Jump to content

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


mcwaffles2003

Recommended Posts

My thoughts on this are pretty unpopular but I wanna share them:

Spoiling a game is really unfortunate, it's like baking a cake and not putting the cake in the oven but in a dumpster fire. It's not fun and it ruins people's experiences. 

As for everything being available at the start. I don't think it should.

Because when KSP first came out, it was ok, because the OG players only had so little to play with and updates came out that which built up their skills. One of the most things that prevented development of my skills in KSP was having everything. Literally look at my first landers for most solar systems, they have tons of fuel and lots of RTGs cause I was never taught the skills I needed to be mastered at the parts. I had to relearn everything months after playing KSP. 

I think Progression is important for KSP 2, because then people can get good. It's like making someone doing a marathon without ever doing a sprint or run. Build up the ability to do it. I think the same can be taken into place with KSP 2. Since I feel like so many players don't understand the parts they put onto their crafts. Science mode does this very well. I think that with the interstellar stuff it shouldn't be given off the bat because interstellar engines are the marathon for people who did sprints with the mammoth or the new players who have never done it. I feel like no progression to get new parts will throw many off.

But that's my views on spoiling anything via a sandbox mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dave1904 said:

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"

 

Hummm... Could you link such a study. Im under the influence its quite the opposite. Here is a quote from a study... "This research suggests one explanation for why spoilers suck: They remind us that a story is just a story." This relates to how our brains blurr the lines between fiction and reality. 

Moreover, TV shows and movies go to great lengths to protect from spoilers. One of the Fast n furious shot in my town surrounded its self in storage containers stacked over 100 ft high. GOT shot multiple fake scenes  and endings to avoid spoilers. 

last, KSP2, on the steam store, has ZERO spoilers in its promotional material.

Edited by harrisjosh2711
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

I think Progression is important for KSP 2, because then people can get good. It's like making someone doing a marathon without ever doing a sprint or run.

Also knowing that "most people never go beyond Mun" datapoint they can focus the early game on teaching the game and put all the complexity they want on the colonial/interstellar part of the game (if you're building a base/station you've learned to rendezvous and pinpoint landing, so you're past that "casual player that only goes to the mun only once" barrier) but if such a new player opens sandbox before progression that's basically a lost player 9 times out of 10.

I think they should market sandbox as a fully fledged "debug/cheat mode" for advanced users and keeping it locked until you land on the mun or change some "advanced debug options" setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

I think they should market sandbox as a fully fledged "debug/cheat mode" for advanced users and keeping it locked until you land on the mun or change some "advanced debug options" setting.

9 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

As for everything being available at the start. I don't think it should.

Because when KSP first came out, it was ok, because the OG players only had so little to play with and updates came out that which built up their skills. One of the most things that prevented development of my skills in KSP was having everything. Literally look at my first landers for most solar systems, they have tons of fuel and lots of RTGs cause I was never taught the skills I needed to be mastered at the parts. I had to relearn everything months after playing KSP. 

I full get where you guys are coming from as opening sandbox and having 1000 parts you are unfamiliar with can be really off-putting and overwhelming. Most people, I believe, look to new games when they see a streamer/lets-player start up a new game that looks appealing and those watching try to mimic the experience, for instance:

Spoiler

 

Still, I think sandbox should be kept as it is and upon startup there should be a "PLEASE READ THIS SO AS NOT TO HARM YOUR INTRODUCTION TO THIS GAME. WE WANT YOU TO HAVE FUN, NOT BE OVERWHELMED" which simply, personably, and briefly explains the purpose of introducing yourself to the game with a progression based mode and the likely overwhelming-ness of immediately jumping into sandbox. Or during the load screen a similar advisory could pop up while the game is loading for its 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time Basically, the devs should try to talk to the newer players directly in a manner that catches their attention and doesn't get closed immediately. Meanwhile, don't force everyone into the progression mode for the experienced players with little interest in it (not my cup of tea, but I know some of you are out there and I can respect that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I full get where you guys are coming from as opening sandbox and having 1000 parts you are unfamiliar with can be really off-putting and overwhelming. Most people, I believe, look to new games when they see a streamer/lets-player start up a new game that looks appealing and those watching try to mimic the experience, for instance:

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

Also knowing that "most people never go beyond Mun" datapoint they can focus the early game on teaching the game and put all the complexity they want on the colonial/interstellar part of the game (if you're building a base/station you've learned to rendezvous and pinpoint landing, so you're past that "casual player that only goes to the mun only once" barrier) but if such a new player opens sandbox before progression that's basically a lost player 9 times out of 10.

I think they should market sandbox as a fully fledged "debug/cheat mode" for advanced users and keeping it locked until you land on the mun or change some "advanced debug options" setting.

10 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Because when KSP first came out, it was ok, because the OG players only had so little to play with and updates came out that which built up their skills. One of the most things that prevented development of my skills in KSP was having everything. Literally look at my first landers for most solar systems, they have tons of fuel and lots of RTGs cause I was never taught the skills I needed to be mastered at the parts. I had to relearn everything months after playing KSP. 

I think Progression is important for KSP 2, because then people can get good. It's like making someone doing a marathon without ever doing a sprint or run. Build up the ability to do it. I think the same can be taken into place with KSP 2. Since I feel like so many players don't understand the parts they put onto their crafts. Science mode does this very well. I think that with the interstellar stuff it shouldn't be given off the bat because interstellar engines are the marathon for people who did sprints with the mammoth or the new players who have never done it. I feel like no progression to get new parts will throw many off.

There already is a steep learning curve for KSP and KSP2 (with its colonies and interstellar tech) will only make that curve steeper and longer. I bet that even experienced KSP players will find themselves lost in KSP2. (For the purpose of this scenario I'm imagining the KSP2 parts to be like the Near Future mods) If an average KSP player that goes to KSP2 is like me, they will just sit there looking at all the parts, build a few experimental craft that never make it out of the VAB, then go back to the same parts. Except if all the parts that are carried over have been upgraded and changed, we will all be completely lost.

And a new player will actually have an advantage over us. We will have probably carried over ideas and tricks that worked in KSP but KSP2 changes something. A new player will not have any of these outdated ideas and will be able to just learn the game, instead of relearning it. That said, I think the experienced players will have a long term advantage, because we will know about the physics of the game and the technical part. 

Edited by Kerminator1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kerminator1000 said:

There already is a steep learning curve for KSP and KSP2 (with its colonies and interstellar tech) will only make that curve steeper and longer. I bet that even experienced KSP players will find themselves lost in KSP2. (For the purpose of this scenario I'm imagining the KSP2 parts to be like the Near Future mods)

I'm imagining it to more be like KSP interstellar extended and have started up a new playthrough of it to compliment that. I'm hoping the system isn't dumbed down and we can still pair reactors with different fission/fusion types, propellants, and nozzles. It adds another learning curve to the game but that curve only begins well after the curve of learning orbital mechanics and the basics of rocketry are more so completed. It makes for a longer term of keeping the player intellectually engaged/challenged as well as serving as an incentive to make colonies for farming rare isotopes not found on kerbin (at least not cheaply).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Meanwhile, don't force everyone into the progression mode for the experienced players with little interest in it

That's why I say that there should be a way to make it clear that sandbox is a "cheat/debug" mode and, if it's locked, there should be a "advanced debug mode" setting somewhere to unlock it.

That said I would argue that the only "experienced player with no interest in progression" for KSP2 in existence, if they exist, work at Intercept. That's the problem, whatever sandbox and progression are going to be their role will be switched compared to KSP1, sandbox in KSP1 and 2 are going to be very different things.

As an example right now I'm playing a sandbox game in KSP1 but not because I don't like progression, I'm actually roleplaying my progression "manually", I'm doing that because after numerous attempts and abandoned careers I realized that there's nothing salvageable from KSP1 science and career at all, but I realize that it would be wrong to think that it will be the same for KSP2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

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.

I think this might be a place where we differ as I think demonstrating the new mechanics being brought to KSP should be the focus of the marketing campaign, essentially "this is what we have improved, this is what we have changed, and they are the reasons you should purchase KSP 2". I don't feel like my experience gameplay wise has been damaged in learning of these new mechanics which is personally how I would define a spoiler. Something along the lines of:

"If I learn about this, before experiencing it myself naturally, my enjoyment of the content in question will be diminished."

And to me, when it comes to a game like KSP, there aren't many things that I feel would do that. As @Kerminator1000 mentioned:

20 hours ago, Kerminator1000 said:

The spoilers @mcwaffles2003 is talking about are probably more along the lines of the Easter eggs.

This would probably spoil some of the fun, like learning of the hidden scarab gun in Halo 2 in the trailer as a hypothetical example. If the devs have created a narrative or story with decisions, consequence to actions, etc.. learning about those would harm my enjoyment. Showing me how to land on a difficult celestial body would ruin my enjoyment of figuring it out myself. But demonstrating the new features present in the game doesn't hurt my enjoyment, they just give me a better idea of what I'm buying, and if I like what I see  or I understand the product more clearly I will be more eager to buy it.

 

I find it funny that so many people here seem to have mentioned revealing planets as spoilers yet that seems to be the thing we have been given the most information about so far. Personally, I don't feel learning of the new planets will harm my enjoyment of getting to them and landing on them, but I don't necessarily want to be shown every single planet and all their facets. They have shown binary planets will exist, rings will exist (and likely will be collidable), terrain such as ice will exists and atmospheric artifacts such as clouds will exist. I am happy to learn that these things will be in the game and knowing I will be getting a game that includes many of the features I have felt were missing in KSP 1.

That all said, there are some things I would like to know more about in regards to things other than planets (the thing we have been shown the most).

Things like:

  • What mechanics will govern how future engines will work?
  • Will they be all-in-one solutions or will I have to build the powertrain from multiple parts like in KSP IE?
  • How will building craft work and what has changed in comparison to how we already build them? 
  • How is radiation a factor to be considered and are engines the only things that produce it? (cough geomagnetic fields and solar storms in kerbalism cough)
  • Will all the resources we need be available or will we have to manufacture and/or farm them?
  • How will technological progression be handled?
  • Does science collection still exist?
  • How is science collection changed if it does?
  • Do finances still play a role in the game?
  • If so, how will financing our space programs be handled?

These are just a few of the questions, many of them leading to a slew of further questions, which we are fairly or completely in the dark about currently, and if answered, I don't feel would subtract from our experience when we finally do play the game but may bring greater confidence to us in purchasing it on release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What mechanics will govern how future engines will work?

I think they have said some. Are you talking about engine types?

44 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
  • Will they be all-in-one solutions or will I have to build the powertrain from multiple parts like in KSP IE?
  • How will building craft work and what has changed in comparison to how we already build them? 

No idea

44 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
  • How is radiation a factor to be considered and are engines the only things that produce it? (cough geomagnetic fields and solar storms in kerbalism cough)
  • Will all the resources we need be available or will we have to manufacture and/or farm them?

I have said this in other places, and I really hope they implement this: Life support. Hopefully along the lines of snacks and Kerbal health.

Based off the cranes and resource gatherers, it looks like we may haver to farm the planets.

46 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
  • How will technological progression be handled?

Please don't let there be a tech tree. One of the worst parts of KSP is the tech tree. It is oversimplified and is too easy to beat. You can beat the tech tree without leaving Kerbin's sphere of influence. Personally I hope the progression is more like minecraft crafting recipes. When you get parts that are used to make something else, you unlock it.

48 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
  • Does science collection still exist?
  • How is science collection changed if it does?

I also feel that they should change this, but they probably won't. The science collection feels fake and like a chore. Science should be more like the Mobile Processing Lab or the Breaking ground surface experiments. You could put out a thermometer and record the temp instantly - this could give you 10 science points, or you could record the temperature over a period of time - this would give you 50 points. I do think they should keep the point system, but change the experiments. And maybe the tech progression could be based off that, or you give the data to R&D and they give you some parts based off that data.

51 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
  • Do finances still play a role in the game?
  • If so, how will financing our space programs be handled?

I hope finances are still important, just not like the contracts of KSP. Maybe contracts that are like: planting flags, tourist missions (to hotels, not specific orbits), building/expanmding a space station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kerminator1000 We all have our own opinions and speculations on questions like these, but more importantly, those opinions and speculations are uninformed to the reality of what the devs have in store for us. My point was that answering questions like these through either interviews, gameplay demos, trailers, or dev insights would not, to me, constitute as something that would diminish our, the buyers/players, experience of the game... but our unsureness is cause for hesitation to buy it. To me, answering questions like these would not spoil the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

@Kerminator1000 We all have our own opinions and speculations on questions like these, but more importantly, those opinions and speculations are uninformed to the reality of what the devs have in store for us. My point was that answering questions like these through either interviews, gameplay demos, trailers, or dev insights would not, to me, constitute as something that would diminish our, the buyers/players, experience of the game... but our unsureness is cause for hesitation to buy it. To me, answering questions like these would not spoil the game.

I know, I was just trying to give my opinion on these questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kerminator1000 said:

I know, I was just trying to give my opinion on these questions.

I get that and I don't mean to be stand offish, but I ask those not intending for them to be answered/discussed as that isn't the point of this thread and I'm trying to keep it on track. I'm asking them as examples a questions to which the devs answering would be nice for us in the community to know and I don't believe would constitute as spoiling the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

Hummm... Could you link such a study. Im under the influence its quite the opposite. Here is a quote from a study... "This research suggests one explanation for why spoilers suck: They remind us that a story is just a story." This relates to how our brains blurr the lines between fiction and reality. 

Moreover, TV shows and movies go to great lengths to protect from spoilers. One of the Fast n furious shot in my town surrounded its self in storage containers stacked over 100 ft high. GOT shot multiple fake scenes  and endings to avoid spoilers. 

last, KSP2, on the steam store, has ZERO spoilers in its promotional material.

Im not going to go looking for things Ive read years ago but I can explain it to you. Watch a few trailers from the 80s and 90s and watch a trailer from 2000s onwards. People are unwilling to spend money on movie tickets with nothing more than teaser trailers anymore. There is a good reason so many movie trailers have spoilers. 

TV shows already have an audience and the fast and furious is also the 6th film in the series. People know what they are getting. Noone cared about protecting star wars plot. That was not the case for empire anymore. Once you have the IP then your good to go. On the otherhand you can do what the modern star wars films have done and not give people a reason to watch the last jedi because there was not plot to be spoiled anyway.  That is why it failed. People had nothing to look forward to.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

That all said, there are some things I would like to know more about in regards to things other than planets (the thing we have been shown the most).

Things like:

  • What mechanics will govern how future engines will work?
  • Will they be all-in-one solutions or will I have to build the powertrain from multiple parts like in KSP IE?
  • How will building craft work and what has changed in comparison to how we already build them? 
  • How is radiation a factor to be considered and are engines the only things that produce it? (cough geomagnetic fields and solar storms in kerbalism cough)
  • Will all the resources we need be available or will we have to manufacture and/or farm them?
  • How will technological progression be handled?
  • Does science collection still exist?
  • How is science collection changed if it does?
  • Do finances still play a role in the game?
  • If so, how will financing our space programs be handled?

Nothing listed here i would consider spoiling the game. But these are game play questions they rather not answer at the moment.

They seem to be perfectionists when they decide to show us something. (Frankly, I don't blame them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Nothing listed here i would consider spoiling the game. But these are game play questions they rather not answer at the moment.

They seem to be perfectionists when they decide to show us something. (Frankly, I don't blame them.)

True and I can understand that. But it would be nice to at least know the direction they would like to head in on some of these even if specifics can't be told yet for fear of cut content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me 'spoilers' in this context is releasing too much information/detail too soon or, in some cases before release.

For example, I don't want to know what all the special anomalies are, but vague details like 'All planets will have one or more' and images of one or two as examples, without necessarily telling me where they are, would be fine.

We have images of some of the new planets, and new versions of the 'old' ones, but not so much as to leave all surprises off the table.

When it comes to detail as to how the game 'works' like the 'progression mode' or the VAB interface then i wouldn't consider that 'spoilers', but it may be too soon to release details yet though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I think this might be a place where we differ as I think demonstrating the new mechanics being brought to KSP should be the focus of the marketing campaign, essentially "this is what we have improved, this is what we have changed, and they are the reasons you should purchase KSP 2". I don't feel like my experience gameplay wise has been damaged in learning of these new mechanics which is personally how I would define a spoiler. Something along the lines of:

That's why i qualified it with "And is intended for the player to discover via gameplay"

Information about Colony mechanics, Interstellar Travel, new engines etc. i wouldn't consider under this umbrella, but if they implemented a system that say triggered a specific unlock upon visiting a specific planet. Then that would be in my eyes, basically i was mostly saying keeping the information as general as possible is the best way ahead for everyone. Giving people the general outline won't spoil things, but saying that if you go to X planet it will unlock Y would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours 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 people whose first craft with be an Orion powered orbiter with metallic hydrogen boosters and that is the way the game is meant to be played."

FTFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

"There will be people whose first craft with be an Orion powered orbiter with metallic hydrogen boosters and that is the way the game is meant to be played."

FTFY

What I meant was people who are just coming into the game. An average person will be attracted by the cool videos, see and the new tech, and will do this, destroy the launchpad, fail to achieve orbit, think "This game sucks" and leave a bad review and convince all their friends to not play it. 

A person genuinely interested in spaceflight will go on the forums, watch some videos, and come back to play the game in a natural progression. But not following the natural progression is a problem in KSP. Many people in KSP use the Saturn V parts to go to the moon and the Saturn V parts are way too OP for the Mun. Its almost too OP for Jool. That leads to people never making it past Kerbin's SOI because they have taught themselves bad habits on Mun/Minmus missions.

An experienced Kerbal gamer (like the forum members) will play KSP2 with a natural progression, then play around with ridiculous technologies on Kerbin. I bet even Danny2462 will play the game with a natural progression first, before using a torchship to go to the Mun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dave1904 said:

Im not going to go looking for things Ive read years ago but I can explain it to you. Watch a few trailers from the 80s and 90s and watch a trailer from 2000s onwards. People are unwilling to spend money on movie tickets with nothing more than teaser trailers anymore. There is a good reason so many movie trailers have spoilers. 

TV shows already have an audience and the fast and furious is also the 6th film in the series. People know what they are getting. Noone cared about protecting star wars plot. That was not the case for empire anymore. Once you have the IP then your good to go. On the otherhand you can do what the modern star wars films have done and not give people a reason to watch the last jedi because there was not plot to be spoiled anyway.  That is why it failed. People had nothing to look forward to.  

 

I was genuinely interested in the research from a marketing standpoint. (Im working on starting my own business).If its statistically proven id enjoy reading it. Forgive me for being skeptical. I've just heard the opposite. I do believe the general consensous is people dont enjoy spoilers. For the most part because it strips a person of their right to decide for themselves. What i do believe is that there exist an optimal balance where customer engagement is greatest. How long does the general customer even engage with a game they are advertised? Not long, if at all. You have about 30 seconds tops(guess)..... no one wants your life story. People on this forum are FANS not your general consumer.

On a side note.... video games and movies/tv interact with completely different parts of the brain. You're essentially a zombie when you watch tv. Recent research suggest video games interact heavily with the problem solving portions of the brain. So is research regarding TV applicable to video games? 

Edited by harrisjosh2711
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2020 at 10:31 PM, Kerminator1000 said:
On 9/30/2020 at 9:47 PM, Bej Kerman said:

"There will be people whose first craft with be an Orion powered orbiter with metallic hydrogen boosters and that is the way the game is meant to be played."

FTFY

What I meant was people who are just coming into the game. An average person will be attracted by the cool videos, see and the new tech, and will do this, destroy the launchpad, fail to achieve orbit, think "This game sucks" and leave a bad review and convince all their friends to not play it. 

A person genuinely interested in spaceflight will go on the forums, watch some videos, and come back to play the game in a natural progression. But not following the natural progression is a problem in KSP. Many people in KSP use the Saturn V parts to go to the moon and the Saturn V parts are way too OP for the Mun. Its almost too OP for Jool. That leads to people never making it past Kerbin's SOI because they have taught themselves bad habits on Mun/Minmus missions.

An experienced Kerbal gamer (like the forum members) will play KSP2 with a natural progression, then play around with ridiculous technologies on Kerbin. I bet even Danny2462 will play the game with a natural progression first, before using a torchship to go to the Mun.

That's a lot of bold assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...