Ironman mode?

[mattinoz]

21 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

And then someone saves the game, goes on a 1-month trip, and freaks out because they can't complete their game.

Really the only way to do it would be like a server authentication. Then of course you wouldn't be able to play without Internet access, or if the server went down. And then people would still either complain or find ways around it.

Given it's about bragging rights not anything more then ignoring your game is at your peril anyway.

I'm sure it could be designed without needing a server, might need an authentication app like one of the common ones but so many people have them anyway. Sounds like a Steam or store feature to give some users Jeb like status more than something you do for standalone personal satisfaction.

 

[SlinkyMcman]

Krakken attacks are probably the reason why persistent saves aren't written over in KSP1 in hard-mode, if the Krakken is slain no reason why this couldn't be implemented.

Edited May 13, 2020 by SlinkyMcman

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, mattinoz said:

Given it's about bragging rights

Huh?

I just want a mode that creates real tension so every launch and mission carries with it a real weight as opposed to having the option there to go back and fix a mistake. I dont care about these steam achievements or whatever I just want a more visceral experience available

[kerbiloid]

C#, KSP plugin, timer, delete all files in the saves directory once per ten seconds.

[SpaceFace545]

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Huh?

I just want a mode that creates real tension so every launch and mission carries with it a real weight as opposed to having the option there to go back and fix a mistake. I dont care about these steam achievements or whatever I just want a more visceral experience available

Same here I have been looking for that drama of launching a rocket, it almost feels comical that literally nothing can go wrong except a part clipping or auto strut glitch.

[Bej Kerman]

15 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

20 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

1. Poor personal control

2. So you have a game with no way out of the tough situation you've put yourself in. Now you have a worm that injects code into your PC stopping any current and future installs of the game from turning ironman mode off  and using extra save files, a liquided sibling who just wants to play KSP 2 normally, and a worm that has just sent itself to every computer that your computer has saved the Email address to. Not only would blocking every way out be complicated (probably illegal too), but it would be pointless and would also [where the forum censor replaced the P word with liquid] off some people who share computers either because of a lack of space or a lack of money.

You've taken this to a strange, and frankly, nonsensical extreme.... Does every game that has an Ironman mode come complete with a semi-sentient worm that destroys a bunch of computers? Never noticed it on Xcom...

Well you seem to want a mode with no way out whatsoever.

[mcwaffles2003]

9 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Well you seem to want a mode with no way out whatsoever.

Enjoy arguing with strawmen then, I'll go find a real conversation instead of conversing with someone intentionally trivializing my position

[Bej Kerman]

13 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Enjoy arguing with strawmen then, I'll go find a real conversation instead of conversing with someone intentionally trivializing my position

What?

[DunaManiac]

Honestly, just looking at this conversation, it's just so silly. I see nothing wrong with implementing Iron Man mode, and if you don't like it, don't use it. If it's forced on everybody, then I could see people getting mad over it, but I am certain it will be.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

Honestly, just looking at this conversation, it's just so silly. I see nothing wrong with implementing Iron Man mode, and if you don't like it, don't use it. If it's forced on everybody, then I could see people getting mad over it, but I am certain it will be.

It's not that i'm mad about the idea; i just think the KSP2 team has way better things to be doing with their time. Especially since their focus is making KSP2 as moddable as possible, and thus for niche modes could be used to fill the gap.

That's basically my position on most of the KSP2 section "Suggestions".

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

Honestly, just looking at this conversation, it's just so silly. I see nothing wrong with implementing Iron Man mode, and if you don't like it, don't use it. If it's forced on everybody, then I could see people getting mad over it, but I am certain it will be.

I'm (also) not mad. I just know how computers work and understand that either there are ways around it or it'll cause problems.

If it causes problems then they can't implement it. Period.

If you can get around it then why implement it? You can "get around it" now but you can also choose to not do that.

If the argument is that they can make it harder to revert/savescum/cheat so laziness overcomes the inherent desire to cheat yourself out of having fun, then I don't have an argument against that.

[rmaine]

Far be it for me to say that you shouldn't be able to have such an option, which I can then ignore. But it sure seems unlikely to be viable to me. For a start, there's that caveat about the game being bug free. Might as well wish for a free pony to be included while hoping for other things that ain't gonna happen. It's frustrating enough as it is now to have to go back to some save after hitting some bug. Like the ones where my orbit just starts changing as though I'm thrusting even though I'm not. Or I have a base that is perfectly fine, but then self-destructs because of physics phase-in when I go elsewhere and then back to that scene. Or other things. Those sorts of things are frustrating enough as is, but would be beyond frustrating in an ironman mode.

And then, as someone else mentioned, there would be the need to add "simulation" capability. Somewhat amusingly redundant in that the whole game is a simulation in the first place. I ought to be able to test whether a design is capable of doing the job before committing to fly it in ironman. Hey, NASA never simulates things before flying, right? :-) (Actually they simulate the um... nether regions out of things before flying.) Of course, NASA also heavily uses autopilots, which some people here seem to consider "cheating." I recall seeing a KSP 1 mod for something like a simulation mode inside of KSP. And there's always the option of starting a separate test game in a sandbox non-career mode to try out something, but that's a lot of fuss. For a decent ironman mode, you'd want that built in.

Anyway, all in all, no I would not use an ironman mode. That doesn't mean I'd object to you having one available, but it does imply that I'd hate to see significant development resources spent on such a thing to the exclusion of something I'd consider more useful. (And development resources *ALWAYS* involve tradeoffs.)

[mcwaffles2003]

7 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

It's not that i'm mad about the idea; i just think the KSP2 team has way better things to be doing with their time. Especially since their focus is making KSP2 as moddable as possible, and thus for niche modes could be used to fill the gap.

That's basically my position on most of the KSP2 section "Suggestions".

Would it really take that much time to make a switch that turns off reverts and makes all saves in that campaign overwrite the  previous save?

6 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

If you can get around it then why implement it? You can "get around it" now but you can also choose to not do that.

If the argument is that they can make it harder to revert/savescum/cheat so laziness overcomes the inherent desire to cheat yourself out of having fun, then I don't have an argument against that.

Essentially the point is to make it less convenient to get around it. If new saves constantly overwrite the 1 previous save file then to get around it you would have to leave the program copy the save file and store it elsewhere... Assuming the player doesn't do this the ironman mode would operate like a dark souls game which does a fairly good job of keeping people honest in the games intended continuity

4 hours ago, rmaine said:

Far be it for me to say that you shouldn't be able to have such an option, which I can then ignore. But it sure seems unlikely to be viable to me. For a start, there's that caveat about the game being bug free. Might as well wish for a free pony to be included while hoping for other things that ain't gonna happen. It's frustrating enough as it is now to have to go back to some save after hitting some bug. Like the ones where my orbit just starts changing as though I'm thrusting even though I'm not. Or I have a base that is perfectly fine, but then self-destructs because of physics phase-in when I go elsewhere and then back to that scene. Or other things. Those sorts of things are frustrating enough as is, but would be beyond frustrating in an ironman mode.

And then, as someone else mentioned, there would be the need to add "simulation" capability. Somewhat amusingly redundant in that the whole game is a simulation in the first place. I ought to be able to test whether a design is capable of doing the job before committing to fly it in ironman. Hey, NASA never simulates things before flying, right? :-) (Actually they simulate the um... nether regions out of things before flying.) Of course, NASA also heavily uses autopilots, which some people here seem to consider "cheating." I recall seeing a KSP 1 mod for something like a simulation mode inside of KSP. And there's always the option of starting a separate test game in a sandbox non-career mode to try out something, but that's a lot of fuss. For a decent ironman mode, you'd want that built in.

Anyway, all in all, no I would not use an ironman mode. That doesn't mean I'd object to you having one available, but it does imply that I'd hate to see significant development resources spent on such a thing to the exclusion of something I'd consider more useful. (And development resources *ALWAYS* involve tradeoffs.)

Theres a reason I made that caveat, Id like to think since the dev studio is more experienced and primarily a game studio this has some chance of being a relatively bug free game. KRASH implementation would also be necessary and I hadn't considered that when making this thread.

Curious though, would developing this really be that costly time wise?

[Superfluous J]

50 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Essentially the point is to make it less convenient to get around it. If new saves constantly overwrite the 1 previous save file then to get around it you would have to leave the program copy the save file and store it elsewhere... Assuming the player doesn't do this the ironman mode would operate like a dark souls game which does a fairly good job of keeping people honest in the games intended continuity

Maybe the big problem is I'm not the intended audience for this idea. I see no appreciable difficulty difference - from the user's point of view - from that and what we can already do (disable reverts and quickloads). One requires you to set up something on the OS level to circumvent it, the other has you navigate the game options to turn them back on.

As an aside, have you ever done a serious career with no reverts or quickloads? I have. The second you leave Kerbin's SOI they SUCK. (ofc that's my opinion and not a fact but it feels more fact than opinion)

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, Superfluous J said:

Maybe the big problem is I'm not the intended audience for this idea. I see no appreciable difficulty difference - from the user's point of view - from that and what we can already do (disable reverts and quickloads). One requires you to set up something on the OS level to circumvent it, the other has you navigate the game options to turn them back on.

As an aside, have you ever done a serious career with no reverts or quickloads? I have. The second you leave Kerbin's SOI they SUCK. (ofc that's my opinion and not a fact but it feels more fact than opinion)

I have and agree. But I do enjoy the rush on a launch knowing it has to go well or it will truly be a waste. Sadly the amount of bugs in the game starts making these runs impractical which pushes me to load an old save and leaves the campaign feeling cheap.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Would it really take that much time to make a switch that turns off reverts and makes all saves in that campaign overwrite the  previous save?

No, but that time you don't get back whenever you spend it. So while it's a nice QQL feature to add in a patch or update, as KSP2 is still in development and we're uncertain of the level of progress they've made i personally just can't justify asking for such a thing.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

No, but that time you don't get back whenever you spend it. So while it's a nice QQL feature to add in a patch or update, as KSP2 is still in development and we're uncertain of the level of progress they've made i personally just can't justify asking for such a thing.

I'm not necessarily asking for this at release. If anything it would be horrible at release as that's when the most bugs will be prevalent.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I'm not necessarily asking for this at release. If anything it would be horrible at release as that's when the most bugs will be prevalent.

Then i wouldn't have any problems with it coming in a patch a few months afterwords in that case.

[Toucan]

I dare say the experience you want will be delivered via the multiplayer game, especially if its any sort of massively multi player type of game. There is no way to revert games like WoW and if they have taken that road then there will be no way to revert the multiplayer game of KSP2.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, Toucan said:

I dare say the experience you want will be delivered via the multiplayer game, especially if its any sort of massively multi player type of game. There is no way to revert games like WoW and if they have taken that road then there will be no way to revert the multiplayer game of KSP2.

I greatly doubt multiplayer would be "mass"

To me it seems the computing power to work that would make NASAs supercomputers blush. I'm guessing 4 players per server, 8 tops. But if I'm wrong I'll be happy to find out so.

[Toucan]

12 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I greatly doubt multiplayer would be "mass"

To me it seems the computing power to work that would make NASAs supercomputers blush. I'm guessing 4 players per server, 8 tops. But if I'm wrong I'll be happy to find out so.

Why? Just like any other server it would just be a database. The game is played on the host.

[mcwaffles2003]

3 minutes ago, Toucan said:

Why? Just like any other server it would just be a database. The game is played on the host.

Well that goes with the whole dedicated vs private server debate, but then will the hosts computer will have to keep track of all the rigid body dynamics going on then?

[Toucan]

If your computer was unable to run the physics you wouldnt be able to play the game. If you are playing online then your computer is the host, not the server.
If KSP2 take the same model as GTAV for example and allows people to host private servers that still creates a scenario in which you dont get to revert. 
If you are playing a game in a multiplayer scenario you can't have one player deciding "timesies, lets do that again." The other players may not want to and shouldnt have to. 

[mcwaffles2003]

39 minutes ago, Toucan said:

If your computer was unable to run the physics you wouldnt be able to play the game. If you are playing online then your computer is the host, not the server.
If KSP2 take the same model as GTAV for example and allows people to host private servers that still creates a scenario in which you dont get to revert. 
If you are playing a game in a multiplayer scenario you can't have one player deciding "timesies, lets do that again." The other players may not want to and shouldnt have to. 

Alright, just want to say that I don't think this is the thread for us to argue about this in.

[Toucan]

True Ironman mode?