- April 12, 2016 at 1:28 am #7064
Well I believe many want it exactly how it was simply because they’ve been playing it that particular way for decades. They’ve practiced it so much that particular way that they don’t want the skill they’ve invested so much time into to go to waste. Like say tennis. After decades of playing with a net a certain height, a court with a certain width/length, a ball with a certain bounce, etc. You don’t want any of it changed since you’ve invested your reflexes and tactics around all of this. And hey, that’s cool. I’m not suggesting taking any of that away. However it would be nice to be open to some other options as well, with most of the same gameplay elements intact.
Some reasons to roll:
-This tri-chord boost does give a reason to use roll as it involves placing yaw,pitch,roll all at a 45deg angle.
-Yaw being faster than pitch is another reason to use roll; to roll so that yaw faces the direction you want to rotate in.
There’s rotational chord boosting as well where one combines pitch and yaw to go faster than either one. Pitch was so slow in Descent that rotational bi-chording didn’t add much speed though. However since pitch has been sped up quite a bit in Overload, rotational bi-chording boost is now a bit more significant. Though personally I’d like a ship that had yaw/pitch normalized so every direction was the same speed. There would be still one reason to roll: wing weapons fire left/right offset or up/down offset, and to dodge between dual lasers if the ship is flat enough. It might be useful having roll be much faster than yaw/pitch.
When they first made Descent did they listen to the flight sim crowd saying: sliding up/down/left/right?! That’s just silly talk! What are these guys thinking!? Planes don’t fly like that! Flying backwards, that’s just plain stir crazy! Planes go forward and steer through the air, don’t mess with that flight dynamic because that’s how it has always been and it’s a proven formula, so don’t go messin’ with perfection! If they had listen to that kind of talk then Descent just wouldn’t have existed, and the video game scene would have one less cool game to play.April 12, 2016 at 7:08 pm #7079Sergeant ThorneKickstarter BackerTopics: 12
Your analogy is unfortunately absurd, hypersonic. The movements available in Descent were the whole point of the game–it was a formula change by design.
Also your talk of dodging between lasers “if the ship is flat enough” is naive. If you flatten a ship enough to do that then frontal presence is gone out the window, no one can readily hit anyone else, fights drag on forever, and your game now sucks worse than D:U (or as much as D:U did before Descenters clamored for better targets… and were met about halfway (60%)).April 12, 2016 at 7:43 pm #7081
Yes, it was a formula change by design. Ultimately they did what they wanted and didn’t worry about conforming to anyone’s expectations. In response to a sentence you’ve edited out: No, Descent was not kickstarted, they had a bit more freedom back then to make the game any way they wanted to, they just had to convince a publisher that the game would sell well for funding.
Well maybe not in between lasers (though that seemed like a pretty cool idea) but if the ship is fairly flat (not super flat) then you can dodge easier by going up/down relative to enemy fire. In Descent when you go down those narrow corridors your roll didn’t matter at all as your collision shape is a sphere, which is kind of a bummer (but a sphere was quicker to calculate on those pre-pentium machines.)April 12, 2016 at 7:51 pm #7082d3jakeKickstarter BackerTopics: 3
Well I believe many want it exactly how it was simply because they’ve been playing it that particular way for decades. They’ve practiced it so much that particular way that they don’t want the skill they’ve invested so much time into to go to waste. Like say tennis. After decades of playing with a net a certain height, a court with a certain width/length, a ball with a certain bounce, etc. You don’t want any of it changed since you’ve invested your reflexes and tactics around all of this.
I thought we successfully stomped out earlier in the thread.
Couple of things:
The claim is conjecture at best (and falls on its face when you actually read some of the counterarguments given in this thread).
Some of those posts have stated that games have come up with non-trichording, or supposed replacements. These games weren’t found to have the same variety of gameplay, Not “I tried it, and I could never get the hang of it because it was different, so it’s bad. There have been waves of posts in this thread showing evidence as to why trichording is a necessary mechanic.
The claim “they don’t want something different” is a neat way to try to straw-man yourself out of discussing the points, and marginalize it.
Trichording isn’t some bizzaire skill that will drive away people (those who are would likely be driven away by any game that requires them to learn to use a mechanic. After the skill is learned, many leave the game due to them not wanting to or being able to learn to think in 3D.
Adding extra mechanics doesn’t make sense. Trying to conjure up some other bonuses is neat, but without restructuring the whole game mechanics, you won’t be able to create one that’s worth using, and wouldn’t become a gimmick.April 12, 2016 at 9:58 pm #7086Sergeant ThorneKickstarter BackerTopics: 12
Well maybe not in between lasers (though that seemed like a pretty cool idea) but if the ship is fairly flat (not super flat) then you can dodge easier by going up/down relative to enemy fire. In Descent when you go down those narrow corridors your roll didn’t matter at all as your collision shape is a sphere, which is kind of a bummer (but a sphere was quicker to calculate on those pre-pentium machines.)
I grant you it’s a cool idea, it just doesn’t really work. Maybe if weapons were a lot faster… As for the ship sphere, personally I love the idea of accurate collisions, but it does put a lot of emphasis on proper ship design or it’s a pain in the butt all over again.April 12, 2016 at 10:32 pm #7087sushicwKickstarter BackerTopics: 1
Having the front cross section of a ship affect tactics definitely works in a number of games, and I think it would fit just fine in Descent. High-level play involves:
* Trying to present the side with the smallest cross section to enemies you aren’t actively shooting
* The various cross sections of your ship as a balance factor: e.g. a ship with tons of firepower has a large frontal cross section, but one with less firepower is smaller and therefore easier to stay alive in.
* Choosing your rotation angle so that your guns best line up with the cross section of your target ship.
* Choosing your rotation angle so that your enemy’s guns do *not* line up with the cross section of your ship.
My own vote would be to use sphere collision physics for dealing with walls and other obstacles, but more strict collision meshes for weapon hits in order to allow these kinds of interactions. Even with just one ship type, having a cross section that varies by angle is straight up going to add depth to combat.
Getting back to trichording… (do we have to? :)) if we assume a roughly Pyro-shaped ship, trichording would increase your cross section along your direction of travel and this makes for a potentially interesting tradeoff compared to straight-forward flight.April 22, 2016 at 3:41 pm #7334Marc HansonKickstarter BackerTopics: 0
Doubt I’ll say anything that is totally original in this thread (but I’m not reading all of it to find out:) I like chording in classic Descent because it sort of defines Descent for me. If you hacked the game to force max speed = 1.0, I’m sure it would not feel like what I think Descent feels like. But I’m not sure that I would dislike it, either. It would just be a different feeling game (probably).
Does that mean Overload needs to have it? No it does not. Does that mean Overload will not feel as much like Descent as I would hope? Maybe or maybe not. Is that a problem? Maybe or maybe not. I do believe a 6dof can be made and be good without Chording. I haven’t played one I liked outside of Descent yet, though, so I don’t really have any other great examples. Even forsaken, which at least for a long time was the closest thing to Descent that wasn’t Descent, I couldn’t stand the way the controls/flight felt. I never got into it enough to discern exactly why, though.
I’ve never been a huge fan of the afterburner just because it was pretty limited in terms of only boosting you in the forward direction… much less useful for dodging. If boost/afterburner boosted you in whatever direction you were moving, that may be a pretty interesting, and useful hybrid approach. I could see a chording-less, but omni-directional boost flight model being compelling.
Ultimately, I trust these guys to make a fun game that I believe I will enjoy, whether it has chording or not, or any other pet feature or not. Overload may prove to be a superior game to Descent in the end (possibly optimistic, but these guys are great developers), and even if it is, it probably won’t be as meaningful to me as Descent just because of where I was in life when I discovered Descent, the friends I made and still have, internet gaming was new, Kali was a community, I got so into it I learned to program and got into the games industry (at Outrage no less), an industry where I still work 16 years later, etc… A lot of factors that just won’t ever be replicated again no matter how amazing the product.
Slight aside on the make it an option argument. I have found that at least in the games I’ve worked on, that typically is a result of weak design cohesiveness (or management indecisiveness:) It’s typically better to do a feature one way great, than two ways pretty well.
And… the MP descent community is indeed, a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. 🙂 We are passionate, but numerically, we represent like 0.1% of Descent’s sales. We don’t matter, from a strictly numbers business standpoint.
Marc…aka…LordDeathApril 22, 2016 at 6:50 pm #7336Haunted ParraspKickstarter BackerTopics: 31
I don’t really want to get into this but, hell, I’m a backer so my thoughts are just as much worth hearing as anyone else’s.
Just two things then:
Do I think trichording is a good mechanic?
I probably do. It wasn’t a big part of my experience with the game “in the day” and I certainly still think it’s possible to make a good game without it — but I generally like it just the same.
Do I think Descent would still have activity on the multiplayer side twenty years later in a parallel universe where there was no trichording?
Yes, it certainly would. It gets blown out of proportion by the fear it’s so subtle developers won’t realize that it’s a good mechanic. I’ve never found it to matter in the outcome of a game as much as some will claim, but it’s one of those things you probably want in there if only because people like it. The beauty of the multiplayer game is the tactical decisions and schemes you make on the spur of the moment, and this is just one of them.
In a game whose main selling point (for new players, anyway) is its singleplayer, there’s no reason not to put it in.
Ship’s cat, MPSV Iberia
Check out his original music @ http://vertigofox.bandcamp.com/April 22, 2016 at 9:18 pm #7338justcfx2uKickstarter BackerTopics: 0
I’ll keep my reply short and sweet.
I loved it. I thought “flying at a weird angle” was a good tradeoff, particularly in multiplayer where you’d also trade for time to put the reticle on a target.
If it doesn’t exist in Overload I won’t go crazy. I like it and would like it as a deliberate mechanic but if it’s there in reduced form or removed completely I’m sure I’ll live.September 2, 2016 at 1:12 pm #9065PyroJockeyKickstarter BackerTopics: 16
I like trichording, and that’s all I’m gonna say about that.
There are times you strive for greatness, to reach lofty goals and accomplish noble deeds. Then there’s the rest of the times you just want to blow stuff up.September 9, 2016 at 7:33 am #9164WhitesharkParticipantTopics: 14
When I first discovered that triple-chording made you move faster by watching D1 speedruns on youtube, I never thought that it would be odd or annoying, I found it really cool and challenging.September 13, 2016 at 11:26 pm #9226YoshimitsuKickstarter BackerTopics: 57
One argument that hasn’t been made yet, perhaps because it’s overly obvious: one of the good features of the mathematically-correct (~41/73%) chording is that it’s consistent. That is, if you’re a new player holding still and a bot starts shooting and you mash the “slide left” control, you’ll slide left at a particular pace. If you then move toward the bot and mash “slide right”, you’ll slide right at the exact same pace as you slid left at. If you’re flying toward the next bot and are also sliding vertically, and then you mash “slide left”, it still doesn’t change. Whereas in the 20/30% scenario, your slides give you ~18% less slide if you happen to be moving in one other direction and ~33% less slide if you happen to be moving in two other directions. So you’re constantly adjusting to weaker slides that don’t do as much as you expect them to do.
When I first read this post it planted an idea in my head that hasn’t gone away and has only gotten stronger. I loathe the lack of full trichording in Overload. I am not a hardcore multiplayer pilot, I have always played singleplayer just so you all know the perspective I’m coming from. I played Descent 1,2,3 for about 17 years before I learned about trichording so I haven’t really mastered its tactical use at a conscious level. I’ve always “Just flown.” Because of that my attachment to trichording isn’t about greater skill, better tactics, or a higher score. To me trichording is about the feel of the flight, and the feel of the flight is what keeps me playing Descent after all this time.
I’ve been playing Crysis recently, a modern FPS that doesn’t have any bichording/strafe-running boost although it does contain a terribly implemented 6dof segment. I’ve been paying special attention to the fact that if I’m running sideways and I add forward motion I move in a diagonal direction at the same speed. What it feels like though is that my sideways momentum has suddenly been drastically decreased by the addition of forward motion. In fact ever since I’ve read Lothar’s post I’ve been noticing and being annoyed by it in almost every other game I play. When you add strafe up/down to the mix the sensation of bogging down is even worse.
I got to experience 6dof with no trichording at all in the earliest days of Descent: Underground and the lack was painful to fly. I quit almost immediately and didn’t play again until they had implemented it. Overload’s limited chording boost isn’t quite as bad as that but it adds a sluggish feel to the ship that Descent simply doesn’t have. It feels unresponsive in a dogfight and I miss it almost constantly. I play for a while and then I have to cleanse my palate with Sol Contingency or Descent 2. I can fight in Overload just fine and achieve a satisfactory score considering that my skills are barely average. I have fun playing it, I’m glad I backed it and I’m overjoyed that you are making it. But I think the reduced trichord hurts the fun of the game and for me it means that the flight itself will forever be the item that “could have been better.” I can see the reduced boost being the reason I play Overload through once, and although I love it I never touch it again, instead going back to classic Descent, and SolC. I keep coming back to this because the rest of the game is so good that it would be a terrible shame to diminish the fun by flying in a ship that feels like it bogs down whenever you change directions.
Of course once I learned about trichording I did start to develop a feel for using it deliberately and there’s something that I think has been somewhat overlooked. I don’t usually use trichording to move from point A to point B. I use it along with all three rotational axes to move in spheres around a target or to swiftly CHANGE directions in a dogfight. In these situations I am trichording and facing my target head-on AT THE SAME TIME! This is at least one reason that boost/afterburner is in no way an adequate substitute for trichording. If you used boost in these situation you would have to point yourself away from your target to move where you wanted.September 14, 2016 at 4:14 pm #9257LotharBotKickstarter BackerTopics: 1
I was planning to come back to this thread to bring up exactly that point. Having played with it more, I really feel it. I don’t need trichording to move from place to place quickly because I have an afterburner, and the “no firing while AB” even provides a nice tradeoff. But in combat, when I’m facing at a robot and trying to both dodge and approach-or-retreat, that’s when the flight mechanics feel just plain bad. It seriously feels like playing on a janky  keyboard, or with a badly calibrated joystick — I press the key, and I get less response than I should.
Ultimately, trichording is a consequence of treating the movement axes as independent. It happens to have a bunch of other beautiful consequences relating to the tradeoffs between movement, orientation, and threat presentation. But even at the very most basic level, independent axes just feel better in a facing-the-bad-guy-and-dodging circumstance, and adding a scaling factor based on multi-axis movement feels sloppy and sluggish.September 14, 2016 at 4:40 pm #9258DarkhorseKickstarter BackerTopics: 2
Probably the result of being used to it in Descent. I haven’t noticed the problem myself.September 14, 2016 at 5:45 pm #9260
I like tri-chording, bi-chording, and uni-chording. In other words I like to have 1 to 3 non-zero thrust values at the same time on my ship’s axes while moving. I also like being able to have the same top speed in all ship-relative directions. I just hate it when I switch from a diagonal to a non-diagonal and have the ship slow down, it’s a real drag. Both mechanics could be satisfied by having 2 kinds of ships sharing the same bi-chord speed.
Forums are currently locked.
Previous Topic: Music for Overload Next Topic: Do you hate the huge emoticons in Quotes? Here's how to avoid them.