Jump to content

KSP2 should have no optional features


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, brain__washed said:

This thread as a whole is making a very strong argument FOR optional features - People with less time can play with more casual settings. I don't have a lot of time either, but I rather enjoy seeing my craft go up in very hot flames after losing commnet access, or being pinged into deep space because my deceleration burn was poorly planned.

Sometimes I just wanna mess around and build stupid things, I load my secondary save with the most casual settings possible and off I go.

No player plays the game in the same way, optional features as described are an amazing way to cater to this. In the end, it's a good thing if the game will cater to a large crowd - more sales generally mean more budget for maintenance, features, bugfixes. I could be wrong, but I think those are things the majority of the community as it is today enjoys and in my opinion would be a definite win.

Lastly, I think it was made clear in the teasers that a lot of focus will be on improved onboarding, to ensure both veteran players and newcomers will have an enjoyable experience. Without optional features, I think this would be very difficult to accomplish.

Then @Brikoleur comes along and says something along the lines of "But probes IRL need comms" even though someone just said that they sometimes don't have enough time for this. Brik, it's quite clear you expect a lot of players to have a lot of free time, but this isn't true. Oh, and the fact that optional features will increase ability to fix bugs even if it causes some when it is implemented. That's true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2020 at 9:21 AM, KSK said:

Yep. Last time I checked the game was called Kerbal Space Program not Kerbal Settings Program.

Yep. It is also not called Kerbal Clicking Program. Maybe we should do away with mouse interfacing altogether then!

I love it when people take what they feel is best for them and try to make in mandatory for everybody else. This whole thread is silly; are we really discussing the idea that every single tweakable has to delegated to the modding community? "COME ON!" (in GOB Bluth's voice)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

That's not a definition of properly.

Look at the 50 layers of quotation marks around """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""properly"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".

4 hours ago, Daniel Prates said:

Yep. It is also not called Kerbal Clicking Program. Maybe we should do away with mouse interfacing altogether then!

I love it when people take what they feel is best for them and try to make in mandatory for everybody else. This whole thread is silly; are we really discussing the idea that every single tweakable has to delegated to the modding community? "COME ON!" (in GOB Bluth's voice)

 

Another great comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Look at the 50 layers of quotation marks around """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""properly"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".

Which doesn't add anything to your statement.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brikoleur said:

@Bej Kerman, would you kindly stop @'ing me? I've made it clear I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you, and it's popping up notifications for me. Thanks.

Okay, I'll stop @ing you. But I don't understand why you just stopped debating half way through the debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Okay, I'll stop @ing you. But I don't understand why you just stopped debating half way through the debate.

Likely because at this point there's no *debate* happening: Debate assumes an exchange of ideas and considering of opposing arguments - And at this point in this thread there's no real exchange or consideration going on, there's just two opposing sides.  No one is going to be changing anyone's opinion, so participating further really only increases the likelihood of it becoming a full-out argument, which I don't think anyone wants.  ;)

Best to let it die as 'I respectfully disagree with your position' at this point - while the 'respectfully' can still be left in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread's main argument has the same moral span than suggesting there should be no graphics settings; people just can go out and buy suitable computers instead. 

Not trying to be anti-dialogue here, but really, this whole discussion is a non-starter. Removing settings for the sake of the game being ''better'? Imagine the outcry! The developer would eventually go about saying "I MADE A HUGE MISTAKE" (again, in GOB Bluth's voice).

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

Not trying to be anti-dialogue here, but really, this whole discussion is a non-starter. Removing settings for the sake of the game being ''better'? Imagine the outcry! The developer would eventually go about saying "I MADE A HUGE MISTAKE" (again, in GOB Bluth's voice).

I'm happy to have a dialogue -- that's why I started the thread -- but we can't really have one if you're not addressing my argument or any part of it. If all you're saying is "you're wrong and your opinion is ridiculous and if the developer did that it would be a disaster" then what do you expect me to say?

-- There has been a pretty good discussion ITT beneath all the noise IMO. If something new comes up I'm happy to address it; if all you want to do is register your disagreement, that's fine too but there's not much I can say to that.

29 minutes ago, dlrk said:

Uh, no. If you don't let realistic features be optional, they'll just be removed entirely.

Why would you think that? There are plenty of successful games that are far more realistic (and far harder) than KSP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

There are plenty of successful games that are far more realistic (and far harder) than KSP.

like what?

not saying you're wrong, just wanna know.

Edited by Dirkidirk
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

but we can't really have one if you're not addressing my argument or any part of it.

They're addressing your entire post, and I agree with the bit that says you might as well just be removing graphics options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

if you're not addressing my argument

I think I was addressing the OP, not your argument. You were having a (heated) discussion with another guy, not me. I have no stake on what you were arguing either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

I think I was addressing the OP, not your argument. You were having a (heated) discussion with another guy, not me. I have no stake on what you were arguing either. 

He meant his position/argument detailed in the OP,  not the literal argument between people. 

Edited by MechBFP
Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that the easiest way to solve this it to just put options in and create a community accepted setting style that is basically recognized as the pro settings or something

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

I'm happy to have a dialogue -- that's why I started the thread -- but we can't really have one if you're not addressing my argument or any part of it. If all you're saying is "you're wrong and your opinion is ridiculous and if the developer did that it would be a disaster" then what do you expect me to say?

The title of the post doesn’t leave a lot of room for negotiation or dialog. And the examples given breathe of a “my way or the high way” view of things; something that doesn’t invite dialog either. So yeah, that’s how we end up here.

What to say:

Let’s start with the title: “the game should have less options.” Because no options is a very well defined case leaving no room for discussion, which is silly if discussion is what you want.

Start on the Island of Agreement

Newton’s laws of motion are pretty non-negotiable in the game. A lot of other things are not. So why not set out with the features that we think everyone  would agree on:

  • Parachutes only work in an atmosphere and can burn up or rip if activated at the wrong time
  • Certain parts are not suitable for atmospheric flight, or space.
  • Engines require propellant

Realism

Then there are the “realism” options. Some will say that this makes the game “hard core” (good); others will claim it makes the game unnecessary hard and/or boring. Opinions come in play and that makes mandatory realistic settings disputable. Let’s take a look at a few. Would you rather have someone else make the decision for you?

  • Time acceleration. Obviously not available in reality, and it oversimplifies the game. Unwilling to properly test your Jool probe? Who cares, it’s only five minutes away! I bet you will put a lot more thought into that mission if you only discover two years from now that your solar panels are not adequate, just as Nasa is forced to figure all that out up front.
  • Fuel. Lets have 57 different combinations with specific engines for each. And punish the fool who’d think kerosine would stay fluid after five years in space. (Five real years; see “time acceleration”)
  • Orbital maintenance. Yes, we want orbit degradation, variation in lumpy gravity fields (like the Mun) and precession. Even if it means spending 75% of your time fixing the orbits of “stationary” craft instead of actual game play..

These suggestions are extreme, yes even ridiculous. But what feels “hardcore” for one feels “unfunny hard” for another. By insisting on “no options,” invariably someone will feel uneasy with the changes made.

What to say:

the game would have less bugs, and bug reports would be easier to create, if there weren’t such a large permutation of options to configure the game. While it is impossible to remove all options, perhaps we can reduce the number of different configurations:

  • Basic settings: this is what the game should always do. What features would be non-negotiable?
  • Hardware: between basic, intermediate, advanced, how would you configure various parts?
  • Fuel systems: how would engine performance and fuel requirements change from basic, intermediate, advanced?
  • Life support: how would the various life support options play out?
  • Control/Comms: same for - how ships can be controlled? How would it affect game play? Think of the various scanning mods and remote control mods.

You can never have no options. But you can suggest ways to reduce them, and start a discussion on what that would entail. That would make this thread a lot more a discussion and a lot less a fight.

 

But the choice of words in the opening post didn’t really lead it into this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing is simply a new manifestation of the elitism syndrome that has always plagued KSP. Any suggestion that a player should be forced into a more (or less) difficult condition that is otherwise optional because a different player thinks that difficulty is fun is obnoxious. 

KSP, like any game, should be about enjoyment. If you enjoy high levels of repetitive difficulty, rejoice in the fact that you have that option. If you enjoy playing casually, rejoice that you have that option. Fortunately, at least until now, Squad and Private Division have had the wisdom not to do something so asinine as forcing any particular difficulty options on anyone. Let us hope the new developers retain such enlightenment.

 

Edited by Randazzo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many of those who are afraid of realism, you're grossly overstating the difficulty realistic features add. No, N-body physics and orbital decay do not automatically make gameplay annoying. There is no "realism vs. gameplay" dilemma. The only reason people argue there is, is out of ignorance. There is a chance a feature intended for realism is badly implemented, but that's also the case with any other feature. In fact, stock KSP contracts are far more repetitive and boring than any life support mod I've played. And, guess what, they're also pretty unrealistic and badly designed... which might have something to do they're entirely optional, and were added very late in the game. Actual realistic features add planning factors to mission design, but rarely result in grind. If you have to constantly resupply your station, you've screwed up when designing it.

You're also missing an important point: optional features. The title is not "KSP should have no options". The point is, comm net, life support should be there, no matter what you do. Difficulty options can make the values easier or harder (duh, that's why they're called "difficulty" options), but should not make fundamental gameplay changes. On "Easy", a Kerbal could last a year on a box of snacks, on "Hard", the same box would last a day. The thing is, however, is that you need to include a box of snacks if you're sending a Kerbal on a mission. 

Seriously people, educate yourselves on "quantitative" versus "qualitative". A lot of arguments on this forum would never happen if this fundamental distinction was understood and respected. Think changing a Kerbal's G tolerance or reentry heat versus turning it on and off. The former is good, the latter is bad.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Let’s start with the title: “the game should have less options.” Because no options is a very well defined case leaving no room for discussion, which is silly if discussion is what you want.

Nevertheless, my position is that KSP2 should have no optional features, and I'm not going to change it just because you would rather discuss some other position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

Nevertheless, my position is that KSP2 should have no optional features, and I'm not going to change it just because you would rather discuss some other position.

However, per your original post, that is not your position. You support some optional features that you personally find reasonable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

Nevertheless, my position is that KSP2 should have no optional features, and I'm not going to change it just because you would rather discuss some other position.

And that's why we're stuck with just telling you you're wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

Nevertheless, my position is that KSP2 should have no optional features, and I'm not going to change it just because you would rather discuss some other position.

I can see your point about gameplay options, but I don't understand what your deal is with graphic settings and other settings, which have no effect on gameplay other than visuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DunaManiac said:

I can see your point about gameplay options, but I don't understand what your deal is with graphic settings and other settings, which have no effect on gameplay other than visuals.

Because if they have to code the UI to work at another graphic setting other than the correct one, it will introduce a bevy of bugs that no one will be able to fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...