Sandbox misconceptions?

[regex]

Over the years here I've seen many people on the forums (unironically) claim that playing Sandbox mode precludes goals, planning, and efficiency.  Is it because having everything available reduces all your design problems to "MOAR BOOSTERS"?  Is it a lack of personal goals in the game?  Do you feel there is no impetus to explore concepts, techniques, and places without artificial signposts and point rewards?  Do you feel like personal restrictions aren't enough?  Do you feel the need for some sort of gated progression?

I generally have no problems building efficiently using personal restrictions and following a plan to meet a goal I've set when playing in Sandbox mode, and I'm curious why you feel otherwise?

[Wallygator]

"Science sandbox" player here mostly.  I prefer to manually unlock all the research nodes in a science game all at once at the very beginning.   Then the progress of collecting in-game science points becomes a mechanism to chart my ongoing progress against self-imposed objectives/goals and exploration programs.

I find using self-imposed objectives actually unlocks more enjoyment within the game - for me that is.  Other people's experiences may differ.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Wallygator
schpelling

[Docsprock]

There are other modes besides Sandbox?!?!?

[Butterbar]

Yes, yes, yes, and yes, because I apparently lack imagination in all aspects.  

Even in Sandbox I heavily restrain myself to progressing like a actual space program and don't do any manned missions or orbital missions in space immediately, because doing manned interplanetary flights off the bat (Even though I'm capable of doing so) just feels wrong and makes me burnout extremely fast.  Since career forces me into that and rewards me with a point system, why should I bother to do Sandbox? 

Edited March 29, 2016 by Butterbar

[wumpus]

goals: Since career won't even give you maneuver nodes, I'm guessing that sandbox lets you hit your goals from the start.

planning: I'm not sure how you can get to another planet without a plan.  Certainly nothing I've seen in career modes builds a plan that you couldn't build in sandbox any easier.

efficiency: I've spent a lot of time using SRBs and trying to recover boosters in career.  Stock (default setting) throws so much money at your for most contracts to make any efficiency argument moot.  You build efficient rockets for pretty much the same reason in career as in sandbox.

Nope, none of these are reasons to prefer career mode.  I've pretty much done my main play exclusively in career mode (using sandbox for testing and otherwise simply launching simple rockets due to avoiding the complex launches my career mode required).  I may have spent more time in sandbox after all, but mostly in orbit or on Minmus and back.

I'd hope that Squad could do more for career than the "remove features from sandbox and add grind" that it has always been (and the milestone feature is a great one), but further suggestion would be to supercharge the R&D outsourcing (there is little hope.  People figured out how to game the system and it was nerfed.  One of the goals Squad has recently shown is to maximize the required minimal grind).  Being able to trade money for science would at least give an in game reason to build more efficient rockets.

When career mode dropped I think everybody recommended new players start with science mode.  The learning curve is just nasty (that whole survive the way down and open your parachutes fast enough) on the suborbital flight is a killer. 

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Butterbar said:

Since career forces me intoI' that and rewards me with a point system, why should I bother to do Sandbox?  

You shouldn't.   If it's not for you, it's not for you.

[TimePeriod]

I like sandbox because I can get to maximize my manic obsession with the least parts as possible.

I like career because I can satisfy my obsession with just getting things done rather than screwing around with 1/2 parts, putting a dent in my productivity or outright killing my grove.

 

I am complex.

 

[Korvath85]

Personally, I like Career mode in that it gives me contracts, which give me direction, and I like that.  Gives me a list of achievable goals.  It also allows the game to progress via the Tech Tree.  What I don't like is the finance limitation, in that I may HAVE to do some boring B.S. contracts if I have a few launch failures to get funds back.

Some will say "Play science mode then".  Yes, this is good and fine, and I don't have the finance problem while still having the progression of the Tech Tree.  But I lose the structure and "guidance" of the contract system.

A dream system to me would be a science mode with contracts.  Perhaps a mod idea or something of the like, but I'd like Career Mode - Finances.  

P.S. - I'm horrible and money management real-world also, so maybe that says something. 

[pipercarman]

I find that sandbox is better than career mode. Just because I am free to do what I want when I want. As well I don't have to grind for science continuously. Also I find that the science tree is really bad as you start with grinding pointless missions to get enough science to get into orbit. And almost get forced into doing certain objectives I don't want to do.

Edited March 29, 2016 by pipercarman

[pandaman]

I play almost exclusively sandbox.  I've had no issues with too big a selection of parts.  I try do do stuff efficiently,  because it feels 'right' and I can build in a much needed bigger safety margin.  It just seems to be more 'my thing'.

I've tried career and science modes and I really like the idea, but so far the current career mechanic hasn't grabbed me.  I'll give them both another try in 1.1 to see how they've changed as I'd really like to have different styles of games depending on my mood.

[Renegrade]

Well, it's like the recent delta-v discussion re: mods.  I can impose my own restrictions and progression, but that's inconvenient. It's much easier when the game does it for me.

Also, games are designed by game designers, who are skilled in setting up meaningful progression and restrictions and such, much more so than I am.  Or, well, that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. *cough*goodjobSquad*cough* *cough*moretiersincareer*cough*  *cough*weneedmoremeaningfulprogressionintechnologyinthesciencetree*cough* *cough*theMPLisamassiveprogressionfubar*cough* *cough*Icoulddothisforhoursifitdidn'thurtsomuch*cough* *cough* *hack* *cough* *dying*

(well, to be fair, there's literally thousands of game/sim writing houses, and maybe five of them have good designers, and about two hundred have incredibly lucky ones that initially look like they know what they're doing until they release their second game.  Squad's probably slightly ahead of the curve.  Hooray for bell curves! >.> )

Also sandbox is cheating (JUST KIDDING).  #cheatingmeme'd~

Edited March 29, 2016 by Renegrade
highlight in red

[regex]

8 minutes ago, Korvath85 said:

Personally, I like Career mode in that it gives me contracts, which give me direction, and I like that.  Gives me a list of achievable goals.

So you prefer the game give you goals rather than have to set them yourself?

4 minutes ago, pandaman said:

I've tried career and science modes and I really like the idea, but so far the current career mechanic hasn't grabbed me.  I'll give them both another try in 1.1 to see how they've changed as I'd really like to have different styles of games depending on my mood.

Same here.  Career mode lacks "management", feels more like "accumulating fat lucre doing random, boring things".  We've been over this tons, though.

Edited March 29, 2016 by regex

[nosirrbro]

I agree entirely. I play exclusively sandbox (Save for a heavily modified science mods), and find career mode infuriating in the way it ruins what I think is best about the game. Something sort-of on topic that bugs me is that whenever people learn I play sandbox, they often think that I'm just bad at the game and that I play a version that is essentially a pile of cheats, when in reality I find that I generally make better, more realistic craft in sandbox because since I am the person who is making the limitations I generally make them more strict and realistic, because I really don't enjoy the "MOAR BOOSTERS" mentality of the game.

[Korvath85]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

So you prefer the game give you goals rather than have to set them yourself?

To the contrary, I like being able to do what I want - that's part of the reason I don't like the financial limitation of Career mode.  What I DO like/desire/want/whatever, is the guidance that it gives.  I like a sandbox game where it gives you goals, yes, but at the same time you're free to go do whatever you want.  More a list of "on the side" things to do while I'm waiting for tasks X, Y, and Z to complete.

[StormKat]

Sandbox FTW!  That way my most efficient design is all me and not due to some limits placed on me by lack of funds, lack of science, lack of parts, etc.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I feel like this question may have been inspired somewhat by something cheeky I said lol...so I'm gonna pipe in here.

I'll make a comparison to Minecraft to try to get across what I'm trying to say. Minecraft primarily consists of two distinct game play elements, one being mining and the other crafting. Now mining is generally repetitive and somewhat dull, crafting on the other hand is where we get to be creative and stretch our imaginations. Some players for this very reason choose to play in "creative" mode where resources are unlimited, there is no danger, and you can craft as you please. For me personally this is ignoring half the game, and anything constructed in "creative" or "sandbox" mode feels somehow hollow and devoid of any hard work or accomplishment. I'm not impressed at all if you built a tower that's 10,000 blocks tall on creative because you didn't actually have to mine up any of those materials. Likewise, turning KSP on and having access to all of the best parts/level 3 buildings immediately feels cheap to me. It's not that it actually is cheap or cheating...just that it robs you of the experiences you might have had by being more limited, if you've ever designed something that clearly needed a ladder without a ladder because you didn't have ladders yet, you know what I'm talking about. I guess this just boils down to personal character, some people just want to have free form fun, others want a goal to strive for. To use another example World of Warcraft, I have plenty of friends who "bought" level 60,70,80,a million or whatever max level is nowadays, but personally I couldn't enjoy a character I didn't grind all the way up from level 1. Maybe it's an old-school mentality, I got my first NES at 4 years old...to me a game needs to be able to be "beaten" via clearly defined win parameters or it's not a game, maybe were just gluttons for punishment? Ultimately, I don't think either way is wrong, just different.

All that said... is the career mode in KSP terribly good as far as career modes go? No, not really. I really do hope 1.1 improves this.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Armisael]

Since this discussion is, as always, actually about justifying playing career mode instead of sandbox mode...

I enjoy career because it generates situations I wouldn't've thought of on my own - particular combinations of tech limits, part count limits, weight limits, and cost limits with the challenge of working in unusual part test contracts. Yes, you can grind cash and science out with contracts and obviate some of those challenges - but you don't have to.

With the exception of a few telemetry-based challenges you can do all of these things in sandbox mode - but that doesn't mean I'd think of them.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Armisael

[regex]

3 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I feel like this question may have been inspired somewhat by something cheeky I said lol...so I'm gonna pipe in here.

Partly inspired, but you being cheeky reminded me of the people who have unironically said such things over the years.

3 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I guess this just boils down to personal character, some people just want to have free form fun, others want a goal to strive for.

No reason you can't set goals to strive for yourself.  I, for instance, have a goal of landing on Callisto.  My mission architecture is on its second (much lighter) iteration and third launcher/transfer stage.  I've failed twice.  Once I'm done with that I'll try to put a satellite around Mercury using Venus gravity assists.  Once Realism Overhaul hits 1.1 I'm going to create a save for the sole purpose of seeing just what I can accomplish with only a Soyuz as an LV.

FWIW I don't play Minecraft unless it's in Hardcore mode (well, with the exception of multiplayer) because then there's some real risk involved.

1 minute ago, Armisael said:

With the exception of a few telemetry-based challenges you can do all of these things in sandbox mode - but that doesn't mean I'd think of them.

So for you it's more of a question of thinking up goals?  I get that.

[Wiseman]

I can't really play Sandbox for the same reason I can't really play Minecraft. I don't have any motivation to build big/pretty things if the goal is just the satisfaction of doing it. I could get to Duna, drop Kerbals there, a rover, an airplane, whatever, but if there's no framework to guide my actions and provide me incentives and rewards, it feels pointless. That may be because I've put in my time and learned all the basics, though.

Rocket said it better than I was going to:

3 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

...Likewise, turning KSP on and having access to all of the best parts/level 3 buildings immediately feels cheap to me. It's not that it actually is cheap or cheating...to me a game needs to be able to be "beaten" via clearly defined win parameters or it's not a game, maybe were just gluttons for punishment? Ultimately, I don't think either way is wrong, just different.

All that said... is the career mode in KSP terribly good as far as career modes go? No, not really. I really do hope 1.1 improves this.

That's really what it comes down to for me. I need that game structure and framework, or else I feel like I'm just playing with model rockets in my backyard - the pieces are pretty, but the game is all in my head. I find myself more inspired to do neat things in Career, anyways. In my latest game, the Strategia mod helped me to earn enough money such that I never really have to grind, and it gives me potent and clear objectives. With that in mind, I assembled in orbit a large interplanetary vessel, landed a Duna ascent vehicle and science rover, sent a crew up to the vessel in a descent capsule, dropped them on Duna, and then performed a science-gathering road trip in the rover on the way to the ascent vehicle. 

That's a cool mission, and I may have come up with it just as easily in Sandbox, but this way I see tangible rewards for all of my efforts. Piles of funds and science rolling in (since I set up a RemoteTech network ahead of time), and even more when I get the crew back to Kerbin, all sorts of milestones checked off; lots of little Skinner-box lever-pulls I wouldn't have gotten if I had planned this out in Sandbox. 

[Skorpychan]

Science sandbox here, because I want some progression instead of just using the bigger stuff right off the bat. But no Career grinding for funds. Sure, I could disable the grinding so I can make money doing whatever, but why bother when you can just disable the need?

And a Sandbox save for testing designs for stuff I don't have yet, or perhaps for screwing around with hyperedit and such for tests.

I want a Science mode with crew training and skills enabled, though.

[maceemiller]

Sandbox all the way......the way I feel KSP should be. Tried it sooooo many times, yet a career where I have to test a part I'll never use anyway seriously sinks my boat. At least with sandbox your your own mission developer, controller and pilot all in one, only constrained by........you

[Randazzo]

The first game of KSP I ever loaded up was in Sandbox, and I was hopelessly lost. So, I went to career mode. It provided at least some guidance and part progression. Sandbox has felt hollow to me ever since.

The basic difference in my perception is that Career mode feels like better tools are being earned, versus Sandbox where everything is just handed to you.

There's some psychological stuff there, I'm sure.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Personally I enjoy physics and puzzle games, and I find having some hard limits to be fun. An old memory of mine that sticks in my head was a gym class in elementary school where I was stuck playing a game with some kids who thought it most fun to simply smash a ball as hard as they could and the majority of time was spent going after the ball. Rules, challenges, and hard limits can actually make something fun. Sure you can set your own rules, like you can golf and make every hole a par 20, but there is satisfaction in beating a set standard goal, or a goal that is placed in front of you by someone else.

I agree with the NES sentiment of being able to beat games- going from the Atari 2600 to the Nintendo was a huge leap in gaming for me- probably the most gratification in playing a game (besides KSP of course!) was beating The Legend of Zelda, I was a 12 year old who was flush with pride

[regex]

17 minutes ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

Sure you can set your own rules, like you can golf and make every hole a par 20,

Or par 2, let's not sell the sandbox players short...

17 minutes ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

but there is satisfaction in beating a set standard goal, or a goal that is placed in front of you by someone else.

As well as satisfaction in meeting your own goals.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

@regex I get that aspect too, one of my new favorite youtube channels: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrfWUNq3XCKoAo_E8JMJpfg

I love watching people go far with very little, it's cool!