Jump to content

Master39

Members
  • Posts

    1,407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Master39

  1. 2 hours ago, t_v said:

    and set up custom scenarios easily!”

    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. 7 hours ago, James M said:

    Those who don't agree on some things may have reasons for such.

    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. 10 hours ago, Stephensan said:

    i can just totally seeing this being an option just like "plasma blackout" in ksp 1... enabled just by an option to fit both peoples needs

     

    • Soft limitation makes it take longer to do stuff (reduced efficiency) Stock KSP 2

       
    • Hard limitations will REQIURE life support items such as Food, Liquids, Kerbal Accommodations like living space even for the most simplest things for things like ISS like places, or long distance traveling. Ofc way more complicated, and more enjoyable for long term fulfillment for building large locations, or longer term flights. etc

    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. 35 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

    I think that then may be a problem with the way the question was asked. The question is so vague that some people are getting up and arms that this implies eliminating "sandbox style gameplay" and some are talking about a form of sandbox other sandbox players don't use, which misconstrues the "pro-sandbox" position.

    @Pthigrivi :wink:

    I wasn't clear, but what I meant to say was not that I dislike it because of the particular way science mode works in KSP1, I just don't want to deal with tech trees or a grind at all.

    I.e. I don't want to have to spend hours just to be able to use the NERV.

    I don't think the use of sandbox as a shelter from the poor progression-based game modes is a problem pertaining to sandbox, it is a problem pertaining to those poorly designed game modes.

    A KSP1 style sandbox existing in KSP2 would not detract from the other game modes in KSP2, only poor design choices for those other game modes would.

    One thing I did not mention in my post was how the colonial VAB would work. In this case, I would see the mining of resources to build rocket parts for assembly in that VAB to be treated like fuel- just another physical constraint, not a progression mechanic.

    So KSP1 style sandbox is still possible in KSP2. The only difference would be that solar systems would start automatically discovered and you would not need to find them. The other, of course, being no currencies or tech trees of any kind. All parts would be unlocked. In the orbital and Kerbin VABs, there would be unlimited access to these parts (assuming you don't need to mine resources on Kerbin itself to manufacture parts). At a colonial VAB, you would be required to mine resources to manufacture parts- just as you still need to fuel/refuel in sandbox in KSP1- but there wouldn't be any need to climb a tech tree, for example as long as you gather the required resources you could manufacture a NERV immediately without having to progress through any tech tree (assuming of course you have built the necessary manufacturing facilities).

    The same works if in situ resources are required for producing colony segments.

    I don't see environment affecting what can be built being particularly ground breaking from KSP1 sandbox. This would also be treated like a fuel- you just can't build X type of building somewhere in the incorrect environment in the same way you can't send a spacecraft lacking in delta v to whichever place you like.

    The difference is the presence of a tech tree. Even if it wasn't just arbitrary points being rewarded, many (including myself) just don't want to deal with a tech tree. We want to be able to build what we want when we want.

    This of course assumes some form of points are still accrued to unlock different levels of the tech tree. On the other hand, utilizing colonies for progression could be even more restrictive in gameplay, because not only am I forced to do things to unlock a certain part, but I am now specifically forced to build a colony.

    The entire tech tree itself could be regarded as arbitrary. Why do I have to wait so many levels to build an Orion drive when these things were proposed for construction and launch to happen in the 70s and 80s?

    An example of how a grind can be annoying is in War Thunder. That game uses arbitrary points (research points) to unlock new aircraft. But even if the game was reworked to do something tangible like capturing objectives or hitting a certain target to unlock new things, people would still hate the grind. I think this could be applied universally across games with tech trees (although I am welcome to be corrected).

    Some people don't want to deal with that sort of thing, no matter how meaningful/non-arbitrary it is.

    That said, I am now leaning towards sandbox being a bit more of a cheat/option rather than a separate game mode. The way I see it has transformed, and now, for all intents and purposes it would just be the standard game mode but with the tech tree completely unlocked and solar systems visible.

    So my view is now this. We don't need sandbox game mode, but we do need sandbox.

    Instead of a cheat option though it might make more sense to place such an option in the realism settings menu when you start a new save.

    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. 1 hour ago, Xelo said:

    And no this wasnt intended as an attack on your argument since the relative percentages were convincing enough (disregarding the fact the KSP forums is not a representative sample of the majority of people who will be playing ksp), just something I had to bring up because people kept using these polls for some reason even if the numbers were dodgy and I wanted to know why by attacking the poll itself.

    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. 8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

    Very interesting discussion. I’m surprised having a “normal” sandbox mode for KSP2 is seen as so difficult.

    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".

     

    8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

    I only play sandbox, tried science for a little bit but it immediately became a chore to grind the parts I wanted and became unfun so I went back to 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.

     

    8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

     Something nice about it is despite having all parts and not having to worry about economics, it still feels like I have to face the challenge of space travel. But if I had to go into a menu and select a bunch of options alongside things like “Infinite fuel” or “Infinite electricity” it would feel more like a simulation program- like a guy sitting at a computer running a design through a supercomputer- instead of a space flight game- like I’m actually in the pilot seat trying to get my lander down to the Mun.

    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.

     

    8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

    This could also be confusing for younger first time players.

    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.

     

    8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

    I don’t see “normal” sandbox implementation being an issue at all for KSP2. Here’s how it would work-

    - Obviously, all parts are unlocked. No tech trees and no currency (whether that be science points or whatever)

    - Orbital VAB comes automatically unlocked. I don’t recall how the orbital VAB is supposed to work (space center in space on rails?) but depending on how it is implemented this would either be a) the standard orbital VAB already present upon starting a new save (if it is like a space center in space functioning like a celestial body as mentioned above) or b) a stock VAB built from stock parts automatically being present upon starting a new save (if it is built out of pieces somehow)

    - Colonies completely function as in other modes, and are treated like spacecraft. Whatever is needed to keep them running that is special- food, water, certain raw resources, etc.- is treated like fuel, which is still finite in resource mode. Colonies can’t just be set up wherever and function without support, just as a spacecraft can’t be sent to the Mun without burning fuel. If players can do ISRU in KSP1 sandbox there is no reason why mining, farming, boom events and whatever for colonies in KSP2 sandbox is unthinkable

    - No BAE by default. Colonies are bases, a colony would start from a base in real life so it makes sense the player would at least be required to build a base and go through standard progression to get to a colony in the game. In the same way I can’t just build a base and put it on the Mun in the standard (without the real cheats like teleport) KSP1 sandbox game, players can’t (are not allowed to) just build colonies. So the BAE needs to be unlocked just as it needs to be in the progression modes, not as “a progression mechanic being present in sandbox” but because that is just how base-colony building works, not only from a logical sense but based on how KSP1 sandbox mode worked too

    - As part of colonies functioning as normal you still need to resupply them, so the auto-resupply mechanic will be available in sandbox too. Again, this isn’t a “progression mechanic”- supplying a base or colony is no different than refueling a ship at an ISRU outpost in KSP1 sandbox

    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. 5 hours ago, Xelo said:

    I feel like the forum multiple choice poll's percentage numbers may be very bugged, it seems like the poll is weighting each choice/ (the total amount of choices chosen) rather then /(total people voted) as if every time you selected a choice it were counted as a different person.
    like say there;s a hypothetical poll with three choices: A B C
    If only you voted on that poll and picked A & B, the poll would read 50% for A and 50% for B. Even thoh it should be 100% for each, because you arent two people that voted for two different options.
    Likewise with this poll, all vehicle parts reads at 9.03% currently
    The total amount of choices people have made excluding people who chose nothing and submitted is 321= (29+28+29+25+20+14+24+23+13+13+12+13+14+23+20+16+5)
    if my hunch is correct the poll would read 9.03%, (29/321)  which it is exactly.

    Ok so I went out and tested this on a old poll (so I can be more sure noone has selected an answer while i was clicking each option), and selected every choice in it. You'd except every choice's percentage to increase, but it does not.
    image.png

    Another way to check is by adding up all the numbers of this poll 
    9.03+8.72+9.03+7.79+6.23+4.36+7.48+7.17+4.05+4.05+3.74+4.05+4.36+7.17+6.23+4.98+1.56
    and seeing that it equals 100, which just should not happen on multiple choice unless everyone really did just select only one choice.

    This all means that there's literally no way to tell if one person picked both A and B or two people picked A and B separately because they would give the same polling result.

    So yeah, not to be offtopic, but I dont think multiple choice polls on this forum are a good way to go, going forwards.

    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:
    wVufxSr.png

     

  8. 9 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

    I do not consider Sandbox Mode a proper fix for a broken progression mode. I consider it as a thing on its own.

    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. 33 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

    Out of curiosity, which exactly? Sphere-shaped pods are a nice change from conical capsules, so I'll let them pass (plus you can squeeze 3 Kerbals in 1.25m sized rocket which is an achievement, and don't need a heatshield).

    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.

    42 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

    Soyuz side mounted tanks aren't that different from usual SRBs or other LF boosters (and they're more aerodynamic), I can as easily apply them to a spaceplane.

    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.

     

    35 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

    The 1.875m and 5m tanks are just as modular as any set of tanks in the base game

    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.

     

    49 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

    Admittedly I never used Kodiak engine,

    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. 1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

    But then we have lander module introduced by Making History. It's clearly inspired by Apollo lander but also has so many functionalities that it serves only one purpose. It's hard to use it anywhere else other than a lander. I mean of course you can but there are better tools to do these jobs. Before that we had to make our own landers out of Mk1 Can, rcs thrusters etc. And we can use these parts in whatever configuration we want. So what I'm trying to say is that problem starts when a part is too specific and limits our creative freedom. I'd honestly vote for not adding the lander to KSP2.

    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. On 8/12/2022 at 10:21 AM, Xelo said:

    I think this confusion may come from a fundamental disconnect of what a 'sandbox' is. :O 
    Hear me out: normally in other games, sandbox is a testing ground for wacky ideas or just preparing a design beforehand, generally other games put """cheats""" in there to facilitate said testing, design and creative expression. If I wanted to test say a manufacturing process in factorio, Id just spawn the buildings and resources in, place down an infinite power source and just, test it. If instead I wanted to test the viability of a solar powered base on eeloo, I cannot simply spawn a base on eeloo, I have to design a rocket, plan a route and everything. If it blows up mid course, then screw me I just wasted an hour without having even tried my idea. If I wanted to test how my station handles ore processing in orbit around duna, I have to bring my thing to duna, and mine ore from a nearby surface with another ship I have to also design build and ship. Its incredibly tedious.  In this sense KSP 1's sandbox is a stunted sandbox that is more of a 'easier' progression gamemode (where the progression is your skill in designing rockets to go where you want) then anything, and unless you use mods that fulfill the rest of a true sandbox's functions (e.g. teleportation) you arent really playing 'sandbox'.  Saying spawning resources is 'cheating' in sandbox is indicative of this mindset of KSP1 ""sandbox"", ideally any of the above options in the poll that facilitate an easier time with creative expression and testing would be a good thing to have in a proper sandbox.
    And i don't think they'll spawn a colony somewhere on every world, maybe instead you'll be able to open the base editor from literally anywhere and spawn base parts, resources and kerbals for free like you can do in the sandbox VAB. :D  That way you can just have a colony wherever you like for those photogenic locations.

    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. 2 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

    Then you have clearly no idea about what makes a game a commercial success or failure. The success of KSP 1 comes from those factors :
    - Being the first.

    - Very low initial financial risks / investment.
    - A handful of modders and hardcore users generating hype (and significantly contributing to the game development).
    - The hype making tens of thousands of casual players buying the game because the goofy kerbals makes it not look like a hardcore simulation whose value as a game is basically non-existent past the initial discovery and first hours of gameplay.

    KSP 2 is made in a completely different context, this is NOT an indie game like KSP 1. And given the circumstances, they very likely need the game to be an immediate financial success for the studio and the creative people in it to stay vaguely in charge.

    I don't know what or who you're replying to here but this has exactly nothing to do with anything I said.

     

    2 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

    by doing everything they can to provide a smooth learning curve and steady progression for the average player.

    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".

     

    2 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

    Well, I don't have a crystal ball, but almost sure all of that will be either quite simplistic, mostly cosmetic or not present at all.

    But don't misunderstand me. Yes, I don't expect stock KSP 2 to have in depth gameplay mechanisms. I think stuff like colonies, ISRU, resource and thermal management or life support will be very low complexity, casual game level of abstraction systems. Outside of the audience demographics argument, I doubt they have the manpower to deliver anything else.

    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.

     

    2 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

    But I hope it is something I will enjoy to play casually, as those other games that I enjoy but never touch again after a few dozen hours. Then hopefully, with time, either Intercept Games or modders will deliver what I'm actually waiting for as a hardcore, niche player.

    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.

     

    52 minutes ago, t_v said:

    Gotmachine is right though that these complex systems resulted in a huge fraction of players quitting early or getting annoyed early in KSP 1 (alongside with the difficult UI). But just like KSP 2 could be dumbed down to oblivion outside of travel, it can also avoid the mistakes KSP 1 made with the progression. The most important part is this:

    2 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

    doing everything they can to provide a smooth learning curve and steady progression for the average player.

    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. 10 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

    The fact that KSP 2 exists seems to be a direct counter to your assumption. 

    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. 10 minutes ago, Gotmachine said:

    but it's pretty certain that the "simulation gameplay" part will be simplified as far as they can without betraying too much the "grounded in real world/physics" premise.

    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. 11 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

    On one hand a LS system without significant consequences is a bit of an oxymoron in a way (not exactly supporting life if it isn’t needed.)

    On the other hand if they did stuff like have the Kerbals start chewing on their ship controls and other comedic things like that when those resources run out that would at least add some value back. 
     

    I am aware that the “No Fun Allowed” group wouldn’t appreciate that, but oh well. :P

    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. 13 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

    I fully agree with that, but the fundamental problem with LS is that any miscalculation on the player side results in a bricked mission, there is no real "counterplay", everything is happening at planning time.

    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.

     

    13 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

    "Non-hardcore" players are those that will make the game a financial success or not, and the difference between the game being supported for years or shelved a few months after launch. Not the people having poured thousands of hours in KSP 1 and posting on this forum.
    Despite what the public facing people are trying to convey, this is no passionate independent game, KSP2 is a financial investment controlled by a huge game publisher that bought a relatively successful independent brand to primarily make money out of it, you can be sure that every single feature that will or won't be present at launch is carefully weighted in terms of player demographics and impact on potential sales.

    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.

     

    14 hours ago, Gotmachine said:

    It is common knowledge that the majority of people having bought KSP are abandoning before even reaching orbit.
    It's not what I want to hear, but the main point driving game design decisions is very likely : how to ensure the average player is able to progress steadily toward the mid-end game without too much frustration ? Especially since this mid-end game content is the selling point they are desperately trying to push forward.

    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. 7 hours ago, The Aziz said:

    I must ask the sandboxy people:

    You want to build an interstellar vessel right away because why would you wait, you're in sandbox, you can do anything. But you know well the fusion engine is bigger than VAB, and the size of the building isn't going to change just for sandbox, what are you going to do about it? Making sandbox mode in KSP2 requires resolving dozens more problems than simply keeping science/funds/upgrades out of the equation. Not to mention that we're now controlling a lot more than single KSC and single rocket at a time.

    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.

     

    3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

    grinding petty contracts to spend on a slightly bigger booster.

    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. 22 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    It doesn't matter what the context says, you called it a cheat (which it isn't).

    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.

    2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

     arbitrary monetary limits and availability of parts.

    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.

     

    1 hour ago, Hotel26 said:

    We do strongly disagree.  What about?  My Aerospace bicycle metaphor.  I believe that is what you responded to.  Am I mistaken?

    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.

     

    1 hour ago, Hotel26 said:

    And you said: "KSP is just one in a long list of fantastic Sims that are terrible at being games."  Who says?  Subjective.  Disagree.  "People have been playing Go for centuries.  Is it a worthy game?"

    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. 51 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Simply incorrect. Sandbox is a mode where you're bound only by orbital mechanics as opposed to also having arbitrary monetary limits and availability of parts. That doesn't make it some kind of cheat, you're still bound by Delta-V and physical limits.

    Please read the context and avoid to cherrypick me to fit me in your narrative.

    I fixed my original message.

  21. 8 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

    I've read everything that has been posted in this topic quite carefully.  (I did say "removed or denigrated" and I was addressing my remarks to everyone.  "Master39 doth protest too much, methinks".)

     

    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. On 8/5/2022 at 5:11 AM, Hotel26 said:

    is that both views should be catered for: remove or denigrate one (particularly the original!) with caution.

    [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. 4 hours ago, metacognate said:


    It's like selling someone unlimited sandwiches for life, and then a few years later saying "No, we don't make sandwiches anymore, we only make hoagies" just to get out of it.

    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. 7 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

    There's a reason why the two trainer wheels ("Geology" a.k.a. Science and "Economics" a.k.a. Career) were bolted onto the rear axle later, seemingly as an afterthought -- and are naturally deemed underdeveloped (being miniature and not touching the ground; which would, after all, defeat the sense & intent of being a bicycle).  They're there as guides to those learning to ride the bicycle who need the additional assistance.

    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".

     

    6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

    It also still remains that no matter how well progression is done, most of the people here who chose sandbox did it because they didn't know how well it was implemented and simply weren't interested in progression.

    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.

     

    6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

    I still think that removing sandbox, and expecting that players still wanting it go through the process of cheating things in, is a rather transparent attempt at completely discouraging people from playing that way. That's a bad thing to do.

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...