Sandbox misconceptions?

[theend3r]

I like career for rockets because rockets are... easy. For my current (space)plane only research, I use sandbox.

[Kyrt Malthorn]

My experience is very much that of @Korvath85's: Career mode because science progression feels more earned, and contracts provide guidance.

When I say guidance though, I don't mean the contracts rule me and I can never do something that isn't a contract. Also not a fan of funds limiting my missions, but I can't bring myself to hack the save file for more cash.  Nothing against people who do, it's just... funds become so available and irrelevant later anyway I don't bother for the early game.

So my games look like this:

First few tech nodes: Every launch has to (a) bring me the most science possible to get me the most bang for my funds, and/or (b) fulfill as many contracts as I can cram onto it.  Things like breaking speed and distance records really help - the fewer missions those are won in, the better.  I like having to carefully plan the missions to achieve my first orbit in as few missions as possible.

Next few tech nodes: Really the limiting factor is funds to upgrade facilities.  It can get somewhat grind-y if I'm unlucky, but once I have a T2 astronaught complex, mission control, and tracking station, I'm usually good.  I enjoy working within constraints like number of parts and launchpad mass.  That's it's own challenge phase.  The order I upgrade buldings is also very intentional and living with that decision feels good.

Midgame: By the time I can put 10 tons into orbit with a decent skipper-based lifter, have an upgraded launchpad and VAB, is when funds become more and more plentiful.  The reliance on every mission fulfilling a contract is eased. But they're still there.  Contracts at this stage and beyond give me ideas for the order I do things in.  And sometimes mission plans I enjoy are derrived from combinations of contracts... maybe not in the way they were intended.  I.e. a rocket that fulfills contracts for both a space station orbiting Minmus, then another orbiting the Mun, carrying tourists who wanted to visit both.  After I've developed a rocket and an orbital vehicle that can do this, I start using that craft for other things too.  Oh look, an explore Ike contract!  I know where my first interplanetary mission will be going now.

Lategame: After nukes, science labs, rover wheels, and high thrust engines, ISRU, and gigantors are unlocked, the possibilites are so wide open that most of my interplanetary mission concepts come from contracts.  The rest is mopping up the tech tree.

Endgame: Tech tree finished.  Otherwise, same as above.  It's a sandbox with contracts for mission ideas, and also I have science archives to show me places I've never been before.   I feel a certain acomplishment having worked my way to the top.  Maybe that feeling of accomplishment will go away someday, because I'm still a relatively newer player.  Or maybe it won't.  

 

That's just how I play.

 

[regex]

42 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

The basic difference in my perception is that Career mode feels like better tools are being earned, versus Sandbox where everything is just handed to you.

I see no difference, really, since skill and satisfaction is the real payout to me.  For instance, if someone makes an early Delta "replica" and uses it to put a satellite into polar orbit from Vandenberg, I'd be just as impressed with it being done in Sandbox vs. Career; there is literally no difference in the hardware if you're talking "replicas".  Same goes with a Saturn V landing to the Moon.  The only difference might be the amount of work that went into getting to the point of doing those things in the individual save game but then, each task requires the same skills of the players so I can assume that the players have "put in their time" anyway.

Maybe I just don't care about save game length?  I've spun up and thrown away so many over the years...

42 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

There's some psychological stuff there, I'm sure.

Most definitely.

[bewing]

I like having the game impose limitations, because the one thing that I find the most fun and rewarding of all is to figure out clever/exploitive ways to get around the limitations.

The other thing I like about contracts is having all those marooned kerbals and parts appear in wacky orbits that I have to go dock with. In sandbox mode, I would never bother to go strand a kerbonaut in a retrograde orbit around the Mun, just so I could have the adventure of going to rescue him. That's the thing about "making up your own story" in sandbox mode. You have to do more than that -- you have to actually grind out going and placing the things that your story is telling you that you need to go and find (unless you're going to hyperedit everything). But since I don't hyperedit, I don't see that sandbox gets me away from grinding. It's just different grinding.

 

[regex]

10 minutes ago, Kyrt Malthorn said:

I feel a certain acomplishment having worked my way to the top.  Maybe that feeling of accomplishment will go away someday, because I'm still a relatively newer player.  Or maybe it won't.

I see that.  It's important to remember that I've been around here for like, what, almost three years, and I've been pretty active in the game as well, and I'm by no means the oldest or most active KSP player!  I started when Sandbox was the only mode and where if you wanted progression you had to impose it on yourself, and mission progression was simply looking at a list of historical stuff.  So "working my way to the top" almost always feels like "We've been here before... <sigh>"

[Armisael]

Yeah - you don't care about progression. Many people do.

The implicit condescension of "you're too boring and unoriginal to come up with your own goals" keeps things fed, though.

[regex]

1 minute ago, Armisael said:

The implicit condescension of "you're too boring and unoriginal to come up with your own goals" keeps things fed, though.

As well as the implication that we're all cheating ourselves and the only restrictions or goals we could possibly set for ourselves would be the lowest of low hanging fruit.

It's been pretty civil here so far, please don't ruin it.

[micr0wave]

Whatever mode you play in, when you're having fun, you're doing it right.

Career mode is also a fountain of absurd vehicles, you'll do things you never thought of

 

[SgtSomeone]

@regex do you always play with the cheats all enabled? I view playing Sandbox the same as enabling infinite fuel, ignore temps, unbreakable joints, which is to say, totally fun and worth doing sometimes, like when I'm having fun building super-mega ships or trying out a new design concept, but can feel less satisfying than pulling off an Eve mission with all dangers enabled. To take it one step further, why do you ever turn off cheats? You could come up with your own restrictions, and dealing with those problems is as much a 'working [your] way to the top'/'seen it before' as having science restrictions. 

It's not that Sandbox is any less valid or players who shun it are unimaginative, but it can be seem more meaningful to accomplish something with System-imposed restrictions rather than personally-imposed ones. 

[Norcalplanner]

The best analogy I can think of is that KSP is like skiing. Some prefer downhill, some prefer cross country. Some enjoy spending time alone on the mountain, some love swapping stories at the lodge. A slalom course might tempt some and repel others, as might a downhill speed course. Others have left this particular resort and are having fun elsewhere. Some prefer the tried and true, others love the new and shiny. And some people just want to do stunts on snowboards. But at the end of the day, we're all having fun gliding about on snow and having a good time.

And for the record, in this analogy @regex is an old school telemark skier, off doing his own difficult thing and happy as a clam.

[Armisael]

3 minutes ago, SgtSomeone said:

@regex do you always play with the cheats all enabled? I view playing Sandbox the same as enabling infinite fuel, ignore temps, unbreakable joints, which is to say, totally fun and worth doing sometimes, like when I'm having fun building super-mega ships or trying out a new design concept, but can feel less satisfying than pulling off an Eve mission with all dangers enabled. To take it one step further, why do you ever turn off cheats? You could come up with your own restrictions, and dealing with those problems is as much a 'working [your] way to the top'/'seen it before' as having science restrictions. 

It's not that Sandbox is any less valid or players who shun it are unimaginative, but it can be seem more meaningful to accomplish something with System-imposed restrictions rather than personally-imposed ones. 

You really aren't helping.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Armisael

[Tourist]

I first started playing KSP a couple of months before science mode was implemented. Also I wasn't really following the development and didn't really know a career mode, or any of the other things they have since added was planned.

If you'd asked me at the time I would have said it was pretty much feature complete, and that setting your own goals was what it was all about anyway. There is a natural progression built into the game... nobody completes a Kerballed Eve mission before they land on the Mun. 

Even with the Career and Science game modes, for it is still largely a self-directing game. I tend to regard contracts as a way of funding the progression towards the goals I set, not as providing me the with the goals. Sometimes these align, giving me a contract which I can do during the mission, sometimes it does not, meaning I'd diverted for a time, which in itself can be interesting. 

However, whether it be Sandbox, Science or Career, this is not the kind of game where the goal is to follow a floating waypoint marker the game sets until you win. The game is about setting your own goals, the only difference is if you like some obstacles imposed like money/rep/science. 

I've played all three ways. I've "beaten" career, in the sense that I've reached a point where I can and have done any mission I want with no concern about running out of money. I think I may play science mode again for 1.1.... I do like a little imposed structure.... also it makes it feel more meaningful to bring surface samples back.  

Edited March 29, 2016 by Tourist

[regex]

6 minutes ago, SgtSomeone said:

It's not that Sandbox is any less valid or players who shun it are unimaginative, but it can be seem more meaningful to accomplish something with System-imposed restrictions rather than personally-imposed ones. 

Emphasis mine, and that's why I agree with Randazzo that there's a psychological aspect to it.  Really depends on where you find the meaning and purpose in the game.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, SgtSomeone said:

@regex do you always play with the cheats all enabled? I view playing Sandbox the same as enabling infinite fuel, ignore temps, unbreakable joints, which is to say, totally fun and worth doing sometimes, like when I'm having fun building super-mega ships or trying out a new design concept, but can feel less satisfying than pulling off an Eve mission with all dangers enabled. To take it one step further, why do you ever turn off cheats? You could come up with your own restrictions, and dealing with those problems is as much a 'working [your] way to the top'/'seen it before' as having science restrictions. 

It's not that Sandbox is any less valid or players who shun it are unimaginative, but it can be seem more meaningful to accomplish something with System-imposed restrictions rather than personally-imposed ones. 

I tried career and meh.. It just does not suit my play-style. It felt like part unlocking. From what I have heard from career players is that after a while you get so much cash and whatever that it's basically sandbox with game generated side missions. Also meh to me.

 Comparing sandbox to using infinite fuel and other cheats was hilarious though, thanks for that.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Majorjim

[Red Iron Crown]

Time was there was no career mode, sandbox was all we had (and we liked it!). /graybeard

Not entirely kidding. I think most of us who cut our KSP teeth before science and career modes were implemented had high hopes for career, what with having directed goals plus tech and financial limitations. But none of that was ready yet, so we all had to learn to set our own goals and impose our own restrictions.

Then career mode arrived. There were directed goals, but some of them felt silly or arbitrary to me (e.g. stage a part at x speed and y altitude). I was already used to setting my own goals and continued to do so, but now I had to grind a bunch of science and funds to do the things I found interesting. There wasn't any particular challenge as I already had the skills, I could grind out as much money or science as needed, all it took was time. But I was enjoying myself less, because I was spending more time grinding and less time flying the missions I wanted to fly. So for me it's more enjoyable to just fly those missions in sandbox (or science mode with the tech tree unlocked), and pretend that I've done the grinding required.

This is not meant to slag on those who prefer career (especially if they started with KSP after it was added), nor to slag on career in general (Arsonide has done wonders with making contracts better); it's just that I had already internalized my own set of rules for how to play the game and didn't care for the new set of rules.

[Kerbart]

I think there are misconceptions about “the other modes” on either side of the fence.

For me, Sandbox is about unlimited possibilities, fantastic projects and unrestricted creativity. Also; testing out stuff. What it's not: “too easy because everything is handed to you.” Sandbox pushes you much harder to build the Perfect Ship as there's no excuse to hide behind regarding bad design.

Career is about building crafts within imposed restrictions, which brings out the best in creativity for some. What it's not: “endless grinding of senseless contracts to finance your program.”  I don't do the contracts I don't like. The trick is to let the contracts do the work for you and the money will stream in effortlessly (right now I'm at day 30 of a Remote Tech career and I just unlocked all buildings).

Both modes can be fun, but you have to play them with the right mind set; if you don't then “the other mode” looks stupid and you can't imagine why people would play it that way.

 

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

What it's not: “endless grinding of senseless contracts to finance your program.”

Not touching that one, not the place for it.

However, there are definitely other examples of "what it's not".

Edited March 29, 2016 by regex

[Armisael]

5 minutes ago, regex said:

Not touching that one, not the place for it.

However, there are definitely other examples of "what it's not".

Why do you expect people to respect your game mode when you continually (not just in this thread) bash the one they like? Why should I respect your opinion when you don't respect mine?

Edited March 29, 2016 by Armisael

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Red Iron Crown said:

Time was there was no career mode, sandbox was all we had (and we liked it!). /graybeard

 

Agreed, by the time science and career was implemented we (older players) had grown beyond such trivialities. That plus it was nothing like we hoped it would be...

Edited March 29, 2016 by Majorjim

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Armisael said:

Question: why do you expect people to respect your game mode when you continually (not just in this thread) bash the one they like? Why should I respect your opinion when you don't respect mine?

So what you're saying is if I find doing contracts grindey or declining contracts to be boring busy work to find something I want to do in order to make fat lucre that I'm "disrespecting" Career mode, rather than, say, trying to point out a terrible game mechanic?

Edited March 29, 2016 by regex

[Armisael]

Just now, regex said:

So what you're saying is if I find doing contracts grindey or declining contracts to be boring busy work to find something I want to do in order to make fat lucre that I'm "disrespecting" Career mode, rather than, say, trying to point out a terrible game mechanic?

Career mode isn't grinding contracts - that isn't how it plays. You make plenty of money fairly quickly.

Someone else just said this and you all-but-verbatim told them that they're wrong.

I don't care if you don't like career, but don't tell me that I'm wrong about how it's played when you're a diehard sandbox player.

[regex]

Just now, Armisael said:

Career mode isn't grinding contracts - that isn't how it plays. You make plenty of money fairly quickly.

News to me, that's how I felt it played, especially when I wanted rewards for going to, say, Dres before the explore contract showed up.  World's Firsts aren't good enough to justify "just going" and the World's Firsts strategy is way too expensive to bother with.

See, that's the rub, we all enjoy how certain parts of the game play and we generally stick to those.

Just now, Armisael said:

I don't care if you don't like career, but don't tell me that I'm wrong about how it's played when you're a diehard sandbox player.

I play a round of stock career every update so I know what I'm talking about; hard to make improvement suggestions when you're just going off hearsay.

[Tourist]

4 minutes ago, regex said:

So what you're saying is if I find doing contracts grindey or declining contracts to be boring busy work to find something I want to do in order to make fat lucre that I'm "disrespecting" Career mode, rather than, say, trying to point out a terrible game mechanic?

I think the problem is people react to comments like "trying to point out a terrible gaming mechanic" where they think you should say "trying to point out a game mechanic, I find to be terrible." The former, people seem to think is a criticism of them, because they like it and do not think it is terrible. Should people react to such statements personally, hell no. We live in an odd world where people will get into raging arguments about criticism of commercial products they are merely consumers of.... DC vs Marvel, Star Trek v Star Wars, in the non nerd community, Arsenel vs Liverpool, American Football team A versus American Football team B (I don't know US sports).

Not sure I have a point here. Certainly not suggesting you or anyone should not say what you want, I am certainly saying people shouldn't get to hung up on people disliking what they like. I am also not saying people who do react such are childish... can't say I've allways occupied the high ground here (shut up, Bales growly voice is not stupid, your stoopid!!), but that we should all try not to get upset about what random person on the internet said about the thing we like.

[regex]

1 minute ago, Tourist said:

Arsenel

But only because my bro is a fan of the footie.

[Teutooni]

What I like about career is the experience kerbals get. New kerbals are costly, and training them to be decent takes a good few interplanetary missions for each crew. Losing them actually matters. Sure you could (and should) try to ensure every crewmember returns safely in sandbox mode too, but there is this tangible extra bit of risk in career mode.

Another thing in career is the contracts, I usually look through available contracts and see if there are any that fit a mission I was planning to do anyway. Sometimes it adds interesting secondary goals to the mission I would not have originally considered, like bringing along a satellite to map planetary resources, or change a simple landing into a more permanent base, or pick up a new kerbal on the way.

That said, I play career mostly like I would a sandbox - do science and funds on a best-effort basis and focus on my own thing.