DescentBB

I can tell Kyouryuu is no pilot because he wants mouselook in the game. =P

Mouselook sucks! Even for mousers mouselook sucks. Mouselook is cheap because Mouselookers can turn faster than other players. Also, the ships don't fly properly with mouselook. I'd much rather have normal Descent mouse controls. Mouselook should not be an option. You can still attract the FPS crowd without mouselook. They can just use the normal mouse.

I have another question for High Octane Software:

Are the ship physics going to be like the Pyro-GX (D1 and D2) or will they be different? I hope you make the ship physics similar to the GX.

Oh, one more thing, I agree with that guy who posted earlier about the music. It's so easy to make spaceship games have techno music. Don't get me wrong; I like techno, but the D2 music rocked! It was so cool. Maybe there could be sort of a mix like in UT2k4.

I also want to point out that this is not a "Descent remake," this is a new game.

Oh, I almost forgot...I like single-player! I find it funny that a lot of people don't like D3's single-player mode. But then I remember that most people who play Descent like shooting games, while I like action games. Action games don't work well in co-op mode. I'd like to see another mission with objectives and stuff, but I'll compromise, because it's not popular. The single-player should have simple objectives, or some other clear goals, without being an "endless key trail."

There should be robots for offline multiplayer. Don't make the robots like the ship robots in D3, because they either are noobs or they cheat! They don't have shields, either.

And try to optimize the weapons you design for multiplayer, but still be good weapons in single-player too. I hate it when a cool new weapon works well in SP but sucks in MP.

Krom wrote: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.

I disagree -- I use all 6DOF in all levels I play. You are welcome to do a 1v1 in Indika where you stay at 2DOF and I keep my 6DOF..

Stryker wrote: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.

That's a nearly impossible thing to achieve. On one hand you want the game to be unhackable (or close to it), and on the other you want low latency. For it to be unhackable, that would mean mainly server-side netcode. Question: have you played HaloCE? You want to know why that game is so laggy (but happens to be hack free save a D3D exploit)? Because its netcode is almost entirely server-side.

Just think of the 2DoF like an instantanious autolevel. You can still roll, perhaps. But as soon as you let go of the key, your ship starts to level again. And, like autolevel, you can control how strongly it rights your ship (delay in self-righting) or even turn it off. Of course, maybe auto-level isn't a good thing to call it. That levels your pitch too, and only when you're not moving it. Call it auto-roll. Keeps your wings level.

As for mouse look... Well, what is the point of sneaking up behind a guy, or trying to manuver to his sides/rear if he can instantly spin around and shoot you? Biases the game towards mouse usage rather than more balanced between joystick and mouse.
Perhaps for the mouse, have a "look point" that can be spun around instantly like the FPS GP's we all know and love, but then the ship's reticule--and the whole fighet itself--will then move as fast as it can towards the look point. It'll feel like a normal GP, but still require rotational-management skills. (Of course, snapping around and firing, only to realize that you're _looking_ behind you but your ship hasn't finished turning yet--shooting in front of you--might be a little confusing at first. ;)
See Operation Flashpoint-> Gunning a tank for an example.

Has anyone considered the respawn system as to why D3 has lots of missile boating? If the level builder puts one mega in the level--you can still carry three. Just wait for that one to respawn a few times. Rather than having the server keep track of the total number of mega missiles in the level--including the ones on ship-board inventory.

Oh, and co-op mode is awesome when you just want to have some fun. Gotta have that.

Mr. Perfect wrote: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.

I was talking about a single object that is both a camera AND a mine.
About guided missiles, no idea what you're talking about. Try reading it again.

I hate guided missiles. I think they should either leave the game or be made more like half life's laser-guided rocket launcher.

as long as you can destroy the camera

Krom wrote: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.

The Banshee sounds a lot like the Raptor in Unreal Tournament 2004. It always moves along one XZ plane, and the jump/crotch keys essentially let you move up and down the Y-axis onto other XZ planes. The problem with this control scheme, and consequently why most UT2004 levels don't have these, is that it's not exactly the best scheme for vertical shaftways. It's difficult to point the Raptor up and shoot targets above you while moving upward.

That's why I think Freelancer is the closest cousin. It was a FreeSpace-type game, so naturally action concerns all three axes of movement. It got by remarkably well on a WASD+mouse setup, even if the movement was a bit too loose.

Killanthype wrote:Well, what is the point of sneaking up behind a guy, or trying to manuver to his sides/rear if he can instantly spin around and shoot you? Biases the game towards mouse usage rather than more balanced between joystick and mouse.

That's the point. Not everyone has a joystick, nor could a modern PC game designer really expect people to go out and buy one. As for instantly spinning around, Unreal and Quake players have been doing it for years. Certainly, they see the "point."

Neo wrote:I can tell Kyouryuu is no pilot because he wants mouselook in the game.

Yeah, I'm no pilot. I don't really fly the mines that much. I can build Descent levels people seem to enjoy, but I don't play the game very often. It's cruddy attitudes like yours that make it less than inviting.

I thought you where asking for 3 diffrent things. Deployable mines, flyable bombs, and cameras. I was trying to point out that we have some version of each already.

Kyouryuu wrote:the jump/crotch keys essentially let you move up and down

The crotch key, eh? I'm suddenly so glad I don't play UT.

LOL! Nice catch Mr Perfect.

Neo wrote:Mouselook sucks! ... Mouselook is cheap...

Sounds like a balancing act to me.

Tell you what, what about a mouse + WASD + QE scheme? That is, the usual FPS-style stuff plus Q and E for banking (because as we know, there is no third axis on a mouse... and no, the wheel is not useful). If necessary, there could be a default toggle that automatically centres the banking unless either button is held down - although I'm not really sure how much use that would be.

Alternatively, there could be a control to auto-level the ship to horizontal except when it's obvious that isn't the intent - as in when travelling up a shaft. Set a cut-off angle of inclination beyond which that trick doesn't work. However, it should work on, again, banking only - it would be pretty darn annoying having the ship pitch back to horizontal when you're aiming up at an angle to line up a shot on someone.
That way, all such a player needs to do to re-orient themselves is to bring the nose near-horizontal and the ship will bank to suit. Hopefully that would be enough.
It might also be nice to throw in attitude indicators (those that show what pitch and bank your ship is at, not whether you're in a bad mood today) just to give pilots an idea where they're looking.

Of course, these would just be default controls; each one could be turned on or off when needed. Hopefully it would give FPS-accustomed players enough sense of direction without limiting their mobility.

How about letting HO design a fresh game. It doesn't have to be D4 for crissakes. Fresh!

I want 6DOF!

I'll settle for Doom 3 for now. Can't wait. I'd rather fly but lets see how Doom 3 raises the bar for virtual worlds.

I do like flying with a joystick tho...

That mouse "look point" thing might be too hard to do. What if you're trying to turn around and aim and the ship turns so fast that you miss?

ouch wrote:How about letting HO design a fresh game. It doesn't have to be D4 for crissakes. Fresh!

I want 6DOF!

I'll settle for Doom 3 for now. Can't wait. I'd rather fly but lets see how Doom 3 raises the bar for virtual worlds.

I do like flying with a joystick tho...

You are aware of the fact that most of this is us talking to ourselves, and a little of it is giving ideas to HO that they will use for their own means. (and probably tweak to look quite different from what we envisioned) They are free to make their game however they like, and we are free to yap all we want- everyone is happy!

Well, when they port it for Mac,(and maybe Linux), I hope they put in the PC command lines into it and release a Level maker program that will let you code MODS for the mac. There are mods out there for D3 that I can't fly in that I would like to try, but can't, cuz it isn't Mac compat.

Fus

Mac and Linux support killed Descent3 1.5. Do not support anything but the 95% of the people out there who use WINDOWS!

yeah I agree, Linux nd MAC should be dropped. The amount of users is not worth the time and financial investment. MAC has never been a game platform and neither has Linux.

Even if the game is Windooze based you will need at least a dedicated Linux server if you want to be successfull..

Yep Windows support only! Sure, make mac and linux clients...

but don't support 'em.

Thanks!

O.K., here's another of my brillant observation. When programing for the the ships doesn't it make sense that the more weapons, mortors and missles you load up on, would make your ship fly sluggishly? Slower to accelerate and describe a wider turning radius as you increase mass? If such characteristics could be factored in, a even more challenging game would result. No longer would you just zoom through weapons rooms or someones blown up spawn. Now you would have to balance loadout with acceleration and nimbleness.

woodchip wrote:O.K., here's another of my brillant observation. When programing for the the ships doesn't it make sense that the more weapons, mortors and missles you load up on, would make your ship fly sluggishly? Slower to accelerate and describe a wider turning radius as you increase mass? If such characteristics could be factored in, a even more challenging game would result. No longer would you just zoom through weapons rooms or someones blown up spawn. Now you would have to balance loadout with acceleration and nimbleness.

I like.

snoopy wrote:

woodchip wrote:O.K., here's another of my brillant observation. When programing for the the ships doesn't it make sense that the more weapons, mortors and missles you load up on, would make your ship fly sluggishly? Slower to accelerate and describe a wider turning radius as you increase mass? If such characteristics could be factored in, a even more challenging game would result. No longer would you just zoom through weapons rooms or someones blown up spawn. Now you would have to balance loadout with acceleration and nimbleness.

I like.

yea that would balance gameplay!

woodchip wrote:O.K., here's another of my brillant observation. When programing for the the ships doesn't it make sense that the more weapons, mortors and missles you load up on, would make your ship fly sluggishly? Slower to accelerate and describe a wider turning radius as you increase mass? If such characteristics could be factored in, a even more challenging game would result. No longer would you just zoom through weapons rooms or someones blown up spawn. Now you would have to balance loadout with acceleration and nimbleness.

How much do you think people would enjoy that? One of the hardest things about Descent is the learning curve. Learning how to fly at different speeds in the same ship just increases the learning curve... but people *CAN* learn it and they'll be that much better than the newbies.

I remember someone talking about armor plating. Just think how funny it would be to hear the clang noise in D2 followed by a rattle when your armor plating falls off piece by piece when someone is hitting you. Then the other person picks up the plating and adds it to their ship.

Oh yeah, I vote for Linux and low hardware requirements.

The weight idea would be good--if you don't carry it to an extreme. Don't let a ship that's supposed to be blazing fast turn into a snail when fully loaded. It would be cool to see both shields and armor plating. You could make ships customizable like in MechWarrior 4 etc. Say, have different classes of ships that are supposed to perform differently, but let the pilots select what weapon/armor/speed ration they want within a limited sphere. Like I said before, don't let a heavy, weapon-laden ship fly faster than a light ship just by the player upgrading its engines a few times.

woodchip wrote:O.K., here's another of my brillant observation. When programing for the the ships doesn't it make sense that the more weapons, mortors and missles you load up on, would make your ship fly sluggishly? Slower to accelerate and describe a wider turning radius as you increase mass? If such characteristics could be factored in, a even more challenging game would result. No longer would you just zoom through weapons rooms or someones blown up spawn. Now you would have to balance loadout with acceleration and nimbleness.

If that makes it into the game, I'm coming after you. This is a game, not a sim.

Hire Spaz to design the official levels.

Say, what's up with the HO site? Acording to the "stop" date they where done uploading the new site 7 days ago.

if you can find spaz that is...

These days people want eye-candy. As good a tactical designer as Spaz was, he did not do too well in that area even by Descent 2 standards...

P.S. High Octane stated that they were interested in hearing our feedback... it's not going to hurt.

...um no. Level design in modern games is significantly different from what it was in D1 and D2. For one, it involves geometry more advanced than appears in a cardboard box. For another, it involves levels designed to look like they have a purpose - this was almost impossible in D1 and D2, and should have been possible in D3 except there were so few third party levels that did so that I could count them on one hand. The look and feel of a level - environment, I suppose - is an important part of levels now, where in Descent 1 it was secondary to keeping a good framerate.
While learning something like DMB2 will begin to set a designer up for levels in other games, I'm guessing - and hoping - that it's worlds apart (very bad pun, I know) from this new game.

As far as conceptual issues, Spaz was a genius. I think he could design badass levels for D3 or any other D like game. Note the word "design"- significantly different than "construct".

Just a pipe dream anyway, not a serious suggestion.

WooT!
Count me in for beta testing!

they key to the addiction of Descent is getting new pilots to *that* point, where they can move their ship w/o thinking about it....barrel roll while inverting/split S manoever and guns blazing. When they can think it and do it, they've arrived at what made Descent so great.
the vauss dogfights of D1 were epic.

Creating a flight model where 4df users can compete is simply done by creating more compact lvls, without deleting the up/down necessity.

uber weapons like earthshakers and black sharks arent necessary...

High Octane's game is a shooting game, not a combat flight simulator.

One more suggestion: Update us frequently, I know I personally like to know whats going on at all times. Let us know how it's going.

Does HO have any screenshots yet? Surely after almost 2 years of development they can throw us some kind of bone.

D1 has the Vulcan Cannon, not Vauss.

If you mean layout design, kufyit, then yes, he did have some good skills there. I didn't particularly notice it over the competition, but then, I didn't analyse it so much.

I wonder if modern game designers think so much about their multiplayer levels. Probably not.

I think a lot of the Unreal community places a lot of thought into their multiplayer level designs. The Community Bonus Packs are full with custom textures, levels, meshes, and even characters. Unreal levels need a very good layout that constantly wraps back on itself and has two or more innate "routes" that can make for endless prowling.

Never understood what was so special about Spaz's levels. But, the Descent community has the tendency to find something weird and "genius" in anything I guess (Abend, anyone?).

Kyouryuu wrote:Never understood what was so special about Spaz's levels.

If you compare Spaz's levels to modern levels, it's hard to see what's so nice about them... because his influence so completely permeates modern levels. Take a look at some pre-spaz levels if you want to see what's so special about his layouts, though...

Here are some things I've noticed:
1) Weapons balance. Most pre-spaz levels had megas and invulns, or at least absurd amounts of missiles. Spaz made levels that had like... a few of each primary, no megas / cloaks / invulns, reasonable numbers of missiles, etc. Most popular D1/D2 levels followed this, though some D3 levels have gotten away from it...
2) Good interconnectivity. No dead ends, rooms with only one entrance, bottlenecks in the middle of levels, etc. You could always fly a full circle around a Spaz level somehow. This is taken completely for granted in modern levels -- aside from some CTF levels with a single center hallway, pretty much every level has spaz-style interconnectivity.
3) Balance between tunnels and rooms, based on the weapons present. You don't have any spaz levels that are *pure* halls or *pure* dogfight rooms. You also don't have rooms that are absurdly huge, or tunnels that are absurdly complex. In terms of physical layout, Skybox very strongly resembles a Spaz level.