Jump to content

KSP2 should have no optional features


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:
24 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What if I don't want to deal with that nonsense?

Walk the dog. Cook up a nice curry. Go to the beach. Kiss a girl (or boy, if that's your preference). Play some other game. Lots of things you could do.

Ah, so you're saying that half the players wanting to play KSP 2 should sod off? That would be a bit of a hit to the KSP 2 developers, this anti-option nonsense, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Ah, so you're saying that half the players wanting to play KSP 2 should sod off? That would be a bit of a hit to the KSP 2 developers, this anti-option nonsense, wouldn't it?

Last I checked there were more people playing KSP than just you and me.

In any case, I don't think anything much of value has been added over the past several posts in this exchange, so unless you have something substantive to add, I think it's about time to end it. We've registered our disagreement, and now we can move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brikoleur said:

so unless you have something substantive to add

No options is a terrible idea that'll drive away plenty of people, most of them casual players. Because guess what? KSP is meant to be played casually, why do you think it exists in the same world as Orbiter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some content has been edited or removed.

Guys, we know this is a pretty divisive topic, but we can all discuss this civilly without insulting one another. 

There's nothing wrong with disagreement, but we need to leave the personal remarks out, alright?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

Making this statement got me thinking a bit, and also I think this is also likely to be misinterpreted as "Brikoleur wants everyone to play the game HIS way," so I thought I'd elaborate a bit.

Thank you!  FWIW... it did come across in exactly that way, fairly strongly (at least to me)-- as did many of the preceding comments in the thread, which I suspect was the cause of much of the contentiousness here (including my own).  If that wasn't the intention, then great.  :)

13 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

Just spitballing here, but here's a sketch of how I think KSP1 could look with a single gameplay mode that integrated all of the elements in the four different modes that we currently have.

<thoughtful, well-explained ideas>

Okay, see, now there is an idea I could get behind.  :)  There would be a few i's to dot and t's to cross in getting the UX ironed out for starting up a new game, but it would essentially allow players to eat their cake and have it, too.  Not only would it allow what amounts to current career mode, science mode, and sandbox mode... but it would also allow a mode that doesn't really have any current equivalent-- "finance mode" (in which player has to worry about funds, but not science).

So it wouldn't be taking any functionality away from players as it currently stands-- if someone likes playing the game in a certain way now, they'd still be able to play their way.  And if done right, it might simplify and streamline the UI and perhaps moddability.

 

I find this particular example to be especially interesting, because I think it does a good job of capturing much of the dynamic of this thread (and of "how to have productive disagreements" in general).  Compare the following two statements:

  • Unhelpful formulation:  "X is bad, because <reasons>."
  • Helpful formulation:  "How could we better achieve the same thing that X currently lets us do?"

These two statements are actually addressing essentially the same issue ("I don't like X and want to improve on it")-- but the latter is going to get a lot more traction than the former, in discussion.  ;)

"Don't allow an option for career or sandbox mode" is something I'd fight tooth and nail-- because it implies taking something away from me, and many other KSP players.  But "Hey, here's an alternate way that everyone can have what they actually want, without actually necessitating having separate career and sandbox options per se"-- now we're talkin'.

So in that particular case-- given that particular suggestion-- I could see your suggestion as having some great points.  Because it was re-phrased in a way that gives a viable alternative.

This brings me back to the original thesis, though,

On 2/26/2020 at 6:04 AM, Brikoleur said:

Thesis: Options are BAD

...because stating it that way goes back to what I've called the "unhelpful formulation" above.

I don't think there's any helpful way to make such a sweeping generalization.  It doesn't propose solutions, and it really does come across as "everyone should play the game exactly the same way", even if that's not what's meant.

To be actually helpful, I think it needs to be case-by-case.  For example, in your above post that I just now quoted, we took one option (career versus sandbox mode), and you deconstructed it with some creative ideas for how to deliver what people need, without having to have a big "option", per se.  That's good, as far as it goes... but it doesn't address the other options in the game.

I think it would be really interesting to discuss various other options, too, in that same vein-- but I also think it's likely to be a productive discussion only if we hew as closely as possible to the more helpful formulation proposed above.

If I may propose an example:  What about CommNet?

There are currently several options around this.  There's the ability to turn it off completely; have extra ground stations on or off; have regular or "hardcore" mode (where comm failure means total loss of control).  So-- definitely "options" there, now.

So... if you don't like that, what would you do?  In the above formulation:  "How could we better achieve the same thing that CommNet and its options currently lets us do?"

Bearing in mind that the KSP community currently includes large numbers of several groups of players, including:

  • People like me who prefer a very hard-core experience (for example, total loss of control; no extra groundstations; no "soft" occlusion modifier for atmosphere).
  • People who like it, but want a fairly "soft" experience, something like the default options.
  • People who can't stand it and find it an annoying distraction, and just want the whole thing turned off.

I think each of these three groups contains a lot of players, and I think someone from one of these groups would be very unhappy if features were changed or removed that forced them to play like one of the other groups.

So, with that in mind... how would you go about solving that problem, without options, and without leaving any of those groups out in the cold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

As I've demonstrated in my exchange with Bej above, sandbox does not need to be a separate mode: functionally the same result can be had simply by starting the single game mode in a different world state.

I do not think LS or CommNet would significantly cramp anyone's style if the Mission Simulator was included. You could magic yourself anywhere you like with that instantly, without having to worry about life support or comms. Moreover, if the game let you save world states as career templates, the community could quickly and easily produce templates where, for example, every body in the system has a relay constellation around it, giving effectively interruption-free comms everywhere.

It doesn't really matter how sandbox is implemented behind the scenes, there just needs to be a simple way to enable it. If there's a one-click button to start sandbox mode which applies the appropriate world state and settings automatically without users having to manually set things up, then that works just as well as a fully separate game mode.

The mission simulator isn't quite the same thing as a sandbox though. Sure, there's definitely overlap (lots of players use sandbox to test missions), but the mission simulator doesn't keep a persistent save for doing something like a sandbox career. Forced LS and CommNet could also definitely be an issue with sandbox/mission sim. When you're in the early stages of planning a manned mission and still hashing out the flight path and craft design, or experimenting with space station/colony designs it's nice to not have to worry about life support. Same thing for CommNet, and relying on the community to create world states to spawn in a bunch of relay constellations just to test a single deep space probe sounds like an overly complex solution to a problem that could be solved much more simply by just temporarily ignoring comm network connections for determining probe control (which is a debug feature that will need to be developed anyways) . Plus, that also means the game is now dependent on the community for what many would consider to be a critical feature (ability to test probes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

Walk the dog. Cook up a nice curry. Go to the beach. Kiss a girl (or boy, if that's your preference). Play some other game. Lots of things you could do.

I'll take "gatekeeping" for $500, Alex. That sort of game really seems to be hostile to those who may just want something a little bit between relaxed and full on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the complete thread, but I Have Opinions (TM).

First, I largely concur with the Anti-If Campaign: https://francescocirillo.com/pages/anti-if-campaign. Branching makes things difficult, and ideally there should be a minimum of code branches.

Second, there are plenty of ways to incorporate options without explicit if/else branching in the code. Let's take notional life support: one could implement an "if life support enabled, draw LS supplies". Or... one could have the "disable life support" button merely set LS consumption rates to zero. Configure constants, not behavior, and you're much less prone to weird bugs. There will be a few places where you need either branching or polymorphism (e.g. disabling CommNet occlusion might use a "DummyOcclusionChecker" implementation of an "OcclusionChecker" interface).

Third, I see little problem with trying to balance for one "intended" set of options while giving players the ability to go up and down in difficulty from there.

Finally, all this should be taken on a case-by-case basis, trying to balance game flexibility with the chance of odd side effects. Basic good software practices apply: if you're six hours in, have modifications in a dozen different files, and still aren't finished implementing a feature, think very hard about whether the feature is worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, KSK said:

Emphasis added. It's perfectly OK to just state that you disagree with me and move on without tying yourself in logical knots trying to get the last word in.

Hurr durr I doubt that it'll affect balancing, but then I just say oh they don't care about balancing anyway. You are correct, and I apologise. I was under the impression we were talking about sandbox, and forgot about career.

After thinking about it, I can see how optional/difficulty-based features like aero heating, and comm line of sight may affect career balancing, regarding funding rewards.

If I don't need to set up a relay network first to send probes to a low orbit, the surface, or really far away from mission control, then my spacecraft will be cheaper. The reward I get will hence be worth more than the effort I put in. Likewise, if I can ignore aero heating, then I don't need to pay for heat shielding, nor do I need to carry as much life support (if enabled) to support multiple aerobraking events, and/or fuel for capture burns. I don't really see plasma blackout and G-limits impacting reward balance.

For the player who doesn't really want to be penalised, leaving rewards alone would be okay.

However, for the player that feels that they shouldn't be receiving as many rewards because they're not using all the hard features, fixing these balancing issues could entail identifying what each reward in the game is based on, and making them based on what features are and aren't enabled. Assuming the rewards are all hand crafted (I don't really think this is unreasonable), then I don't really see this as much of an issue in regards to balancing, as they need to spend time figuring out appropriate rewards anyway.

So I'll concede that balancing may be impacted, but I don't think that balancing would necessarily be very difficult to do, at least from a rewards perspective. For the moment I think it's still too early in development to tell whether optional difficult features will have other balancing issues that negatively affect career mode.

Edited by Bartybum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Snark said:

So... if you don't like that, what would you do?  In the above formulation:  "How could we better achieve the same thing that CommNet and its options currently lets us do?"

I already made a few suggestions in my exchange with Bej earlier. For example, what if the game allowed you to save a world state as a template for a new game, and allowed an easy way to share community-created world states? 

Now you could create a world state where every body in the system has a relay constellation around it and share that with the community. If a player doesn’t like to deal with signal blackouts, then they can use that as their new game template - they’re effectively guaranteed a signal everywhere, all the time. If you only used 100G relays then those would even see through plasma blackout at least most of the time — at most you’d get a few seconds thrill as you lost a signal that quickly returned. You would have to put an antenna on your probes but that can’t be too onerous, can it?

(FWIW, I personally would enjoy playing a career with the explicit goal of setting up that kind of network, then cleaning up everything else in order to share the resulting world state as a template. So there would definitely be one because if nobody else built it, I would.)

The authors could even provide a few built-in templates as examples. For example one where only Kerbin has a constellation. That would be a nice hands-on introduction to CommNet and an example of what to do with other bodies. I’m pretty sure lots of players would enjoy learning it that way and trying to set up similar constellations first around Mun and Minmus, then elsewhere.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

When you're in the early stages of planning a manned mission and still hashing out the flight path and craft design, or experimenting with space station/colony designs it's nice to not have to worry about life support. Same thing for CommNet, and relying on the community to create world states to spawn in a bunch of relay constellations just to test a single deep space probe sounds like an overly complex solution to a problem that could be solved much more simply by just temporarily ignoring comm network connections for determining probe control (which is a debug feature that will need to be developed anyways)

That’s what my proposed Mission Simulator is for. That could have a one-click “Spawn a relay constellation” feature. Maybe even an “Always have a signal to KSC” switch.

I can’t comment on LS because we have no idea what it’s going to be like and there are several mod implementations for KSP1, but I expect there would be similar ways to deal with that there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add a final clarification in re CommNet, since the optionality thereof seems to be a sticking point for many.

To put it bluntly, I believe the people who don't like it should just have to lump it, or mod it out. It's a central gameplay system. It should be introduced to players in a way that's fun, and there could be ways to make it easier to design probes e.g. in a mission simulator with "signal always on," but the mechanic should be always there. 

Reasoning, apart from the whole "options are BAD" thing:

  • It's the main differentiator between probes and crewed missions. Probe missions and crewed missions should be qualitatively different, and CommNet provides that differentiation.
  • It's crucial to many of the most important parts in the tech tree. Without CommNet, there is no point carrying anything other than a Communotron-16.
  • It creates challenges and makes room for emergent gameplay in exactly the way that makes KSP such a great game.
  • If you don't want to deal with comms blackouts, you can work around that. Namely, send crewed missions and just don't play with probes.

Creativity also requires constraints, and CommNet is a very good constraint for that purpose. 

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

I'll add a final clarification in re CommNet, since the optionality thereof seems to be a sticking point for many.

To put it bluntly, I believe the people who don't like it should just have to lump it, or mod it out. It's a central gameplay system. It should be introduced to players in a way that's fun, and there could be ways to make it easier to design probes e.g. in a mission simulator with "signal always on," but the mechanic should be always there. 

Reasoning, apart from the whole "options are BAD" thing:

  • It's the main differentiator between probes and crewed missions. Probe missions and crewed missions should be qualitatively different, and CommNet provides that differentiation.
  • It's crucial to many of the most important parts in the tech tree. Without CommNet, there is no point carrying anything other than a Communotron-16.
  • It creates challenges and makes room for emergent gameplay in exactly the way that makes KSP such a great game.
  • If you don't want to deal with comms blackouts, you can work around that. Namely, send crewed missions and just don't play with probes.

Creativity also requires constraints, and CommNet is a very good constraint for that purpose. 

 

Actually unless you're using a Science Lab there's no point in anything other than the very basic antenna that comes with all probes and crew parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Actually unless you're using a Science Lab there's no point in anything other than the very basic antenna that comes with all probes and crew parts.

You can't transmit science back with the basic antenna. So you do need the C-16 for one-way missions even without CommNet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

2K is a brand under Take-Two Interactive, so this is false.

I guess I’ll go around and start saying that Private Division did a great job with Borderlands 3. 
I totally won’t sound like a buffoon if I did that, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

I guess I’ll go around and start saying that Private Division did a great job with Borderlands 3. 
I totally won’t sound like a buffoon if I did that, right?

Saying that a company developed a game that didn't actually develop it is far removed from saying that a studio under a brand controlled by a company only exists as long as they continue to please said company.

So you would; because this is the very definition of a strawman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Saying that a company developed a game that didn't actually develop it is far removed from saying that a studio under a brand controlled by a company only exists as long as they continue to please said company.

So you would; because this is the very definition of a strawman.

Strange, it seems the only person pulling a strawman here is you. Where exactly did I use the word “developed” in my post?

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MechBFP said:

Strange, it seems the only person pulling a strawman here is you. We’re exactly did I use the word “developed” in my post?

You didn't, but Gearbox was responsible for the development of Borderlands 3. So you're effectively saying that a company who didn't develop a game did with your post, and let's go ahead and pull up a definition here shall we.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw man

Definition 1

" a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted "

You made a comment; that comment didn't actually address my actual statement. Instead it addressed a statement you made intentionally to make mine look as ludicrous as possible.

I replied; stating why i didn't agree with it. Pointing out that 2K wasn't developing either game; directly addressing this statement.

You replied; saying that i'm strawmanning and you didn't use that word. Which actually is just another form of strawmanning ironically.

So; since this has already gotten beyond reasonable levels and is rapidly becoming OT i won't be replying to anything else unless it directly addresses the statement "The developers of KSP2 only exist because their parent company allows them to"

Notice i didn't use most of those words in my actual post; it's known as "Paraphrasing". Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/29/2020 at 11:00 AM, Brikoleur said:

Making this statement got me thinking a bit, and also I think this is also likely to be misinterpreted as "Brikoleur wants everyone to play the game HIS way," so I thought I'd elaborate a bit.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...