What does "spoiling" mean in regards to KSP 2?

[mcwaffles2003]

I find it hard to understand how things in KSP 2 can get "spoiled". In a game that has a story this makes sense since you dont want to know the repercussions of a decision before you even make it, the narrative of the story arc before you progress through it, nor do you want to know the ending of a story before it starts (with the exception of memento). But in a simulation game like KSP 2 what can you really spoil? Is it really bad to find out what engines are in the game before you actually get to them in the game or what planets exist in it and etcetera?

Maybe I'm weird but waiting to play the game to unveil what's in it with regards to simulators just doesn't make sense to me. It also makes me more hesitant to buy it since I have less of an idea of what I will actually be getting.

Perhaps someone here could provide me with a hypothetical game element they would hope to remain hidden until launch and explain why.

Edited September 29, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[sturmhauke]

I agree, I don't want surprises in what is more-or-less a pure simulator game. That's not why I play KSP.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

I agree, I don't want surprises in what is more-or-less a pure simulator game. That's not why I play KSP.

And if they've somehow included a narrative... just don't tell us it exists. I think that fixes any problems with all possible spoilers

[Guest]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I find it hard to understand how things in KSP 2 can get "spoiled". In a game that has a story this makes sense since you dont want to know the repercussions of a decision before you even make it, the narrative of the story arc before you progress through it, nor do you want to know the ending of a story before it starts (with the exception of memento). But in a simulation game like KSP 2 what can you really spoil? Is it really bad to find out what engines are in the game before you actually get to them in the game or what planets exist in it and etcetera?

Maybe I'm weird but waiting to play the game to unveil what's in it with regards to simulators just doesn't make sense to me. It also makes me more hesitant to buy it since I have less of an idea of what I will actually be getting.

Perhaps someone here could provide me with a hypothetical game element they would hope to remain hidden until launch and explain why.

The only instance of Nate speaking about spoiler is when they were talking about "Adventure vs Sandbox" in one of the Pax interviews and he said they still didn't know if and how put everything inside the sandbox because that would "spoil" the game.

I think that the idea of spoiler is related with what we think sandbox is, we never think about that for KSP1 because sandbox is how the game was designed in the first place, science and career were added later, but for KSP2?

To me it's pretty obvious that the feature set of the game is designed with the progression mode in mind (KSP1 parts => buildable bases and stations => colonies => off-Kerbin Launchpads => resource mining and refinement => better interplanetary engines => Kerbolar system colonization => exotic fuel refineries => interstellar engines => interstellar travel) and it's sandbox that will be  the afterthought this time around, and here is where "spoiling the game" comes into mind: some technologies / fuels / engines could be balanced around how difficult/costly/time expensive is to setup the needed infrastructure.

Let's use a fan-favorite, metallic hydrogen: Immagine that, in progression, you can unlock the research program (a made-up game mechanic I'm inventing right now) to have the tech and the engines only in a off-kerbin laboratory facility (let's invent another one, lack of life support will not kill your kerbals but will stop them from working) and that the specific research is given to the player when studying Eve and then, once you unlocked it, the metallic hydrogen needs some specific resources and some specific refineries to be built at a specialized base/station. At the end of this endeavor you are rewarded with the metallic hydrogen engines, objectively better than the chemical counterparts but still limited by your capacity of efficiently refine enough fuel for your missions.

Compare all of this to sandbox, how would sandbox work on this? You have the engine and the fuel unlocked at the KSC? You still have to refine the fuel from resources but the research is already unlocked? You still have to bring a research laboratory out to Eve but the life support requirement is lifted and/or the research is instantaneous? Is everything free just at the KSC or anywhere you build a VAB? 

Wouldn't spoil the game to be able to just open a sandbox game and launch a metallic hydrogen 10 parts SSTA without all the required gameplay and/or infrastructure into place? (just even immagine if your refinery is on Duna but you don't have a VAB there and you need to bring the fuel to your shipyards on Mun, building that route alone is comparable to unlocking the whole KSP1 tech tree).

That is what I think "spoiling" means for KSP2 and that's why I'm not going to touch the sandbox mode until I've finished the whole tech tree equivalent in "Adventure" and this is also why I think that if they don't limit what you can do in sandbox 1 hour after release you'll find this forum section full of "Orion/Metallic Hydrogen/Fusion engines are OP and should be nerfed" posts written by people that don't even know how difficult can be to even have the fuel and the ship in the same spaceport outside of sandbox mode.

[mikegarrison]

42 minutes ago, Master39 said:

[snip long post]

What you are talking about is not a "spoiler". A "spoiler" is when *information* normally hidden from you is revealed, not when unlocks are provided for free.

Edited September 29, 2020 by mikegarrison

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

What you are talking about is not a "spoiler". A "spoiler" is when *information* normally hidden from you is revealed, not when unlocks are provided for free.

That is what they originally used the world "spoiler" for.

If the point of the topic is just: "why don't they just release every detail now since the game probably doesn't have a spoilerable narrative" the answer is easy: public engagement and possible changes.

You don't just drop every single detail one year in advance, that way you'll just make the wait unbearable for most of the public and you could find yourself in the situation of having to publically announce the removal of some already announced features.

The reveal was originally planned to be just 6 months before the release date, then excrements happened and they had 1 year and an half more to fill with info drops to keep with the original monthly drops they would have to dilute the infos on 4 times more posts or make a post every 4 months.

Managing the hype of a project is already difficult enough even without the 6 months plan being disrupted and turning into a 2 years wait just after the announcement.

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Master39

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

If the point of the topic is just: "why don't they just release every detail now since the game probably doesn't have a spoilerable narrative" the answer is easy: public engagement and possible changes.

If? I'm pretty certain that was exactly the point of the topic.

Edited September 29, 2020 by mikegarrison

[Guest]

Just now, mikegarrison said:

"If"? I'm pretty certain that was exactly the point of the topic.

Then I already answered to that too, problem solved.

[Guest]

That, or the adventure mode will actually have something resembling a narrative. Which, if done right, would be a welcome change from the bland and boring contract system.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

If the point of the topic is just: "why don't they just release every detail now since the game probably doesn't have a spoilerable narrative" the answer is easy: public engagement and possible changes

I wouldn't go this far, I understand there is still the concept of teasing the fan base to draw out speculation and hype. If you just dumped the whole game right now we would be left little to speculate on and after a month or 2 hype would probably fall even further than it is now. That said, @Nate Simpson has openly stated that he doesn't want to spoil parts and keep them a surprise. I can understand this in keeping the "puzzles" interesting, not showing us the nuances of how it is intended for us to land on these difficult to land on planets, but in a broader scope beyond that not much seems spoil-able. When it comes to those things, I would just personally rather the community hear what is planned. Maybe they don't want a bunch of backseat devs though and that's the real purpose. I think my position is at least somewhat reasonable as I think I can speak for most of us here in saying KSP is a very unique and dear game for us and it really holds a special place in our game libraries pretty separate from any other.

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

That, or the adventure mode will actually have something resembling a narrative. Which, if done right, would be a welcome change from the bland and boring contract system.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by narrativeand how you feel it differs from simply a logical flow of progression through a game? I have personally seen no hint of an over arching narrative being made so far.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

That said, @Nate Simpson has openly stated that he doesn't want to spoil parts and keep them a surprise. I can understand this in keeping the "puzzles" interesting, not showing us the nuances of how it is intended for us to land on these difficult to land on planets, but in a broader scope beyond that not much seems spoil-able.

When they announced the game they had a 6 months campaign to release informations already planned, when Nate gave the first interviews with Youtubers that plan was already slipping by 6 months that then become one year and an half. 

If they stick to their original plan we have some 6 extra months to wait before they resume their 6-months long reveal campaing and even if they don't they need to somehow dilute those 6 months worth of reveals over 2 years (the one that passed and the next one).

 

48 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

When it comes to those things, I would just personally rather the community hear what is planned. Maybe they don't want a bunch of backseat devs though and that's the real purpose. I think my position is at least somewhat reasonable as I think I can speak for most of us here in saying KSP is a very unique and dear game for us and it really holds a special place in our game libraries pretty separate from any other.

Yes, but when KSP1 was being designed and developed and the devs were interacting costantly with the community we had access to the game, we were talking about what we were actually trying in-game at the time. Now the situation is completely different, we don't have access to the game, at best we're speculating and at worse we're directly applying KSP1 experience to KSP2 ("they need to solve this old bug before thinking about graphics", "I only play sandbox because KSP progression is not fun" and so on). 

There are a lot of gameplay choices being done, lot of changes and a lot of potential controversy and I think that it makes sense to want to release that information with plenty of supporting gameplay footage / game design explanation and/or to release those information as near to the release date as possible.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Go to your local diving shop; grab a tank of nitrox with about 40% oxygen and take a deep breath or three. 

No but seriously; they'll release information when two conditions are met. The first is that they're far enough along that they can be confident that it won't change significantly, and the second is that the pace of development has slowed down enough to allow them the luxury in the first place.

In the meantime just chill. Speculation about why they're not releasing more when the reason why is clear and simple just comes off a bit desperate.

[shdwlrd]

I think Nate was referring to the new planets and solar systems. He didn't seem to want sandbox players to have access to all the information for the new systems from the start.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Go to your local diving shop; grab a tank of nitrox with about 40% oxygen and take a deep breath or three. 

Lol, I miss scuba diving...

1 minute ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

No but seriously; they'll release information when two conditions are met. The first is that they're far enough along that they can be confident that it won't change significantly, and the second is that the pace of development has slowed down enough to allow them the luxury in the first place.

In the meantime just chill. Speculation about why they're not releasing more when the reason why is clear and simple just comes off a bit desperate.

I mean I hear you, but to me the reasoning wasn't clear/simple hence my confusion about what a spoiler even means in the context of a simulation game. i'd love some reveals and all and not trying to poke/prod at them, but the reasoning behind keeping some aspects hidden just seems odd to me.

[cubinator]

8 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What does "spoiling" mean in regards to KSP 2?

Something to do with wing tips and flaps, I think?

[mcwaffles2003]

5 minutes ago, cubinator said:

Something to do with wing tips and flaps, I think?

Your jib is cut very well

[DJWyre]

27 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

I think Nate was referring to the new planets and solar systems. He didn't seem to want sandbox players to have access to all the information for the new systems from the start.

I'm thinking (or hoping?) this is the case. I don't want to know what planets there are in the systems beyond Kerbol. I'd rather discover them myself.

[dave1904]

Even in movies its statistically proven that trailers with spoilers sell better than trailers without. People do not like going to the movies to waste money and time. Games on the other hand can do well because you can market gameplay. In the case of sequels your goal is to market new gameplay mechanics. In KSPs case this would be the new planets, engines etc. In that case you cannot market without "spoiling"

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by dave1904

[Guest]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Can you elaborate on what you mean by narrativeand how you feel it differs from simply a logical flow of progression through a game? I have personally seen no hint of an over arching narrative being made so far.

A narrative would involve, for instance, showing how Kerbalkind reacts to your progression in their quest for the stars. Or some shenanigans with your staff members (especially those who don't do much in KSP1). Or both. There are various ways to flesh out the universe, especially when you've got more than a sandbox to work with.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Lol, I miss scuba diving...

I mean I hear you, but to me the reasoning wasn't clear/simple hence my confusion about what a spoiler even means in the context of a simulation game. i'd love some reveals and all and not trying to poke/prod at them, but the reasoning behind keeping some aspects hidden just seems odd to me.

I just wish there was clear water to dive around here xD it's all lakes.

But yeah I guess that's a reasonable question if I stop being a jerk. What I'd consider a spoiler would basically be anything that wasn't in KSP1, and is a unique or new mechanic the player is intended to discover via gameplay. Everything else is fair game in my opinion.

[Kerminator K-100]

I really don't think we will have a narrative. Maybe multi-player could be a narrative where you create a country and play other Kerbal countries in space races, but I feel that a narrative will ruin the effect of singleplayer KSP2. KSP and KSP2 are space simulators, not a game like Halo, where you have a storyline, or Mario, where you have an end goal. The KSP franchise is for exploration and discovery, not playing through some preset story that controls your choices.

As for sandbox mode, I agree with @Master39, I think that sandbox mode, even in KSP, is OP. In KSP I only use sandbox to create backdrops, scenes, challenges, or test a craft without spending money on it. I also am not going to touch any kind of sandbox mode, until I have played through an Adventure mode game. 

I also find that when I have contracts and progression, I tend to play more. In sandbox mode, my creativity flags and I have trouble staying engaged. 

Back to the original point of the thread, the spoilers they are talking about are to keep the waiting period exciting. I love going on the forums and finding new threads that are talking about the latest video and how for a few frames you can see a tiny part up on the side. I think this adds suspense, mystery, and a exciting puzzle then them saying "Here is every part we are going to add, now wait a year and we will give you the game." The spoilers @mcwaffles2003 is talking about are probably more along the lines of the Easter eggs.

[harrisjosh2711]

13 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Is it really bad to find out what engines are in the game before you actually get to them in the game or what planets exist in it and etcetera?

Perhaps someone here could provide me with a hypothetical game element they would hope to remain hidden until launch and explain why.

This comes down to personal preference and common deciency. I personally have only seen a few planets in ksp1. So from my perspective, as someone who swings towards realism and discovery, revealing all the planets destroys a large portion of the discovery aspect of the game. As for the engines i couldnt care less.... like you said, this is a sandbox game.... you can choose how you want to play it.... just dont ruin it for someone else based on ur playstyle.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Kerminator1000 said:

I really don't think we will have a narrative. Maybe multi-player could be a narrative where you create a country and play other Kerbal countries in space races, but I feel that a narrative will ruin the effect of singleplayer KSP2. KSP and KSP2 are space simulators, not a game like Halo, where you have a storyline, or Mario, where you have an end goal. The KSP franchise is for exploration and discovery, not playing through some preset story that controls your choices.

In other words: emergent narrative. 

3 hours ago, Kerminator1000 said:

I agree with @Master39, I think that sandbox mode, even in KSP, is OP. In KSP I only use sandbox to create backdrops, scenes, challenges, or test a craft without spending money on it. I also am not going to touch any kind of sandbox mode, until I have played through an Adventure mode game. 

Wait, I've not said that Sandbox is OP, just that we don't know what sandbox is even going to mean for KSP2 since is going to be something build next to the progression mode and not anymore the foundation of the game. There are a lot of questions about how they're going to implement it and what role it could possibly take in KSP2.

[Kerminator K-100]

3 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Wait, I've not said that Sandbox is OP, just that we don't know what sandbox is even going to mean for KSP2 since is going to be something build next to the progression mode and not anymore the foundation of the game. There are a lot of questions about how they're going to implement it and what role it could possibly take in KSP2.

Ok, I may have misinterpreted what you said. I feel that a sandbox for KSP 2 is OP because of the technologies that they have shown us. There will be people whose first craft with be an Orion powered orbiter with metallic hydrogen boosters and that is not the way the game is meant to be played.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kerminator1000 said:

There will be people whose first craft with be an Orion powered orbiter with metallic hydrogen boosters and that is not the way the game is meant to be played.

There will be someone building a giant trebuchet out of colony parts that launches colonial VABs and using it to launch a VAB from the KSC to the abandoned airstrip island is going to be a challenge 12 hours into the game's release, and that's all right, the important part is that people needs to understand is that some technologies are inherently OP compared to others if you remove all the infrastructure needed to operate them.