Do we really need game modes?

[Tau137]

On 9/20/2016 at 4:37 PM, Vanamonde said:

We've got sandbox, science, and career, but also (soon) toggleable antenna restrictions, adjustable heat severity, etc. Instead of having those options split between types of choices, why not just have one game mode with each of those things as player choices? Gather science on/off, pay for parts on/off, tech unlock parts on/off, heat high/medium/low, and so on. Just spitballing. 

We do need different game modes.  "To each his own": some prefer Sandbox for free-form exploration and tomfoolery, some hate managing budget but like the idea of progression (science mode), some prefer "the full monty" challenge (career).  Same with antennae.  Choice is good.

The balance in science and career modes should certainly be tweaked, yes, but the modes must remain.  Mainly because most players cannot or are not willing to police themselves in how they play, and need external restrictions (a "GM" to control how the game is played), yet they should be free to chooser these restrictions in advance.  If you want to remove the choice of "sandbox/science/career" and replace it with a set of options - that is fine with me (but I am an experience player; I would argue that such change may make it more confusing for newbies, that's all).

Your choice, your game.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Tau137

[Wjolcz]

On 11/10/2016 at 5:23 AM, Tau137 said:

We do need different game modes.  "To each his own": some prefer Sandbox for free-form exploration and tomfoolery, some hate managing budget but like the idea of progression (science mode), some prefer "the full monty" challenge (career).  Same with antennae.  Choice is good.

The balance in science and career modes should certainly be tweaked, yes, but the modes must remain.  Mainly because most players cannot or are not willing to police themselves in how they play, and need external restrictions (a "GM" to control how the game is played), yet they should be free to chooser these restrictions in advance.  If you want to remove the choice of "sandbox/science/career" and replace it with a set of options - that is fine with me (but I am an experience player; I would argue that such change may make it more confusing for newbies, that's all).

Your choice, your game.

Oh, Hey, it's this "but what about new players?" argument again.

First of all, career should not be a thing for new* players. That thing was supposed to be something that let's you manage you space program. Sadly, it's just sandbox with an inane progression of parts and a few more restrictions. Nothing else. You can't even pick your path of progression (go rockets or lose).

Second of all, this wouldn't be a problem, because the modes would simply become presets.

*I assume a "new" player is completely green and can't even achieve a simple orbit. The tutorials are in the game for a reason. Let's not treat the career as one of them.

[Tau137]

On 10/12/2016 at 2:58 PM, Veeltch said:

Oh, Hey, it's this "but what about new players?" argument again.

First of all, career should not be a thing for new* players. That thing was supposed to be something that let's you manage you space program. Sadly, it's just sandbox with an inane progression of parts and a few more restrictions. Nothing else. You can't even pick your path of progression (go rockets or lose).

Second of all, this wouldn't be a problem, because the modes would simply become presets.

*I assume a "new" player is completely green and can't even achieve a simple orbit. The tutorials are in the game for a reason. Let's not treat the career as one of them.

Funny...  But I disagree, as it is still a "game", so there is a set of conditions and rules that can and do affect the game in terms of being both engaging and educational (latter is optional), as well as enabling higher player retention and global interest.  Sandbox provides "a quick fix" for some people, but also quickly kills  engagement and desire to continue playing, so the progression balance is essential (and there is none, currently... not even close).

Agree on the second point though - making everything optional and adjustable would be the way to go.  Yet, there still should be a few presents balanced for those unfamiliar with the game - experts will tweak the game as they want it.

The problem is, there are not enough options - for example, I do want science progressions, but the current options include only no science (not interested), full science (too easy and dumb, easy missions are more efficient that hard ones), and scaling down science gains (does not help, just forces more grind).  I wish devs would consider making science progressions SMARTER (non-linear), but that is another topic.