KSP2 should have no optional features

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

Because if they have to code the UI to work at another graphic setting other than the correct one, it will introduce a bevy of bugs that no one will be able to fix.

I get that is supposed to be sarcasm but.... *gestures broadly to KSP*. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Randazzo said:

However, per your original post, that is not your position. You support some optional features that you personally find reasonable.

No. Keyword is features. I fully support difficulty sliders for resource abundance and cost coefficients, different initial world states, and so on.  My argument is about features - entire systems like CommNet, separate game modes, atmospheric heating, and so on. I really don’t understand how I could have made that any clearer.

6 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

And that's why we're stuck with just telling you you're wrong.

You’re the only person who disagrees with me in this thread who actually read and understood my position. I respect that.

5 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

I can see your point about gameplay options, but I don't understand what your deal is with graphic settings and other settings, which have no effect on gameplay other than visuals.

I wasn’t thinking of graphics settings (although other than resolution I don’t know what graphics settings would even be needed, even baseline hardware ought to be capable of running a much better-looking KSP2 than they’ve shown), but if you don’t understand my deal with the other settings, then perhaps you might want to re-read the OP and get back to me with specifically what you don’t understand and I’ll attempt to clarify. I would also suggest you read the discussion between me and Snark about game modes, that illustrates in depth what I’m after.

[Randazzo]

12 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

No. Keyword is features. I fully support difficulty sliders for resource abundance and cost coefficients, different initial world states, and so on.  My argument is about features - entire systems like CommNet, separate game modes, atmospheric heating, and so on. I really don’t understand how I could have made that any clearer.

It's perfectly clear, disagreeing with your stance that they should be enforced instead of optional doesn't mean I don't understand.

If it were N-body orbits would you be so eager to force it on yourself?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

It's perfectly clear, disagreeing with your stance that they should be enforced instead of optional doesn't mean I don't understand.

You clearly didn't, since you claimed that my position isn't my position.

3 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

If it were N-body orbits would you be so eager to force it on yourself?

That would depend on what other systems are in the game to take the drudgery out of them. If, for example, there are easy ways to find stable orbits and, possibly later on, to automate orbit maintenance and the supply missions orbit maintenance necessarily needs, then I think they could be a great idea. There would be a significant amount of new gameplay they would enable -- binaries, Lagrange points, and so on. 

Implementing N-body orbits but not having these supporting systems in place, and then dodging the consequences by making them optional would be the worst solution. 

As I said: either make them good, or don't make them at all -- and if they're good, they shouldn't be optional. That applies to N-body orbits exactly as to any other system.

[Guest]

Making N-body not be tedious isn't particularly hard (though that's not to say it's impossible to screw up). Principia is an example of an implementation that's rather fun to play. The only reason I'm not using it all the time is that it doesn't really make that much of a difference with the missions I run. Yes, you read that right.

[I likeOxidizerrfuel]

11 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Making N-body not be tedious isn't particularly hard (though that's not to say it's impossible to screw up). Principia is an example of an implementation that's rather fun to play. The only reason I'm not using it all the time is that it doesn't really make that much of a difference with the missions I run. Yes, you read that right.

Couldn't agree more Dragon.

[Hotel26]

[Speaking of KSP as background for the discussion about KSP2]

In my view, KSP has "optional features" primarily because the developers had a coherent vision for KSP that could not be built instantaneously.

As they introduced, e.g. Commnet, it was done so as an 'option' for the sake of compatibility.  For that last, I have respect and gratitude.  A fast release cycle is good when you can get it but an equally fast obsolescence rate is bad.

Nevertheless, I think on a longer cycle, it's OK to withdraw support for the optional lack of a feature.  This is the way operating system releases work vis-a-vis compatibility, for example.

It's also true that, in some instances, Squad chose to introduce e.g. a new and aggressive heat model, that was fundamentally a 'breaking change', without an opt-out.  I am fine with this also when it is the judgment of the developers that supporting compatibility for a period of time simultaneously is not feasible due to the over-arching scope or fundamentality of the change.  Users can try the change and simply delay the upgrade until they are ready to change over.  This, too, reflects practice in the real world.

I'll point out here that I regard Sandbox, Science and Career as 'modes' rather than options.

The goal should be to adhere to a coherent vision with integrity.  For the kind of game that KSP has been, this artistic vision is key.  KSP2$ is almost certainly not going to be driven the same way.  (Oh!, I think I just enunciated why I am very unlikely to spend any time playing KSP2!  "No love".  Well.  I will keep an open mind.)

                                                                             

Since KSP2 is a remake, one could argue that it should have a clear road-map from the get-go and not require an upgrade path.  I don't think this is reasonable, especially if KSP2 becomes a vibrant success.  The practical goal should be to keep optional features to a minimum.  Add them sparingly and judiciously with a plan to retire the option on a definite schedule.  (Similarly, and more importantly, with retiring deprecated functionality.)

                                                                             

So about options in KSP/KSP2, the answer is very clear to me.  MODS!!  For this reason, I echo what Brikoleur has said earlier: anything that PD can do to work with and facilitate (and shorten) the mod upgrade-compatibility/installation process would be strategic.

This thread, as I recall, split out from "What Features Do You Want In KSP2?", in essence.  I suspect that the core group of those who are pushing very hard to institutionalize Options in KSP are the very same who are pushing equally hard to have their very own set of favorite mods "made standard" in KSP.  I think Opt-out is simply a concessional device in this argument: "why not?  you can always opt out...".  (Certainly, there are many others who may be in favor of Options, considered alone, simply because they are not considering the connections (maintainability and, particularly, extensibility)).

The agenda of this core group appears to me to be, "I want the latest version of KSP NOW!; I don't want to wait for my mods to upgrade!; I want it all NOW!  Waaaa...!!!"?

The extensibility of KSP has been a superb aspect of this game.  If you want "options", you can get anything you want at Kerbals' restaurant.  Install the mod (and leave my game alone).

                                                                             

P.S. in the case of KSP (not KSP2), I'd like to make a strong argument to PD that it consider making the source open to the community.  (Public forks prohibited.)

It would make modding easier.  And I believe it could be the most effective (and only feasible) way now to get the bugs squashed.  Let the programming community help.

See The Cathedral and The Bazaar

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Hotel26

[Arco123]

19 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

I wasn’t thinking of graphics settings (although other than resolution I don’t know what graphics settings would even be needed, even baseline hardware ought to be capable of running a much better-looking KSP2 than they’ve shown)

People don't have 2080 ti's. Also we need options for visuals. Somebody wants 30 fps. Some other person wants 60. And another wants 120 fps. Also, some people here have toasters and potatoes. Heck, my computer is on the higher end of this forum and it does bad at this game. If we remove those options we GET more bugs. Don't mess with the visual options at least. 

@Brikoleur What is your take on the advanced button? Couldn't we just put those features under that and leave them at there default values? So we get the best of both worlds? 

[Bartybum]

2 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

I suspect that the core group of those who are pushing very hard to institutionalize Options in KSP are the very same who are pushing equally hard to have their very own set of favorite mods "made standard" in KSP.  I think Opt-out is simply a concessional device in this argument: "why not?  you can always opt out...".  (Certainly, there are many others who may be in favor of Options, considered alone, simply because they are not considering the connections (maintainability and, particularly, extensibility)).

The agenda of this core group appears to me to be, "I want the latest version of KSP NOW!; I don't want to wait for my mods to upgrade!; I want it all NOW!  Waaaa...!!!"?

The extensibility of KSP has been a superb aspect of this game.  If you want "options", you can get anything you want at Kerbals' restaurant.  Install the mod (and leave my game alone)

I consider myself in the core group, because I think options are necessary to help cater to more casual and inexperienced players, which has been the general consensus here AFAIK. However, I've seen no indication of us in this thread wanting mods to be made standard. I also don't agree with the idea that we have an agenda to rush the game.

To me opt-out is by far the way to go - this is the game, and if it's too hard for your liking, here's some things you can disable to help you along. Balance the game to be played to its fullest first, and then sort the other stuff out.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Bartybum

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Arco123 said:

 

@Brikoleur What is your take on the advanced button? Couldn't we just put those features under that and leave them at there default values? So we get the best of both worlds? 

The entire point of this thread is that IMO that’s the worst possible solution.

[kerbiloid]

The easiest way to make everyone happy is just to have two versions of the game: with and without the options.
In the latter just hide the button.

[Guest]

No, that's literally the worst thing they could do. Instead of hiding the button, they should make one version with all features enabled and synergizing as designed, then slap the toggles on in the second version. Oh, and the first version would be the one on which all professional testing would be performed. That way, those who want options can have all the options they want and all the bugs that come with it, and all the others can have a well-tested, smoothly working game.

Seriously, we don't need options. KSP1 is chock full of toggles which nobody ever turns off. There are too many options that don't do anything particularly useful.

[Dirkidirk]

9 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Seriously, we don't need options. KSP1 is chock full of toggles which nobody ever turns off. There are too many options that don't do anything particularly useful.

but what about the options people do use?

[Guest]

Just now, Dirkidirk said:

but what about the options people do use?

Which are? Seriously, which of these options do people actually use, besides the sliders? 

[Dirkidirk]

2 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Which are? Seriously, which of these options do people actually use, besides the sliders? 

 

 

Spoiler

commnet, missing crews respawn, include stock vessels, indestructible facilities, part g-force and pressure limits, and other difficulty settings.

 

[Guest]

Missing crews respawn - a minor feature, with no extended gameplay implications.
Include stock vessels - not a feature (just a choice whether to use two .craft file folders or one).
Indestructible facilities - doesn't really come up in normal play.
Part g-force and pressure limits - doesn't come up in normal play (stock values are stupidly high).
"Other difficulty settings" - too nonspecific, I'm sure the other toggles aren't used much. Difficulty presets don't count.

The commnet toggle is the only real matter of concern here. Now, is it really so important to have a toggle here, as opposed to just sliders to make it easier or harder? It came quite late in KSP development, but would you still play KSP if it had it from the start, and it was forced on?

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

Which are? Seriously, which of these options do people actually use, besides the sliders? 

I turn off respawn always, and turn on comm net no matter what. I almost never turn on g force limits but sometimes I do.

If I could, I'd love a career mode with no science points, or only science points. Or KSC 20 degrees north. Or monthly budgets.

And I want these as options so I can turn them on and off in any combination. For the dozens upon dozens off playthroughs I got to get.

Edited March 9, 2020 by 5thHorseman

[Guest]

Would you trade all these for a single, unified and fleshed out career mode that's actually fun to play, as opposed to a half-baked excuses that KSP1 has? Let's say you'd be able to buy launch sites (and decide on which your first one will be), like with Kerbal Konstructs sites, and science points would be gone altogether (research being done with money), but strategies would be greatly expanded to support various styles of play, complemented by difficulty sliders?

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

If I could, I'd love a career mode with no science points, or only science points.

There is a mod for that. 

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, MechBFP said:

There is a mod for that. 

There is but we're discussing the stock game and I would like options such as that to be configurable there.

 

4 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Would you trade all these for a single, unified and fleshed out career mode that's actually fun to play, as opposed to a half-baked excuses that KSP1 has?

I find career - with the proper optional settings ticked for my current mood - to be fun to play, regardless of the (non-optional incidentally) half-baked excuses for KSP1's career mode.

So my choices are:

1. One single unified career mode with no options that was really fun to play once or twice, for maybe 100-200 hours of fun.
2. "Half baked excuses" that are roughly the same fun as KSP1 that allow me to make up my own career modes for 1000-2000 (or more) hours of fun?

Bake me up half an excuse, please.

Edited March 9, 2020 by 5thHorseman

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

The commnet toggle is the only real matter of concern here. Now, is it really so important to have a toggle here, as opposed to just sliders to make it easier or harder? It came quite late in KSP development, but would you still play KSP if it had it from the start, and it was forced on?

CommNet is only optional because it came late and SQUAD didn’t want to break people’s careers. Wanting it to be optional in KSP2 is just knee-jerk conservatism.

It doesn’t need any sliders either, antennas are the sliders and whether you have them or not can be determined by initial world state and cost multipliers. 

People who don’t like to mess with relays would simply be ignoring probes and flying crewed missions only.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Guest

[Dirkidirk]

5 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

CommNet is only optional because it came late and SQUAD didn’t want to break people’s careers. Wanting it to be optional in KSP2 is just knee-jerk conservatism.

It doesn’t need any sliders either, antennas are the sliders and whether you have them or not can be determined by initial world state and cost multipliers. 

People who don’t like to mess with relays would simply be ignoring probes and flying crewed missions only.

or they could just launch two or three satellites ABSOLUTELY SMOTHERED with relay dishes in kerbin orbit. It's the most kerbal solution!

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[Incarnation of Chaos]

4 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

or they could just launch two or three satellites ABSOLUTELY SMOTHERED with relay dishes in kerbin orbit. It's the most kerbal solution!

 

Distance would still make them useless, and all the dishes in the world won't help if kerbin is behind the sun. You'd still end up having to launch another relay to another planet at some point.

[Dirkidirk]

4 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Distance would still make them useless, and all the dishes in the world won't help if kerbin is behind the sun. You'd still end up having to launch another relay to another planet at some point.

 

Spoiler

oops, I typed the wrong solution.

I meant to say:

4 hours ago, Dirkidirk said:

or they could just ABSOLUTELY SMOTHER their interplanetary probes with (one or a few more) relay dishes. It's the most kerbal solution!

I am smart

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

CommNet is only optional because it came late and SQUAD didn’t want to break people’s careers. Wanting it to be optional in KSP2 is just knee-jerk conservatism.

It doesn’t need any sliders either, antennas are the sliders and whether you have them or not can be determined by initial world state and cost multipliers. 

People who don’t like to mess with relays would simply be ignoring probes and flying crewed missions only.

Actually, this applies to all optional features KSP has. CommNet is just the most recent one, I remember when people were saying the same thing about reentry heat when it got added (and sure enough, you can disable it).

9 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

So my choices are:

1. One single unified career mode with no options that was really fun to play once or twice, for maybe 100-200 hours of fun.
2. "Half baked excuses" that are roughly the same fun as KSP1 that allow me to make up my own career modes for 1000-2000 (or more) hours of fun?

Bake me up half an excuse, please.

How about a single unified career mode that you can play in a different way every time? Instead of altering the career by fiddling with world state, you alter it by making business decisions. A little randomness could be thrown into the mix, as well, so depending on the playthrough, some strategies could be more optimal than others. Instead of, say, monthly budgets being a difficulty setting, make them always on, but leave it to the players if they want to put an effort into getting a bigger budget, if they'd prefer to focus on a fully commercial launch business, fund their space program by selling scientific data, or satellite services. Add a randomized business environment and every playthrough is different, dwarfing KSP1's combinations of options and half-implemented features. If you played any other business game (well, any well-designed one), you'll know what I'm talking about. I've easily made your 1000-2000+ hours in Tropico series, where initial options amount to choosing an island, some optional modifiers (not features, more like policies you can also set in-game) and a handful of traits for your dictator. No optional features whatsoever, but the number of ways you can run your island is enormous, restricted only by resources you get (can't do logging without any trees... but you can have a lumber mill and import logs, for example).

3 hours ago, Dirkidirk said:

or they could just launch two or three satellites ABSOLUTELY SMOTHERED with relay dishes in kerbin orbit. It's the most kerbal solution!

 

...or you can go big.  

It's just a matter of having a big enough antenna.  Well, technically this one has a dinky feeder antenna boosted by a giant reflector, but the end result is the same.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Guest