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

[The Aziz]

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Removing modes

 

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

This is how KSP 1 always did things

Here we go (again). It isn't removing modes, it's not adding them. This isn't KSP1 2.0. If a certain mode doesn't fit with dev team's vision for the game, they are free to not add it. You're trying very hard to limit what KSP2 can be by the existence of KSP1. And you could argue why they're removing career mode, same thing. Hint: they're simply not making it, and doing something entirely different instead.

11 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

force players to play the way you like

Stupid Rockstar, forcing pacifist players to shoot in their GTA games, can't play without doing it..

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Pthigrivi said:

I do think the advantage of the latter--allowing players to turn sandbox-like features on and off at will rather than locking them in from the 'start game' screen is valuable. 

Like an options screen, instead of having to tediously add credits and resources?

Just now, The Aziz said:

Here we go (again). It isn't removing modes, it's not adding them. This isn't KSP1 2.0.

It's removing them in principle. It doesn't matter if it's a separate game or not, we have sandbox mode now and then we don't. You're picking apart the words used and missing the point. People want sandbox mode.

[Vl3d]

I just hate that it's August 2022 and we're still talking about "what-ifs". Yeah we going to find out what features this game has 2 months before release, until then we're just arguing like the poor crooks the Joker threw the broken pool cue down to. We still don't know anything more about the game than we knew in 2020. It's just not the right way to treat a loyal community.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Vl3d

[Pthigrivi]

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Like an options screen, instead of having to tediously add credits and resources?

You misunderstand. If you have separate, standalone modes - Adventure, Science, Sandbox, etc. once you've selected a particular game mode you cant just un-toggle it midway through a save. As others have pointed out the actual difference between Adventure and Sandbox likely isn't huge. Its at most 3 difficulty toggles: Unlock all tech nodes, Ignore money (if it even exists), Unlock all Kerbal skills (if they exist). You can check those 3 boxes or any combination you like in custom difficulty and voila--you're in the kind of sandbox you actually want. That would allow players to easily switch back and forth without being forced to start over, just like you can toggle on or off things like reentry heating and signal requirements for probes in the middle of a save now. 

[Bej Kerman]

11 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

You misunderstand. If you have separate, standalone modes - Adventure, Science, Sandbox, etc. once you've selected a particular game mode you cant just un-toggle it midway through a save.

Why would you? Even if you had a reason to do that, you could just edit it through the save file, which I believe gives you more choices than toggling it in-game. Right?

[MechBFP]

3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why would you? Even if you had a reason to do that, you could just edit it through the save file, which I believe gives you more choices than toggling it in-game. Right?

Asking someone who plays a "sandbox mode" whey they would want to do that is definitely missing the point of why a sandbox player plays sandbox.

Also you are bold to assume the save files will be editable at all, or easy to do so.

[Bej Kerman]

24 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

32 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why would you? Even if you had a reason to do that, you could just edit it through the save file, which I believe gives you more choices than toggling it in-game. Right?

Asking someone who plays a "sandbox mode" whey they would want to do that is definitely missing the point of why a sandbox player plays sandbox.

Also you are bold to assume the save files will be editable at all, or easy to do so.

I was playing Devil's Advocate. The point is to show Pthigrivi that "just make it a sandbox using cheats" is a rather tedious alternative to just pressing the 'sandbox mode' button and flying about with my own goals.

[Guest]

Again, KSP1 has like a single tech tree, a single progression system, one resource and 3 modes depending on what you enable or not.

It is like that because it was build with players having access to every built along the way, and many deciding they didn't like what new prototypes of systems were added along the way.

 

KSP2 is the other way around, and has a crapton more systems and resources. You have a finished gamemode and have to start cutting stuff until the game reaches a completely arbitrary condition of incompleteness that someone calls "sandbox", where should we draw the line?

We've been told that colonies and their population grows following parameters that aren't depending from funds, science or resources but by boom events, it has been hinted that some tech is available only via stuff doable in colonies, they confirmed that you'll have to discover new systems as they won't be visible from the beginning.

The way they talk about resource, their mining and the colonies gaining the ability of building and launching rockets tells about a game in which you play on two fronts, exploration and and science first and then building infrastructure and colonies in wake of that exploration to enable even further exploration forward.

And then they even hinted at simulations during the podcast interview.

To get back to a sandbox mode you'd have to start mutilating away from the game a lot more than just disabling a couple of systems like you did in KSP1, and I'm pretty sure that every sandbox player would stop at a different time.

 

Playing Sandbox will mean just infinite money and no science for a player, and infinite resources and buildings and no colony progression for the next one and then no gravity, atmospheric drag and fuel consumption for another.

 

I'd say that there should be a selector with two modes, "adventure/progression" and then "sandbox/experimental".

While the first mode has a simple set of settings (maybe something like a "skip tutorials" check and a menu to choose difficulty settings) the sandbox one offers you a whole lot of checks to decide what parts of the progression you want to include or not in your idea of "sandbox", maybe with a preset system offering some interesting ones like beginning from the equivalent of a KSP1 late game situation, or starting from a completely developed and self-sufficient colony on a body of your choice.

 

I don't think that sandbox is going to put at risk the new KSP2 game mode, veterans are going to try to revert almost anything even just remotely different between the two games anyway and it's not going to matter on the long run. I just think that I surely want to use Sandbox in KSP2, but I recognize that even for my personal use I can't choose what I want switched off and what has to remain in such a mode. It depends from run to run and from what you're using the game mode for.

[adsii1970]

Oh, yes it should NEED a sandbox mode! I've been playing KSP (the original) long before there was a science or career mode. And to be honest, I've tried both tracks and while fun, they are not what I enjoy doing. I enjoy flinging stuff together and seeing what makes it into space. It's always been the attraction to me with this game. And it's what has kept me coming back to it for ten years - and will keep me coming back. If KSP2 doesn't have a sandbox mode, chances are I will buy it out of loyalty to the game title (I even bought CIV VI for the franchise loyalty and still despise the game after all the expansion packs). However, I would not play it near as much as I do the original version - with all its flaws.

There's something about the freedom of a sandbox game. No, it's not "cheating." It's about having meaningless fun in a way that's creative, constructive, and without the fuss of having to meet someone else's goals. And sometimes, in a world where demands are made on us all the time, and some of them quite unrealistic and uncompromising, having no limits but that of the imagination, is really relaxing.

[tilliepops]

21 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Oh, yes it should NEED a sandbox mode! I've been playing KSP (the original) long before there was a science or career mode. And to be honest, I've tried both tracks and while fun, they are not what I enjoy doing. I enjoy flinging stuff together and seeing what makes it into space. It's always been the attraction to me with this game. And it's what has kept me coming back to it for ten years - and will keep me coming back. If KSP2 doesn't have a sandbox mode, chances are I will buy it out of loyalty to the game title (I even bought CIV VI for the franchise loyalty and still despise the game after all the expansion packs). However, I would not play it near as much as I do the original version - with all its flaws.

There's something about the freedom of a sandbox game. No, it's not "cheating." It's about having meaningless fun in a way that's creative, constructive, and without the fuss of having to meet someone else's goals. And sometimes, in a world where demands are made on us all the time, and some of them quite unrealistic and uncompromising, having no limits but that of the imagination, is really relaxing.

i agree with everything you have said

[shdwlrd]

Does KSP2 need a sandbox mode, no. If the adventure mode is fun and doesn't totally block the ability to compete a task, there's no real need for a sandbox mode. 

Would KSP2 feel like the old KSP without it, no. You wouldn't get some of the crazy contraptions I like to see in the game. No Farris wheels, no roller coasters, no working mach-ups of turbine engines, etc. That type of creativity is only part of what sandbox provides. You would lose a lot of creative uses not related to rocketry or aircraft.

[Kerbart]

Everyone plays the game in their own way, and what we cannot possibly imagine as fun, is for someone else the one, and obviously only one way the game can be played. Rumor has it that some players rush through the game using time acceleration for instance. Why you'd do that is beyond my imagination but to each their own.

My point is, making certain game features available through "special options," being cheat codes, buttons or even a menu, might be a big enough turn-off for some purists to utilize it. Given the wildly different way of playing it I would say there are at least two modes, the aforementioned "Adventure Mode," and an everytrhing-unlocked-pick-your-planet  "Creative Mode."

I think there are enough players who will absolutely not care about "adventure mode" and to force them to "cheat" their way to playing the way they want to is just unfair to them, and might even restrict the purists who'd otherwise fully enjoy playing the game.

 

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I think there are enough players who will absolutely not care about "adventure mode" and to force them to "cheat" their way to playing the way they want to is just unfair to them, and might even restrict the purists who'd otherwise fully enjoy playing the game.

Yes, and I hear Bej and Adsii as well. I think this is the answer to the thought experiment. Even if there is no functional difference between creating your own Sandbox by clicking a few buttons in the difficulty settings and having a “mode” listed next to Adventure mode that just clicks those buttons for you people will perceive them very differently, and will probably feel slighted by the former. There’s a strong sandbox culture that's grown up in KSP and its worth giving it its due. I would think it wise however to execute Sandbox as individual difficulty toggles that you could customize and turn on and off even after you’d gotten started. I would also hope Adventure mode makes sufficient strides in reducing grind and making science and discovery more rewarding so that the strong majority of players would at least give it a chance. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

Also remember some people are "competitive" with their stock vessels on the forums or on YouTube - I'm not talking about exploits, but really cool work-of-art space ships that make your say: that player is a KSP artist. You need sandbox mode for that.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Vl3d

[Catto]

3:1756

That's the ratio of times i havent used sandbox to times i have.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Also remember some people are "competitive" with their stock vessels on the forums or on YouTube - I'm not talking about exploits, but really cool work-of-art space ships that make your say: that player is a KSP artist. You need sandbox mode for that.

I guess I would only say you need Sandbox functionality, which is subtly different from a locked-in "mode". Regardless I think from a UI standpoint lots of players are going to want a quick and easy way to start a new save in which they know they can go wild right away rather than suit up for the progression/exploration experience. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Guest]

I use sandbox too, but OP original point remains, most people play sandbox because KSP1 progression modes suck.

You can say someone will like it and other people won't, but for a gameplay design aspect they are barely more than prototypes and they were never fixed or updated past the first raw implementation.

[bananaking]

I wish there was a sandbox mode, but I fully understand your opinion.
thank you

[Hotel26]

Taking my cue from the OP (whom I much admire): my fun opinion, and no doubt controversial, is that KSP is the brilliant, imaginative, quirky, innovative game it is because it is an Aerospace bicycle. 

(The conventional gaming industry term is "Sandbox" game but I prefer the description "Imagination" game.)

There's a reason why the two trainer wheels ("Geology" a.k.a. Science and "Economics" a.k.a. Career) were bolted onto the rear axle later, seemingly as an afterthought -- and are naturally deemed underdeveloped (being miniature and not touching the ground; which would, after all, defeat the sense & intent of being a bicycle).  They're there as guides to those learning to ride the bicycle who need the additional assistance.

I just hope that Science or Career (or something like them) are retained in KSP2 so that it continues to cater for the widest audience.

Spoiler

Although I, personally, have no wish to ride a tricycle.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Hotel26

[Anth]

The last two major projects I did in KSP1 were about engineering challenges which means sandbox is preferable, not a science/career mode.

If I was a new player sandbox can be very overwhelming but I have over 7000+ hours in KSP1

and KSP2 will be like an extension of those 7000+ hours.

KSP2 I definitely want the choice of Sandbox.

[Bej Kerman]

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

I use sandbox too, but OP original point remains, most people play sandbox because KSP1 progression modes suck.

You can say someone will like it and other people won't, but for a gameplay design aspect they are barely more than prototypes and they were never fixed or updated past the first raw implementation.

It also still remains that no matter how well progression is done, most of the people here who chose sandbox did it because they didn't know how well it was implemented and simply weren't interested in progression.

I still think that removing sandbox, and expecting that players still wanting it go through the process of cheating things in, is a rather transparent attempt at completely discouraging people from playing that way. That's a bad thing to do.

[Anth]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

I still think that removing sandbox, and expecting that players still wanting it go through the process of cheating things in, is a rather transparent attempt at completely discouraging people from playing that way. That's a bad thing to do.

I still want the cheats of the debug menu in the game no matter what. I am currently putting a craft into Eve orbit with 'set orbit'

The alternative would to launch a rocket from Kerbin to Eve every time which would be a complete waste of time

[Vl3d]

I better not see cheaty and exploity modded shenanigans in my precious DRM-enabled persistent multiplayer world.

You 7000 hours in KSP1 kids better play in your own local single player sandbox. We follow all physics laws and work hard for what we build in the common Kerbal universe!

 

[Vl3d]

17 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I guess I would only say you need Sandbox functionality, which is subtly different from a locked-in "mode".

I have a solution to all your problems: Simulation Mode instead of Sandbox Mode. It could be accessible at any time (even while in another save or game mode), all parts would be free and unlocked, all discovered locations accessible at any time in a single player virtual universe.

It would be barren and lack all the campaign mode special discoverables of course. Just for raw and creative construction of ships, vehicles and colonies. No resources needed. No kerbals.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Vl3d

[Anth]

43 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I better not see cheaty and exploity modded shenanigans in my precious DRM-enabled persistent multiplayer world.

Why would I cheat or exploit the game when playing with other people? that is not what I was talking about.