KSP2 should have no optional features

[Guest]

@Brikoleur I think the problem is layered, I don't understand if your problem is with the options in the background code or the options for the players, because you can have all systems to be non-optional in the code and just use multipliers in the option menu to effectively give options without having them in the code (like you explained with the sandbox-career example).

And it can be done with all the examples brought here, LS? Just multiply the consumption rate with a 0-1 slider with 0 being "no life support".

Commnet? The system already have to be capable of picking the strongest connection to allow relay networks, just add a "direct KSC" antenna to the tracking stations that get turned on if you don't want to mess with commnet.

Contracts? Half of the contracts already have nothing to do with actuall gameay mechanics, like resques and satellite deployment, Commnet and LS related contracts would just become abstract contracts like all the other one.

Game balance with money and science? Ritm games solved this 20 years ago, once again, multipliers.

 

So, are you arguing for giving the players less options or to have less optional systems under the hood? Because those two are two completely different arguments and one doesn't automatically implies the other.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

I think the problem is layered, I don't understand if your problem is with the options in the background code or the options for the players, because you can have all systems to be non-optional in the code and just use multipliers in the option menu to effectively give options without having them in the code (like you explained with the sandbox-career example).

Both. They're two ends of the same problem. 

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

So, are you arguing for giving the players less options or to have less optional systems under the hood? Because those two are two completely different arguments and one doesn't automatically implies the other.

Primarily, I'm for less optional systems under the hood. Secondarily, I'm for less options for players. My reasoning for the second point has to do with game design. If you want to make a game with rich, synergistic, well integrated, coherent systems, then making some of them optional -- whether it's by setting a constant to zero or by flipping a switch -- makes it that much harder to do that. Again, CommNet is a prime example: the tech tree is clearly designed with CommNet in mind -- it differentiates between probes and crewed missions, and between the different types of antennas we have. Switch it off, and the tech tree is suddenly unbalanced and doesn't make much sense. 

So basically a game designer that has to account for a range of optional systems is designing with one hand tied behind his back. Therefore, I think the base systems that are in the game should never be optional. And if that means that a few people who can't stand the idea of signal blackout ragequit, then so be it. 

As an aside, I am 100% sure that if CommNet had been in from the start and never made optional, it wouldn't even have occurred to anyone to disable it. It's just so integral to the game. LS, if it's in, needs to be the same.

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Except the title is saying that KSP 2 should have no options.

Except it doesn't. 

It says "KSP2 should have no optional features." That's not quite the same thing, and for a big part of this thread you've been violently disagreeing with stuff that I never said, neither in the title nor in the text.

[Arco123]

Why don't we have just a button for advanced stuff called "More settings or advanced or something else."? And sweep most of the more less important but still good options there. I do not want to change .cfg files or something else for some really custom stuff. If I'm getting you right. 

Plus we can have presets for players. (Like you said.) To choose from and do stuff with. The advanced button would be for well, you know. Also, I do not want to click through the entire tech tree so maybe a button for sandbox so you can make some other saves like the normal but change it a lot. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

Again, CommNet is a prime example: the tech tree is clearly designed with CommNet in mind -- it differentiates between probes and crewed missions, and between the different types of antennas we have. Switch it off, and the tech tree is suddenly unbalanced and doesn't make much sense. 

To me that's a great example of the opposite, if the game is balanced around having commnet and the tech tree is too then people disabling it will just have cosmetic parts in their tech tree, it doesn't need to affect the game at all.

 

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

Primarily, I'm for less optional systems under the hood.

And this is is something I can agree on, as stated before it's a matter of some multipliers here and there to have the same functionality without disabling half of the game.

 

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

Secondarily, I'm for less options for players.

This on the other hand is 100% a "I want everybody to play the way I think is right, nothing else should be allowed".

Before saying that's not true immagine if the dev deciding what those " forced settings for everybody" is the guy designing silly challenges like the "Catapult a Kerbal to the airfield" one (which I loved seeing the results)  or some of the most hardcore "real solar system/signal delay/KoS only/N-Body physics" players?

Or maybe someone only using robotics to build mechas replicas?

 

 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Master39 said:

This on the other hand is 100% a "I want everybody to play the way I think is right, nothing else should be allowed".

No, it's not. Really, it isn't.

16 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Before saying that's not true immagine if the dev deciding what those " forced settings for everybody" is the guy designing silly challenges like the "Catapult a Kerbal to the airfield" one (which I loved seeing the results)  or some of the most hardcore "real solar system/signal delay/KoS only/N-Body physics" players?

Then it would be a disaster. Of course it goes without saying that the game has to be designed by game designers who know how to design a game. No amount of options will save KSP2 if it's designed by nincompoops. 

I trust that it's not designed by nincompoops.

I'm against giving players more options, but for giving them more freedom and more room for experimentation and creativity. I think the discussion earlier on into game modes is a pretty good illustration of what I'm after.

"Sandbox mode," "Science mode," "Career mode," and "Mission Builder" are options. I'm against that.

The single gameplay mode I sketched out earlier integrates all of those into one system.

• You have your "Mission Builder" in the R&D building, as the Mission Simulator, more or less as it is in Making History, except that now it has a direct use in your in-world games -- designing craft and planning missions -- and it's tied into the Science gathering mechanic: your missions become more detailed and more realistic as you gather Science about the bodies in the simulation. You could still share your missions, have competitions with them, and so on and so forth, a game within a game if you will.
• You have a functional equivalent of "Sandbox mode," by starting your game from a different world state (all buildings upgraded, all parts bought, a gorillion Funds in the bank).
• You have a functional equivalent of "Science mode", by starting your game with a gorillion Funds in the bank.
• And moreover, you have a completely new "mode," "Finance mode," by starting with the Sandbox world state but pennies in the bank. 
• Finally and most importantly, you can strike any balance you choose between these modes by adjusting the starting funds and science, rewards, and initial world state.

See: fewer options, more freedom.

Moreover, this doesn't even touch the real options in the game: mods. I would very much like to see stuff like an integrated CKAN and Module Manager. Why would the base game need options when you can mod it way, way, beyond any set of toggles?

 

Edited March 1, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

The single gameplay mode I sketched out earlier integrates all of those into one system.

• You have your "Mission Builder" in the R&D building, as the Mission Simulator, more or less as it is in Making History, except that now it has a direct use in your in-world games -- designing craft and planning missions -- and it's tied into the Science gathering mechanic: your missions become more detailed and more realistic as you gather Science about the bodies in the simulation. You could still share your missions, have competitions with them, and so on and so forth, a game within a game if you will.
• You have a functional equivalent of "Sandbox mode," by starting your game from a different world state (all buildings upgraded, all parts bought, a gorillion Funds in the bank).
• You have a functional equivalent of "Science mode", by starting your game with a gorillion Funds in the bank.
• And moreover, you have a completely new "mode," "Finance mode," by starting with the Sandbox world state but pennies in the bank. 
• Finally and most importantly, you can strike any balance you choose between these modes by adjusting the starting funds and science, rewards, and initial world state.

See: fewer options, more freedom.

And it would change nothing to have those presets in a menu before starting the game, unless the goal is to force people into extra steps punishing them for not playing in the "right way".

Also this example conveniently doesn't cover gameplay changing features like Commnet or LF and "play the right way or love off" it's exactly "forcing everybody to play the way I want".

 

17 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

You have your "Mission Builder" in the R&D building, as the Mission Simulator, more or less as it is in Making History, except that now it has a direct use in your in-world games -- designing craft and planning missions -- and it's tied into the Science gathering mechanic: your missions become more detailed and more realistic as you gather Science about the bodies in the simulation. You could still share your missions, have competitions with them, and so on and so forth, a game within a game if you will.

By the way, you're totally misunderstanding the mission builder.

It's not a tool to test mission, it's a tool to "code" challenges and scenarios to share with other people.

 

21 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Moreover, this doesn't even touch the real options in the game: mods.

I love modding and I think gamers and publishers alike owe a lot to the modding community and that's why I think we should stop piggybacking on volunteers and giving them for granted, especially for fully priced pieces of software.

"There's a mod for that" it's a wrong culture that disrespect modding and modders and it's no different from the people going I to mods topics asking for an update 5 minutes after a new patch comes in breaking everything. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

Also this example conveniently doesn't cover gameplay changing features like Commnet or LF and "play the right way or love off" it's exactly "forcing everybody to play the way I want".

No, it does not. I do not want to dictate how you play KSP. My opinion concerns what toys you play with. And, yes, I do think the base game should provide the same set of toys for everyone, with the possibility to make your own through mods.

As to CommNet specifically, if it had been in from the start, it wouldn't even have occurred to anyone to want to disable it. 

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

And it would change nothing to have those presets in a menu before starting the game, unless the goal is to force people into extra steps punishing them for not playing in the "right way".

I agree. I suggested earlier that you should be able to save world states as templates for new games and share these templates with other players, and the game could come with a few built-in ones -- "Sandbox," and "Science," for example. Did you miss that?

Once again: fewer options, more freedom.

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

By the way, you're totally misunderstanding the mission builder.

It's not a tool to test mission, it's a tool to "code" challenges and scenarios to share with other people.

I'm not misunderstanding it. I'm re-purposing it into something that would be much more generally useful, without compromising its current use for the small number of players who actually use it for that purpose. I even described just that above.

(Small tangent: I often have a self-imposed semi-hardcore rule for my careers; however, I allow myself a "SIMULATION_START" save when I'm designing craft or planning missions. Sometimes I step out of the game and use the Mission Builder for further refinement. If the Mission Builder was integrated into the game, I wouldn't have to jump through those hoops; I could just step seamlessly into and out of it, transferring my craft designs over without having to copy-paste in the filesystem. So yes I'm quite confident it would work, and be useful.)

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

I love modding and I think gamers and publishers alike owe a lot to the modding community and that's why I think we should stop piggybacking on volunteers and giving them for granted, especially for fully priced pieces of software.

"There's a mod for that" it's a wrong culture that disrespect modding and modders and it's no different from the people going I to mods topics asking for an update 5 minutes after a new patch comes in breaking everything. 

Now I think you're intentionally misunderstanding me. The boldface also suggests that you might be getting a bit upset. Therefore I think it's best that we, too, note our disagreement and move on, as I do not think there is a productive discussion to be had here.

Edited March 1, 2020 by Guest

[dmsilev]

2 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

No, it's not. Really, it isn't.

Then it would be a disaster. Of course it goes without saying that the game has to be designed by game designers who know how to design a game. No amount of options will save KSP2 if it's designed by nincompoops. 

I trust that it's not designed by nincompoops.

I'm against giving players more options, but for giving them more freedom and more room for experimentation and creativity. I think the discussion earlier on into game modes is a pretty good illustration of what I'm after.

"Sandbox mode," "Science mode," "Career mode," and "Mission Builder" are options. I'm against that.

The single gameplay mode I sketched out earlier integrates all of those into one system.

• You have your "Mission Builder" in the R&D building, as the Mission Simulator, more or less as it is in Making History, except that now it has a direct use in your in-world games -- designing craft and planning missions -- and it's tied into the Science gathering mechanic: your missions become more detailed and more realistic as you gather Science about the bodies in the simulation. You could still share your missions, have competitions with them, and so on and so forth, a game within a game if you will.
• You have a functional equivalent of "Sandbox mode," by starting your game from a different world state (all buildings upgraded, all parts bought, a gorillion Funds in the bank).
• You have a functional equivalent of "Science mode", by starting your game with a gorillion Funds in the bank.
• And moreover, you have a completely new "mode," "Finance mode," by starting with the Sandbox world state but pennies in the bank. 
• Finally and most importantly, you can strike any balance you choose between these modes by adjusting the starting funds and science, rewards, and initial world state.

See: fewer options, more freedom.

Moreover, this doesn't even touch the real options in the game: mods. I would very much like to see stuff like an integrated CKAN and Module Manager. Why would the base game need options when you can mod it way, way, beyond any set of toggles?

 

While I like the basic structure of what you outline, how is it "fewer options" than the current setup? You've replaced three discrete points with a broad 2-D continuum of "start-up funds/science", which is a vastly larger set of values for the player to choose from. Sure, you can add a few presets, but that then is exactly equivalent to what we have now so you haven't changed anything.

 

(also, one thing Career mode has that is not addressable by adding startup science/funds is Kerbal experience. The only way to get a Pilot who can do a hold-orientation-to-manuever-node in Career is to actually fly them around to a bunch of places. That's a minor point, and one could certainly imagine allowing Kerbals to "buy" experience in a training facility, with a cost in funds and/or science)

[Bej Kerman]

If I can't turn off the silly time-wasting Commnet, then what if I want to just play the game casually and put a tiny probe around Duna without messing around? What if I don't want to click through the entire tech tree, all the building upgrades and sloooooooooowly replenish credits when my insane amount of money runs out? The solution: Options and modes! Not only can you play the game as casually or as hardcore as you like, but consoles get customisation too!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, dmsilev said:

While I like the basic structure of what you outline, how is it "fewer options" than the current setup? You've replaced three discrete points with a broad 2-D continuum of "start-up funds/science", which is a vastly larger set of values for the player to choose from. Sure, you can add a few presets, but that then is exactly equivalent to what we have now so you haven't changed anything.

But I have changed something. I've replaced four currently discrete game modes with only one, and made it so that there is significantly more room for creative, emergent gameplay in that single mode than in the four currently-existing modes combined. The emergent "Finance Mode" that Snark named, for example.

My objective was never to reduce player freedom, quite the contrary. I'm criticising the way KSP1 is designed -- with mutually exclusive modes and optional feature sets -- and arguing in favour of a design with a single, consistent, fully integrated, synergistic feature set. The whole point of the exercise is that the result is more fun, with more room for creativity, freedom, and emergent gameplay. I am not a wannabie tyrant who wants to dictate to you how you should play the game, quite the opposite.

 

Edited March 1, 2020 by Guest

[dmsilev]

1 minute ago, Brikoleur said:

But I have changed something. I've replaced four currently discrete game modes with only one, and made it so that there is significantly more room for creative, emergent gameplay in that single mode than in the four currently-existing modes combined.

My objective was never to reduce player freedom, quite the contrary. I'm criticising the way KSP1 is designed -- with mutually exclusive modes and optional feature sets -- and arguing in favour of a design with a single, consistent, fully integrated, synergistic feature set. The whole point of the exercise is that the result is more fun, with more room for creativity, freedom, and emergent gameplay. I am not a wannabie tyrant who wants to dictate to you how you should play the game, quite the opposite.

 

The point is that the current game really is three presets with the same underlying game. Sure, it calls it three different modes, but that’s really just semantics; 'science' and 'sandbox' are two endpoints on the 'amount of science points available at start' axis. 'Career' adds in a separate axis, 'funds available' which for the first two is implicitly set to Really Big. 
I think you have a stronger argument for 'no options' with the variables you started with such as the communication system, or for that matter the 'hidden' option of AutoStrut, as those have the potential to change how craft are built and flown in deep ways that sticking to a funds budget simply doesn’t. 

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

My objective was never to reduce player freedom

Unfortunately for you, that's the consequence of reducing optional features, like commnet and re-entry heating. Do you know what? Some people just want to play the game casually.

When I boot up KSP, I'm not usually in the mood to do another 5 trips to Jool to establish a sat network so I can fly a probe around. That would take an absolute eternity, and some people just don't have an absolute eternity to spend.

Some people make incredibly expensive, massive ships (Heard of youtuber ShadowZone?), and starting out with a million credits won't be a sandbox to them. Even if there were a million credits per mission, people don't want to break away from their current task to send some tourist to point B. People like me, SZ, and other casual players would suffer a massive hit to not be able to start off with infinite credits, reputation, buildings and all parts, and have to set up massive networks to send a little scout somewhere in the solar system. In fact, when KSP 2 comes out with ships hundreds of meters long, and expensive types of fuel, this would be an even bigger problem.

People starting off might not want re-entry heating on because they just want to learn how to land on Laythe without the risk of being incinerated. Making a new save without sandbox mode would be convoluted and cumbersome, and it would take a while to upgrade everything.

Do you see what I'm saying now?

[mattinoz]

8 hours ago, Master39 said:

 I think the problem is layered, I don't understand if your problem is with the options in the background code or the options for the players, because you can have all systems to be non-optional in the code and just use multipliers in the option menu to effectively give options without having them in the code (like you explained with the sandbox-career example).

Oh... Master you say this so neater and more elegantly than I managed.

 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, dmsilev said:

The point is that the current game really is three presets with the same underlying game. Sure, it calls it three different modes, but that’s really just semantics; 'science' and 'sandbox' are two endpoints on the 'amount of science points available at start' axis. 'Career' adds in a separate axis, 'funds available' which for the first two is implicitly set to Really Big. 

It’s not just semantics, it’s a material difference in concept and design. My version is simpler and allows for a bigger range of player freedom: not just Science, Sandbox, or Career, but any of those plus Finance and any weighted combination of them.

You are right that certain initial world states do correspond closely to the existing modes, that is intentional. My version however has liberated the space between them. That is a material difference, not a semantic one.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Unfortunately for you, that's the consequence of reducing optional features, like commnet and re-entry heating. Do you know what? Some people just want to play the game casually.

I'm one of those people, a lot of the time. I've spent inordinate amounts of time making various aircraft with no career uses, for example, then cheating them to Eve or Duna to see how they work there.

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

When I boot up KSP, I'm not usually in the mood to do another 5 trips to Jool to establish a sat network so I can fly a probe around. That would take an absolute eternity, and some people just don't have an absolute eternity to spend.

Same, I quite often start it up just to make a new helicopter or plane or whatever. I do play Career a lot, but that's by no means the only way I play it.

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Some people make incredibly expensive, massive ships (Heard of youtuber ShadowZone?), and starting out with a million credits won't be a sandbox to them.

How about a billion? Trillion? Quadrillion? I don't want to limit your initial credit balance at all. Nor would I object to an item in the F12 menu under "Cheats" giving you more Funds or Science outright.

Edit: Or see below, I wouldn't object to a "Cost Multiplier" slider that you can set to zero to make everything free. In fact "Funds Cost Multiplier" and "Science Cost Multiplier" sliders would be better than the Reward Multipliers we have now, because they would allow you to completely ignore Science or Funds when set to zero. So consider my proposal amended, the starting parameters are:

• Resource Abundance (0 - 100, where 0 = no resources anywhere, 100 = every biome has 100% ore, and 50 is the developer default)
• Starting Funds (0 - some very high value, say, 10,000,000)
• Starting Science (0 - total Sci cost of tech tree)
• Funds Cost Multiplier (0 - some very high value for extra challenge, say, 1000%)
• Science Cost Multiplier (0 - some very high value for extra challenge, say, 1000%)

Additionally, I'll throw in checkboxes "Buildings Upgraded," "Tech Tree Unlocked," and "Parts Bought" as time-savers so you don't have to click through the stuff yourself. They do what they say, except that if "Buildings Upgraded" is off, "Tech Tree Unlocked" will only unlock the first tier of the tech tree as the next tiers aren't available, and of course Parts Bought will only buy the parts in the unlocked part of the tech tree. How's that sound? 

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Even if there were a million credits per mission, people don't want to break away from their current task to send some tourist to point B.

If you had a trillion credits in your bank account -- good for a million million-credit missions – then there's no reason to do any of the contracts if you don't want. (I also think career gameplay should be completely overhauled, Contracts are clearly unsatisfactory, but that's a whole another discussion.)

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

People like me, SZ, and other casual players would suffer a massive hit to not be able to start off with infinite credits, reputation, buildings and all parts

You would be able to start off with (effectively) infinite credits, all buildings, and all parts. Reputation wouldn't even matter if you're not interested in Contracts, but I see no reason why you couldn't set your starting Reputation the same way.

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

and have to set up massive networks to send a little scout somewhere in the solar system

Okay, now, I think this is the only actual material point of divergence I think we have. I believe very strongly that the base KSP game should give all players the same basic set of toys to play with: that the physics and the parts should work the same for everybody. I've listed some reasons: it makes the game designers' job easier when building gameplay on top of those systems; it also makes collaboration between players easier – e.g. sharing craft has less friction if you don't have to account for which settings the craft was designed for. 

So yes, I do think that if you simply can't live with CommNet, then you should have to live without it: instead of sending out probes, send out crewed missions. That's already a massive built-in workaround for it. It's regrettable if this opinion upsets you, but I believe it quite strongly and I don't think there's much you or anyone else can say to get me to budge on it.

So in sum: no, I do not want to dictate how you play, but if you want to put it uncharitably, I do want to dictate – or, more accurately: I want the creators of KSP and KSP 2 to dictate – what toys are in the toy box.

Spoiler

And finally, to you and anyone else playing without CommNet: you're missing out. There's a ton of really interesting and fun gameplay in it: planning for ultra-light, ultra-frugal missions so signal blackout doesn't wreck them, setting up constellations, setting up missions where you've got two pilots in a Mk 2 lander can remote-controlling a probe while out of touch with KSC, strategic use of satellite contracts to send up those relays and get paid for it, and so on and so forth. It's a terrific system and when you look at the tech tree it's quite clear they designed the game with it in mind, even before it was actually implemented. The various types of antennas predate CommNet by several versions and they wouldn't look like that if they hadn't considered it a core system from the start.

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Guest

[0111narwhalz]

I can see the point of modifying constants rather than eviscerating mechanics… but I wonder if the better solution would be to modify costs rather than giving you some arbitrary budget? As in, set the part cost multiplier to zero and you can launch literally infinite vessels without changing your nominal budget. Zero-cost science nodes (perhaps they would be used for organization or something) could be unlocked automatically (why wouldn't you want them unlocked? maybe have an option to enable that behavior…), which would make setting science cost to zero unlock everything all at once.

However, I still don't see a huge cost to dev time for allowing Commnet to be disabled. Even if it destroys progression… so does disabling the tech tree, and we don't have a problem with that.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

I wonder if the better solution would be to modify costs rather than giving you some arbitrary budget?

Sure, you could also have a cost coefficient varying from 0% to 1000% or something like that. Set it to 0 and everything's free. Fully Automated Luxury Space Kommunism!

[Bej Kerman]

7 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Unfortunately for you, that's the consequence of reducing optional features, like commnet and re-entry heating. Do you know what? Some people just want to play the game casually.

I'm one of those people, a lot of the time. I've spent inordinate amounts of time making various aircraft with no career uses, for example, then cheating them to Eve or Duna to see how they work there.

Right

7 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

When I boot up KSP, I'm not usually in the mood to do another 5 trips to Jool to establish a sat network so I can fly a probe around. That would take an absolute eternity, and some people just don't have an absolute eternity to spend.

Same, I quite often start it up just to make a new helicopter or plane or whatever. I do play Career a lot, but that's by no means the only way I play it.

Then why no options?

7 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Some people make incredibly expensive, massive ships (Heard of youtuber ShadowZone?), and starting out with a million credits won't be a sandbox to them.

How about a billion? Trillion? Quadrillion? I don't want to limit your initial credit balance at all. Nor would I object to an item in the F12 menu under "Cheats" giving you more Funds or Science outright.

Edit: Or see below, I wouldn't object to a "Cost Multiplier" slider that you can set to zero to make everything free. In fact "Funds Cost Multiplier" and "Science Cost Multiplier" sliders would be better than the Reward Multipliers we have now, because they would allow you to completely ignore Science or Funds when set to zero. So consider my proposal amended, the starting parameters are:

• Resource Abundance (0 - 100, where 0 = no resources anywhere, 100 = every biome has 100% ore, and 50 is the developer default)
• Starting Funds (0 - some very high value, say, 10,000,000)
• Starting Science (0 - total Sci cost of tech tree)
• Funds Cost Multiplier (0 - some very high value for extra challenge, say, 1000%)
• Science Cost Multiplier (0 - some very high value for extra challenge, say, 1000%)

Additionally, I'll throw in checkboxes "Buildings Upgraded," "Tech Tree Unlocked," and "Parts Bought" as time-savers so you don't have to click through the stuff yourself. They do what they say, except that if "Buildings Upgraded" is off, "Tech Tree Unlocked" will only unlock the first tier of the tech tree as the next tiers aren't available, and of course Parts Bought will only buy the parts in the unlocked part of the tech tree. How's that sound? 

I don't want any finite amount of credits. At some point it'll run out. "Additionally, I'll throw in checkboxes "Buildings Upgraded," "Tech Tree Unlocked," and "Parts Bought" as time-savers" In other words, a sandbox mode?

7 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Even if there were a million credits per mission, people don't want to break away from their current task to send some tourist to point B.

If you had a trillion credits in your bank account -- good for a million million-credit missions – then there's no reason to do any of the contracts if you don't want. (I also think career gameplay should be completely overhauled, Contracts are clearly unsatisfactory, but that's a whole another discussion.)

Unless they run out.

7 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

People like me, SZ, and other casual players would suffer a massive hit to not be able to start off with infinite credits, reputation, buildings and all parts

You would be able to start off with (effectively) infinite credits, all buildings, and all parts. Reputation wouldn't even matter if you're not interested in Contracts, but I see no reason why you couldn't set your starting Reputation the same way.

Then give me a sandbox mode so the credits and stuff aren't in the way. I don't want to mess with sliders with a new save, I just want to click sandbox and be done with that.  

7 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

and have to set up massive networks to send a little scout somewhere in the solar system

Okay, now, I think this is the only actual material point of divergence I think we have. I believe very strongly that the base KSP game should give all players the same basic set of toys to play with: that the physics and the parts should work the same for everybody. I've listed some reasons: it makes the game designers' job easier when building gameplay on top of those systems; it also makes collaboration between players easier – e.g. sharing craft has less friction if you don't have to account for which settings the craft was designed for. 

So yes, I do think that if you simply can't live with CommNet, then you should have to live without it: instead of sending out probes, send out crewed missions. That's already a massive built-in workaround for it. It's regrettable if this opinion upsets you, but I believe it quite strongly and I don't think there's much you or anyone else can say to get me to budge on it.

So in sum: no, I do not want to dictate how you play, but if you want to put it uncharitably, I do want to dictate – or, more accurately: I want the creators of KSP and KSP 2 to dictate – what toys are in the toy box.

But I want to send a tiny probe instead of a pod! That's your answer to everything! I don't want to use the silly commnet that manages to mess you up in the worst spots possible. And no, a developer shouldn't choose how the players play... in a sandbox game. Game devs should never dictate how a player plays a game. This game is meant to be a sandbox - career and science were only added as optionals.

7 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

And finally, to you and anyone else playing without CommNet: you're missing out. There's a ton of really interesting and fun gameplay in it: planning for ultra-light, ultra-frugal missions so signal blackout doesn't wreck them, setting up constellations, setting up missions where you've got two pilots in a Mk 2 lander can remote-controlling a probe while out of touch with KSC, strategic use of satellite contracts to send up those relays and get paid for it, and so on and so forth. It's a terrific system and when you look at the tech tree it's quite clear they designed the game with it in mind, even before it was actually implemented. The various types of antennas predate CommNet by several versions and they wouldn't look like that if they hadn't considered it a core system from the start.

Yeah, I'm missing out on accidentally landing on the terminator and losing connection half-way through a landing. I'm missing out on messing around with satellite constellations just to send a probe to scout some terrain. I'm missing out on being forced to use heavy, fuel-wasting crewed pods if life decides I shouldn't have time to play KSP the way I don't want to. Don't you start trying to tell me that commnet is good in any shape or form when I don't have time to mess with it and make things that carry more than a tiny light probe. This conversation summed up - apparently players should be forced to use a game mechanic that spoils the whole casual aspect of it. And what about the console players who can't mod this stuff out? What about em?

Edited March 2, 2020 by Bej Kerman

[MechBFP]

3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Unless they run out.

You plan on playing the same save game for several hundred centuries?

[Guest]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

I don't want any finite amount of credits. At some point it'll run out. "Additionally, I'll throw in checkboxes "Buildings Upgraded," "Tech Tree Unlocked," and "Parts Bought" as time-savers" In other words, a sandbox mode?

The functional equivalent of a sandbox mode. It's just not a separate mode: you're still in the single game mode, you're just starting with a different world state. If you set the funds and science cost coefficients to zero, it'll be an exact equivalent, with the sole exception that you could still enter mission control to accept missions if you want to; you just won't have anywhere to spend the credits or science since everything's free.

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then give me a sandbox mode so the credits and stuff aren't in the way. I don't want to mess with sliders with a new save, I just want to click sandbox and be done with that.

I already said there's a pre-baked world state named "Sandbox." Click on that and go.

2 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

But I want to send a tiny probe instead of a pod! That's your answer to everything! I don't want to use the silly commnet that manages to mess you up in the worst spots possible.

Sorry, that's not how it works. The way they're set up, probes should require a signal to work. As I said, it's too bad if this opinion upsets you, but I believe this quite strongly.

3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And no, a developer shouldn't choose how the players play... in a sandbox game. Game devs should never dictate how a player plays a game. This game is meant to be a sandbox - career and science were only added as optionals.

I reiterate: I'm not saying the devs should choose how you play. I'm saying they should choose what you play with. 

5 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

This conversation summed up - apparently players should be forced to use a game mechanic that spoils the whole casual aspect of it.

It doesn't spoil the whole casual aspect of it. It just means that using probes is a bit more work than sending crewed missions. If you want to play casually, just send crewed missions and don't use probes.

5 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And what about the console players who can't mod this stuff out? What about em?

They'll have to set up comms if they want to use probes.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Brikoleur said:

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I don't want any finite amount of credits. At some point it'll run out. "Additionally, I'll throw in checkboxes "Buildings Upgraded," "Tech Tree Unlocked," and "Parts Bought" as time-savers" In other words, a sandbox mode?

The functional equivalent of a sandbox mode. It's just not a separate mode: you're still in the single game mode, you're just starting with a different world state. If you set the funds and science cost coefficients to zero, it'll be an exact equivalent, with the sole exception that you could still enter mission control to accept missions if you want to; you just won't have anywhere to spend the credits or science since everything's free.

Then have a button for it.

1 minute ago, Brikoleur said:

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then give me a sandbox mode so the credits and stuff aren't in the way. I don't want to mess with sliders with a new save, I just want to click sandbox and be done with that.

I already said there's a pre-baked world state named "Sandbox." Click on that and go.

You're also suggesting that needs to go.

1 minute ago, Brikoleur said:

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

But I want to send a tiny probe instead of a pod! That's your answer to everything! I don't want to use the silly commnet that manages to mess you up in the worst spots possible.

Sorry, that's not how it works. The way they're set up, probes should require a signal to work. As I said, it's too bad if this opinion upsets you, but I believe this quite strongly.

Um, no? What the player does is essentially just preprogrammed commands to the probe. If you believe what you say strongly, I'm not sure why you're suggesting that KSP 2 should force commnet on people when most of them are casual or just getting into the game.

3 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

10 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And no, a developer shouldn't choose how the players play... in a sandbox game. Game devs should never dictate how a player plays a game. This game is meant to be a sandbox - career and science were only added as optionals.

I reiterate: I'm not saying the devs should choose how you play. I'm saying they should choose what you play with. 

What's the difference?

3 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

11 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

This conversation summed up - apparently players should be forced to use a game mechanic that spoils the whole casual aspect of it.

It doesn't spoil the whole casual aspect of it. It just means that using probes is a bit more work than sending crewed missions. If you want to play casually, just send crewed missions and don't use probes.

Yes it does spoil the casual aspect of it, and I can say this because unlike you, I'm a casual player and know what a casual player would think.

4 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

11 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And what about the console players who can't mod this stuff out? What about em?

They'll have to set up comms if they want to use probes.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not taking that as an answer.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You're also suggesting that needs to go.

No: I'm suggesting a separate mode called Sandbox needs to go, and instead there should be a single mode with a handful of sliders that lets you play in the functional equivalent of any of the four currently-existing modes, and many more that aren't possible with the current setup. Additionally there should be a way to save world states as templates for new games, and a few pre-baked world states that let you jump straight into the equivalent of currently-existing modes.

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Um, no? What the player does is essentially just preprogrammed commands to the probe. If you believe what you say strongly, I'm not sure why you're suggesting that KSP 2 should force commnet on people when most of them are casual or just getting into the game.

Because I think CommNet ought to be a core system in the game, every bit as much as the rocket equation or Newtonian orbits.

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What's the difference?

It's the difference between giving a you a box of Legos, and telling you to build a specific model out of the Legos.

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Not taking that as an answer.

And I'm not changing it.

So, how about we note that we disagree on this question, and move on? 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Guest

[Bej Kerman]

15 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

23 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You're also suggesting that needs to go.

No: I'm suggesting a separate mode called Sandbox needs to go, and instead there should be a single mode with a handful of sliders that lets you play in the functional equivalent of any of the four currently-existing modes, and many more that aren't possible with the current setup. Additionally there should be a way to save world states as templates for new games, and a few pre-baked world states that let you jump straight into the equivalent of currently-existing modes.

Except I don't want to waste time with sliders.

15 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

23 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Um, no? What the player does is essentially just preprogrammed commands to the probe. If you believe what you say strongly, I'm not sure why you're suggesting that KSP 2 should force commnet on people when most of them are casual or just getting into the game.

Because I think CommNet ought to be a core system in the game, every bit as much as the rocket equation or Newtonian orbits.

Aren't you going to take notice of the first couple sentences?

16 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

23 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What's the difference?

It's the difference between giving a you a box of Legos, and telling you to build a specific model out of the Legos.

And forcing Commnet is like telling someone to build something 5x before being able to build their own things.

17 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

25 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Not taking that as an answer.

And I'm not changing it.

So, how about we note that we disagree on this question, and move on? 

But I'm not finished.You think that console players should be restricted in freedom? You think they shouldn't be able to play the game if they get unlucky with their available freetime? I'm not going to stop until I've made it clear that forcing Commnet down everyone's throats is a bad idea.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

But I'm not finished.You think that console players should be restricted in freedom? You think they shouldn't be able to play the game if they get unlucky with their available freetime? I'm not going to stop until I've made it clear that forcing Commnet down everyone's throats is a bad idea.

Your opinion is duly noted, and with the greatest respect, I disagree.

And while you may not be finished, I am – so with that I'm politely bowing out of this conversation. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Guest

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I agree with OP, I restart KSP a lot due to setting up play options/mod lists. I never really get far because there is always the idea that I could be playing in a better way. The games I have played the most have a really solid, balanced vanilla- constraints = challenges = fun and satisfaction. I think the curse of being considered a sandbox game is the premise that players can do whatever they want, which seems appealing at first but doesn't carry an experience like a well thought out narrative can- a sandbox mode is fine, but I hope KSP2 has a proper, well balanced game mode.

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Waxing_Kibbous