DescentBB

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2005 10:46 pm**

I think it's getting ..better!....

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2005 10:59 pm**

if there wasnt a thing as trichording it would be a flight simulator. ick.

theres also quadchording, to turn to the opposite side extremely fast... joystick users do it all the time, but its hard for kb players to figure out.

ex- slide down, slide left, arrow right arrow down.

=> to <=
=> <= <= <=
<=>>>............. <= <= <=

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2005 11:03 pm**

Quadchording? Uhm, WTF? Somehow you think you can go in 4 directions at once along only three axis? o_O

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2005 11:16 pm**

Krom wrote:Quadchording? Uhm, WTF? Somehow you think you can go in 4 directions at once along only three axis? o_O

doesn't that have to do with a tesseract?

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm**

Slowguy wrote:
Sirius wrote:....apparently, you would be dead in two seconds without the extra speed trichording gives you?
no, i did not say that.

I know, and I wasn't talking to you.

in a demo, you could show mono-chording, bi-chording, and tri-chording... for mono-chording you'd turn on a few turrets and see how long you'll last. for bi-chording, you'd turn on a few more, and for tri-chording a few more.

this would help people note the differences between the three types of chording, it would help them see that tri-chording is effective, and that would be the end of this argument.

Uh... no, it wouldn't. The reason tri-chording would win is because you're not restricting the way in which you travel.

What would win the argument is if you could prove that a Phoenix tri-chording would last longer than a tank (ignoring shields). I'm not convinced on that one.

Krom wrote:A stupid idea like "not everybody knows how to run so we are going to make walking the same as running" is NOT a solution.

And just why not?

Why is having to tri-chord to get extra speed so great that you throw a fit over the mere concept of someone else not having to do it?

TheCope wrote:Tricording is like the point of the game.

Did you buy the game for trichording?

I really doubt that.

Spaceboy wrote:if there wasnt a thing as trichording it would be a flight simulator. ick.

You'll still be able to do it, it just won't give you an advantage.

-----

Starting to think such a crusade is worthless considering I don't even have Doom 3, but oh well.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 12:41 am**

Siruis, I'll quote myself from an earlier post.

Ferno wrote:Descent without tricording is like quake without rocket jumping.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 12:46 am**

Descent without tricording is like sex without touching.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 1:08 am**

Sirius wrote:
Krom wrote:A stupid idea like "not everybody knows how to run so we are going to make walking the same as running" is NOT a solution.
And just why not?

Why is having to tri-chord to get extra speed so great that you throw a fit over the mere concept of someone else not having to do it?

It's all about the depth of gameplay. If you take away trichording you take away a big part of the real depth of Descent. Most online FPS games are already shallow enough, Descent is better then average but strip it of trichording and you have a marginal game at best. It is a very hard to master game, but as hard as it is to master it is equally rewarding to those that do.

Why is taking it away so bad? Think through it a bit: If the ship moves the same speed along only one vector as it does along all three, I don't have to know how to steer the ship accurately using all three axis at the same time anymore because there is no longer a reason to. When I am chasing someone in CTF, I can just point my ship directly at theirs and vauss away without losing any speed at all. I no longer have to decide which is more important, keeping up with them so I stay in an easier weapon range for when they make a predictable move or trying to shoot them down on the spot while risking them getting away. I don't have to know how to correctly aim for my target while switching my ship from one vector (slide left-up) to the other (slide right-up) and rolling it so I stay level, because I would never do a move like that if I didn't need to in order to maintain top speed. I wouldn't need to know how to circle strafe all the way around someone and still be able to target them with fusion while pitched sideways and at a downward angle, because why would someone do such an asinine move if it didn't gain them any benefit?

You really give me the impression you have no clue at all what you are talking about.

--------------------------------------------------

You asked if Cops bought the game because of trichording...

What a Stupid question.

Of course not; what he did do because of trichording was he kept on playing it. Games aren't good and have replay value because they are easy; they have it because they are Interesting and stay interesting beyond the cover just like a good book.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 3:25 am**

Lothar wrote:
Jeff250 wrote:
HeXetic originally wrote:If you have a look at the "requirements" doc, you'll see that Descent is far from the only source of inspiration. We want to bring in some of the best elements of DoomÂ³, Aliens Vs. Predator, and Night Hunters (a Q2 mod), and what we plan to do with those sources of inspiration will represent a far more drastic change than the (optional) removal of tri-chord speedboosting.
HeXetic has stated before that this mod was never intended to completely or exclusively represent Descent. I don't know where you people see all of this ambiguity in regards to the issue. It's not supposed to completely or exclusively represent Descent, so appealing to the notion that it is is ridiculous.
Right. And if he'd just honestly say that, instead of trying to say "it's a Descent mod" (see, for example, the topic heading for the first thread) there would be no problem. But he's tried to market it as being mostly like Descent quite a few times, and then insulted people for suggesting ways in which it could be more like Descent. That's not cool.

What are you grasping for here anyways, an apology or something? If it's not clear what his intentions or his motivations were, it should be now.

Krom wrote:It's all about the depth of gameplay. If you take away trichording you take away a big part of the real depth of Descent.

Once again, HeXetic has stated before that he intends to trade this aspect of gameplay with that of stealth. You might prefer trichording over stealth (not that they are necessarily mutually exclusive), but the fact is is that that's the trade being made, and I don't think that you can criticize the mod for not having the potential for depth per se. At least let it get off the ground before making that criticism.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 4:15 am**

Spaceboy wrote:if there wasnt a thing as trichording it would be a flight simulator. ick.

theres also quadchording, to turn to the opposite side extremely fast... joystick users do it all the time, but its hard for kb players to figure out.

ex- slide down, slide left, arrow right arrow down.

=> to <=
=> <= <= <=
<=>>>............. <= <= <=

I believe that you are confusing rotational axes (e.g. "arrow right," "arrow down") with translocational axes (e.g. "slide down," "slide left"). When people refer to trichording, they are referring to the three translocational axes.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 6:34 am**

When people discuss tri-chording I thought they were referring to a combination both types of axes.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 8:29 am**

I really don't like where you're pushing this argument Krom.

Nonetheless, the problem I see is that you are coming from a largely FFA-playing D3 perspective; I'm coming at it more from D1/2 duel style. In the latter there are far, far more things to worry about than tri-chording, which is why I don't consider it a big deal.

Honestly, if D3 is so boring that something like tri-chording gives it most of its interest factor, it's even worse than I thought... :/

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 9:01 am**

Krom wrote:The basic physics of how ships handle in Descent is absolutely essential to the gameplay. Take away trichording and make the game stupid so newbies can handle it, and that gameplay is gone. You can change a lot of things, new weapons, new mods, new missions, but if you change the way a ships physics work, it wont work as a Descent clone. The absolute core of Descent is the ship physics, without it all you have is some crappy flightsim in tunnels.

he said everything i was thinking about the mod right there.

spaceboy is half right about quadchording. you cant really "quad" chord, but if you bank when you fly like i do - for example, w for accelerate, left shift for slide right (i know, i'm wierd) space for slide up, joystick pulled toward the left, and then the twist turned so you're flying at such an angle that you almost cant see a damned thing in front of you and your ass-end is almost pointing against the wall on your right side, but you're moving straight ahead, is what i believe he is referring to. i do it all the time when the path ahead of me looks clear and i need to get somewhere fast.

actually, you'd be hard pressed to ever see my fly any way but what i mentioned above or a variation of it. i've never taken the time to calculate if it actually makes you move any faster, but to me it feels more efficient. at least it sure as hell did in d1. i did it in d3 based completely out of habit.

quadchording though? maybe...

and sirius, if i can ever get D1/D2 working, i'll show you how a style of flying like mine can beat a non trichording if you want. i used to do it all the time.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 10:44 am**

Sirius wrote:I really don't like where you're pushing this argument Krom.

Nonetheless, the problem I see is that you are coming from a largely FFA-playing D3 perspective; I'm coming at it more from D1/2 duel style. In the latter there are far, far more things to worry about than tri-chording, which is why I don't consider it a big deal.

Honestly, if D3 is so boring that something like tri-chording gives it most of its interest factor, it's even worse than I thought... :/

Gameplay is a lot of small things coming together at once to make one complex interaction. Not a big deal... heh think about how much you use the speed advantage of bichording before you go saying chording is no big deal. Trichording is essential to the game because I do it all the time. I had to work very hard to gain that advantage, giving it away for free to stupid newbies would knock out a major skill and ruin the base gameplay.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 11:51 am**

Jeff250 wrote:What are you grasping for here anyways, an apology or something?

At this point? I'm putting things in their historical perspective, explaining *why* so many people got angry at HeXetic, with the hopes that he'll be able to learn from his mistakes and not repeat them. I also have the hopes that his defenders will wise up a bit and stop with the knee-jerk defensiveness.

This community really values honesty, especially when it comes to talking about new Descent-ish games. We'd really like another Descent game, and people keep promising them to us. Well, if you're going to promise us a new Descent game, you better make it feel like Descent! And that's what HeXetic originally said -- that the game was going to feel like Descent. But that's not really what he meant, and in fact he's so dead set against making it feel like Descent (at least by default) that it hardly makes sense to be asking Descenters for input on it.

At this point, I just want him to be straight with us. Tell us straight up "this is not a Descent mod, it's just a mod that's going to share some superficial attributes with Descent" instead of saying he'd make it with trichording if only we could prove it's an intentional part of Descent. Quit waffling between "this isn't Descent" and "this is just like Descent" and just pick one.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 3:30 pm**

Lothar wrote:Quit waffling between "this isn't Descent" and "this is just like Descent" and just pick one.

I think you're creating a false dilemma. Certainly there is middle ground-- "This is similar to Descent." Should it be called the Pseudo-Descent mod? I mean really, let's not get our panties all up in a knot.

Obviously, when HeXetic said that he wanted to totally convert Descent, he saw Descent represented as the sum of different qualities, which hardly begs to be castigated. It's also a far stretch to call it dishonesty when he later reveals he doesn't plan to incorporate trichording, something he didn't even realize existed, nor did most people who purchased and played Descent and arguably fell in love with Descent. (Descent does, did, and will exist outside of the DBB!)

I've read some people express resentment toward relinquishing the skill of trichording to "stupid newbies" and toward acquiring skills such as stealth, etc. This is certainly a legitimate position, but realize that you have already fallen in love with a game. This mod probably wouldn't have been for you anyways. I sincerely hope that we as a community haven't become so hardened, so high-horsed, and so resistent to change as to argue a mod out of existence simply because it doesn't emulate Descent in every fashion, because, if that is the case, then our only fate as a community is to be replaced by a new one that can appreciate six degrees of freedom.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 3:44 pm**

Jeff, man, give it a rest. Seriously. Stop defending this guy. Let him respond to the criticism. He doesn't need your help.

Jeff250 wrote:
Lothar wrote:Quit waffling between "this isn't Descent" and "this is just like Descent" and just pick one.
I think you're creating a false dilemma. Certainly there is middle ground-- "This is similar to Descent."

Right, I've suggested that too. The problem is the waffling between promising various levels of descentishness (and also the flaming of people who said the mod should have trichording.)

It's also a far stretch to call it dishonesty when he later reveals he doesn't plan to incorporate trichording...

It's not dishonest to say he doesn't plan to incorporate trichording. It's dishonest to say he's going to make it like Descent, and then to completely reject key parts of Descent as pointed out by those of us who know the game best, but to keep saying "it's going to be like Descent" at various times (especially when he went through the whole "show me an official source and I'll put trichording in" thing...)

I sincerely hope that we as a community haven't become so hardened, so high-horsed, and so resistent to change as to argue a mod out of existence simply because it doesn't emulate Descent in every fashion...

I'll probably enjoy the mod, if it's well-made, whether or not it emulates Descent. It's not like this is the only game I play. I don't care one bit whether or not the mod really emulates Descent.

I'm just sick of the "it's going to be like Descent... except for this feature you guys say is important in Descent, I say is not, so f*** you" routine. And, as Testi and others have said, I'm not all that confident in the mod-making team if they're not able to recognize how important trichording is in Descent. If they don't get that, is there any way they'll understand any of the other subtleties that made Descent such a great game, or will they basically make another forsaken? I'll play the mod if it's well made, but not understanding the tactical depth that comes from trichording makes me question their ability to really make a good mod.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 4:50 pm**

Lothar, I wouldn't necessarily expect a response from him. As fun as we have exchanging lengthy diatribes, not everyone finds it as amusing.

Personally, as grandiose as your or my own opinions may be, I think that the time and effort that mod developers put into their projects are far greater in importance. I think that HeXetic and others deserve leeway, and I believe that they deserve to be given the benefit of doubt. Realize that criticism beyond a point only continually and further diminishes the chances that such a project will be completed even at all, and our arguing here likely isn't helping too much either. That's all I have left to say on the subject.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 5:01 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:Lothar, I wouldn't necessarily expect a response from him.

Of course not. But I'm pretty sure he's read it, and I've talked to other devs in their chat about it, so I think they get the picture.

criticism beyond a point only continually and further diminishes the chances that such a project will be completed...

And defending or criticizing the criticizers, beyond a point, only boosts your postcount

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 5:50 pm**

Lothar wrote:And defending or criticizing the criticizers, beyond a point, only boosts your postcount

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 6:12 pm**

WOW ++

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 6:13 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 6:26 pm**

Lothar,

Very eloquently stated!

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 6:32 pm**

Duper wrote:
Krom wrote:Quadchording? Uhm, WTF? Somehow you think you can go in 4 directions at once along only three axis? o_O
doesn't that have to do with a tesseract?

A tesseract is what you get when you unfold a hypercube. So you can't learn how to "quadchord" unelss you know how to unfold hypercubes while playing D3.

I believe what Spaceboy is referring to is the equivalent of triple chording but along the rotational axes.

If you rotate along all 3 axes at once instead of just 2, you'll turn 1.7 times as fast just like how you move 1.7 times as fast when you triple chord.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 7:48 pm**

...!

Possible, but is it really useful? If you don't end up pointing in the direction you want, it doesn't really matter how fast you get there.

I'm also not completely sure whether rotational velocities add up in vector form the way linear velocities do. Common sense would suggest so, but it isn't something I'm that familiar with.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 8:08 pm**

Sirius wrote:...!

Possible, but is it really useful? If you don't end up pointing in the direction you want, it doesn't really matter how fast you get there.

i thought about a better way to describe what i meant after reading what suncho said. when i fly, i'm always rotating, yet moving in a straight line. i'm moving at 1.7 times the speed of the normal ship, and i'm also turning at 1.7 times the speed of a normal ship. i apply the speed of my turns into flying forward, and sacrifice a steady view (when i'm trying to run away from someone or run to some place quickly). i'm constantly rotating but i'm spinning the other axis' in such a way that my flight path never changes, even though my trajectory does. i dont know that it makes me faster or not, but it feels to me that it does a little. thats as close to quadchording as you can possibly get, and i think thats what spaceboy means.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 8:09 pm**

If you trichord along the rotational axis while trichording along the translational axis, you become an almost impossible-to-hit fiend, able to turn a tank 180 degrees to hit someone attacking you from behind WHILE DODGING FIRE in less than .75 seconds. I'd go so far as to say that without this technique I wouldn't fly the tank in anything but BI3. The extra armor and firepower isn't worth it if I can't bring it to bear on the enemy. Using this technique, however, I've been able to out-turn, out-run, and out-maneuver newbies in the phoenix using a trusty old magnum.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 8:27 pm**

Yeah suncho, I'm pretty sure the same physics apply to turning as the flying, if you throw in both X and Y and R you can flip your ship 180 faster then normal. But the move you see the most is a hard turn and hitting reverse at a 90 degree angle to bring whoever is behind you into view as quickly as possible while not letting them get any closer.

Sirius, speed is a important part of posture, if I can get to where I want to be faster I have a huge tactical advantage over my target. Trichording isn't just useful for covering large distances, small distances are just as important.

A good trichorder will choose the vectors so they will be pointed in the general direction they wanted to be when they reach their destination. And getting there, even pointing in the wrong direction is generally a better choice then moving slowly and having someone ram a mortar up your tailpipe.

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 9:29 pm**

Sirius wrote:
Slowguy wrote:in a demo, you could show mono-chording, bi-chording, and tri-chording... for mono-chording you'd turn on a few turrets and see how long you'll last. for bi-chording, you'd turn on a few more, and for tri-chording a few more.

this would help people note the differences between the three types of chording, it would help them see that tri-chording is effective, and that would be the end of this argument.
Uh... no, it wouldn't. The reason tri-chording would win is because you're not restricting the way in which you travel.

therefore... if you remove tri-chording you'd be restricting the way in which you travel.

i see what you're saying though, and i guess you're right... it probably wouldn't be that fair to compare mono-chording to tri-chording, because with mono-chording you'd be restricted to moving in one direction at a time. though i still feel that a demo would still be beneficial to those who don't know what tri-chording is, and i still feel it's possible to show advantages of tri-chording over the other types of chording by using a demo...

think about this though, if you were to take tri chording and bi-chording out of descent (which is what hexetic wants to do in his mod) then your ship would move at the same speed in every direction.

for example, lets say we took tri-chording and bi-chording out of descent. and let us also say that the ships maximum speed is 100. the speed is a maximum of 100 whether you're sliding up, down, left, right, moving forwards, or backwards. your speed is also 100 while sliding in any direction while moving forward, or in reverse.

so in theory, sliding in any direction while moving forward, or in reverse would be equivalent to pointing your ship in that direction, and moving in that direction (minus the time it takes to turn the ship.)

so what's so wrong with that? you're still able to travel in all directions, so what's the big deal?

well, the way it's done in descent is...

let's say the ship's maximum speed is 100 for this example too. the speed is a maximum of 100 whether you're sliding up, down, left, right, moving forwards, or backwards. but this time, when sliding up, down, left, or right while moving forward or in reverse the ships maximum speed is 140.

in descent moving in two directions at once increases your speed by 40%

this is 40% faster than turning your ship (minus the time it takes to turn) and moving in that direction to get out of harms way. or in other words, dodging would be 40% faster than descent without chording. (which would also mean that dodging would
be 40% slower in descent without chording, that is for those of us that know how to move in two directions at once.)

now lets take this a step further...

when you're sliding in two directions, while moving forward or in reverse your ships maximum speed is 170.

in descent moving in three directions at once increases your speed by 70%

you're able to get out of harms way 70% faster, then if you were playing descent without chording. (which would make dodging 70% slower in descent without chording, for those of us that know how to move in three directions at once.)

so i don't understand why you feel that tri/bi-chording is not that important. i'm guessing that you probably don't realize that you're using chording while you play, and i'm also guessing that hexetic doesn't realize this either. i mean, even noobs can move in two directions at once! you go forward and slide to dodge a missile don't you? that's bi-chording, you're going 40% faster when you do that!

(i may have oversimplified my description here, maybe just a little, someone correct me if i'm wrong.)

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2005 10:35 pm**

Krom wrote:Yeah suncho, I'm pretty sure the same physics apply to turning as the flying, if you throw in both X and Y and R you can flip your ship 180 faster then normal.

Yes, but the important thing to remember is that it's not the nose of your ship that flips around 180 degrees. It's the "triple chord front"... ie. the part of your ship that is in front while you're triple chording. So, if you're only moving forward, you can't use the triple-turning trick to change your direction more quickly.

But the move you see the most is a hard turn and hitting reverse at a 90 degree angle to bring whoever is behind you into view as quickly as possible while not letting them get any closer.

Just apply this philosophy again and use the triple turn with backwards triple chording. That's how I do it.

Sirius, speed is a important part of posture, if I can get to where I want to be faster I have a huge tactical advantage over my target. Trichording isn't just useful for covering large distances, small distances are just as important.

It's useful in a fight for dodging and aiming as well.

A good trichorder will choose the vectors so they will be pointed in the general direction they wanted to be when they reach their destination. And getting there, even pointing in the wrong direction is generally a better choice then moving slowly and having someone ram a mortar up your tailpipe.

An advanced player will always be triple chording unless he has a reason not to triple chord.

Posted: **Sat May 21, 2005 12:20 am**

Thanks for the reinforcing suncho. On the first one tho, I believe the ship actually does turn faster in place when you use all three axis at once. However it is hard to judge because combining all three axis for a turn doesn't actually make the ship flip the same way as it would along one or two axis. If you were to draw a line out of the nose of the ship, and record the arc it made as the ship turned it would form a cone not a disk like other turns. Because of that, if you want to turn 180 at the absolute maximum speed you have to be prepared to be oriented sideways when you are done.

Posted: **Sat May 21, 2005 1:16 am**

Krom wrote:I believe the ship actually does turn faster in place when you use all three axis at once.

It does. Just time how long it takes to make 10 full revolutions, using single turns or double turns or all 3. It's a pretty significant difference. (It's also faster to turn left/right than up/down, again, by quite a bit.)

Posted: **Sat May 21, 2005 6:37 am**

Lothar wrote:It's also faster to turn left/right than up/down, again, by quite a bit.)

This is true in d1 and d2 but not d3.

Posted: **Sat May 21, 2005 7:37 am**

Mouse x axis is faster than y in D3, so it holds true to some extent.

Posted: **Sat May 21, 2005 11:05 am**

Only if you set your x sensitivity to be higher than your y sensitivity, no?

Posted: **Sat May 21, 2005 1:17 pm**

I knew in D1 and D2 turning up/down was slower then left/right. In D3 it does seem to be the same speed for both, it was a change I noted right from the D3 demo. I may have spotted it a bit easier because I was a keyboard only pilot at the time, I switched to the joystick shortly after the D3 demo came out because of the poor keyboard controlls, never looked back.

Posted: **Sat May 21, 2005 6:21 pm**

Er... I was referring to turning in multiple directions at once with that comment, not trichording. Turning faster is only any good if it's turning the right way...

Posted: **Sun May 22, 2005 2:15 am**

Oh wait, my mistake. My mouse sens is low enough that the kb turns me faster than the mouse, and I don't have keys for turn up/down, I use banking to go vertical.

Posted: **Fri May 27, 2005 10:12 pm**

This may be a bit off-topic...

How can you stand to fly like that testiculese?

Posted: **Fri May 27, 2005 10:25 pm**

I use a lot of keys

The low sens makes aiming easier. I have the ability to cover my field of view rapidly, anything after that I use the keys to adjust my FOV, where I then use the mouse again. (oversimplified, but the general idea.)

DescentBB

Because it's closed (and a poll for spite)

Re: Because it's closed (and a poll for spite)

Re: Because it's closed (and a poll for spite)