KSP2 should have no optional features

[Bej Kerman]

On 3/2/2020 at 4:49 PM, Waxing_Kibbous said:

I think the curse of being considered a sandbox game is the premise that players can do whatever they want, which seems appealing at first but doesn't carry an experience like a well thought out narrative can- a sandbox mode is fine, but I hope KSP2 has a proper, well balanced game mode.

Well, why do you think the game never got the story mode it was going to have?

On 3/2/2020 at 4:32 PM, Brikoleur said:

On 3/2/2020 at 4:10 PM, Bej Kerman said:

But I'm not finished.You think that console players should be restricted in freedom? You think they shouldn't be able to play the game if they get unlucky with their available freetime? I'm not going to stop until I've made it clear that forcing Commnet down everyone's throats is a bad idea.

Your opinion is duly noted, and with the greatest respect, I disagree.

And while you may not be finished, I am – so with that I'm politely bowing out of this conversation. 

Not even going to elaborate on why you think console players should be pushed around?

[Lord Aurelius]

Wow, this discussion got heated in the last few days since I last checked.

Personally, here's how I would like to see game options handled in KSP2:

-All game modes should use a common base game mode with minimal code branching (prefer using 0 multipliers to turn features off for example)

-There should be quick buttons to start at least a new default career and sandbox game (with default options of no LS or commnet unless chosen) without messing with sliders, and a custom game mode that exposes sliders and the ability to toggle features like LS, commnet, reentry heating, etc (even if the "toggle" is just zeroing a slider).

-Slider presets and world states should be able to be saved and shared to create new game modes

-Default Career mode should be what the game is balanced around to provide a cohesive experience and is the recommended way to play without messing with sliders, LS and commnet should be enabled by default (with reasonably forgiving settings) with an easy way to turn them off if they're not wanted

[Superfluous J]

58 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Wow, this discussion got heated in the last few days since I last checked.

Personally, here's how I would like to see game options handled in KSP2:

-All game modes should use a common base game mode with minimal code branching (prefer using 0 multipliers to turn features off for example)

-There should be quick buttons to start at least a new default career and sandbox game (with default options of no LS or commnet unless chosen) without messing with sliders, and a custom game mode that exposes sliders and the ability to toggle features like LS, commnet, reentry heating, etc (even if the "toggle" is just zeroing a slider).

-Slider presets and world states should be able to be saved and shared to create new game modes

-Default Career mode should be what the game is balanced around to provide a cohesive experience and is the recommended way to play without messing with sliders, LS and commnet should be enabled by default (with reasonably forgiving settings) with an easy way to turn them off if they're not wanted

I agree with all of this, particularly the part I highlighted.

We all get what we want (unless what you want is for others to not get what they want) if you do it this way. Commnet is "enabled" but the range slider is infinite and the occlusion multiplier is 0. Bam, same as Commnet disabled. Then just add a button to "disable commnet" and it sets those sliders for you. Same thing when you click "Sandbox" but with more sliders being set automatically.

Edited March 4, 2020 by 5thHorseman

[Bej Kerman]

@Brikoleur, just accept that not everyone has enough time to play KSP """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""properly"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". It's useless arguing for something that's going to cut off much of the fanbase.

[MechBFP]

17 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

@Brikoleur, just accept that not everyone has enough time to play KSP """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""properly"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". It's useless arguing for something that's going to cut off much of the fanbase.

Then go play another game. Seriously. There are plenty of simpler and more casual games you can play if you don’t have the time to invest into something more complicated.

[Curveball Anders]

37 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

@Brikoleur, just accept that not everyone has enough time to play KSP """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""properly"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". It's useless arguing for something that's going to cut off much of the fanbase.

Please define "properly".

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

Please define "properly".

Brik seems to think everyone should use Commnet.

4 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Then go play another game. Seriously. There are plenty of simpler and more casual games you can play if you don’t have the time to invest into something more complicated.

Except for Simple Rockets 2 which is still in its early stages, suggest another casual realistic space flight simulator. I play KSP for a reason, mate.

[MechBFP]

22 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Brik seems to think everyone should use Commnet.

Except for Simple Rockets 2 which is still in its early stages, suggest another casual realistic space flight simulator. I play KSP for a reason, mate.

Then continue to play KSP 1. Perhaps KSP 2 is just not for you then. *shrug*

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

Then continue to play KSP 1. Perhaps KSP 2 is just not for you then. *shrug*

Ah, right, tell half of the KSP fanbase to stop playing instead of giving them more freedom to actually learn things that could help them get a job at a space agency. That'll benefit the devs.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Bej Kerman

[T1mo98]

On 3/2/2020 at 8:41 AM, Brikoleur said:

So in sum: no, I do not want to dictate how you play, but if you want to put it uncharitably, I do want to dictate – or, more accurately: I want the creators of KSP and KSP 2 to dictate – what toys are in the toy box.

In other words, contrary to what you said before, you do want to decide how every single other KSP player should play thegame.

This whole thread can pretty much be summed up by "I want every player to play the game exactly like I do, otherwise they can just sod off and play something else"
 

Not to mention your entire reasoning for that gamemode you keep mentioning is just moving all the options currently there to another screen, accomplishing nothing and only frustrating players who now have to ponce about with settings for a Sandbox Mode, while also frustrating a lot of other people by forcing them to use features you decided they should play with.

Because let's be honest, you can claim all you want that you "want the creators of KSP and KSP 2 to dictate", but you just want them to implement all of your ideas.

2 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Then continue to play KSP 1. Perhaps KSP 2 is just not for you then. *shrug*

Would it be at all possible for you to not gatekeep KSP?

All you're doing here is telling people that they should either play exactly how you want or just sod off.

Edited March 4, 2020 by T1mo98

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, T1mo98 said:

In other words, contrary to what you said before, you do want to decide how every single other KSP player should play there game.

This whole thread can pretty much be summed up by "I want every player to play the game exactly like I do, otherwise they can just sod off and play something else"
 

Not to mention you're entire reasoning for that gamemode you keep mentioning is just moving all the options currently there to another screen, accomplishing nothing and only frustrating players who now have to liquid about with settings for a Sandbox Mode, while also frustrating a lot of other people by forcing them to use features you decided they should play.

Because let's be honest, you can claim all you want that you "want the creators of KSP and KSP 2 to dictate", but you just want them to implement all of your ideas.

Exactly. Said what I've been trying to say much better than me. The "This whole thread can pretty much be summed up by "I want every player to play the game exactly like I do, otherwise they can just sod off and play something else"" part is especially true, KSP is a simulation and you should be able to change the rules of a simulation. Restricting the rules of a simulation doesn't accomplish much, does it? Well, other than driving players away, which is the opposite of what you want to achieve when releasing a game. The player should dictate how they play, not the devs.

5 minutes ago, T1mo98 said:

2 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Then continue to play KSP 1. Perhaps KSP 2 is just not for you then. *shrug*

Would it be at all possible for you to not gatekeep KSP?

All you're doing here is telling people that they should either play exactly how you want or just sod off.

Wish I could give more than one like. Taking away freedom then telling the player to go away if they want freedom is kind of a silly argument.

[MechBFP]

In the end it’s up to the devs to decide, so I really could care less what they decide. I just take comfort in the fact that they definitely aren’t’t taking this thread seriously. 

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

In the end it’s up to the devs to decide, so I really could care less what they decide.

So the devs matter more than the player now? Who are they developing a game for?

3 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

I just take comfort in the fact that they definitely aren’t’t taking this thread seriously. 

Ditto.

[MechBFP]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Who are they developing a game for?

Their publisher. 

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, MechBFP said:

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Who are they developing a game for?

Their publisher. 

And will the publisher like it when the casual players, a large portion of KSP players, and those with time restrictions can't play the game as they want or at all and end up, well, not paying precious money?

[MechBFP]

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And will the publisher like it when the casual players, a large portion of KSP players, and those with time restrictions can't play the game as they want or at all and end up, well, not paying precious money?

Probably ya if it increases overall market share. 

[Bej Kerman]

7 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

14 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And will the publisher like it when the casual players, a large portion of KSP players, and those with time restrictions can't play the game as they want or at all and end up, well, not paying precious money?

Probably ya if it increases overall market share. 

You're going about this as if we're talking about EA, not Star Theory. Given the news we've been getting from them, I don't think they give care about what the publisher thinks. And since this is an already niche fanbase, the publishers will want to be careful anyway.

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

You're going about this as if we're talking about EA, not Star Theory. Given the news we've been getting from them, I don't think they give care about what the publisher thinks. And since this is an already niche fanbase, the publishers will want to be careful anyway.

A certain quote from Dagoth Ur seems super appropriate in regards to this. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by MechBFP

[Randazzo]

No matter how long I am away, when I come back I find one thing remains a constant: People believe their vision of the game is the way it should be, everybody should agree with them, and anybody who doesn't is just wrong and possibly stupid.

[I likeOxidizerrfuel]

On 2/26/2020 at 6:04 AM, Brikoleur said:

Life support, for example: if it's in, it needs to be in for everybody. 

I hate this, because I am a simple player that only wants to design and engineer.

[brain__washed]

This thread as a whole is making a very strong argument FOR optional features - People with less time can play with more casual settings. I don't have a lot of time either, but I rather enjoy seeing my craft go up in very hot flames after losing commnet access, or being pinged into deep space because my deceleration burn was poorly planned.

Sometimes I just wanna mess around and build stupid things, I load my secondary save with the most casual settings possible and off I go.

No player plays the game in the same way, optional features as described are an amazing way to cater to this. In the end, it's a good thing if the game will cater to a large crowd - more sales generally mean more budget for maintenance, features, bugfixes. I could be wrong, but I think those are things the majority of the community as it is today enjoys and in my opinion would be a definite win.

Lastly, I think it was made clear in the teasers that a lot of focus will be on improved onboarding, to ensure both veteran players and newcomers will have an enjoyable experience. Without optional features, I think this would be very difficult to accomplish.

[kerbiloid]

On 2/26/2020 at 2:04 PM, Brikoleur said:

I understand why most of these options are there: SQUAD didn't want to break people's craft or careers with updates

Could this ever happen in KSP?! The "Backwards API Compatibility" is its second name...

***

"No options" + "Moddability" = Excessive features and branches in the game API, never used by the stock game, but still paid by the developing company.
Because any mod interacts with the game API.
So, either the game uses all its features and options itself, or the settings should be consts and no excessive functions and variables should be, but then what the mods should interact with?

Debugging. Options can be hidden from the user until getting totally debugged the manager says they need it right now.
So, options are good for the debugging process.
Also (not in the case of KSP) having options you can sell them partially, not all at once.

Programmers using magic numbers or string literals right in the code, do this wrong.
The same is true for any option.
Everything able to be an option should be an option. Whether to make it available to the users is on the manager's decision.

***

Btw...

Where are KSP linuxoids ??? _{not me, wyndowz 4evah!}

When will we read here that the game should be distributed as a source code, and everybody should compile it with any set of options he likes???

Edited March 5, 2020 by kerbiloid

[DStaal]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Where are KSP linuxoids ??? _{not me, wyndowz 4evah!}

When will we read here that the game should be distributed as a source code, and everybody should compile it with any set of options he likes???

Nearly all Linux users do understand that not everything is Open Source, and that they have to deal with that.    Especially since the business model for Open Source software and the business model for games doesn't really intersect anywhere.

[Bej Kerman]

13 hours ago, I likeOxidizerrfuel said:

On 2/26/2020 at 11:04 AM, Brikoleur said:

Life support, for example: if it's in, it needs to be in for everybody. 

I hate this, because I am a simple player that only wants to design and engineer.

IKR. People have different playstyles, and if you're not going to let others play as they do to fix some unnamed bug that's never elaborated upon that has to do with options for some reason, then that's just not nice.

13 hours ago, MechBFP said:

15 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

You're going about this as if we're talking about EA, not Star Theory. Given the news we've been getting from them, I don't think they give care about what the publisher thinks. And since this is an already niche fanbase, the publishers will want to be careful anyway.

A certain quote from Dagoth Ur seems super appropriate in regards to this. 

What certain quote? Please stop trying to be unspecific.

[kerbiloid]

Somebody likes to save his Kerbals. Somebody likes to... unsave them.

One prefers poor colors but hi-res, another one prefers full-color squares.