Jump to content

Master39

Members
  • Posts

    1,407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Master39

  1. This, what if I want to start my "adventure mode" with all KSP1 tech unlocked but just that? What if I want a final tier fully autonomous colony on Laythe, with the full plane tech tree unlocked but no rocket parts and start like that? With (float) plane exploration slowly progressing unto suborbital rocket (float) planes. Creating those scenarios to play in adventure (maybe with a "no way back" switch) is also something I want to use sandbox for.
  2. Never said all these different opinions aren't valid or with reason. Just that they exist. It doesn't seem much, but after years (literally) being told "Well, sandbox is just sandbox, you know sandbox" every time I tried to point out that there may be some problem with the definition of the gamemode in KSP2 I think is a huge step forward.
  3. The reality of "Optional system off by default" is that they're not going to be more complex given they aren't mandatory, they're just going to put the minimum amount of effort to make it work. If there isn't any life support for the "default" gamemode then whatever hardcore option is going to be lacking. A soft system that's default for everyone is going to provide way more gameplay than a hardcore optional one.
  4. I agree with your point of view in all but in the fact that it seems to me you're presenting it as the only one. "No tech tree = Sandbox" is not THE definition of Sandbox, it's just yours. For someone else sandbox is entirely defined by the "Missing crew respawn" setting (random example). The only part I openly disagree is in making parallels between KSP Tech tree and War Thunder. KSP Tech tree is just badly designed gameplay, the grind is incidental, it's the easiest way an inexperienced Dev implements progression. War thunder tech tree is designed frustration, is meant to bore you, to make planes feel unobtainable, it's not gameplay, is a tentacle from the game to your wallet. On one side you have inexperienced indie devs implementing things in an easy way, on the other you have engineers min-maxing the fine line between making the player quit the game and frustrating is just enough that he'll start to open the wallet instead and buy premium crap.
  5. The pool is reflecting of the people that are discussing about Sandbox in the other thread. We now know that not everyone means the same thing when talking about "Sandbox", now we know that whatever that gamemode is supposed to be it's not as obvious as one may think, that we don't even all agree on some of the basic points of sandbox like "Free parts" or "unlocked tech tree". Know that we know that the conversation can proceed with way less misunderstandings.
  6. Because, as the other thread pointed out with data from a pool, every player is talking about a different gamemode when they talk about "Sandbox". That's a problem with how badly designed science is, not a merit of sandbox. This is what "KSP2 shouldn't need sandbox" means, sandbox shouldn't be a shelter from terrible gamemodes, the gamemodes should be all equally well designed. But Sandbox is also that, I'm using it too as the gamemode to go around the terrible progression of KSP1, but we have to acknowledge and make it work for people that want to build a trebuchet out of giant colony parts for their entry of the "How far can you launch a fully loaded and unpowered Kerbal X rocket with a sling or catapult contraption" challenge. Younger first time players should not be sent to sandbox, but to the tutorial portion of the main gamemode, which, this time around we already know is going to be the "Adventure/progression" one. We don't know how exactly the colonies are going to work, but we know enough to paint a picture of the kind of gameplay the devs are building for them. We know the population grows with something called "Boom events", that happen when you reach a new exploration achievement. We know that there are colony tiers, starting with modules brought from outside in kits to be inflated/assembled at the colony all the way to using resources to build new colony parts to then being able to build a VAB and thus new rockets. We know that there will be the automated supply runs. Lastly, we've seen different technologies for power plants and powering colonies, suggesting a deeper gameplay element in that direction, the presence of a geothermal plant even suggesting that the system may be depending on the environment for what buildings you can build. What all of that is telling us? What all of this system is telling us about the progression gameplay overall? Especially once I throw in the fact that you will have to discover new solar systems with some telescope. Which is the only time they revealed anything about the science system and again it's something you do because you need the info you get, not some random abstract points. Here to me lies the main potential problem with making a separate sandbox mode of any kind. KSP2 seems to be "De-abstracting" as many things as possible. Let me explain, in KSP1 career you had to grind an abstract resource (funds) by doing abstract contracts, yes, the rocket you launched where real, but the mission objective was not. "Mine 500 Ore from EVE and transport it to Minmus" There's no entity requiring that, no reason to do it, nothing on Minmus using that ore. But in KSP2 you will have a reason to mine, a reason to scan for resources, a reason to launch a telescope to search for other nearby solar systems, a number of mission to do to establish a real, working colony. With colony problems, rockets to launch to solve those problems and make it grow, become bigger and then, when it's big enough, become an assets in your further exploration by acquiring the ability of building and launching new missions from there. It's the same gameplay loop of KSP1 contracts: PROBLEM: Contracts: You accept a random contract because you need the funds it rewards you to fund a new mission. Colonies: You want to build a new colony because you need its capabilities in the form of exotic fuel production or a new launch center to enable a new mission. SOLUTION: Contracts: You design and launch a mission or a series of missions to perform the random task assigned you by the random contract. Colonies: You design and launch a mission or a series of missions to perform the really working task of building the really working colony at the location you decided among all possible options. REWARD: Contracts: You can now forget the useless busy work the contract had you do, here's your fund, do one or two mission toward your actual goal. Colonies: Your new colony is an active part of your working space infrastructure, the missions to build it part of the program that brings your exploration further, it's all so integrated there's almost no difference between the mission you make to explore and the ones you make to enable further exploration. Even if the colony system is simple, even if it doesn't take all that much effort to set up a colony, even if the resources are all everywhere and you never need to set up long range resource transfers, even if it's all instantaneous as soon as you touch the ground with a "make a colony" module. Even in the worst case scenario colonies are going to be more involved and complex than contracts and are going to steal their place in the gameplay by fulfilling the same role but while being more integrated into the game. KSP2 colonies are what KSP1 contracts pretended to be. Minus the abstraction. IF contracts will return in KSP2 it will be in a completely different role in the gameplay, no longer the main driving force of progression but probably, if money is still a thing, something to throw hints to new players in the early game and help you fund something useful like a commnet network while also allowing you to farm little amounts of funds while you get your off-world automated farming of some valuable resource, good or service to sell back to Kerbin up and running. What if colony building and their progression is THE progression? What if resource collecting to feed the colonies with parts and fuels is THE new, way less abstract, currency? What would that mean for the difference between "Adventure mode" and Sandbox?
  7. Good thing in my post I didn't talk about percentages then, I'm not even reading them. Not needed when I have the real data here:
  8. This is valid for every single player taken on its own, but when a lot of people start playing the "same game but without X" gamemode you start wondering what the problem with "X" is. Even a thing of its own, half of the features in the pool will turn Sandbox in an outright cheat mode, we can argue about which ones, but we sure can agree that if you enable all of the options from the pool you're left with little more than a physics playground. My point is that I want the cheat mode, I want the "everything enabled, but the tech tree unlocked" mode, I want the one with only the building upgraded at the start but everything else enabled, I have a use for every possible combination of the options offered by this pool. I want sandbox to be this pool, when you start the save it shows you that list of check's and you pick your own sandbox. If this were to be a literal sandbox I want the ability to choose which toys I want to bring in it with me, at every time.
  9. The spherical capsules are too similar to each other and too specific to the DLC. The first one is outright useless and the last one too powerful with 3 Kerbals and integrated heat shield. Not that balance matters in KSP1, but still. Which will look like a plane with a Soyouz booster strapped to its nose. For me that's definitely one of the worst offenders for parts that are too single-craft oriented. A set of 2 or 3 inter-size adapters with a slanted variant, along with a variant for the separatron to be radially mounted un the center of the booster (instead of having to clip it inside manually) would have worked way better for all applications. Allowing you to easily recreate the Soyouz boosters at different scales and capacities. And the part about the Soyouz booster I think also replies to this. It would be difficult to make a new tank not as modular as all the others, but they still managed to do so with the Soyouz booster. Funnily enough the Kodiak is my favourite part from that DLC, it's incredibly versatile, I have been using it as a rocket plane engine for my x-15 like planes. That not to say that I don't enjoy making history parts, but any part that has any kind of versatility feels like it wasn't intended, that every new part was designed with a single craft in mind.
  10. This is a problem I have with many of making history parts, if we have to keep using the Lego analogy for KSP, Making History is Playmobil.
  11. Sandbox is also a genre of games, and KSP is a sandbox game, even in career or science mode. KSP Sandbox came when they started adding progression stuff, for people that wanted to continue play as they always did. Problem is which ones of the new KSP2 features are "progression stuff" and which are instead just new game systems like IRSU or reentry heating that should be left enabled in sandbox? Out of 23 people that voted as of now there's not even unanimity on "All vehicle parts unlocked" and "No money required for building (or any abstract resource)" has less votes than one may expect given that money and contracts grinding seems to be one of most disliked things in KSP1 progression. From there it goes downhill. It seems pretty clear to me that not 2 people here have the same idea of what sandbox is supposed to be.
  12. I don't know what or who you're replying to here but this has exactly nothing to do with anything I said. Which is: Step 1: Provide a learning curve for new players. The end. KSP 1 learning curve is: "Close the game and come back after some hours on youtube". You probably missed quite a lot then. We already know that: Power generation goes quite a bit further compared to KSP1 and it's one of the main constraints for colonies and big interstellar motherships. Thermals are going to be the other big design constraint of big interstellar motherships. IRSU is going to be quite a bit more complex than KSP1's "single ore to rule them all" system. The game is going to have multiple fuels and being able to produce one fuel and not the other at some location is going to be part of the game. Every single aspect we know about the game is going to be more complex compared to their equivalent (if it exists) in KSP1. A well thought, complex, game-play loop doesn't necessarily mean the spreadsheet monster than most resource and life support mods usually end up being. There's an abyss between having to count the oxygen molecules you need for a 10 years journey along with other 200 different resources and a colonization ship to another solar system on a 50 years long journey consisting of an orange tank, a mainsail and 200 external seats strapped to every free surface. I think you have a distorted notion of what is a casual experience. For most people anything more complex than NMS flight system is already too hardcore. KSP will always be a niche game for as long as it has actual orbital mechanics in it. If their financial success depends on the game being a mainstream hit then the game already flopped. Even in the best case scenario we're talking about a niche side game from a the side studio of a big publisher. It's a Private Division game, not a Rockstar one. This is vitally important for the success of the game, and I personally would like to see this employed in the end-game so that I am not hit with a tidal wave of new systems as soon as I finish the « KSP 1 » section of the game. This doesn’t mean cutting all endgame systems out; I still want to put radiators on my Daedalus. Rather, it means these systems need to be introduced in an intuitive and simple way, and slowly build up. EC starts with solar panels, and you learn to add batteries when you start needing comms and ion engines. This staggered approach is great and means you don’t get the full complexity of a system at once. Now if only those hurdles weren’t placed at already relatively difficult steps in learning how to fly… See where I’m getting at? Tutorials will make things much easier to understand, UI will be designed to not scare people away and help people do things intuitively, and systems will be introduced methodically and in steps. Smooth learning curve and steady progression doesn’t mean flat learning curve and superficial progression. Let LS be a part of the game, and it will actually help sales if the team does it right. It's not the complex systems, mainstream RPG routinely come out with magic or crafting systems that are more complex than any of the LS system proposed here, it's the lack of an explanation. KSP is a game that requires you to understand orbital mechanics to enjoy it but never teaches it to you. Even something as simple as Minecraft was severely crippled by the lack of an internal source for recipes and game mechanics, when they added those the game became incredibly more casual-friendly and way less frustrating despite the overall difficulty remaining the same. People don't want to put in the time to discover the recipe for a pickaxe in Minecraft by trial and error, let alone figuring out the laws of actual IRL orbital mechanics. As you said the game has to gradually introduce you to things, and offer plenty of explanation for new systems and resources, sure enough I hope that gradual introduction of new things expands back in the "KSP 1 section". As an example, the Dawn and similar early-game ion engines (especially if nerfed back to the original values) can teach you how to deal with low thrust high efficiency engines burning under warp and in the background and high EC usage at a smaller scale, serving as a training ground for when you'll move huge motherships with the same tech.
  13. There are several games not pandering to the casual masses that have success. The idea that anything more complex than a battle royale F2P fails is just in the heads of players. There's plenty of money to be made in niches. And there's plenty of games that are cartoonish and goofy without being any less hardcore or niche. ONI is a great example of that. If you look at the list of Private Division published games you won't exactly find a lot of casual-oriented cash grabs.
  14. And, if they keep any kind of orbital mechanics as part of the gameplay this will be 100% wasted effort. Orbital mechanics make KSP an outlier among space games, it's the sole thing that puts KSP into the "niche, hardcore" kind of games and keep it nailed there. No amount of simplifying or cartoon goofiness is going to change that. The casual masses aren't going to suddenly want to learn orbital mechanics just because the Kerbals have goofy expressions.
  15. Well I would say that the "emergency hibernation" idea gives you significant consequences without straight out killing your kerbals and making rescue missions impossible.
  16. Kerbals have emergency hibernation. You can hit the button and send the crew in ibernation at any point, but only the KSC and late-tier colonies equipped with some advanced medical facility can revive them. You can keep control of the ship with a probe core, choose to hibernate only part of the crew to savage at least part of the mission and still have the possibility of a rescue if things go wrong. But you can't turn on and off the crew as needed to avoid LS altogether.
  17. It's a problem with every system if it's designed that way. Just like we have delta-V calculators and maps in the VAB the same can happen with every other system using consumables. Kerbal-fuel is not the only way of doing LS. Probably habitat requirements and environmental protection could be a more interesting way of playing it. Immagine if you couldn't just plop your standard space station inflatable module and your standard soft orbital EVA suit when exploring the surface of EVE? Or that a fuel tank with 16 external seats and a command pod doesn't count as a 17 crew capable fully working space station? There are many ways of having LS, and I don't think we should be limited by what KSP1 mods already did. There are plenty of successful games and series catered toward more "hardcore" players, the fact that every game has to be dumbed down to oblivion is a misconception. If anything there's more to be gained from catering to the space enthusiast niche than from launching yet another space game with NMS's flight model. You can spin it how you want but the presence of orbital mechanics puts KSP automatically in the most hardcore niche category you can possibly think of, if you don't remove that there's no point in making everything else easier and more casual-friendly. An the problem is 110% the fact that you need to study externally from the game to even understand what you're doing. As I recently said in another post, the fact that KSP teaches you orbital mechanics is not true, KSP teaches you nothing. It only gives you a sandbox of Lego parts to play with and apply what you studied elsewhere. That's why people abandon the game before reaching orbit. Not because it's difficult or impossible, but because the game never tells you what you're supposed to do. You have to go on Youtube and watch hours of videos there if you want to play KSP, and not everyone is willing to do that. That's not to say that KSP isn't a good product, it's a pretty good Sim, and as one it starts from the assumption that you know what you're doing beforehand, that you studied and did your homework elsewhere. Games are not supposed to do that, they're supposed to be self-contained products, requiring no external support, study or help to be experienced. That's what makes most people leave KSP and what the KSP2 dev team has to fix.
  18. I personally put the difference between "sandbox" and "cheatmode" right about here. In sandbox you would still have to build a colony and follow colony progression rules, and mine resources to build the orbital VAB and that use that, with resources, to build the interstellar ship you want. In "cheatmode" you just spawn whatever, since colony buildings are free, and orbital VABs require no resources, and there are no resources to mine, transport or population to manage colonies basically become spawn cheats, no reason to go the roundabout way, you just spawn the orbital interatellar ship you want in orbit. Your "single mothership to 3 solar systems" tour ship is not going to be different or any less impressive if you launched it from a non-working free orbital VAB compared to just spawned using the cheat menu. I use KSP1 Commnet and IRSU modules as a point of reference, sandbox doesn't make them stop working. Your view on progression is colored by how terrible of a system KSP1 has. I can't talk for other people but as someone excited for the new Adventure mode I'll be the first one to jump back to sandbox if anything as badly designed as KSP1 contracts system or as badly balanced as science shows up. That's why I want colonies and their population and resource requirements to work in sandbox too, slowly building my space infrastructure in the wake of my exploration missions is more than enough of a "progression mode" for me.
  19. In this case context does matter, it's the whole point of the argument. KSP1 is way to simple to even being able to consider Sandbox as a cheat, that is not going to be the case with KSP2. That doesn't even fully define the difference between science and sandbox in KSP1. In KSP2 interpreting that is going to be a complex matter, what does "availability of parts" include? Tech tree to unlock parts? Yes/No (this one is easy as it's already in KSP1). KSC VAB limited by VAB size? (some engines are bigger than the building). Parts requiring resources to be crafted in colonial and orbital VABS? Colonies having other types of limits and rules based on the growth of the colony, some variable based on the population or the colony tech level? (Ex. Tanks are easy to manufacture, engines needs to be imported in low tier colonies) Possible construction times? Electric power needs for the VAB and building phases in colonies? I'm not sure what I would consider "normal Sandbox", only that the first one is probably be always on and that I'd want to be able to choose for all the other questions. And, in some cases, like requiring no resources, power or colony management to directly launch rockets from an unmanned VAB spawned from a menu in the middle of nowhere definitely enters the "cheat" definition. If sandbox gave you the possibility to effortlessly launch your missions from Minus to take advantage of its gravity wouldn't you call that a cheat? You're no longer bound by the physical limits and the delta-V requirements of launching something from the KSC. In the "Adventure" gamemode there's going to be a progression of tech, set up times, population growth, management and resource requirements to reach that seemingly "cheaty" capability, and then ongoing costs and resource and fuel requirements to build that rocket. Depending on how you define Sandbox all or none of those requirement could be shaved off. You said that Science and career are there to provide assistance to new players, called them "training wheels". That's objectively wrong. If they're bad at being games they're even worse at being tutorials. That what I disagreed on, you flipped it and somehow turned it into me denigrating Sandbox. First thing first, I love sandbox sims, and KSP is one of them. But it's objective that KSP tried to be something more, to add a management aspect to the game, and they failed at that, hard. I love management games too, and KSP being good at both, would be a dream situation for me. Sadly KSP is a good sim but a terrible (management) game. Sandbox is the only thing keeping the game playable, if you were forced to go through career to play it would be an instant refund for most players and that's where I agree with the title, "Sandbox shouldn't be needed..." "to make the game even playable". Also, since you brought up the argument of assisting new players by wrongly categorizing career and science as training wheels, KSP just lacks that. And that too is one of the usual differences between a game and a sim, A sim is designed on the premise that the end user knows what he's doing before picking it up, a game has tutorials, on-boarding and a carefully designed difficulty curve.
  20. Please read the context and avoid to cherrypick me to fit me in your narrative. I fixed my original message.
  21. Sorry but you didn't read or understand me if you think I'm denigrating Sandbox players or advocating for Sandbox removal. I've been playing nothing but sandbox for years now. Sandbox IS the cheat mode you use to try wonky designs. Ignore this if you don't understand what it means in this context. Sandbox IS the test mode you use to test landers for your progression save. Sandbox IS the gamemode for when you add external progression systems or challenges like a colony mod, life support or maybe even RSS. Sandbox IS the gamemode for new players, that already have difficulties figuring out orbital mechanics and can't be bothered with science or funds on top of that. Sandbox IS the gamemode for people that already finished the tech tree a thousand times and at the end of that the game is sandbox anyway. Sandbox IS the place to go if you want to follow your own set of rules and headcanon. KSP progression, both science and career are simple, so simple that you can obtain all of the above with a couple of switches and nothing more: currencies disabled, tech tree disabled. KSP2 is going to be a completely different beast from what we know, and each one of the uses of Sandbox I listed above requires a wildly different set of settings for all the colony, discovery and resource mining stuff. Something not as simple and easily done as a single "Moneys = false;" in some config file. This is because while KSP1 pretended to have something going on with the contract system asking you to move around stuff or build useless satellites, bases and stations, KSP2 will have those as part of a working infrastructure network. KSP2 progression seems to be bases not on the slow and grindy farming of a pretended currency but on the player slowly building a working space infrastructure network one launch at a time, with multiple systems interacting with each other. With that you can't just flip a switch and disable the whole system like you do in KSP1. So, since apparently writing it 6 times in 3 pages isn't enough to get it read, what do you want sandbox to be? How are you going to use it? Because I know what I want, I want to be able to build catapults to send Kerbals to the abandoned airstrip island in a save, test a new Eve lander in the next, use it to set up a starting colony on Laythe only to then disable the Sandbox and start a new progression from there instead of Kerbin. And then, when I'll have hundreds of hours in KSP2 and played the beginning over and over again I want to use the Sandbox mode to skip the initial progression, but keeping the colonial progression and discovery systems up and working. But all of that requires Sandbox to be configurable and not just a single On/Off switch.
  22. [snip] I've already said in all my comments that I don't want sandbox removed. I'm not arguing for the removal of sandbox. If that's all you're going to say don't send notifications my way. Thank you.
  23. If you promise free sandwiches forever for everyone your sandwich stand is going to fail. The person buying the stand after your harebrained bankruptcy has made no promise and has no responsibility to follow you to a bankruptcy of their own. The choice here isn't between paying for KSP2 or having it as a free update, but between paying for KSP2 or having no game at all. Nobody would fund the development of a completely new game out of the remaining sales of a 10 years old game, not without some aggressive monetization scheme. The math simply doesn't work out.
  24. Strong disagree, KSP is just one in a long list of fantastic Sims that are terrible at being games. Both science and career are terrible not only for veteran player that want an additional challenge, but also for new players, they're poorly explained and don't reward the player to improve in any way. They don't provide any assistance in any way. The first suggestion I always had for new players is "forget progression and learn the game in sandbox". We can only say that after a meaningful and fun progression is added. Right now the only objective point we have is that sandbox is the only game mode than can be considered complete. I'm not arguing for removing sandbox. Just to provide a ton of option to build your own sandbox when choosing the game mode. Despite everyone ignoring the matter for some reason there are at least a dozen of unanswered questions the answers of which can radically change what "sandbox" even mean. And I'm not saying that to put sandbox as an inferior gamemode. I'm going to use that gamemode a ton, and in different occasions I may want colonies to work normally or to have everything free without resources based on what I'm planning to do with that specific sandbox save. Back to OP, the title is 100% right. We shouldn't need sandbox for the game to be even playable. I've refunded plenty of fantastic games that were hidden behind a terrible progression systems, and without sandbox KSP would totally be in that category.
  25. I use sandbox too, but OP original point remains, most people play sandbox because KSP1 progression modes suck. You can say someone will like it and other people won't, but for a gameplay design aspect they are barely more than prototypes and they were never fixed or updated past the first raw implementation.
×
×
  • Create New...