Jump to content

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


Pthigrivi
 Share

Recommended Posts

I, as someone with an apparently significantly "different" view to most expressed in this and its companion thread, have to say that SunlitZelkova's response (cited above) is the one I have found notable for its cogency, informativeness and comprehension.

Kudos, therefore, to SunlitZelkova.  "Dux."

Edited by Hotel26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

I, as someone with an apparently significantly "different" view to most expressed in this and its companion thread, have to say that SunlitZelkova's response (cited above) is the one I have found notable for its cogency, informativeness and comprehension.

Kudos, therefore, to SunlitZelkova.  "Dux."

As we've seen though the devil is in the details. There are at least two big-ish problems with SZ's initial version:

- Its likely that orbital stations will be built in the same way colonies are and require material deliveries and resource tanks that gate what you can build there (as in you just won't have enough metal or fuel to pay for the parts.) There's also been no indication that there will be a stock, on-rails orbital VAB around kerbin. You'll probably have to build that from scratch and establish supply runs to deliver resources before you can build big vehicles there.

- Last we heard population growth will be driven by boom events which are a progression event inside Adventure mode. We don't know for sure that there will be any reason to have larger populations, but if kerbals themselves have any kind of role in harvesting or processing resources you'll run into problems in Sandbox because populations wouldn't increase offworld. You'd either have to fly all personnel from Kerbin or cheat/spawn them manually where you wanted them.

There may be a host of other problems depending on how colonies and adventure mode ends up working. Hard to say without knowing more about where they've landed. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

- Its likely that orbital stations will be built in the same way colonies are and require material deliveries and resource tanks that gate what you can build there (as in you just won't have enough metal or fuel to pay for the parts.) There's also been no indication that there will be a stock, on-rails orbital VAB around kerbin. You'll probably have to build that from scratch and establish supply runs to deliver resources before you can build big vehicles there.

I went over these. Quoting myself from my earlier responses-

1. For space or surface colonial VABs-

Quote

One thing I did not mention in my post was how the colonial VAB would work. In this case, I would see the mining of resources to build rocket parts for assembly in that VAB to be treated like fuel- just another physical constraint, not a progression mechanic.

2. For the orbital VAB-

Quote

- Orbital VAB comes automatically unlocked. I don’t recall how the orbital VAB is supposed to work (space center in space on rails?) but depending on how it is implemented this would either be a) the standard orbital VAB already present upon starting a new save (if it is like a space center in space functioning like a celestial body as mentioned above) or b) a stock VAB built from stock parts automatically being present upon starting a new save (if it is built out of pieces somehow)

Now then, for

15 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

- Last we heard population growth will be driven by boom events which are a progression event inside Adventure mode. We don't know for sure that there will be any reason to have larger populations, but if kerbals themselves have any kind of role in harvesting or processing resources you'll run into problems in Sandbox because populations wouldn't increase offworld. You'd either have to fly all personnel from Kerbin or cheat/spawn them manually where you wanted them.

This is problematic because a boom event isn't a standard progression event, it is also a tangible action inside the game- i.e., non-arbitrary, instead of merely needing X points to do a thing, it will indeed make sense that you can't do whatever major thing without more Kerbals.

My original proposal assumed boom events could just be treated like how fuel is. They would still function as they do in other game modes. Just as you need to still fuel your spacecraft in KSP1 sandbox, there would be no issue with needing to gather the required resources to generate a boom event. It would be the same.

Removing boom events from sandbox, or seeing them as contrary to sandbox, would be like removing ISRU from sandbox. Obviously, ISRU exists in KSP1 sandbox, and if that doesn't present a problem, having boom events and every other colony associated resource functioning in KSP2 sandbox should not be a problem.

More on this from my original post (slightly edited as I found an error in terminology)-

Quote

- Colonies completely function as in other modes, and are treated like spacecraft. Whatever is needed to keep them running that is special- food, water, certain raw resources, etc.- is treated like fuel, which is still finite in sandbox mode in KSP1. Colonies can’t just be set up wherever and function without support, just as a spacecraft can’t be sent to the Mun without burning fuel. If players can do ISRU in KSP1 sandbox there is no reason why mining, farming, boom events and whatever for colonies in KSP2 sandbox is unthinkable

- No BAE by default. Colonies are bases, a colony would start from a base in real life so it makes sense the player would at least be required to build a base and go through standard progression to get to a colony in the game. In the same way I can’t just build a base and put it on the Mun in the standard (without the real cheats like teleport) KSP1 sandbox game, players can’t (are not allowed to) just build colonies. So the BAE needs to be unlocked just as it needs to be in the progression modes, not as “a progression mechanic being present in sandbox” but because that is just how base-colony building works, not only from a logical sense but based on how KSP1 sandbox mode worked too [Emphasis added at the end]

- As part of colonies functioning as normal you still need to resupply them, so the auto-resupply mechanic will be available in sandbox too. Again, this isn’t a “progression mechanic”- supplying a base or colony is no different than refueling a ship at an ISRU outpost in KSP1 sandbox

Finally

15 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

There may be a host of other problems depending on how colonies and adventure mode ends up working. Hard to say without knowing more about where they've landed.

If this is the case, you should not have asked this question to begin with.

This makes it an impossible debate; every single pro-sandbox answer can be rejected on the grounds of "unknown problems", while every anti-sandbox answer is automatically correct because the pro-sandbox side simply has no way to create a competent response... because we just don't know how a lot of things are going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This makes it an impossible debate; every single pro-sandbox answer can be rejected on the grounds of "unknown problems", while every anti-sandbox answer is automatically correct because the pro-sandbox side simply has no way to create a competent response...

The so called "anti sandbox" sentiment is more about progression modes not being so terrible that a sandbox mode is required to make the game playable..

And for "pro-sandbox" it's not much when every single commenter has a different idea of how sandbox is even supposed to be, often conflicting ideas.

You think it's granted that boom events are left in, some other people here proposed to spawn population or painted every progression mechanic as a "leash" even colony growth and resource requirements.

If you want a black and white polarized argument between people against the presence of sandbox on one side and people trying to save sandbox on the other you'll only get a fully white picture of people wanting different kinds of sandbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

The so called "anti sandbox" sentiment is more about progression modes not being so terrible that a sandbox mode is required to make the game playable..

Wouldn’t this then be a discussion pertaining to how to make the other game modes more enjoyable?

Removing sandbox will not automatically make the other game modes worthwhile.

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

And for "pro-sandbox" it's not much when every single commenter has a different idea of how sandbox is even supposed to be, often conflicting ideas.

You think it's granted that boom events are left in, some other people here proposed to spawn population or painted every progression mechanic as a "leash" even colony growth and resource requirements.

If you want a black and white polarized argument between people against the presence of sandbox on one side and people trying to save sandbox on the other you'll only get a fully white picture of people wanting different kinds of sandbox.

This then points to an issue with how the question was posed by @Pthigrivi rather than an issue with the idea of “defending” sandbox.

As I said earlier-

On 8/14/2022 at 4:21 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

I think that then may be a problem with the way the question was asked. The question is so vague that some people are getting up and arms that this implies eliminating "sandbox style gameplay" and some are talking about a form of sandbox other sandbox players don't use, which misconstrues the "pro-sandbox" position.

@Pthigrivi :wink:I

Rather than “defending sandbox” being problematic itself.

Vague questions will get vague answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Removing sandbox will not automatically make the other game modes worthwhile.

"You shouldn't need that gamemode"

Is very different from:

"I want to remove that gamemode"

I think KSP shouldn't rely so much on sandbox to be playable, sandbox shouldn't be the only playable gamemode, I don't want the gamemode removed, I use it all the time.

 

31 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This then points to an issue with how the question was posed by @Pthigrivi rather than an issue with the idea of “defending” sandbox.

As I said earlier-

On 8/14/2022 at 1:21 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

I think that then may be a problem with the way the question was asked. The question is so vague that some people are getting up and arms that this implies eliminating "sandbox style gameplay" and some are talking about a form of sandbox other sandbox players don't use, which misconstrues the "pro-sandbox" position.

@Pthigrivi :wink:I

Rather than “defending sandbox” being problematic itself.

Vague questions will get vague answers.

The problem is not the question, the problem is that it took 3 years for this community to notice that "sandbox" is a vague idea outside the confines and the simplicity of KSP1.

 

In KSP1 the same sandbox mode is used for doing trebuchet challenges and for doing an hardcore RSS mission to the outer planets with all kinds of life support mods.

In KSP2 it's going to be either one or the other or a "make your own sandbox" settings panel when creating the save (which is what I'm arguing for).

 

You can't have any discussion about sandbox without acknowledging that the idea itself of sandbox is still pretty much up for debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think there’s a tendency and therefore expectation on the internet that any discussion must have a pro and anti side and that one must win and the other must lose (even through the last part never happens). 

That is not what this discussion is.

I made it clear in my original post that this is not about removing sandbox mode but ensuring that adventure mode was so good that the game didn’t really need it, and more importantly thinking critically about how its functionality could and should be implemented in that light. In my edit I agree that sandbox should be listed as "mode" so long time players feel catered to, which spawned a second round of discussion about what that could and should look like by default, because there is in fact a huge diversity of expectations. Both Master and I like and play sandbox and would like its functionality available. The question we’re investigating is given KSP2’s likely and possible differences and wild disparities in how players view “sandbox” how do you do that?

This thread is not a debate for pro and anti sandbox people to duke it out. This thread is an atom smasher for ideas. I didn’t build it because I don’t like atoms. I built it because I love atoms and I wanted to know what was inside. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 9:22 AM, Master39 said:
On 8/14/2022 at 12:16 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

I only play sandbox, tried science for a little bit but it immediately became a chore to grind the parts I wanted and became unfun so I went back to sandbox.

That's a problem with how badly designed science is, not a merit of sandbox.

Still going to use Sandbox regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Still going to use Sandbox regardless.

I don't see any reason not to keep an open mind and try every mode and rate them on the basis of their own merits. Seems like the reasonable thing to do to me. *shrug*

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why do you assume people only use sandbox because the other modes are badly designed?

Because KSP gamemodes are badly designed.

That's objective from a game design perspective.

As you pointed out, you want the challenge not the grind, the fact that all the challenge is in the sandbox mode and there's no additional challenge in science or career but mindless grind is the bad game design at work.

Progression should be a reward for what people like doing, KSP1 progression is a pause from playing to grind enough tokens to pay for your intended gameplay.

 

I'm not assuming that you play only sandbox because the other modes are badly designed, you said so, again and again with every post you made here.

A management game is not about grinding resources to pay for gameplay, when it can be reduced to that then is just bad design.

 

Experienced people often avoid landing legs or wheels on their creation in KSP1, can we use that as a data point to decide that KSP2 doesn't need wheels or landing legs or maybe we can take into consideration the idea that wheels and landing legs don't work in KSP1?

We can't say "people prefer sandbox to progression" when sandbox works fine and progression is a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Master39 said:

The fact that all the challenge is in the sandbox mode and there's no additional challenge in science or career but mindless grind is the bad game design at work.

I personally think science has a lot of challenge, because the limited resources force me to be creative. At least in the early/mid game, late game science is more grindy.

I still think KSP2 should have sandbox mode, because I wouldn't have branched out and played science if I didn't get my start there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why do you assume people only use sandbox because the other modes are badly designed?

Can't speak for anyone else, but that's why I only use sandbox.

I have tried the other modes, several times, because I really like the concept and wanted to play them, but they just don't  inspire me to want to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/14/2022 at 5:48 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

Are there better examples of a tech tree being implemented in a good way?

I mean most games have some kind of progression and unlocking system so there are lots of great examples. The kinds of games that are most applicable to KSP usually use a system in which resources are fed into research labs of some kind to pay for upgrades and new technologies (Factorio, Frostpunk, DSP, etc.) KSP2 could use something similar, building and staffing off-world labs and delivering resources to them to unlock new drives, etc. Vl3d unearthed a quote a few weeks ago that offers a few hints on that:
 

Quote

As far as when it unlocks the progression, I wouldn't get too detailed about that right now, because we're playing a lot with the balance of the game. And if I tell you when it comes in the progression, it will actually give away a little bit about the resources that are needed to unlock that technology. So, I realize now I can tell you nothing on that count, and I apologize. I just don't want to give away anything. If I tell you where you're going to dig up uranium, then that's gonna ruin things entirely. (...)

It seems as though they were a bit up in the air even at the time, and even abstract resources like science are still resources. It could be that instead or in combination with physical resources you still need to collect surface samples and raw data from areas of scientific interest or travel to new unexplored planets to unlock things. Or maybe you don't need to bring the resources to labs at all, the tech just automatically unlocks after you harvest x uranium or whatever. We'll just have to see.

And of course other games use different dynamics. In Cities Skylines for instance it's just about hitting population caps. When your city hits 5000 inhabitants new facilities and roads and power generation technology opens up. Its less managey because it just happens, but it also doesn't spawn much strategy because there's no choice in how you invest in this or that tech path. I personally like the idea of building off-world labs that increase the rate at which you can process resources and scientific data into new part technolgies, but population caps could be great for leveling up kerbal skills like increased resource harvesting or repairing damaged solar panels or reactors that have overheated. Having that kind of thing just apply automatically across your program would cut out a huge amount of grind individually leveling kerbals up. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Admiral Fluffy said:

At least in the early/mid game, late game science is more grindy.

That depends. I'm on my way to send a first Kerbal to Eeloo, something I'd consider late game. But I also have over 30k accumulated science points and nothing to do with them because I completed the tech tree long long ago. And I didn't touch the reward % in save settings, so it's exactly as the devs designed it. With science mode you basically play sandbox after maybe 10 hours if you're creative enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Admiral Fluffy said:

I personally think science has a lot of challenge, because the limited resources force me to be creative. At least in the early/mid game, late game science is more grindy.

I still think KSP2 should have sandbox mode, because I wouldn't have branched out and played science if I didn't get my start there.

Ya career mode absolutely provides challenge, at least until about mid game.

Having to design a ship with limited parts provides multiple challenges and GREATLY educates you on what is good to do and what is bad to do with designs. 
Contracts provide ideas on doing things I wouldn’t have even tried in sandbox and those can provide a lot of challenge to when limited to specific parts.

Helps to identify what new parts you might need to solve a problem.

Prevents being overwhelmed with too many parts at the being and allows you to better understand the nuances between tiers. 

I really don’t have many issues with career mode other than the money aspect doesn’t serve much value.  Could have been replaced with rep or something as a better driver for players to take on missions and to upgrade buildings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

As you pointed out, you want the challenge not the grind, the fact that all the challenge is in the sandbox mode and there's no additional challenge in science or career but mindless grind is the bad game design at work.

I want the physics and engineering challenges, not the boring logistical challenges. I don't care how Adventure mode is implemented, I'm not using it, simple as.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I want the physics and engineering challenges, not the boring logistical challenges. I don't care how Adventure mode is implemented, I'm not using it, simple as.

As we pointed out several times, it's not "simple as" as what you have in mind by sandbox is not clear to anyone.

It's the first time you talked about anything concerning logistics.

 

Since everyone has a different of what sandbox entails (as proved by the other thread pool) you should try to explain yourself a bit more, otherwise what you say is up for every other user interpretation and the only thing we'll get from this topic is a crapton of miscommunication.

 

It's the first time you ever talked about different kind of challenges instead of "gameplay challenges vs mindless grind".

Until this reply I could have put you among the people who by "sandbox" mean that LS and similar mechanics should be kept on.

 

Given the vastly different the range of proposed sandboxes, going from a gamemode in which everything is spawnable everywhere and the only resources are fuels and electric charge, colonies and all the other features non working and reclduced to a "spawn a KSC everywhere you want", all the way up to everything is working and the only thing disabled is strictly the costs for the KSC if any and whatever equivalent of funds and science, if they exist, with all those "logistical challenges" to you said you don't want still enabled, I sincerely doubt you would be ok with whatever you get as long as it has the word "sandbox" on the label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Master39 said:

"You shouldn't need that gamemode"

Is very different from:

"I want to remove that gamemode"

I think KSP shouldn't rely so much on sandbox to be playable, sandbox shouldn't be the only playable gamemode, I don't want the gamemode removed, I use it all the time.

"Unneeded" can imply removal though. If I talk about how I don't need my fridge that usually implies I am going to remove it from my home.

The OP did not make it clear what his position was, and his opinion could have been misconstrued as advocating for the elimination of it as a mode.

13 hours ago, Master39 said:

The problem is not the question, the problem is that it took 3 years for this community to notice that "sandbox" is a vague idea outside the confines and the simplicity of KSP1.

 

In KSP1 the same sandbox mode is used for doing trebuchet challenges and for doing an hardcore RSS mission to the outer planets with all kinds of life support mods.

In KSP2 it's going to be either one or the other or a "make your own sandbox" settings panel when creating the save (which is what I'm arguing for).

 

You can't have any discussion about sandbox without acknowledging that the idea itself of sandbox is still pretty much up for debate.

I assumed the question was asked on the basis of a "standard" sandbox mode. However people choose to use sandbox or with whatever mods doesn't matter- the issue at hand relates to "pure stock" sandbox mode.

I must again ask why this question was asked in the first place. If the question did not have a baseline "stock" sandbox as its subject, how did the OP expect to get coherent answers?

It's like if I asked how we could make the progression modes better and people started mentioning how RSS makes them enjoyable for them, or this mod or that mod. The question must be asked on the assumption that "stock" sandbox mode is the issue at hand, or the discussion is somewhat pointless because everyone has their own way of playing, their own mods they use, and so on.

11 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I think there’s a tendency and therefore expectation on the internet that any discussion must have a pro and anti side and that one must win and the other must lose (even through the last part never happens). 

That is not what this discussion is.

I made it clear in my original post that this is not about removing sandbox mode but ensuring that adventure mode was so good that the game didn’t really need it, and more importantly thinking critically about how its functionality could and should be implemented in that light. In my edit I agree that sandbox should be listed as "mode" so long time players feel catered to, which spawned a second round of discussion about what that could and should look like by default, because there is in fact a huge diversity of expectations. Both Master and I like and play sandbox and would like its functionality available. The question we’re investigating is given KSP2’s likely and possible differences and wild disparities in how players view “sandbox” how do you do that?

This thread is not a debate for pro and anti sandbox people to duke it out. This thread is an atom smasher for ideas. I didn’t build it because I don’t like atoms. I built it because I love atoms and I wanted to know what was inside. 

I am aware it is not intentionally about sides, but I read through the entire thread prior to making my first post here and it was pretty clear you could divide the opinions into two factions- pro-sandbox (whatever form it may take) and what I will now refer to as pseudo-anti-sandbox ("KSP2 is too complex to have a clear sandbox mode so it should not be present in the game and/or reduced to a difficulty option" and/or "the progression modes should be so good that sandbox isn't needed").

Note that the final "progression modes should be so good that sandbox isn't needed" can very easily be interpreted to mean that sandbox should not exist in the game at all if progression modes are a subjective "good".

After all, from the point of view of someone who mainly plays sandbox, why would one even say that if they didn't mean that sandbox should be removed?

If I said "Starship is so good we don't need SLS", you must see that that can be interpreted as meaning SLS should be gotten rid of, even if all I meant is that SLS is unneeded in a Starship-based mission architecture.

Your original post can be misconstrued as low key advocating for the removal sandbox.

Quote

For fun Im going to start this thread with a controversial opinion: If KSP2 is a good game it does not need a sandbox mode. 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. In my opinion KSP1’s sandbox mode only persisted as a dominant mode of play because of career and science mode’s deficiencies and failure to attract the vast majority of players to switch over. If KSP2 were to be truly compelling and successful as a game it would not need a mode that avoids all of its key mechanics. Instead it could have exactly one mode: Adventure mode, and a series of cheat codes to unlock all tech, ignore resource costs, etc. for players who just want to mess around.

Yes, in the beginning you say "does not need a sandbox mode", which you have clarified to mean that sandbox mode should not exist as a necessity, but then you say "Very few complete, good games Ive ever played include a sandbox mode". This could imply that sandbox mode does not need to exist for KSP2 to be a good game, and thus should not exist. It may not seem that way to you, but that first quote combined with the second makes it very easy to misinterpret it in the same manner as "Starship is so good we don't need SLS".

You say "it could have exactly one mode". This literally means sandbox would be removed.

You then mention instead having cheat codes in place of a selectable mode to provide the functionality of sandbox, but this is confusing as you just said sandbox mode should not be needed. This has likely led people to misinterpret your position as calling for the complete removal of sandbox.

The reason it is confusing is you say sandbox isn't needed, but then propose keeping cheat codes in to make sandbox available- so why not just make those cheat codes into a selectable game mode? Especially if so many people are going to be using them/it.

But, the emphasis of the thread isn't on alternatives to sandbox, it is about "how sandbox isn't needed", so the assumption becomes that this is about the complete removal of sandbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

"Unneeded" can imply removal though. If I talk about how I don't need my fridge that usually implies I am going to remove it from my home.

It's also not like you can build a home so well that you don't need a fridge in the first place. You can't. That's to say sandbox won't ever go unneeded, no matter how adventure mode works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is getting so good y'all. Phase 3:

9 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

If I talk about how I don't need my fridge that usually implies I am going to remove it from my home.

I confess, I did very gingerly invite you to infill this assumption. But it was not done out of malice.
 

9 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I must again ask why this question was asked in the first place.

Let's all look at two nearly identical scenarios:

1) You've opened KSP 2 for the first time. On the title screen there's an option for "Start Adventure Mode Campaign", but no mention of "Sandbox". When you click on it it brings you to a difficulty settings menu with the standard "Easy, Medium, Hard, Bonkers" options, and a tab for "Advanced Difficulty settings." When you click on the latter you see all the options in the "What does Sandbox mean to you" thread along side things like remote probe control and reentry heat, and you can build your desired "sandbox" experience by picking and choosing from the list.

2) You've opened KSP 2 for the first time. On the title screen there's an option for "Start game" which takes you to a second screen which lists "Adventure mode", "Sandbox mode", and "Creative Mode". When you click on each it takes you to the devs' best approximation of what the community wants from those words, but you have the option in each to select "Advanced Difficulty options" to tailor your experience.

Now, from a purely logical standpoint there is almost no difference between the two. Within 5 minutes of a hopefully 100-1000 hour plus game experience everyone is able to define what they want. If anything the latter option wastes players' time by clicking back and forth for a few minutes between each mode trying to decipher what the difference and meaning of each is and then buggering around with making what they actually want, instead if being delivered directly to the actual question at hand which is "What features are you or aren't you interested in."  The thing is: humans are not logical beings. Humans are, fundamentally, emotional beings.

Since you've read this thread you've allowed my tangent on "evil architecture". Let's now talk about Jonathan Haidt. He did a number of groundbreaking studies on morality and identity that included things like taking a cockroach and sticking it with tweeers in a plastic bag, disinfecting the plastic bag in front of a subject, dunking the plastic bag into a glass of water and then asking the subject to drink the water. The subject was then asked to describe why they would or wouldn't drink the water. Similar experiments were conducted on a range of culturally sensitive topics with subjects in MRI's, and the conclusions were pretty stark. People do not make logical decisions. People make emotional decisions first, and then confabulate logical justifications. 

From a logical standpoint option 1 above is objectively correct. But from the emotional standpoint of players who currently prefer a version of the game called "Sandbox" a deeply grievous insult would be done by skipping their perception of choice and denying them their personal identity. Something you should know about me--Im not a ‘screw-your-feelings’ kind of guy. Feelings are in fact much more important and predictive of human behavior than logic is. In my day job I do nothing but square concrete realities with my clients' entirely subjective and idiosyncratic perceptions. The reason I asked the question was specifically to invite you to explore in your heart the clear daylight between the logically simplest solution and the solution that actually makes the greatest number of players' experience personally enjoyable. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

If anything the latter option wastes players' time by clicking back and forth for a few minutes between each mode trying to decipher what the difference and meaning of each is and then buggering around with making what they actually want, instead if being delivered directly to the actual question at hand which is "What features are you or aren't you interested in."

This is a very good point. To any reader of this post, you can likely think of numerous games that make you click back and forth between menus to figure out how exactly you want to setup the game, and those that present the options to you in a linear way at the start or through an introduction.

The prior method is certainly more common in older games, but it really is not designed with the human factor in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pthigrivi For me option 2 is better, as it gives clear starting points.

How is a new player going to know what options/settings they want anyway?  A large menu of checkboxes initially  is more confusing than a few 'presets' that can be customised later on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Let's all look at two nearly identical scenarios:

1) You've opened KSP 2 for the first time. On the title screen there's an option for "Start Adventure Mode Campaign", but no mention of "Sandbox". When you click on it it brings you to a difficulty settings menu with the standard "Easy, Medium, Hard, Bonkers" options, and a tab for "Advanced Difficulty settings." When you click on the latter you see all the options in the "What does Sandbox mean to you" thread along side things like remote probe control and reentry heat, and you can build your desired "sandbox" experience by picking and choosing from the list.

2) You've opened KSP 2 for the first time. On the title screen there's an option for "Start game" which takes you to a second screen which lists "Adventure mode", "Sandbox mode", and "Creative Mode". When you click on each it takes you to the devs' best approximation of what the community wants from those words, but you have the option in each to select "Advanced Difficulty options" to tailor your experience.

Now, from a purely logical standpoint there is almost no difference between the two. Within 5 minutes of a hopefully 100-1000 hour plus game experience everyone is able to define what they want. If anything the latter option wastes players' time by clicking back and forth for a few minutes between each mode trying to decipher what the difference and meaning of each is and then buggering around with making what they actually want, instead if being delivered directly to the actual question at hand which is "What features are you or aren't you interested in."  The thing is: humans are not logical beings. Humans are, fundamentally, emotional beings.

Since you've read this thread you've allowed my tangent on "evil architecture". Let's now talk about Jonathan Haidt. He did a number of groundbreaking studies on morality and identity that included things like taking a cockroach and sticking it with tweeers in a plastic bag, disinfecting the plastic bag in front of a subject, dunking the plastic bag into a glass of water and then asking the subject to drink the water. The subject was then asked to describe why they would or wouldn't drink the water. Similar experiments were conducted on a range of culturally sensitive topics with subjects in MRI's, and the conclusions were pretty stark. People do not make logical decisions. People make emotional decisions first, and then confabulate logical justifications. 

From a logical standpoint option 1 above is objectively correct. But from the emotional standpoint of players who currently prefer a version of the game called "Sandbox" a deeply grievous insult would be done by skipping their perception of choice and denying them their personal identity. Something you should know about me--Im not an F-your-feelings moron. Feelings are in fact much more important and predictive of human behavior than logic is. In my day job I do nothing but square concrete realities with my clients' entirely subjective and idiosyncratic perceptions. The reason I asked the question was specifically to invite you to explore in your heart the clear daylight between the logically simplest solution and the solution that actually makes the greatest number of players' experience personally enjoyable.

I fail to see your point.

It doesn't need to be that hard. Sandbox in KSP2 should not be "select every particular possible physics tweak and then pick a selection out of 1000 different mods to build your experience". For the purposes of this discussion, sandbox in KSP2 basically just needs to be as close to KSP1 as possible. Anything else is just wishlisting.

If people want to download a mod that bypasses colony creation, so they can plop stuff down whenever they want, or download a mod for X random thing, they can do that. By downloading a mod. That may make people upset but that's what happens sometimes. Again, mods can be downloaded to bypass it, just as I'm sure there are mods to eliminate whatever grievance one has with KSP1 stock sandbox too. Such an occurrence will also occur with the progression modes. I am sure there is some mechanic that some group of players are hoping for in Adventure, but will find missing. But that's okay, they can download a mod to rectify the problem. It just isn't feasible to make an option for every single player's personal preference.

If that is not that case, then the entire game is doomed, because by taking into account "people have different experiences with how they play sandbox" instead of sticking with a stock sandbox, we must also take into account "people have different experiences with how they play progression modes" when improving the progression modes to be enjoyable...

Going by the logic of the "anti-sandbox" posts, if sandbox can not be added to KSP2 without addressing every single player's pet peeve, we can't have progression modes either without addressing every single player's pet peeve. So Adventure Mode, too, must be a ridiculous amount of options and settings, ranging from actually utilizing RSS/RO in the game out of the box to Alcubierre drives being added.

But if sandbox is problematic because of so many differing opinions, does that make progression modes problematic because of differing opinions? In which case KSP2 itself can't exist? No and no.

To clarify the first sentence in this response, I fail to see your point because your question was "is sandbox needed in KSP2". I don't see how anything in your "phase 3" really has to do with that, unless you are elaborating on how the diversity of opinions on sandbox makes its implementation problematic in KSP2.

Finally, I will say this. You may be asking the question for the purposes of a fun "brainstorming" debate/discussion, but the average person responding is (will be) just playing KSP2 and will take this to mean a literal suggestion for how the game should be, and so they give these defensive, perhaps even combative, responses. They have a thing they want to do- play sandbox or not play sandbox- and that's it, they are literally talking about what they want to do in the game, not engaging in some thought experiment.

That is why you may fail to achieve

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

you to explore in your heart the clear daylight between the logically simplest solution and the solution that actually makes the greatest number of players' experience personally enjoyable.

with this discussion. People are partaking because they want KSP2 to be a certain way, not to enhance their cognitive experience.

Speaking of which...

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I confess, I did very gingerly invite you to infill this assumption. But it was not done out of malice.

I myself am partaking in the discussion at this point for the purposes of "cognitive experience", because this thread will obviously have no impact on the game (if release is in early 2023 sandbox is certainly finalized by now) and thus I otherwise wouldn't care :)

Although, I do indeed want KSP2 to have sandbox and think implementation of sandbox in KSP2 is not problematic as stated before.

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...