DescentBB

Hope this is for real. I need a 6DOF shooter in my life again. Cheers HO!

I do hope they leave the keyboard options as they are in D1X-1.4x One of the reasons I play Descent is the simple LH keyboard setup I use with lefthanded mouse. I'll never be able to play with a joystick, something that seems to come natural to all the guys simply eludes me. I'll be glsasd to beta test this game. I've played Descent since the first demo was released.

Joystick?! True Caliber Pimps use keyboard only!!one!1

And since Krom's not around:

Mr. Perfect wrote:And since Krom's not around:

You missed it 1 page back didn't you.

This is the e-mail that I have sent to High Octane Software about keeping our game alive by keeping it from being obsolete because of new operating systems/changes or improvements on operating systems:

-----

To the people at High Octane Software,

I have a concern that should probably be addressed involving the Descent Remake. We have to remember that ordinary D1 was obsolete because new 32-bit operating systems have come out, like XP, which are not able to run Descent. To keep history from repeating itself, I have identified the fastest growing Operating System in the world. This should be seriously considered, so that we can keep Descent Remake from becoming obsolete just like its mother. The fastest operating system in the world is Linux. And I'm concerned that by the time Descent Remake becomes popular, that Linux becomes another Mainstream Operating System that will slowly overcome Microsoft Windows. Descent Remake should probably be for Linux as well in case Linux becomes the premier operating system, so that we can keep our game from becoming obsolete too early, because it won't run on Linux. Also, I hope that new versions of Windows don't make this game obsolete either. For improvements might be done on XP in the future to keep present-day software from running on it that could run in the XP we have today. For D1 was made for DOS, but now we have XP, and ordinary D1 won't run on XP. So we should keep this in mind. This is just a piece of advice.

---Material Defender-1224

---

He was helloing someone else back there, I think.

Yeah, some dude named Evil Bob.

Linux is always a good idea if you have the resources to go for it as well... I don't see it taking out Windows any time in the near future, but eventually there is the possibility.

To the developers at H O, I must request one thing. The primary mode of play in 6DOF games is multiplayer. If you want good singleplayer, do something like what MW4: Mercenaries did. But for the multiplayer, PLEASE provide good netcode. Do something like have the only copy of the tablefile for a particular level based on the server within the mission file. DO NOT base any weapon or ship stats on table files on the client computers. If you do, it makes hacking a breeze unless the server checks all properties of all tablefiles of all players periodically during the game (substantially increasing drain on bandwidth). Please, do not make hacking a walk in the park. Too many good games have been abandonded because they have become hackathons.

Mr perfect, I don't mind if someone uses the picture I made. I do mind if someone uses my webspace without asking tho. Next time ask or I will delete the picture as soon as I find out.

I also want audio taunts.....I have to have audio taunts.
Bettina

I really Like audio taunts, they're really fun to use!

Sorry for the delay on responses to this board and the email. We have been stuck in conferences about some additions and modifications we would like to make based on the feedback we have received and I have to away on personal business. I will be catching up on everything in the next day or so. Thank you for support and continuing enthusiasm for the game.

Sincerely,
Zachary Briggs, Executive Producer
HighOctane Software

P.S. Snoopy I got all four of your emails.

Didn't think to ask Krom, just snagged it from page 4. I'll throw it up elsewhere.

couple of weapon ideas:

water canon, compressed air or some kind of force field that pushes your opponent way back against a wall.

Also, powerful weapons like mega missiles, and earth shakers HELP NEWBIES have a little fun until their skills develop. I think people saying "keep everything pure and hard to play" need to remember their roots, ie when they were just learning and had some success despite poor aim. It needs to be a well rounded game: situations where a lobotomized monkey could prevail and other situations where only good skill will prevail. Remember the diversity of people, not hardcore gamers.

Ned

Also, what about deplyable mines, remote control mines and or remote video cameras and hiding places.

ouch wrote:Hope this is for real. I need a 6DOF shooter in my life again. Cheers HO!

I hear that.

Just when I was getting use to UT2004.

And now, the reply you've all been waiting for! ^_~

I thought Kuman's Black Pyro was okay, but I like Kruel's Black Pyro better. Also, Kuman's Pyro-GL was pretty messed up. =)

Permissible client/server is the best network model for computer games, but it was D3's implementation of it (or the lack thereof) that really sucked. Suncho, have you actually tested permissible C/S in D3? The weapon sounds don't work properly; I tested the Vauss Cannon by spinning in a circle and firing, and the Vauss couldn't keep up with me. It was like using the Vulcan cannon; that is, it lagged behind. And, of course, weapons delay firing a lot of times.

I have some questions/comments for High Octane Software:

Is the engine that you have already built or are you working on it?

What kind of system would one need for beta testing?

I always liked the Phoenix, Helix, and Gauss. I don't think Fusion is a necessity, but make it how you want it.

Trichording works like this: in most FPS games, only one vector is used for all linear movement (except jumping). But in Descent, there's a vector for sliding horizontally, sliding vertically, and forward/backward movement. So, when the magnitude of each velocity vector is equal, you move about 1.7 times faster; it's simple vector algebra. If you move forward only with afterburners, it's 2 times faster than one direction without afterburners.

By the way, that doesn't hold true in D3; the Pyro-GL slides more slowly than it moves forward...not to mention that most of the ships move more slowly since the input device ramping was no longer 0.35 seconds, and since ships spawned with an afterburner (which is a big mistake!).

And that reminds meâ??I hope that you don't make ships already have the afterburner included. Outrage made that mistake and had to speed up the weapons disproportionately and make the levels disproportionately bigger. Some weapons, like Plasma and the Cyclone Missiles in D3 were still slow (or too small) and didn't work well because of the big levels and afterburner problems. If the afterburner is included, then one will have to rely on the afterburner for dodging, since the weapons would have to be sped up. One should not have to rely on the afterburner for dodging, because what happens when you run out of energy? In D1 and D2, one could still dodge without the afterburner.

That's all for now. Expect an e-mail from me! ^_^

permission client/server netcode is the best netcode for online games? and its d3 implementation sucks?

hmm in my opinion p/cs is only good for lans in any game. the c/s, c/sd modes from d3 are mostly perfect cause it gives a very smooth gameplay impression even on higher pings, and didnt we permanent refer to the ability of predict other players movement, lead shots ping-depended etc. as "skill" in d3?

only the c/s c/sd modes allow us to play on usa servers from europe or vice versa for example, with permissionable client /server screen stuttering would be so extreme that the game would be simply not enjoyable.

i would never trade the ultrasmooth online-gameplay from d3 (with the disadvantage that "what you see is not what you get") against any other p/cs netcode of any online-game with jumpy and stuttering gameplay.
the d3 netcode never "sucked". most player just never realized how such a net-enviroment works and what the consequences are gamplay-wise.

good luck high octane, i am really looking forward to see what you bring on the table. when do you think your webportal will open? cant wait to get some news about this upcoming game.

An idea I have would make mouselook the dominant control method.

Most PC gamers today are weened on the WASD+Mouse control scheme where WASD is the movement, left mouse button is primary fire, right mouse button is secondary fire, and the wheel cycles weapons. It's an extremely efficient control scheme.

I suggest this because it is also the dominant scheme for today's PC games. Unfortunately, gone are the days where people would buy joysticks to play games. Most popular PC games subscribe to the WASD+Mouse format and and small game-specific details to it. Spacebar for jump, double-tap WASD for dodging, F for using, etc. The mechanic is largely the same, though. If a game is going to succeed, it has to appeal to that majority, which means WASD+Mouse is probably the way to go.

The nearest example of WASD+Mouse in a 360º game is probably Freelancer. Here, the control as loose and funky, but it got the point across.

except for all of us hardcore descenters, who buy 3dpro's off ebay for $5, because we love this game and this way of control. If the game was most efficient for a mouse, i would absolutly hate it. I can't control a ship that moves 360 degrees, with a mouse and keyboard. i need a j/s for that. So making it mouse prodominate, would be a turn off for me.

Kyouryuu has a good point that if the game is going to have mass appeal to the FPS audience, WADS+mouse will be an essential control scheme. Of course, if the game is going to retain much of a Descenter-following, the option to use a joystick has to remain. I believe it was Krom (and I don't feel like looking it up at the moment) who said that if it attaches to your machine, D3 can use it. That really has to be the way to go for a game where the player can move and roll along/on all three axes at the same time. A lot of us are content with our joysticks and don't want to learn a new keyboard/mouse configuration. There's also some damn-fine keyboard/mouse players, and even a couple of psychotics that use PS2-styled gamepads.

I don't want to go into extreme details as far as feedback goes, since it's too easy for people to get irritated when a development team doesn't do something exactly as requested. That said, here are some general gameplay requests that I have...

Remember what six degrees of freedom means. Aquanox tried to be an underwater Descent-clone, but it failed miserably because the developers insisted on limiting the player's control of the ship. When I open a control configuration menu for this game, I want to see pitch up/down, roll left/right, yaw left/right, accelerate forward/back, slide up/down, and slide left/right. If any of those are missing, you'll simply have failed in your mission to make a Descent-like game, and I'll walk right past it on the shelves, regardless of what other features are in the game. On the other hand, it could be chimpanzees, floating in zero-G, flinging poo at each other, but if it has all the freedom of movement of Descent, I'll probably still buy it, just for a freedom-of-movement fix (and a laugh).

Not many here will agree with me, but I still think that singleplayer gaming has a place in the first-person shooter genre. Multiplayer does get the majority of playing time, yes, and I acknowledge that weapons should be balanced for multiplay and netcode needs to take high priority. There is a certain level of satisfaction to be derived from beating a story-driven campaign that cannot be reached in a multiplayer environment. One possible way to go about adding a singleplayer element, while keeping the focus on multiplayer (where the focus rightly belongs) would be to design the campaign for cooperative internet play, thus allowing the netcode to be developed and tested at the same time the missions are being play-tested.

That said, watch out for the pitfalls that the Descent series has made in previous singleplayer campaigns. First of all, Descent is a first-person shooter at its core, so puzzles, in general, are not what anyone is looking for. If I spend more than a minute trying to figure out which order X number of Y-way switches are supposed to be flipped, you did something wrong. As tasks for singleplayer levels go, use D1 as a model. The level itself was the puzzle. D2 introduced the Guided Missile and the switch, and while introducing them wasn't necessarily a bad idea, combining them always is because, even if the Guided Missile puzzle is very simple, it still breaks the pace of the level. D3 introduced objective-based missions, and those levels turned out to be hit-and-miss. Not many people played through the entire campaign, so they can't give you feedback on the best parts of D3's singleplayer levels, but quite a few people went through, level-by-level in this PD thread. I think there are three real lessons to be learned from D3's singleplayer. First is to save the tough puzzles for a true puzzle game. Second, having objectives deeper than finding keys can be a good thing, when the objectives make sense. Lastly, framing each mission in the storyline (something D1 and to a greater extent D2 neglected) is a necessity.

Level architecture is extremely important. While purpose-built levels are more important in singleplayer, it's still nice in multiplayer to feel like there is a purpose to the place. I can't give an exact reason as to why (because there is no exact reason), but a game becomes boring when levels don't resemble something that is functional in some capacity. By the time you got to the end of D1 and D2, the levels, while radically different in structure, all began to feel the same. This was partially the fact that the grab-keys-kill-reactor scheme rarely changed across, but mostly the fact that, after a while, the levels started to resemble what they technically were, deformed cubes stuck together with robots inside. It holds true for multiplayer levels too... Even without the horrific weapon distribution, Skybox sucks monkey nuts because it's a stack of rectangular prisms with some generic rock textures. Halcyon, on the other hand, is something. You can't quite tell what it is, but the background hum, the flowing water texture visable beneath some sections of the floor, and the column of conduits in the middle makes it appear as if the arena has some other reason for being. Again, ignoring all non-architecture aspects of the levels, if both of them premiered today, I'd play Skybox once and Halcyon for months.

A major complaint about D3 is the tendency to overuse secondary weapons, which is a very valid criticism. The big reasons that get touted are that they are too densely distributed through most levels and they are overpowered. I could go through on a case-by-case basis, but for the most part, I will agree. I think that one critical reason for the over-use secondary weapons goes overlooked, though, and that is that there is a wide variety of secondary weapons, and a small variety of primary weapons. Don't be fooled by the fact that there are "ten primary and ten secondary weapons". There are seven secondary weapons and four primary weapons. Lasers, Super Lasers, Plasma, and Microwave, while different in the details, are straight-shooting, medium-lead-angle weapons (i.e. one primary weapon). Napalm is so incredibly underpowered (due to its range) that almost nobody uses it (i.e. not a weapon). There's such a stigma about EMD ("newbie weapon") and Omega (buggy in D3) that almost nobody uses them (i.e. not weapons). The only secondary weapons that are similarly ignored are Cyclones (too slow), Guided Missiles (take over controls), and the Blackshark (people are whiney bitches ). Now, I understand that some weapons go through testing well, then turn out to be underpowered in an open-play environment, so a few weapons will always end up being ignored and/or underappreciated. What any development team can do is make sure that the weapons have enough variety that no two can be considered near-duplicates.

I do have a couple of opinions on the details of a Descent-like game, but if you get the general ideas above into the game, you'll still have a damn fine game that I'll be proud to buy. I could write a short book on weapons I'd like to see, bots I'd like to blow up, gameplay modes I'd like to see developed, etc., etc., etc., but you are the developers, and I am the fan. I've said what you can do to, first, not alienate me and, second, attract me to the game, and anything else would really be overstepping my bounds.

I actually would tend to agree that single player can be a big deciding factor which can make or break a game. Why is single player so important? Because it gives people a break from the often harsh reality that they are no match at all for many of the human players they could go up against in multiplayer.

Newbies play the game in multiplayer; most of them get completely crushed by the average or occasional elite player. They lose interest and move on to other games, or if the option is available they go and play single player where they are more comfortable and "safe".

So I say there should be a single player, with enough skill level options to have a mode that a newbie would find easy enough to solve with time and a skill level hard enough for the elites that are bored with MP for a while.

Descent1 single player vs. Descent3 multiplayer is about the perfect balance IMO. Descent3 MP against average newbies is about the same or a little harder then Descent1 single player on hotshot mode. Descent3 multiplayer in a serious battle is well beyond D1 on insane mode. A player who can handle hotshot mode easily will do just fine in any newbie or average MP game. Players who can handle insane mode well will easily hold their own in all but games with the truly hard core MP pilots.

I think that Freespace1 is probably the best example of single player in action. The story runs through and with the action. You never have to stop for a puzzle or key combination, or to fly in some strange path to get to the next area, and you always know what needs to be done. In single player the goals should always be clear, destroy this enemy, get this key, blow the reactor, and rescue the hostages, escape. What seems to work is figure out how to play a game in a level with no goals other then destroying the enemy and have fun doing it, then thread a story through it.

Multiplayer is fun but it does not have a story, but it does have a clear goal. Single player should be the same way, which is why I enjoy Descent1 single player so much. You always know what you have to do, defeat this robot blocking your way, get this key, and blow the reactor then escape. Descent2 single player adds a fun aspect that is like chasing a carrier in CTF: manically pursue theifbot through the level, causing as much collateral damage in the process as possible. I have almost cleared entire levels of robots while chasing the thief, as I have also destroyed entire CTF teams in pursuit of their carrier. In single player you should be able to accomplish your goals by destroying everything in your path.

so uhh... when's the testing start?

I think more important than singleplayer, though, is a good bot mode. Both Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament don't really have much in the way of singleplayer other than fighting bots, and if sales figures mean anything, that's all they really needed. You'd be surprised how fun fighting bots can be, especially if they work in all of the multiplayer modes. Descent 3 never had bots and so multiplayer levels were boring, hollow shells unless you were on PXO.

Zer0Cool wrote:except for all of us hardcore descenters, who buy 3dpro's off ebay for $5

Too bad you're about 0.0001% of the gaming audience.

Descent with a mouse? Now that's a lot of mouse paddaling... And working the 3rd axis in would be fun too, uless you left that on the keyboard.

Either way I'd be happy as long as I could still use my standard Descent keyboard configuration.

If there is an automap-esque element, please keep it on the insert, home, pgup, delete, end, and pgdn area. I can recall in Descent3, if I was tri-chording and decided to bank often I would bring up the automap and get owned. Please keep that into consideration for MP.

tell me, does anyone remember nTrap?

*cough*

i'm excited though.

Leave my mouse alone. Could never get used to the JK

If D3 had bots like UT you could fill a MP level with, oh man... I'd never leave the house.

16 bot Chasm? ooooooooooo

oh man. I loooove fighting bots in UT more than the singleplayer mode in whatever Descent-version!
Solving puzzles is neat, but nothing is more frustrating as flying thru an empty level ('cause the bots are all killed) to finde the right switch or the right way to move thru a room (does anyone remember the bloody footsteps that have to been followed to unlock a secured area?!...grrrr...). If the focus is planned to be on ACTION, that don't make the puzzles too hard to solve, please.
If I wanna have puzzles, I play an infocom/magnet scrolls-adventure. If I wanna have action, I play Descent (in MP) or UT (in SP or MP).
The maps shouldn't be too large and should be also playable in multiplay.

Seering: the WASD+mouse method is really widely used and also be the default-configuration (most people don't own joysticks) - but as BlueFlames wrote: make this game absolutely free configurtable! Maybe with preconfigured joystick settings (as in D2 or D3)

audio taunts: yes yes yes! and more than only four!

Automap: In my opinion a really important feature. In times of car-navigation-systems, I don't want to have (per default) a look at the map without haveng a chance to see what it happening in front of my cockpit. (as in D3 ). A map as in Diablo2 would be very cool! Maybe it could rotate as the "NSWE" of a compass around a fixed "needle"/"playership"(unlike Diablo2).

Diti

For what people have said about control: I agree. The "default" control should cater to ground punders- the game has to have an easy learning curve for control- not necessarily short, but easy. Features such as auto-roll (or whatever you call it) are necessary so you don't lose groundpounders b/f they give the game a chance, because of difficult control. I would even suggest that the single player levels should start off being primarily two dimensional, and as the game progresses add more and more 3-dimensionality into the game- essentially easing 2-d players into a 3-d world. I do, however, feel that all of the default "training" features, such as auto-roll should be able to be turned off and on- I know in descent at first it helped, but eventually I turned it off because it was hurting. (and getting annoying) Essentially, make the control methods powerful enough to be fully custonizable, but default to a ground-pounder friendly scheme.

Just make it so if you want a ship can be made to handle like a ground pounder would handle, you cant flip end over end turning down or up, you can only point all the way up or down then you stop rather then keeping on spinning on that axis and you cannot bank either. It would be a fairly harsh control limitation compared to people who disable it and allow banking, full 3d movement and trichording, but it would be 100% WASD+mouse friendly. Just replace jump with slide up, and duck with slide down. Any FPS freak would be able to handle that control. Granted, they would likely get smoked by players who could bank and flip in some levels.

It would be an aggressive auto level setting to keep FPS players "upright". Of course level design would have to be limited in some cases for players who only have that type of control configuration, but it would make more players happy. You would just see two different groups playing most of the time, players with restricted controls, and players with full controls, odds are the full control players would go and play anywhere in any level, restricted control players would stick to levels that didnâ??t have a lot of vertical tunnels or areas that change what is up and down. Most of D3's popular levels would not see much of a limitation by not being able to bank or flip completely end over end. Take Halcyon for instance, it is FLAT; you donâ??t need to be able to fly upside down in that level at all. Skybox is the same way, you could completely handle that level if you were a ground pounder that could fly.

So I would give everyone the option to make maximum control possible, but give a restricted movement mode so any FPS player could port their configuration in easily and not get disoriented.

Krom. as a side note...

There is a D2 level called "confusion" and it's known for making even old schools a bit vertigo. I Port it to D3 and post it. I know the guy who built it and he no loger has an interest in Descent. ..eww .. did I just say that???

Ned wrote:couple of weapon ideas:

water canon, compressed air or some kind of force field that pushes your opponent way back against a wall.
...
Also, what about deplyable mines, remote control mines and or remote video cameras and hiding places.

This is what the game needs. Copying D2 exactly won't do as much good, people won't switch. Taking the best stuff, and then adding on has worked on past games (granted in other genres). Also, UNIQUE glitches-turned-features (in addition to trichording) will make this a great game.

As for the compressed air cannon, some kind of weapon that immobilizes opponents for any length of time would be awsome, but there are 2 minor issues. First, in single player it would be next to useless unless it caused some damage. Second, in multiplayer something that could push a ship against a wall and hold it COMPLETLEY immobile be way overpowered, you'd have only to strafe left which rotating right (e.g.: circle them a little) in order to get free missile kills. But a continuous beam that could, say, cut maneuvering in half while causing light damage would be a great strategic addition to both SP and MP.

As for remote control mines, if levels were designed to give some opportunities for this, and they had cameras in them, you could stick one next to a control switch and... unleash a dozen robots ... a bunch of wall turrets ... a teleport beam to a place you didn't want to be... cool!

Deployable mines have been around since D1, guided missels have been in since D2, and D3 introduced camers you could put any place you want. Hiding spots are completly up to the level designer.

Mr. Perfect wrote:....
and D3 introduced camers you could put any place you want.

Sorry D2 had camera's AKA markers! option to disable view from markers in D2 Multiplayer Game creation also (unlike D3)

I forget, you could only have 2 markers in D2 multi, versus 10 in single player (Marker 11 was RIP: [Name Of GuideBot]), correct?

Krom wrote:Just make it so if you want a ship can be made to handle like a ground pounder would handle, you cant flip end over end turning down or up, you can only point all the way up or down then you stop rather then keeping on spinning on that axis and you cannot bank either. It would be a fairly harsh control limitation compared to people who disable it and allow banking, full 3d movement and trichording, but it would be 100% WASD+mouse friendly. Just replace jump with slide up, and duck with slide down. Any FPS freak would be able to handle that control. Granted, they would likely get smoked by players who could bank and flip in some levels.

It would be an aggressive auto level setting to keep FPS players "upright". Of course level design would have to be limited in some cases for players who only have that type of control configuration, but it would make more players happy. You would just see two different groups playing most of the time, players with restricted controls, and players with full controls, odds are the full control players would go and play anywhere in any level, restricted control players would stick to levels that didnâ??t have a lot of vertical tunnels or areas that change what is up and down. Most of D3's popular levels would not see much of a limitation by not being able to bank or flip completely end over end. Take Halcyon for instance, it is FLAT; you donâ??t need to be able to fly upside down in that level at all. Skybox is the same way, you could completely handle that level if you were a ground pounder that could fly.

So I would give everyone the option to make maximum control possible, but give a restricted movement mode so any FPS player could port their configuration in easily and not get disoriented.

I had the idea of letting each "tunnel" have its own orientation scheme. So, if you have a vertical tunnel, as you enter it, as far as controls go, it becomes a horizontal tunnel.

yeah i would love to beta test a game like that!!

would tcp/ip games still b available?

Krom, nobody would enjoy porting their config and getting their asses kicked because of it.

The only true solution is to have a limited-mode of the game where *EVERYBODY's* movement is restricted and special levels that are designed for it.

Think about it for a second Suncho, without that limitation they would totally get disoriented, confused and beaten even worse the moment their ship starts drifting away from horizontal level. Try this for a minute, fly a banshee around in halo for a while but imagine you could slide left/right/up/down in it also, that is what I am suggesting. The banshee ALWAYS stays level to the ground no matter how many twists and turns you make and wasd + mouse players can handle it easily.

Then ask do you need the absolute 6DOF in Halcyon? Skybox? Indika? Nirvbox? Athena? Nope, you could easily survive in those levels with FPS controls and a ship that is always level. Most pilots keep their ship level and don't trichord anyway. I could play Halcyon with a mouse and wasd easily if my ship was always level. The only thing I would not be doing as much on limited controls would be trichording, which would give the limited control people a good excuse to learn and change to unlimited.

One of the hard parts would be figuring out how to make the ship turn when pointed almost all the way up or all the way down, but actually it shouldnâ??t be that hard, you just make the ship rotate around X proportionally to itâ??s orientation on Y when in limited mode. Meaning, then higher or lower you are pointed, the faster you ship can rotate around X because it covers less of an arc. A more forgiving control setup with limitations on it would immensely help the FPS players who DO NOT HAVE the configurations or controllers required to properly handle 6DOF. Fly a Descent ship with only wasd + mouse as your controls, and the normal crouch / jump keys for slide up / slide down, tell me how long it takes before you become totally disoriented (with auto level off). Not long eh?