KSP2 shouldn’t need Sandbox (or maybe it should?)

[Guest]

12 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I assumed the question was asked on the basis of a "standard" sandbox mode.

I'm in a discussion with 3 people that have opposite and conflicting ideas about what a "standard sandbox" is.

It doesn't matter how many buzz words you throw at it, your "stock, normal, commonplace, standard, usual, genuine, sandbox" mode is still your personal idea and maybe shared with 2 or 3 other people of the 37  46 that replied to the pool.

 

12 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Note that the final "progression modes should be so good that sandbox isn't needed" can very easily be interpreted to mean that sandbox should not exist in the game at all if progression modes are a subjective "good".

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

It's also not like you can build a home so well that you don't need a fridge in the first place. You can't. That's to say sandbox won't ever go unneeded, no matter how adventure mode works.

 

Let me put that "progression modes should be so good that sandbox isn't needed" statement into a nice little box that explains it in a way that can't be warped purposefully to create an argument were there's none:

PREMISES:

•  I've played Minecraft for thousands of hours.
• I was a server admin/moderator for almost 10 years.
• I've spent more time in Creative than in Survival, both for my admin roles and for fun.
• I love messing around in Minecraft Creative mode.
• I know there's people only playing Creative that are not interested in Survival.
• I deeply understand all the things and play-styles a tool like Creative enables.

STATEMENT:

Minecraft survival mode is so good that creative isn't really needed for it to be a complete and enjoyable game.

 

If you're not familiar with Minecraft you can repeat the same with a GTA title of your choice, a spawn menu for vehicles and weapons and a 100% completed save are always the first thing I install before playing. And they shouldn't be needed to make the game enjoyable, the story should be enjoyable on its own.

 

I want the same for KSP.

 

12 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

but I read through the entire thread prior to making my first post here and it was pretty clear you could divide the opinions into two factions- pro-sandbox

I see at least 4 factions here:

You that think that Sandbox should have colonies and logistics enabled, @Bej Kerman who thinks that colonies and logistics are a leash and the only thing in sandbox should be the most basic physic based puzzle (there's no difference between an interstellar colony ship and an orange tank with 200 external seats), @Xelo  who's arguing for a gamemode more akin Minecraft Creative (I suppose that means spawning whatever anywhere, with no challenge or gameplay at all) and me, trying to let people agree that "sandbox" is not something universally standardized while arguing with different people having wildly different and incompatible ideas of what sandbox is all at the same time screaming  "but it's easy, stock standard normal sandbox is just this" and then proceeding to describe yet another completely new and exotic interpretation of what sandbox is supposed to be.

 

You just said that the other two should install a mod because your way is the only way, don't say that to me or Pthigrivi, take it to them and the other 19 people that voted for "No resources needed to build at colonies" or the 18 that voted for "Can spawn colonies anywhere", to them that's it, as simple as that, stock sandbox mean spawning bases on the Mun or on Dres right after the save creation. And they're right, if you're using sandbox to test how the thermals would work for fuel refining on EVE you don't want to play a whole space program to find out, just spawn what you need on Eve and you're done.

 

Who's right? I think all of you, that's why I want something configurable. But if you think there can be only one big red "sandbox" button in the menu then I'll leave you all fight among each other for who's going to sit on that button, it's not my fight.

 

7 hours ago, pandaman said:

How is a new player going to know what options/settings they want anyway?  A large menu of checkboxes initially  is more confusing than a few 'presets' that can be customised later on.

I'd send the new players to adventure, with a first, skippable phase being a basic tutorial about orbital mechanics that teaches you at least how to orbit, rendezvous and docking and transfers to Mun and other planets.

If the player isn't a veteran already knowing what they're searching for there should be no reason for them to go straight away into sandbox.

 

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Going by the logic of the "anti-sandbox" posts,

Which there are none of, so everything that follows is moot. You're talking to 0 people. Well, from the point of view of many other people that you would put in the "pro-sandbox" box you probably are the "anti-sandbox" one, telling them that they should wait for and then install mods if they just want to continue using the sandbox mode like they used it in KSP1.

But, again, not my fight, my argument is that there can be space for both approaches, and that a sandbox mode lacking one or the other is an incomplete one.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Master39

[Pthigrivi]

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I myself am partaking in the discussion at this point for the purposes of "cognitive experience", because this thread will obviously have no impact on the game (if release is in early 2023 sandbox is certainly finalized by now) and thus I otherwise wouldn't care 

Yes I hope we're still in the realm of fun conversation that helps illuminate the broad diversity of views and passions on the subject. Thats all I was hoping for. Obviously people are very passionate and animated about what they'd like to see, but I wouldn't categorize any of the responses so far as combative, just lively. And of course I'd be pretty surprised if the dev team hadn't made most of these kinds of decisions years ago. I think most people reading along will have that in the back of their minds as well.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Bej Kerman]

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

Let me put that "progression modes should be so good that sandbox isn't needed" statement into a nice little box that explains it in a way that can't be warped purposefully to create an argument were there's none:

PREMISES:

•  I've played Minecraft for thousands of hours.
• I was a server admin/moderator for almost 10 years.
• I've spent more time in Creative than in Survival, both for my admin roles and for fun.
• I love messing around in Minecraft Creative mode.
• I know there's people only playing Creative that are not interested in Survival.
• I deeply understand all the things and play-styles a tool like Creative enables.

STATEMENT:

Minecraft survival mode is so good that creative isn't really needed for it to be a complete and enjoyable game.

Creative is still needed regardless of how good survival is. Creative lets you get straight to sculpting massive replica buildings, bypassing all the survival tosh that's become cliché in the past decade or two. Minecraft is incomplete without that option. You said it yourself, "I know there's people only playing Creative that are not interested in Survival". Just because you think Minecraft would be fine without creative does not mean that applies to everyone; your statement is less a statement and more an opinion. Some like survival and others like creative, ergo Minecraft is incomplete without either. Take one away and watch the number of players plummet. The original "statement" is simply wrong, Minecraft is not a complete game without Survival, and is especially incomplete without Creative.

This should all apply to KSP 2. There's no such thing as a complete KSP game without sandbox.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Creative is still needed regardless of how good survival is. Creative lets you get straight to sculpting massive replica buildings, bypassing all the survival tosh that's become cliché in the past decade or two. Minecraft is incomplete without that option. You said it yourself, "I know there's people only playing Creative that are not interested in Survival". Just because you think Minecraft would be fine without creative does not mean that applies to everyone; your statement is less a statement and more an opinion. Some like survival and others like creative, ergo Minecraft is incomplete without either. Take one away and watch the number of players plummet. The original "statement" is simply wrong, Minecraft is not a complete game without Survival, and is especially incomplete without Creative.

This should all apply to KSP 2. There's no such thing as a complete KSP game without sandbox.

 

More than debatable, a game without a creative mode is just a game, a game that only has a creative mode is not a game, it's merely a tech demo, if we want to be generous.

[Bej Kerman]

27 minutes ago, Master39 said:

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Creative is still needed regardless of how good survival is. Creative lets you get straight to sculpting massive replica buildings, bypassing all the survival tosh that's become cliché in the past decade or two. Minecraft is incomplete without that option. You said it yourself, "I know there's people only playing Creative that are not interested in Survival". Just because you think Minecraft would be fine without creative does not mean that applies to everyone; your statement is less a statement and more an opinion. Some like survival and others like creative, ergo Minecraft is incomplete without either. Take one away and watch the number of players plummet. The original "statement" is simply wrong, Minecraft is not a complete game without Survival, and is especially incomplete without Creative.

This should all apply to KSP 2. There's no such thing as a complete KSP game without sandbox.

 

More than debatable, a game without a creative mode is just a game, a game that only has a creative mode is not a game, it's merely a tech demo, if we want to be generous.

Based on the definition of the word game that you made up and not the definition as told by Oxford? Definition 1 states "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun". Minecraft fits into that definition nicely, even without survival mode. At this point, you're debating Oxford, not me.

[Guest]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Based on the definition of the word game that you made up and not the definition as told by Oxford? Definition 1 states "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun". Minecraft fits into that definition nicely, even without survival mode. At this point, you're debating Oxford, not me.

x2

Listen, if you so desperately want someone against sandbox that you are getting to these depths, try to read some of the ideas of Sandbox that have been thrown around on this thread.

You'll find that there's someone that just said that if you don't want to deal with that pesky problem of logistics challenges you should install a mod or deal with it anyway.

 

Don't worry about me I'm not going to take neither Creative mode nor Sandbox away from you. I don't know if you read that the first 1200 times I've written it but I'm not proposing that.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Master39 said:

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Based on the definition of the word game that you made up and not the definition as told by Oxford? Definition 1 states "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun". Minecraft fits into that definition nicely, even without survival mode. At this point, you're debating Oxford, not me.

x2

You really don't see how "creative mode only Minecraft would not be a game" is flat out incorrect? It contradicts the dictionary. Your statements are incorrect, mate, simple as.

2 minutes ago, Master39 said:

You'll find that there's someone that just said that if you don't want to deal with that pesky problem of logistics challenges you should install a mod or deal with it anyway.

That'll work for me, a PC player, but I fail to see how that'd work for people on consoles. Console players still exist by the way, as I subtly eluded to in the last sentence, it's worth thinking about them too.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You really don't see how "creative mode only Minecraft would not be a game" is flat out incorrect? It contradicts the dictionary. Your statements are incorrect, mate, simple as.

"Oh noes, now he's going to get free on a technicality, Your Honor, I swear I didn't mean that literally, you have to understand that....

Oh, wait a moment, we're not in a court room.

Technically even just the settings menu or Minecraft sold on Steam as "Minecraft Settings menu simulator 2022" is a game by the Oxford definition if even one single person claims that he is having fun while using it.

I guess there is no other possible meaning that you could extract fromy posts so I stand defeated.

You won.

 

 

 

 

Anyway, back to the topic.

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

That'll work for me, a PC player, but I fail to see how that'd work for people on consoles. Console players still exist by the way, as I subtly eluded to in the last sentence, it's worth thinking about them too.

I don't see why you're saying this to me, weren't I the anti-sandbox one? I'm not the one saying that sandbox should be that, in my proposal you both get what you want.

And I get mine which has nothing to do with sandbox and everything to do with Adventure being good enough that could stand on its feet as a game of its own, you could even say "so good that sandbox is not even needed anymore". *

 

_{* Needed for me.**}

_{** As in the person, who would enjoy a competently developed Adventure mode and stop having to use modded sandbox for that.***}

_{*** None of the previous statements are intended to be a proposal for the removal of sandbox.}

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Master39 said:

25 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You really don't see how "creative mode only Minecraft would not be a game" is flat out incorrect? It contradicts the dictionary. Your statements are incorrect, mate, simple as.

"Oh noes, now he's going to get free on a technicality, Your Honor, I swear I didn't mean that literally, you have to understand that....

Oh, wait a moment, we're not in a court room.

Technically even just the settings menu or Minecraft sold on Steam as "Minecraft Settings menu simulator 2022" is a game by the Oxford definition if even one single person claims that he is having fun while using it.

I guess there is no other possible meaning that you could extract fromy posts so I stand defeated.

You won.

No, you win. I should have seen that you obviously have more authority over what a game is than a literal dictionary.

Just now, Master39 said:

And I get mine which has nothing to do with sandbox and everything to do with Adventure being good enough that could stand on its feet as a game of its own, you could even say "so good that sandbox is not even needed anymore". *

Again, there's no such thing as "so good that sandbox is not even needed anymore".

[Pthigrivi]

Well the concept of a game is a bit squishy, and there are multiple definitions. I don't think "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun" cuts it because painting is done for amusement and fun, biking is done for amusement or fun, but I don't think most people would consider those activities "games".  Marriam Webster's first definition is "a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other", which to me is overly restrictive as solitaire and SimCity are not games by this definition. I would argue that playing with legos is not by itself a "game", nor is building a tarot reading or target practice. On the other edge of the knife I would say roulette is a game even though there is no skill, and that cards against humanity would still be a game even if you never tracked points (the goal just being laughs). 

Wikipedia offers some help. In the loosest sense it begins with "A game is a structured form of play, usually undertaken for entertainment or fun, and sometimes used as an educational tool." which sounds a bit sloppy to me. Roger Caillois lists the components of "games" as:

• fun: the activity is chosen for its light-hearted character
• separate: it is circumscribed in time and place
• uncertain: the outcome of the activity is unforeseeable
• non-productive: participation does not accomplish anything useful
• governed by rules: the activity has rules that are different from everyday life
• fictitious: it is accompanied by the awareness of a different reality
  
  But again I think he's not quite imagined games that are open-ended, nor games that are productive. Chris Crawford doesn't do much better with: "an interactive, goal-oriented activity made for money, with active agents to play against, in which players (including active agents) can interfere with each other." As some games don't have an active competition and obviously many games are not made for money. The definition I like best is from Jane McGonigal:
  
  "When you strip away the genre differences and the technological complexities, all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation."
  
  I would say by this definition most of the discussed versions of Sandbox do not constitute "games" as they do not have a structure of goals. Goals can of course be self defined, as you often see happen in open-ended city builders and RPGs, but along the way there is still a structured system of challenges and rewards, and those are I think what make the difference between art, puzzles, toys, and "games". Thats not to say toys and puzzles aren't fun. I loved townscaper and that was by no means a "game". The one exception among the discussed sandbox versions is probably where SunlitZelkova landed with the allowance for boom events to drive population growth. Once there are goals and rewards I think it ceases to be a simulation/toy and becomes a game. 
   

Edited August 18, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

 I would argue that playing with legos is not by itself a "game"

I used that argument all the time as a kid, "But mom, I wasn't playing I was working to build the toys I want to play with"

As an adult I think that kid was right, my 3D printer has a Lego spool holder and a Lego camera mount.

[Curveball Anders]

Just now, Master39 said:

I used that argument all the time as a kid, "But mom, I wasn't playing I was working to build the toys I want to play with"

I use that argument explaining why I'm building with Legos to this day

[SunlitZelkova]

22 hours ago, Master39 said:

I see at least 4 factions here:

You that think that Sandbox should have colonies and logistics enabled, @Bej Kerman who thinks that colonies and logistics are a leash and the only thing in sandbox should be the most basic physic based puzzle (there's no difference between an interstellar colony ship and an orange tank with 200 external seats), @Xelo  who's arguing for a gamemode more akin Minecraft Creative (I suppose that means spawning whatever anywhere, with no challenge or gameplay at all) and me, trying to let people agree that "sandbox" is not something universally standardized while arguing with different people having wildly different and incompatible ideas of what sandbox is all at the same time screaming  "but it's easy, stock standard normal sandbox is just this" and then proceeding to describe yet another completely new and exotic interpretation of what sandbox is supposed to be.

 

You just said that the other two should install a mod because your way is the only way, don't say that to me or Pthigrivi, take it to them and the other 19 people that voted for "No resources needed to build at colonies" or the 18 that voted for "Can spawn colonies anywhere", to them that's it, as simple as that, stock sandbox mean spawning bases on the Mun or on Dres right after the save creation. And they're right, if you're using sandbox to test how the thermals would work for fuel refining on EVE you don't want to play a whole space program to find out, just spawn what you need on Eve and you're done.

 

Who's right? I think all of you, that's why I want something configurable. But if you think there can be only one big red "sandbox" button in the menu then I'll leave you all fight among each other for who's going to sit on that button, it's not my fight.

The vibe I am getting from "anti-sandbox" posts is that this difficulty of trying to create something configurable that pleases everyone is why sandbox isn't feasible for KSP2.

I bring this to you and Pthigrivi because you are him have stated that sandbox isn't feasible because of the differing opinions. My point with that isn't to necessarily claim mine as the only solution per se, but instead to argue that sandbox is feasible by just settling on one thing and ignoring other opinions.

If a mode isn't feasible for implementation in the game because people disagree on how it should look, by that logic we can't have progression modes either, because there are certainly disagreements on what should be added.

22 hours ago, Master39 said:

Which there are none of, so everything that follows is moot. You're talking to 0 people. Well, from the point of view of many other people that you would put in the "pro-sandbox" box you probably are the "anti-sandbox" one, telling them that they should wait for and then install mods if they just want to continue using the sandbox mode like they used it in KSP1.

But, again, not my fight, my argument is that there can be space for both approaches, and that a sandbox mode lacking one or the other is an incomplete one.

"Anti-sandbox" is not literal. It refers to posts that describe sandbox as not being feasible because of the differing views on it.

At least you and likely others have said that the progression modes may end up being good enough that sandbox is not needed, not only because progression modes are good but because sandbox's implementation would be problematic.

I may be taking your statement out of context, please correct me if I am wrong. You may have merely been describing the sentiment of why "sandbox may not be needed" rather than actually advocating for it.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The vibe I am getting from "anti-sandbox" posts is that this difficulty of trying to create something configurable that pleases everyone is why sandbox isn't feasible for KSP2.

I bring this to you and Pthigrivi because you are him have stated that sandbox isn't feasible because of the differing opinions.

I don't think there's anything unfeasible of having like, 5 or 7 option in the sandbox creating window.

• Tech tree unlocked yes/no
• Money yes/no
• Colony progression yes/no
• Resources yes/no

With these 4 you cover 90% of all the possible sandbox combinations and the Minecraft screen to create a new world has more options than that.

If a 10 years old playing Minecraft can navigate a menu with 10 options to create a new save I think a KSP player planning to play a game about literal rocket science can do it too.

 

58 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

My point with that isn't to necessarily claim mine as the only solution per se, but instead to argue that sandbox is feasible by just settling on one thing and ignoring other opinions.

Given that I have already stated that's completely feasible, this solution of only having 1 thing and ignoring everything else would be the anti-sandbox move, It would mean removing sandbox for the majority of people, or at least the gamemode they define as "sandbox".

 

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It refers to posts that describe sandbox as not being feasible because of the differing views on it.

Three times you repeated it and three times I will negate it, the closest anyone has gone to propose the removal of sandbox in this thread has been when @Pthigrivi proposed to replace the gamemode with a series of options in the cheat menu, a proposal that was marked as "i know it's controversial" from the start and that was retracted before this 7 page long thread hit the page 2 mark.

 

To definitely kill any idea that I'm trying to say that a Sandbox mode is unfeasible, here's a save creation screen from Minecraft:

The "more world options..." brings you to another 3-4 settings page and the "Game Rules" one gives you a page with 35 more fine customizable settings like inventory retention on death, fire spread or fall damage.

I've seen a 7 years old navigating that menu to disable some difficulty option I didn't even know that were there.

 

If Minecraft can get away with that on a new save creation I don't get why a rocket sim about rocket science can't.

 

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

At least you and likely others have said that the progression modes may end up being good enough that sandbox is not needed, not only because progression modes are good but because sandbox's implementation would be problematic.

I may be taking your statement out of context, please correct me if I am wrong. You may have merely been describing the sentiment of why "sandbox may not be needed" rather than actually advocating for it.

Progression in KSP1 is broken, so broken that if it weren't for sandbox I would personally define the game as unplayable.

KSP is only considerable a playable game because of sandbox.

I want a progression mode that's so good that I don't need sandbox as a backup for it.

Minecraft would be a great survival and exploring game even without creative, creative is not needed for it to be a playable game, then obviously creative is still a great addition and a multiplier for the value of the game itself. But that doesn't change that Minecraft would be a great game even without creative, the same can't be said about KSP1.

 

[MechBFP]

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

If Minecraft can get away with that on a new save creation I don't get why a rocket sim about rocket science can't.

Indeed, although it should do a better job than Minecraft of actually explaining what each of the options means. To a brand new player to Minecraft that screen is almost entirely meaningless jargon, and that is exactly the kind of trap you don't want to fall in when developing a game.

[pandaman]

23 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Indeed, although it should do a better job than Minecraft of actually explaining what each of the options means. To a brand new player to Minecraft that screen is almost entirely meaningless jargon, and that is exactly the kind of trap you don't want to fall in when developing a game.

I haven't played Minecraft, but I agree.  Menu options need decent explanations as to what the features do.

If the option is - Toggle 'Thing' on/off' - and the information simply tells you that it switches 'Thing' on or off without explaining what 'Thing' is it just cries out laziness.

[linuxgurugamer]

My 2 cents.  Sandbox can be easily defined as a fully finished/maxed out  career save.  So a "sandbox" mode could be as simple as creating a new game with all options/goals/experience  etc. maxed out.

Being able to place buildings, colonies, vessels on other planets could be doable with something like Hyperedit, although a built-in tool to do that would be better.

I use Sandbox mode when working on mods, and doing challenges.  Hyperedit is also a very useful tool for me

Edited August 19, 2022 by linuxgurugamer

[The Aziz]

In Minecraft's defense, a lot of world options that aren't straight-forward are indeed explained if you hover your mouse over them, or below the button, so that argument is gone.

[Bej Kerman]

19 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I would say by this definition most of the discussed versions of Sandbox do not constitute "games" as they do not have a structure of goals.

This still disagrees with the dictionary. And no, I'm not particularly interested in whatever definition you picked out from a Wikipedia article.

[Pthigrivi]

37 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

My 2 cents.  Sandbox can be easily defined as a fully finished/maxed out  career save.  So a "sandbox" mode could be as simple as creating a new game with all options/goals/experience  etc. maxed out.

I think if you were to break it into 3 modes--Adventure, Sandbox, and Creative this^ is probably the best set of guidelines I've heard for default settings on the second. Still leaves the population boom problem, but maybe there's an elegant solution to that too. 
 

26 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

This still disagrees with the dictionary. And no, I'm not particularly interested in whatever definition you picked out from a Wikipedia article.

Well, just saying, if it's a question that vexed Wittgenstein then maybe there's some nuance there worth exploring. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[saxappeal89129]

On 8/1/2022 at 9:53 PM, Pthigrivi said:

For fun Im going to start this thread with a controversial opinion: If KSP2 is a good game it does not need a sandbox mode. Very few complete, good games Ive ever played include a sandbox mode. Instead they make the game good and just dump you in, rules and all. In my opinion KSP1’s sandbox mode only persisted as a dominant mode of play because of career and science mode’s deficiencies and failure to attract the vast majority of players to switch over. If KSP2 were to be truly compelling and successful as a game it would not need a mode that avoids all of its key mechanics. Instead it could have exactly one mode: Adventure mode, and a series of cheat codes to unlock all tech, ignore resource costs, etc. for players who just want to mess around. 
 

Agree? Disagree? Strongly disagree?

Edit: For future readers I become reasonably convinced later in the thread there should be a listed Sandbox mode, even if the implementation is actually just a set of difficulty toggles (unlock all tech, etc.)

Only if they remove multiplayer... which is what we're all patiently waiting on. So those that have to scratch their MMO itch are pacified.

I'd also say that sandbox is an entry point into the new game, so people can play around with the mechanics to see what "works" and what "doesn't work". Without this, people could dump time into a game, only to find out a specific base/ship really doesn't work for their goals. So if you remove the creative mechanic where people can test certain projects you're actually removing the ability to discover new ideas/designs. Unless... they have a mechanic whereby you can retrofit ships/bases without significant financial implications. Think of it like the real world AF Hornet whereby you have several generations of planes that are very different in both hardware, and utility. Upgrades to radar/optics being the main difference in them.

Regardless I still wouldn't cut out creative mode... think about the first game of Kerbal you played. Understanding how you actually fix a hard point to a planet, and bolt parts together in space/orbit/etc. was challenging and not necessarily intuitive. So it's not necessarily that the end user did/didn't want a certain outcome, they just needed to figure out what the "game" was asking them to do. Again, this is the reason for creative mode, so end users know what the game will ask of them so the end user can plan and understand how to achieve their goals.

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by saxappeal89129

[Guest]

1 hour ago, saxappeal89129 said:

which is what we're all patiently waiting on.

Need a source for that.

 

1 hour ago, saxappeal89129 said:

I'd also say that sandbox is an entry point into the new game

Usually is the main gamemode the one with the tutorial, not the creative one.

There's plenty of time before the player is thrown in the more complex KSP2 mechanics like colonies or interstellar stuff, you still have the whole "from the first rocket to the first Mun mission" part of the game to present the new player with tutorials explaining the basics of orbital mechanics.

 

Is the "new players need X" the KSP version of "Think of the children"? I see it costantly popping up as a blanket reason to support everything every time there's a discussion about removing a feature (which, BTW, nobody is proposing here).

 

 

[Bej Kerman]

14 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Is the "new players need X" the KSP version of "Think of the children"?

This here is the birth of a strawman argument.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

argument

Argument for what?

Haven't I repeated often enough that I don't wan't sandbox removed?

Is it enough if I say again that I don't want sandbox removed?

Or should I say again that I don't want sandbox removed?

Here: I don't want sandbox removed.

 

[pandaman]

2 hours ago, saxappeal89129 said:

Only if they remove multiplayer... which is what we're all patiently waiting on. So those that have to scratch their MMO itch are pacified.

Well I'm not...

Don't get me wrong, I think MP will be a great, welcome, and popular addition, but I can't say it would disturb me much if it doesn't make the cut.

I reckon I will be able to count the amount of times I will play MP on the number of fingers I can fit in my gloves.

As for those hoping for an MMO,  I suggest  you prepare to be disappointed.  I could well be wrong, but I just don't see KSP working, or being able  to cope with more than a few players.

But that is off topic..   As for Sandbox mode... I quite like the default 'Sandbox' in KSP1 and would welcome an equivalent in KSP2