but there's a lot riding on this and what's unsaid is unsaid. Thanks!

Pumo · Post by **Pumo** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:00 pm

I would like to add another quick reference to make clear that there's not pay-to-win (said by a developer of D:U): http://descendentstudios.com/community/ ... on/?p=8466

And yeah, better to look at things objectively. At the end we may have the chance to get two cool 6DOF games to enjoy and that's good news isn't it?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 5:41 pm

Woah! Just came across this red letter thread on their forums... The Genisis of the Pyro - to add or not to add - that is the question.

VOTING CLOSES MONDAY!

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 7:30 pm

ReadyMan wrote:So Ferno and Krom, It doesnt appear that your fears of "pay to win" are a concern.

That's a real relief, Ready. Maybe I can back this one after all, if both you and Lothar are giving it the nod.

BTW: good seeing you both again here.

homeyduh · Post by **homeyduh** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 7:49 pm

$100 for Pyro, $30 for Pyro, or eventually we'll get a pyro maybe? Is that right?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 7:52 pm

It would be a travesty to have to pay extra to be able to fly a pyro in Descent. Almost a joke there. Luckily the talk in the thread is leaning very much against it, as is the voting.

Edited my last post--voting ends Monday, not "tomorrow".

homeyduh · Post by **homeyduh** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 8:41 pm

He's a hardcore Descent fan, in touch with the community, yet he has to ask if we want a Pyro? Or if we do, how much we're willing to fork over for something that we kinda expect in Descent. Look, I may be a SolC dev, but in all honesty, it's hard for me to like DU. Not because the C&D nor because the competition (I'm more than happy to support Sublevel Zero, even though it doesn't have the greatest graphics...ITS A FREAKING PROCEDURALLY GENERATED 6DOF GAME!), but because the plans they have for DU don't appeal to me. MOBA, pay for pyro, etc don't jive well with me.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 8:54 pm

homeyduh wrote:He's a hardcore Descent fan, in touch with the community, yet he has to ask if we want a Pyro?

I never called him "hardcore", I called him "legit", which is not quite the same thing. He's clearly a fan of Descent gameplay and wants to recreate that, but he's not going to beat me in a 1v1.

I don't think he's been in touch with this community. But he has a rep as being willing to listen to the community -- and now that he knows we exist, he's listening to us. That's why he's moved away from "pay for pyro" and toward "pyro is included; special paintjob for pyro as kickstarter stretch goal". (Had that clarified in the meeting, though he threatened to kick me out if I mentioned "spinning rims" ever again.) The one caveat is that the Pyro-GX actually belongs to Parallax, not Interplay, so he can't include it in its exact form in this game. It'll be a "precursor to the pyro" with very similar styling, but probably a different name. (We should try to get it named "Ferno"...)

ReadyMan · Post by **ReadyMan** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 9:17 pm

Yes, Lothar has it right. If you read through the poll thread, WingMan makes it pretty clear that the Pyro will be for EVERYONE, but something special (probably a specialized skin) for those that backed the project before release.
WingMan also stated that the Pyro is already in development, so they knew it was going to be there, just werent sure on how/when to introduce it.

The posts by the devs, and especially their 20 minute live cast, make it clear that they want to tell the origins of the PTMC, how the robots got loose/took over, and how the ships got from what we see in the video-- to the Pyro in D1.(I'm not super excited about the current ship looks, but yeah, it's a work-in-progress, so it should look much more better soon --50,000-60,000 polys for each ship according to their live feed cast!)
The Pyro they are going to introduce will be the precursor to the D1 Pyro (similar but different).

The more I read and see, the more I'm impressed by the efforts being put forth.
I think this one's gonna be good....and it's been a long 16 year wait, so let's hope that it is!

Yeah, good to see you too Ferno!
I got DatGuy to even watch the video the other night...looks like he's gonna be a backer as well.

Hopefully this'll also bring a lot of the old crew out of the woodwork (SickOne, Bash, Birds, Rock, KB, and even the heinous villain himself--Vander!).

For $30, it's worth it to see it materialize. The nostalgia alone of seeing so many familiar pilots come together is definitely worth the price of admission.

Pumo · Post by **Pumo** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 9:56 pm

Good to see this change in attitude Ferno!

If this keeps going like that we will be having a new official Descent title AND a great Descent-based title for all in no time!
Developers needs support from us the users/players/consumers to motivate them, and that will make them to make better products.

I will totally support both D:Underground and Sol Contingency !

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:37 pm

Just a comment on "in touch with the community" per homeyduh. If any of you want to know just where these guys are coming from I would recommend getting into their website and their videos. I spent several hours (4+) today watching videos and reading posts. No they're definitely not originating from this community. I'm pretty sure they don't even know about this BB. My impression so far is they're basically open-space devs from the open-space and game-making communities that are also casual Descent fans. According to their videos they started in on what sounds like a 6-DOF game that I'm sure none of us have heard of--"Ships That Fly Underground", and they claim that Interplay approached them to see if they were interested in making it a Descent. There are also one or two hints at taking Descent ultimately (next iteration?) in a new direction (more open-space?)...Don't take my word for it. Check it out. I'm pretty impressed with them as developers.

ReadyMan · Post by **ReadyMan** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:29 am

interesting. I watched all the videos and read everything I could find, and I didnt get that impression at all.
can you provide some links? Especially to where Interplay contacted them?

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:47 am

ReadyMan wrote:From all I've read, there isnt a "pay to win" aspect at all. Purchase a ship with money, or unlock it ingame---it's all the same. You know we'll all have everything unlocked in no time.

The problem with a multiplayer game with this model is that whether it's "pay-to-win" or not doesn't depend on the devs, it depends on the players. It probably starts when you get a couple of rich kids whose parents will buy them anything and who have a pathological need to prove they can succeed online because they're so shielded from failure in the real world. Once enough players start paying because they want to win anyone else who wants to play competitively needs to keep up with them.
It doesn't really matter what the developers' intentions for any system are, it matters how it gets used and exploited by those who actually use and exploit it.

Unless the devs' model is not to release new content and add on to the game after it's done. That seems unlikely to me though -- and I certainly don't have anything against extra content

.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:49 am

ReadyMan wrote:interesting. I watched all the videos and read everything I could find, and I didnt get that impression at all.
can you provide some links? Especially to where Interplay contacted them?

I'm pretty sure I heard about Interplay contacting them in at least two places, but the first is in the first 4 minutes of the KickStarter Livestream Launch video.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:15 am

After seeing Lothar and Drakona's words, I'm feeling much better about sending some money their way. Probably not a particularly-large tier, because I'm not really willing to throw that much down on a single game project (plus I just flat-out don't like the idea of paying for extra ship types), but at least enough to get the game. Not that I'd be able to run it in the least on this system anyway, but who knows, maybe my tax rebate will change that.

ReadyMan · Post by **ReadyMan** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:20 am

Good catch ST. I missed that, but you're correct. Thanks for the link.
I also am very impressed with the developers and their studio. I especially like their approach to the project and how transparent they are about their plans.

I'm backing 3 games (The Mandate, Star Citizen, and Elite--tho that just launched) that I think do really well with their communication, and Descendent Studios is right up there with doing an excellent job also.
Sure looking forward to this project release.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:02 pm

Top Gun wrote:After seeing Lothar and Drakona's words, I'm feeling much better about sending some money their way.

Ok, I was a little worried about that, so I want to be very clear about what I do and don't mean. It may seem like splitting hairs, but this is an important point: I am backing the game because I want to influence it, not because I want to play it. This is NOT going to be the game I would make.

The CEO has demonstrated that he's interested in listening to Lothar and myself, and has persuaded us that he WANTS to build a game that feels like D1. Whether he has the commitment or skill to follow through on that, I don't know. On the one hand, I did a big writeup about what Descent should be, and the dev team responded by publicly linking the post from everywhere they could! That's encouraging. But they stopped short of publicly committing to build what I asked for, or even comment on how close they were planning to get. That is NOT encouraging. Now, I put that up on Thursday morning, and it's Sunday, so they may still be thinking it over. But they didn't immediately say, "Yes, of course, that's what we were already planning to build," for whatever that's worth.

I am convinced that the CEO wants to make something that feels like D1/D2 to him, and he knows he needs help from Lotharbot and myself (or other pilots, but he knows us) to get there. That seemed genuine to me. On the basis of that, it's worth it to us to each risk $500 to be involved with the QA process and get early feedback out where they can see it. We are, in a sense, buying small stakes in the project because the odds of it being worth it look good to us.

I am willing to risk $500 to influence the project in a D1 direction. I am not sure at this point that I would be willing to risk $35 just to make sure it gets made and/or so I can play it. Nor should anyone else take my backing it as a recommendation that you do so; make your own call.

Lotharbot and I will help influence it, and we are convinced enough that the team will listen to us and wants enough of the same things we want to be willing to risk our own money. That is some assurance for you guys, but that does not mean we can promise the game will be good or even that we personally are convinced it will be. The desire to produce a game that resembles D1 out of warm, casual LAN play memories is not the same thing as the commitment to do it right you would get from a long-standing hardcore pilot. I am convinced the CEO is, at heart, on our side -- but he is not one of us.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:56 pm

It is so refreshing to have it laid out in such a clear manner. My thanks for your efforts.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:32 pm

Lothar wrote:I never called him "hardcore", I called him "legit", which is not quite the same thing. He's clearly a fan of Descent gameplay and wants to recreate that, but he's not going to beat me in a 1v1.

I don't think he's been in touch with this community. But he has a rep as being willing to listen to the community -- and now that he knows we exist, he's listening to us. That's why he's moved away from "pay for pyro" and toward "pyro is included; special paintjob for pyro as kickstarter stretch goal". (Had that clarified in the meeting, though he threatened to kick me out if I mentioned "spinning rims" ever again.) The one caveat is that the Pyro-GX actually belongs to Parallax, not Interplay, so he can't include it in its exact form in this game. It'll be a "precursor to the pyro" with very similar styling, but probably a different name. (We should try to get it named "Ferno"...)

I see what you did there.

Had I known about this campaign six weeks ago, I probably would have ended up pledging $1000. But instead, I ordered an aircraft.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:56 pm

Drakona wrote:
Top Gun wrote:After seeing Lothar and Drakona's words, I'm feeling much better about sending some money their way.
Ok, I was a little worried about that, so I want to be very clear about what I do and don't mean. It may seem like splitting hairs, but this is an important point: I am backing the game because I want to influence it, not because I want to play it. This is NOT going to be the game I would make.

I understand, and I didn't want to imply that your words were the only thing that convinced me to fork over money. I've been generally pleased with the developer responses, and I was most likely going to before the campaign was over, but then I saw that the $30 discount tier was already 2/3 gone, and that coupled with the response to your write-up made me decide to go in on it. I figure it's something I'd want to own eventually, so why not buy it super-early at what amounts to a 40% discount over retail?

Interestingly enough, I'm coming from almost the exact opposite direction as you when it comes to the multiplayer side of things. I've played a grand total of zero D1 multiplayer, and precious little D2, so I'm far and away more accustomed to the flightier nature of D3's combat. I also have no real interest in 1v1, and even Anarchy quickly gets tiresome for me: the most fun I ever had in multi was whizzing around Veins or Halcyon playing CTF for hours on end, so I'm definitely looking forward to what they're planning for the team-based game modes. Hopefully they're able to deliver a full package here.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:09 pm

Ferno wrote:
Lothar wrote:It'll be a "precursor to the pyro" with very similar styling, but probably a different name. (We should try to get it named "Ferno"...)
I see what you did there.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:49 pm

So you DO have it!! I was looking FOREVER for that and through ALL my data backups.

I gotta make a model of that for my RC stuff.

----

ooh, I just remembered; and this is something I enjoyed about D2 most of all. Co-op games. PLEASE tell me there will be an excellent co-op gametype.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:20 pm

A lot of the questions and concerns that have been brought up here are in the "talking with the design team" phase. Hopefully in the next week or two we'll have clearer answers about pay-to-win vs pay-for-bling, the presence of classic game modes like anarchy and coop, and the expected ship flight dynamics. I wish I could give you more, but the game isn't that far into development yet.

EDIT: see Pumo's post for the public response to my e-mail.

Pumo · Post by **Pumo** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:59 pm

I think this quick message from the developers deserves a read: http://descendentstudios.com/community/ ... ng/?p=8752

EDIT: Also, it seems that their KS campaign page has been updated with a better video and better info about the project.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:25 pm

Wingman from Descendents wrote:... we are also a passion project, none of us are being paid, we are doing this for free because we, like you want to see this IP come back - with a fresh look, and updated game play that will support the old players like us and the new generation that want more than the original had.

"passion project", I'll buy that, but "doing this for free because ..." bull****. Granted they're not being employed to do it, but you better believe they're planning to make a lot of money on this. ...And there wasn't a damn thing wrong with that until they went there.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:38 pm

Here is an article that Extra Credits did back in 2012 on microtransations and actually addresses some of the issues that are being discussed here. It's just over 9 minutes long, but worth the time. Whenever I start grousing about monitization, I go back to this video. It's that good. In short, it's about balance: grind vs pay balance.

Seriously, give this a watch.

[youtube]WXA559KNopI[/youtube]

Supster · Post by **Supster** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:41 am

I'm from the oldskool .... and it looks pretty dam good to me! Might even bring me out of retirement!

Bring it!

- Sup (locked out of my old account!

)

Supster · Post by **Supster** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:51 am

Lothar wrote:As long as there's a pure form of Descent that we can play without intrusion from that stuff.

Word! This is what I'm talkin about right here:

- precision flight
- trichording
- balanced ships
- balanced weapons
- FUSION

That will bring me back - how could I resist!?

Great to see you still around Lothar, you still involved with running the board!?

- Sup

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:37 am

Nah Sup, I haven't been running this. Not since Michael was born 5 years ago and I got super busy with the whole "teach my kid how to eat", "teach my kid how to crawl", "KID Y U NO TALK? OK here's sign language to help you", etc.

I have been running the ladder at http://descentchampions.org/ (along with Drakona and Jediluke). Here's how to get D1 and D2 running: http://descentchampions.org/new_player.php . You can also reconnect with active pilots over on the Descent Rangers mumble server (instructions at the top of http://descentrangers.com/Home ) and the broader community on FaceBook ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/kalikahn/ ). We'd love to see you around.

And I've been acting as a sort of community liaison with Descendent Studios. We've secured promises for D1 flight dynamics, trichording, and classic Descent modes like anarchy. I've heard "fusion" and "plasma" tossed around, but couldn't point you to specific promises about them. So we've got most of what you want, but there's still ground to cover.