Here, I want you guys to give your proposals for a D4 multiplayer. We all know it is multiplayer that keeps people playing games. What type of multiplayer should D4 have to keep people playing it:

My proposal is to have 3 different types of multiplayer for Descent IV:
1. Standard 2-32 Player LAN/Online matches with CTF/Team Anarchy/Anarchy/Others (Given all the options D3 multiplayer gave, like Crysis MP)
2. Hosted 8-128 Player Ranked Servers with CTF/Team Anarchy/Anarchy/Others (Ranks give unlockables, works like BF2142 MP)
3. MMOFPS 1000's of players (could use multiple servers) with 2 teams (humans and aliens) rooted for the other's destruction (follows my proposed single player, except the battle is at Earth, in which case, single player could be cut off after the EMP strike) Descent is the game that the elites played in order to pwn all the noobs of today.

That's a lot development money poured into what probably isn't most Descent player's best interest. I don't speak for them, but I speak for myself, that doesn't make sense to have... Especially considering I can't think of any successful MMOFPS (On that scale), or even one that exists.

Frankly, they shouldn't make the same mistake Unreal Tournament 2003 did. What they had in Descent 3 was pretty solid, and they should really just improve upon that to keep it up to generation. Add some weapons, add some reasonable game modes, maybe some new power ups, and really just balance it out for some good competitive anarchy/CTF matches. All this coinciding with the single-player component of course, I'm still a single-player fan.

I'm all for innovation sure, but not in a way that will alienate old school fans just to bring in a different crowd. Otherwise, why would I want the franchise to come back?

Well, you don't just add in the MMO community, you will still have the old school game modes. But I think MMO's do a good job keeping people in the game, granted they are done right. It is true that no good MMOFPS exists today, but no truly 3D game existed before Descent nor full 6DoF game. If D4 can do it right, I think making a MMOFPS part to the game will get people talking and keep people playing. I myself like variety, and with Descent, any variety of gameplay helps in my opinion.

But then again, the MMO addition should not be the focus. If the budget is too big, keep it for a Descent V, make a Descent V solely MMOFPS. Descent is the game that the elites played in order to pwn all the noobs of today.

Now WE are talking. I for one like the idea of the "Big War" for earth. Escape pods would come in handy.

Actually I think the whole, "Battle for Earth" scenario is getting really trite.

Anything over 16 max players is TOO MANY. Where are you people getting this "the more the better" crap? Descent isn't that kind of game. 12 at most, unless its a team map THEN i could see perhaps 20-24. But thats it, no more then that.

I'd only go as far as to want to see #1 happen with Descent 4..2 to 64+ players on a LAN/online network. Even to me, 100+ on a dedicated, hosted server network may be a bit too much for Descent's concept, however interestingly it might turn out.

And before any of the "smaller game" people jump me as well for having this opinion..That's all fine and good. If you really insist on having your smaller 12 to 24 players max. games, no one is going to stop you.

Just because if gamesas were to allow 32+ or 64+ players in a large game, with large maps, doesn't mean you can't have your smaller games too. But limiting the game to only ever support your smaller games with fewer players, makes it impossible for those who want larger games to play the game as they wish.

Simply put, it's better to include and offer the option to choose for those who'll want it, than completely leave it out. You're only asking for a smaller player-base, the more options you limit or leave out.

sure they can include it but i'm telling you with experiences from D3, large games like that KILL the fun of the game. Descent isn't the "large maps" kind of game that your thinking. It doesn't do well like that.

And imagine hundreds of players (Or robots) in six axis. Can anyone say extreme vertigo?

At any rate, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the game to allow 32-64 player matches. It's like Counter-Strike Source. Some opt for that sort of thing, while I certainly don't, but it's my choice.

Maybe some custom maps will take advantage of the player cap and make it fun for lots of people like that.

Please do not disgrace Descent by comparing it to Counter Strike. Say what you will about it but just not that.

Anyhoo, D3 was able to run matches with any number of people, Once say a 32 player match but never filled up. Hard core descent fans just don't like that many people.

I'm suddenly inadvertently disgracing a franchise because I made a reference to Counter-Strike regarding a stupid feature? Descent doesn't need to be the exact same game it was down to a tee. I picked Counter-Strike as an example of a game that enabled you to play a match with up to 32 players, but that there's more strategy and skill involved when you play with less. I'm not implying Descent needs to be more like Counter-Strike so please cut the elitist attitude.

Just my opinion but I agree Descent is not massively multiplayer oriented. 8 players is a lot in a game with a moderate map. Large maps may allow more but not like 60 more like 20 max. Team oriented campaign style matches with objectives including forays into wide open areas which would require wingman /leader style tactics might allow larger numbers in a 6DOF type game like descent but with too many players it would just degrade into a confusing dis-orienting free for all in seconds. Herein lies the marketing problem for this type of game I guess. However giving the players the control of server settings allows a plethora of games to be setup for a smaller number of max players and still gives the potential for large sales volumes on the game. Just not all the players in one room please.

.

While it is true that D1/D2 tended to go for smaller player counts, due to players being confined in mines, D3 tried to break that trend with outside. Since we are in space ships, I figure we might as well stretch the speed these ships can do in a very large environment. Large environments work well when there are lots of people. Yes, some people like to play to never die and get awesome K/D ratios, but I think there should be room for those who like the action of combat, never knowing if they are going to be overrun by a large grouping of pilots, then at the last minute pull out a black shark and wipe the enemy away to get sniped by another hiding.

To cut my argument short, large environments (many players) adds to the realism of the game and Descent has always been known to stretch our imaginations on how real a game can get. We can continue serving the old styles of gaming, but we also need to think about the larger community. We need to recruit some more Material Defenders to make Descent a reality. Descent is the game that the elites played in order to pwn all the noobs of today.

I think that If you were going to have a game with what would be considered a lot of people, it'd have to be a pretty big map, and then you'd only have at most like 20-30 people. With missiles, lasers, and all sorts of projectiles flying everywhere, even on a big map things will probably end up being that you can't move very far without dying or losing a ton of shields from all the errant shots. And that's only for outdoor matches. For indoor matches, I'd say a MAX of 12, maybe even 10 players. With things indoors usually being quite confined, too many players would basically result in the same thing as overpopulation of outdoor matches: Constant death, not much movement. Even with the CTF maps like varicose veins, you didn't want to have a whole lot of people in each game, since people'd just keep spamming MD shots. And like I said in another thread, the MD needs to be toned down for multiplayer at least, since it's quite boring going 2 feet into enemy territory to just be smashed to bits by 2 people hovering there "sniping".

Finally, please don't use halo terms, use the descent ones. It's team ANARCHY, and normal anarchy. To me, for a game like this, that just sounds better.

Ok, I changed the wording to Anarchy, wasn't sure on the wording. Anyway, as for too much gunfire, think of a much bigger map, like a Crysis island map. Ships can be so far apart that you can't see them side to side. The maps I'm talking about will feature various terrains and miles of space. MD's can only snipe what they see. Also, for those who like mazes, there can be multiple buildings one can fly in and out of and complex structures under earth.

From my experience with D3, while I was a big fan while the PXO was up, I was always disappointed at the size of the maps. I just felt constricted bumping up to a sky ceiling or hitting an ever arching cliff. Games like Crysis, on the other hand, has some MP maps that are very nice by their size. Of course with ships, you need an even larger map. Nevertheless, I have seen a trend for larger maps, more players. We should keep the standard D3 MP style with the 32 player option; but 32 players, while a lot, may not be able to give the player the full sense of war with teamwork and lots of battleground to cover. That is where 8-128 battles come in. These battles give each side 64 players, making 8 squads (like in BF2142) of 8 a real possibility. Teamwork is an aspect D3 lacks when compared to today's games. And then of course a MMOFPS would just give us pure war with global (and space) combats. In these, teamwork hits a whole new high for unimaginable possiblities. The more possibilities you give to a game, the longer people can play it before looking for something else. I don't want Descent IV to shame the Descent series by being just a top game for a year, I want it to be top game for many years, putting it in the league of WOW or Halo (in terms of popularity, naturally Descent pwns all these noob titles). Descent is the game that the elites played in order to pwn all the noobs of today.

You realize your basing your belief that allowing 32+ to 64+ players in Descent 4 can't work and will only fail, on your own personal gameplay preferences for Descent, and past versions, right?...

You can't possibly know what will or won't work for Descent 4. You have no idea what they're going to do with D4. You have no idea where they're going to take it this time. The game hasn't been finished and released yet..How can you judge something that doesn't even exist yet?..How can you judge something when you don't even know for certain in what form it will take next time?

From their first attempt to develop D4, which was eventually further reworked and renamed, Red Faction, we saw how they had originally planned to make drastic gameplay changes for the next incarnation of Descent..It's clear by that alone that they did want to try taking Descent into an other direction. So for all we know, Descent 4 may end up severely different, possibly even taking a larger scaled form, or maybe even smaller than in the past..we just don't know.

Bottom line is, this thread is basically a "multiplayer wishlist" thread for Descent 4. Therefore, the ideas and preferences that may be suggested within this thread, can't legitamately be labelled immediate failures, for a product you no nothing about yet. This is not about what would have worked for D1 to D3..this is about Descent 4. And crapping on others' ideas because they don't fit your own preferences, isn't going to change their minds.



Uh, we're just talking about a game here. Descent is still a FPS like any other..only it's style of gameplay is of a different format than most other FPS...But it's still a FPS game..Still just a game..Not the 2nd coming of Jesus.

The only ones who can "disgrace" a video game are the programmers.



Or maybe the real reason Descent 3 servers so rarely "filled up" was because most "hardcoe" Descent fans just plain didn't like Descent 3 to begin with?

I don't know how it was like on other online gaming networks, but on Kahn(THEE Descent gaming network of them all), seeing an open Descent 3 game to join was an extremely rare sight to behold. And that's saying something! Quite literally, Kahn was 96% Descent, with Red Alert, Warcraft 2 and a few Diablo servers making up the remaining 4%. I swear, I could count the number of times I saw a Descent 3 server running during my lengthy time on Kahn, on 1 hand..with a finger and thumb to spare. Descent 2 was lord and master on Kahn.

My "beliefs" as you so call them are based off actual tests at trying to establish such a thing within Descent 3. And yes, I know that Descent 4 is not out yet, and I cant truly know whats going to happen, I never once said I knew. I am going off what has been done and saying what is not a good IDEA based of past events, thats the best ANYONE can do.

That said...

Just because this is as you call it a "wish list" does that automaticly mean that those who oppose the idea have no say in any matter? Who are you to say I can't refute ideas? When did gamesas grant you power here?

Uh, we're just talking about a game here. Descent is still a FPS like any other..only it's style of gameplay is of a different format than most other FPS...But it's still a FPS game..Still just a game..Not the 2nd coming of Jesus.

The only ones who can "disgrace" a video game are the programmers.

Heaven forbid I be a fan of something.

Or maybe the real reason Descent 3 servers so rarely "filled up" was because most "hardcoe" Descent fans just plain didn't like Descent 3 to begin with?

I don't know how it was like on other online gaming networks, but on Kahn(THEE Descent gaming network of them all), seeing an open Descent 3 game to join was an extremely rare sight to behold. And that's saying something! Quite literally, Kahn was 96% Descent, with Red Alert, Warcraft 2 and a few Diablo servers making up the remaining 4%. I swear, I could count the number of times I saw a Descent 3 server running during my lengthy time on Kahn, on 1 hand..with a finger and thumb to spare. Descent 2 was lord and master on Kahn.

I'm talking pre-shutdown of the official server listings.

Plus saying 96% of Kahn is all Descent means nothing. 96% of what? For all I know it could be 100 people, in which case, only 96 play Descent. Wow, staggering numbers there...

Both ideas, whether Descent 4 should allow big maps/many players or smaller (old Descent) maps/fewer players are good ideas. That is why I split MP into 3 types, and of course you can choose in the first type to have 16 max, 8 max, etc. with smaller maps. I think it is important to have more options, to go with the theme of Descent being a freedom game. Developers need to fulfill the needs of a variety of persons with minimal sacrifices. Having more options gets rid of sacrifices. Descent is the game that the elites played in order to pwn all the noobs of today.

I totally agree, I'm not saying larger player caps (as if D3 had any, which it didn't) is a bad idea in general, but from a standpoint of the type of game Descent strives to be, large numbers of players isn't what the mass majority want. And do not think i'm the only one with this opinion. Reread posts and there are others who agree as well, i'm just more vocal about it.

Descent 3 had/has full support over 64+ player games if you so chose, but rarely did anyone ever try and set up games with that many people.

I stated this in an earlier topic. We all love our descent... its by far the most challenging and rewarding game most of us have played bar none. I still think the possibility to jump out the ship and make way through smaller tunnels to ambush would be a great Idea. Think about it. Your following someone around a corner all stealth thinkin' you got one up on em. See their ship and blast the crap out of it... but no kill.... then seconds later, before you even have time to blink, you get tagged with a sticky bomb that blows you to kingdom come from that very same guy you though you had just KO'd.... Thats a mind game right there.

Given this is TWO seperate games all wrapped into one, part being ground pounder which we all hate... but in the same aspect... for the people that don't know the controls yet, Running through a mine and seeing a pyro fly overhead would be amazing, terrifying, and motivating to learn how to actually pilot one correctly. Just a thought.

Decoy ships would be cool too. 15 second holographic image of your ship that autopilots through the mine.