Jump to content

KSP2 shouldn’t need Sandbox (or maybe it should?)


Pthigrivi
 Share

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Simply incorrect. Sandbox is a mode where you're bound only by orbital mechanics as opposed to also having arbitrary monetary limits and availability of parts. That doesn't make it some kind of cheat, you're still bound by Delta-V and physical limits.

Please read the context and avoid to cherrypick me to fit me in your narrative.

I fixed my original message.

Edited by Master39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Well said!  Dealing in opinions, we strongly disagree.  And all that that means -- to the owners of the franchise -- is that both views should be catered for: remove or denigrate one (particularly the original!) with caution.

Recall that the venerable Creators of the game have stated publicly that KSP was intended to be a game, not a sim.  That was only their fun opinion, of course...

We do strongly disagree.  What about?  My Aerospace bicycle metaphor.  I believe that is what you responded to.  Am I mistaken?

Where do I claim that you advocate dumping Sandbox mode or that I read you to say that?  I can see how you inferred that conclusion because I was, in a latter draft, striving for brevity and ran on to a larger point.  A new paragraph (after "we strongly disagree") or a ruler (like below) might have helped perhaps.  (Nevertheless, friend, extend me the courtesy of refraining from inserting words in my mouth, please.)

But if you and I, Master39, who value Sandbox mode, cannot agree on what the core of KSP 1 is, then my claim made, that PD (owner of the franchise?) should exercise extreme caution in diverging unnecessarily makes sense.  Does it not?  That very much applies to the whole sense & gist of this topic, which is the way I made the comment, too (re-iterating with the LEGO analogy).

                                                                      

Pthigivri said, and I quote: "Very few complete, good games Ive ever played include a sandbox mode. Instead they make the game good and just dump you in, rules and all."  This was a hypothesis with very clear caveats (fun, controversial, opinion), but his initial premise was, frankly, ridiculous given that KSP 1, which he plays full well, is an immediate exception to his rule.  He baked in the contentious conclusion.  He has since (laudably) retracted it.  I likened this to a gear-up landing.  (The saying in the flying community is, "there are two kinds of pilots (regarding gear-up landings): those who have and those who will").

And you said: "KSP is just one in a long list of fantastic Sims that are terrible at being games."  Who says?  Subjective.  Disagree.  "People have been playing Go for centuries.  Is it a worthy game?"

Edited by Hotel26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Simply incorrect. Sandbox is a mode where you're bound only by orbital mechanics as opposed to also having arbitrary monetary limits and availability of parts. That doesn't make it some kind of cheat, you're still bound by Delta-V and physical limits.

I have to say, Bravo, sir.

Semantics can be insidious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Master39 said:
1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Simply incorrect. Sandbox is a mode where you're bound only by orbital mechanics as opposed to also having arbitrary monetary limits and availability of parts. That doesn't make it some kind of cheat, you're still bound by Delta-V and physical limits.

Please read the context and avoid to cherrypick me to fit me in your narrative.

It doesn't matter what the context says, you called it a cheat (which it isn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

It doesn't matter what the context says, you called it a cheat (which it isn't).

Well I called it a cheat, which was probably my biggest error. I should have known framing it that way would cause more offense than lively conversation.
 

Hotel is quite right that the glaring exception to the ‘very few good games’ line is KSP, my favorite game in the world, in which I’ve probably played sandbox for 2000h alone. The exclusion was deliberate however, in order to emphasize  the point that KSP1 is a very good sim but not such a great game

I agree with you both though that sandbox  isnt cheating, just a less restrictive set of parameters leading to a different kind of gameplay. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

It doesn't matter what the context says, you called it a cheat (which it isn't).

In this case context does matter, it's the whole point of the argument.

KSP1 is way to simple to even being able to consider Sandbox as a cheat, that is not going to be the case with KSP2.

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

 arbitrary monetary limits and availability of parts.

That doesn't even fully define the difference between science and sandbox in KSP1.

In KSP2 interpreting that is going to be a complex matter, what does "availability of parts" include?

  • Tech tree to unlock parts? Yes/No (this one is easy as it's already in KSP1).
  • KSC VAB limited by VAB size? (some engines are bigger than the building).
  • Parts requiring resources to be crafted in colonial and orbital VABS?
  • Colonies having other types of limits and rules based on the growth of the colony, some variable based on the population or the colony tech level? (Ex. Tanks are easy to manufacture, engines needs to be imported in low tier colonies)
  • Possible construction times?
  • Electric power needs for the VAB and building phases in colonies?

I'm not sure what I would consider "normal Sandbox", only that the first one is probably be always on and that I'd want to be able to choose for all the other questions.

And, in some cases, like requiring no resources, power or colony management to directly launch rockets from an unmanned VAB spawned from a menu in the middle of nowhere definitely enters the "cheat" definition.

If sandbox gave you the possibility to effortlessly launch your missions from Minus to take advantage of its gravity wouldn't you call that a cheat? You're no longer bound by the physical limits and the delta-V requirements of launching something from the KSC.

In the "Adventure" gamemode there's going to be a progression of tech, set up times, population growth, management and resource requirements to reach that seemingly "cheaty" capability, and then ongoing costs and resource and fuel requirements to build that rocket.

Depending on how you define Sandbox all or none of those requirement could be shaved off.

 

1 hour ago, Hotel26 said:

We do strongly disagree.  What about?  My Aerospace bicycle metaphor.  I believe that is what you responded to.  Am I mistaken?

You said that Science and career are there to provide assistance to new players, called them "training wheels". That's objectively wrong. If they're bad at being games they're even worse at being tutorials.

That what I disagreed on, you flipped it and somehow turned it into me denigrating Sandbox.

 

1 hour ago, Hotel26 said:

And you said: "KSP is just one in a long list of fantastic Sims that are terrible at being games."  Who says?  Subjective.  Disagree.  "People have been playing Go for centuries.  Is it a worthy game?"

First thing first, I love sandbox sims, and KSP is one of them.

But it's objective that KSP tried to be something more, to add a management aspect to the game, and they failed at that, hard.

I love management games too, and KSP being good at both, would be a dream situation for me.

Sadly KSP is a good sim but a terrible (management) game. Sandbox is the only thing keeping the game playable, if you were forced to go through career to play it would be an instant refund for most players and that's where I agree with the title, "Sandbox shouldn't be needed..." "to make the game even playable".

Also, since you brought up the argument of assisting new players by wrongly categorizing career and science as training wheels, KSP just lacks that. And that too is one of the usual differences between a game and a sim, A sim is designed on the premise that the end user knows what he's doing before picking it up, a game has tutorials, on-boarding and a carefully designed difficulty curve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the sandbox mode is more for new players who might want to experiment a bit before playing the actual game.

I started playing minecraft in creative and then I moved on to survival. Sure, starting with poor engines (or wooden axes) sucks a little, but there is that feeling of discovery that you don't have in the sandbox. in sanbox you directly take the largest motor (or diamond axes) and use only that, which makes sense, but it will never give you that feeling of difficulty and fulfillment.

but if you are only interested in putting components together and having fun without having to unlock all the components, why not a creative mode?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Laxez said:

I think the sandbox mode is more for new players who might want to experiment a bit before playing the actual game.

It's for players that don't like being put on pointless leashes. Not sure why that has to equate to being a newbie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

It's for players that don't like being put on pointless leashes. Not sure why that has to equate to being a newbie.

I do agree with this, and also Adsii’s point about just wanting to come home and feel utterly relaxed while playing. Take a game like Stardew Valley vs a game like Animal Crossing. Similar in many ways, but the crunch of time and minmaxing yields in Stardew makes it a much more intense feeling, less relaxing game. 
 

I think different players (or the same player at different times) come to KSP looking for different things. 
 

Most importantly, and in many ways the purpose of the thread, would be to say that KSP2’s adventure mode should not feel like “pointless leashes”. Exploration and unfolding your technological capabilities should feel every bit as natural as digging resources out of the ground for fuel or navigating a dense atmosphere. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

It's for players that don't like being put on pointless leashes. Not sure why that has to equate to being a newbie.

As Pthigrivi referred to already in the original post, its not designed properly then if it is a "pointless leash". Whatever a "pointless leash" means lol.

A lot of players use cheats in KSP1 to get infinite fuel when playing sandbox because they think that is a "pointless leash" as well.

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, whatever it is called or the details of its implementation, some form of 'sandbox' is needed.

As has been pointed out.  It can be an invaluable tool for testing ideas or designs, or just doing wacky stuff for fun.  Why remove that option?

Yes, the game as intended should function perfectly without it, so in that context it is not 'needed' , but that doesn't mean it is not a viable or desirable option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, MechBFP said:
1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

It's for players that don't like being put on pointless leashes. Not sure why that has to equate to being a newbie.

As Pthigrivi referred to already in the original post, its not designed properly then if it is a "pointless leash"

It does not matter in the least how it is implemented, career mode remains nothing more than a leash.

Edited by Bej Kerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, MechBFP said:

The word you are looking for is barrier. 

If we are doing a big thorough reorganization of the game’s progression the word Id hope to see is “goals”. As in most open world games you can still set your own goals, but there’s a hand-crafted structure to what the rewards are for discovering new places, navigating to hard-to-reach resources, building colonies and growing them, etc. Most games don’t give you all the tools to do this at once. You start out by seeing what you can accomplish with less, and as you do and discover new places and overcome greater and greater challenges you earn more tools. Just like sandbox comes with the advantage of totally freeform, creative play progression style games come with deeper set of strategic puzzles which unlock an evolving set of capabilities on top of the basic day to day rules of navigation.

As is oft repeated both are completely valid and no one’s idea of fun is ‘wrong’. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

It does not matter in the least how it is implemented, career mode remains nothing more than a leash

Assuming that "Adventure Mode" or whatever in KSP2 manages to provide a thorough, well-done approach to material and science management (something that, I think we all agree on this, KSP career absolutely does not) do you still feel that this will be a leash?

This is not a loaded question, no gotchas, just curious if you think the game should be only sandbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ember12 said:

.. .This is not a loaded question, no gotchas, just curious if you think the game should be only sandbox.

No.

A decent 'Progression' mode will be a great format, and may well be the 'normal' way to play.  There is no reason why the two cannot and should not coexist.

We have been tainted by the late introduction and very poor implementation of 'Career' and 'Science' modes in KSP1 which channelled many of us to Sandbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, the first game mode I played was career, and it remains interesting for me despite the terrible execution.  If KSP2's resource and science management is anywhere near the promised quality, I don't think I'll do much Sandbox at all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if you call it "sandbox" or "creative" or what-have-you, but some sort of easily-accessible game mode that allows you to build things "for looks" rather than "for function" should be possible. Like if someone wants to build a 10 kilometer long interstellar ship but can't do that in the "normal" game mode, they should be able to do it in Creative.

And if they want to launch said ship from Kerbin's surface (EDIT: or at least attempt to), they should be able to do that in Sandbox or whatever it's called as well. That's just another limitation that should be able to be broken.

Even if we do get the "difficulty toggles and cheats" way to "emulate" a sandbox experience, I think we should still get a "dedicated Sandbox" game mode, if only to make such a thing easier for the average player to understand what it is they are setting up.
That is still the case even if "under the hood" all it does is toggle those same cheats and difficulty options. Sometimes the names matter for some people.

In any case, we should probably also get a photo mode, which should be able to be entered from any game mode included in the game.

Edited by SciMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

After reading the ideas for sandbox mode, I have to ask, What is wrong with how KSP1 does it?

Part of it is that KSP1's solution might not work for KSP2. For instance if population growth is driven by 'boom events' in Adventure mode then removing that underlying mechanic may mean you can't grow your populations in Sandbox, which means you'd also have to remove any impact your population had on resource collection rates. Some players may want the ability to collect resources anyway and just have big empty bases, and others may not want all parts to be free with no resource cost so they can just make crazy things without going through the rigmarole of harvesting and processing at all. So even if there is a listed 'Sandbox mode' it's not exactly clear what would be in or out besides a fully unlocked tech tree. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MechBFP said:

The funny thing is that this exact discussion has almost guaranteed to have already taken place at PD months upon months ago and is already completely fleshed out. 

Still, I think most of these discussions are just for the sake of discussion, not because they'll add anything to the development process

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...