Anyone else... bored?

[Bej Kerman]

20 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I don't know if it's the nature of Sandbox Only, the current state of the game, disappointment with the info that Science won't be interesting and new, or what.

Shrug.

Maybe I just don't feel like bug-hunting today.

Anyone else?

I am really confused about what people see in progression. The game dictates what you can and can't do, I'm not seeing the fun.

[SimonTheSkink]

I'm currently just checking out the surrounding planets to see what they are like. Granted I have not made much progress because I have been building an interplanetary ship with 9 XL Hydrogen tanks to fuel it. If I am going to have a grand tour of the solar system I want to do it in style.

But yes sandbox mode is very boring and I avoided it for most of my time playing KSP1, while having the freedom to build whatever I want was nice I needed a reason to explore. Having challenges and limitations gave me something to strive for. Sandbox mode is mostly fun for people who just want to build pretty ships and not be limited in the parts selection or people who just want to see the planets and not have to put time into unlocking parts. I feel the game will truly begin to shine when science mode is unlocked with a tech tree, more parts, interstellar travel, colonies, multiplayer, and when a ton of mods come out (hopefully one for career mode).

Edited March 27, 2023 by SimonTheSkink

[regex]

I spent the initial release flying around checking out the new Kerbin, trying to go to Dres and failing due to orbital issues. On this patch I drove 900km through some really rough mountains dealing with random terrain colliders on the garbage TR4 wheels. No idea what I'll do for the next patch, but maybe check out Eeloo.

My plan is to take it easy so I'm not burnt out by the time we hit release. RE: the initial question, no, I'm not bored yet. By taking it easy I will always have new things to do, even in sandbox; I am well versed in setting my own goals and don't need a randomizer or incentives to help me.

Edited March 27, 2023 by regex

[Profugo Barbatus]

Not really, but I didn't put much expectation into the initial launch, and still have KSP1 installed and heavily modded, which has seen more play. I knew that KSP2 would be me playing around once or twice at best before Science is introduced, and still don't expect to really run a protracted campaign until colonies and resources are in. The particularly rough launch just made that decision easier, but even in a smoother boat I woulda done the same thing, I'm a very systems and goals driven player.

[The Aziz]

48 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I am really confused about what people see in progression. The game dictates what you can and can't do, I'm not seeing the fun.

You ever played any kind of RPG (that's a wide meaning), base/city builder, RTS, racing game....? Basically any game that isn't a sandbox? They all have progression systems in one way or another, and guess what, this kind of thing is popular among gamers.

Maybe it's not your thing, I respect that but if it can be applied to Minecraft, Stardew Valley, Surviving Mars, Skyrim, Civilization, Snowrunner, Gran Turismo, Spider-Man, Spore and thousands of other games from all genres, it can be applied to KSP. Because apparently going from zero to hero is fun.

[Bej Kerman]

6 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

You ever played any kind of RPG (that's a wide meaning), base/city builder, RTS, racing game....? Basically any game that isn't a sandbox? They all have progression systems in one way or another, and guess what, this kind of thing is popular among gamers.

And I fail to see why.

[The Aziz]

I can't possibly explain what's inside minds of millions of people who find it fun so ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[SimonTheSkink]

36 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And I fail to see why.

There is probably a lot of things you enjoy that other people would hate and vice versa. That's just how people are.

[KerbolExplorer]

57 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And I fail to see why.

Progression and stuff gives a general goal to work up towards to, take for example a career in RP-0: You start off with these really crappy rocket parts, they can barely get to space, let alone orbit. You start launching, perfecting your design and gathering science and funds until you can get the better parts, these can now get you to orbit, but your sats are dying after a couple hours, and you really need them to last to get to that big rock going around earth, hence you now need to gather better parts, or make do with what you've got and get creative.

Back to KSP2 we go, currently everything is unlocked from the start, there are 0 stakes to your missions, and it's honestly boring to not have goals. I'm excited for science mode(or exploration as they are calling it i think), and hey, sandbox is gonna stay there for those who like sandbox better.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

really confused about what people see in progression

It's a subtle, but powerful thing. 

Part of it is gamification - making a game of doing more with less.  There is a joy in accomplishing something difficult with small parts that isn't found if you just grab all the big parts from Sandbox.  It also lends itself to a bit of story as your Kerbals learn and improve and develop bigger and better tools along the way. 

Part of it is the new player experience.  Present the new player with everything up front and they're unlikely to learn much or learn quickly.  If you start out with a limited tool set only, from that you learn the basics.  Trying to build too big (tall) with these tools induces problems - problems you need to solve - and through that you learn about this little thing (where to put RCS or stabilizers) or that thing (why you need drag below the COM or don't want off center COT or forward COL) and build upon that knowledge as you progress - you learn things in bite sized pieces that will be beneficial as you continue to unlock more and more parts. 

OTOH - if you are an experienced KSP player and/or your only interest is the destination, or checking off 'accomplishments', doing 'challenges' or building cool looking crafts - limited parts is a frustration.  For folks like this, Sandbox is ideal. 

It's why I like having both modes for players.  Progression is a game.  Sandbox isn't really - but it's still fun, yet can get boring quickly. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

15 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

I played 6000 hours of sandbox KSP 1, I never get bored, because I have an imagination.

EDIT: LOL, Joe, I didn't even realize this was your thread. I'm NOT picking on you, I just don't understand this "boredom" thing.

Appreciate the honesty!  No apology necessary! 

Like I write above, it's a subtle but powerful thing - this idea of playing a game vs having just a sandbox.  I find limited resources drives creativity and learning.  (And I am very much learning) 

I think the thing that might be overlooked was my vain hope that they would have seen the cachet of the game and leaned into the Science piece.  It's a whole step in the Roadmap for Christ's sake - and yet the impression they give is that it's a carbon copy of KSP with a few tweaks.

That is an enormous 'own goal' for them.  Science gives the player something to do with the Kerbals - and we have whole multi-page writeups of ideas that would make Science a really cool part of the game, rather than merely an adjunct to the Resource Management part of Colonies and Interstellar.  

A truly interesting Science part of the game would be a huge boon to educators and the science-interested... And be something that could make 2 more interesting than KSP. 

(Look at the pre release threads about graphical presentation of the tests, the Kerbilopedia idea and more). 

 

Edit - I just noticed that @Dakota recently posted that more info on Science is forthcoming.  So maybe there is good news on the horizon? 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[LameLefty]

I have played KSP1 extensively in all three aspects. Remember, when KSP started out and even until well past its Steam release, there was no science, no funds, no tech tree or progression of any kind. I played it a ton back then, and as those aspects were added in I played them all too.

But let me tell you - I hated and I mean HATED the funds aspect of it. Even so, with each major new release up through 1.2 or so, I played a full new career save up to the point of completing the tech tree. After that, I finally said, “Nope,” and started doing Science-only career play through with a clean new save for each update. I found that much more interesting and satisfying. I know some people hate Science grinding, but I loved having a good reason to build a station somewhere, land in different biomes and bring back data and samples to process in the Lab, the bonuses from having Scientists in the crew, the specific uses of Engineers to build and repair stuff, etc.

I hope we eventually at least get that in KSP2, but until then, for me at least, there’s still lots to do and explore while the game develops. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by LameLefty

[Wheehaw Kerman]

I haven’t been playing a lot of KSP2, but that’s only because it’s fiscal year end at work.  I simply don’t have much time to game these days.  I did get a bit of play time in Saturday, though.  Mostly what I have been doing is learning the new stuff: getting the hang of building and launching craft with the new L and XL parts that’ll actually fly and handle well, and lobbing them at Jool.
 

This is also letting me familiarize myself with the new maneuver and burn time systems.  I’ve also been spending a fair bit of time with the HUD hidden, enjoying the view from orbit and chilling to the new music.  The Jool system is really pretty: I still have Bop and Pol to check out, and then I’ll do Eeloo and Moho.

I haven’t been looking for anomalies yet, and have been avoiding the threads and vids like the plague; I’m saving that for later, once we have science and colonies.

So I am definitely not bored yet, no.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 minutes ago, LameLefty said:

HATED the funds aspect

Yeah - I think I only played Science Career for the same reasons! 

[Socraticat]

I've found the forum challenges and tutorials by members to be very engaging. There's still so much for me to do and learn on Kerbin that I find myself OK with not being able to rely on persistent saves to enjoy myself. I have a folder of TXT files on my desktop and I wipe the Private Division folder if a restart alone won't solve the problem.

I'm not bored with sandbox at all, since I do look forward to colony progression. I do feel "limited" in the scope of my missions for reasons of sanity. No one likes having hours of time wiped, myself included.

 

[shdwlrd]

In a word, yes. Anything that takes serious amounts of time to reach, there's nothing to do. I don't need much to get me to explore around. But the constant fighting and lack of autopilots, it's no fun. So I don't want to play. I'd rather play something else. 

I've been playing Snowrunner for the past few months. So slow, tedious gameplay and ingame problem solving doesn't bother me. But what KSP2 is lacking for me is the reward for a task complete. There's nothing tangible to do except to say, "That's cool. Or Oooo pretty." I've used up all my prideful "I did this" moments on KSP1. And the "That's cool and pretty moments" can wait until the game is more developed. 

So I'm in a buyers remorse kind of mood with KSP2. I can't refund because trying to see which systems I own can play it took longer than 2 hours. And I don't want to it play as is. Maybe once resources and colonies drop, I will have an interest in playing. As of right now, for me at least, there's no point in playing.

Edited March 27, 2023 by shdwlrd

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

52 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Yeah - I think I only played Science Career for the same reasons! 

This pretty much epitomizes the term "different strokes for different folks". While I often agree with you and @LameLefty, here we're in complete disagreement.  I actually love the funds part of the game. I think it just adds another element to the overall game; especially early on. You need money to build rockets, of course, but you also need money to upgrade the KSC. Want patched conics? Yeah, that's kind of important, so you have to upgrade the Tracking Station. Heavier rockets? Upgrade the Launchpad. Want more than the 4 Kerbals you start with. Either take a rescue contract or hire them in the Astronaut Center. And each time you hire one, the price goes up for the next one.

Then there's the contracts themselves. I look at each one and decide if it's interesting. If so, how much will it cost? How much will I make? Is it worth it? Then I try to stack as many contracts as possible to maximize profit. This, in turn, presents all new design challenges. If I need to plant a flag on Duna while putting a satellite in orbit while also putting a station with room for 7 Kerbals, a Science Jr (blah blah blah) in Orbit of Ike while also picking up a stranded Kerbal while I'm there, the mission (and the ship itself) gets pretty interesting.

Granted, in the late game, you have so much money it no longer matters (true of any game where you collect gold or whatever). But it's just as true that once you unlock the Tech Tree, science no longer matters either. This is where I think maybe the Devs are onto something with the Resources aspect. You have to figure that you're always gonna need "resources" of some kind, right? If it's done well, I think it can maybe make all of us happy with the gameplay. Hoping so anyway.

[Casellina X]

Somewhat, but that's less of a KSP2 fault and more of a personal problem. I've been largely bored with many of the games I play lately; lacking the motivation to do things (I could be battling some minor depression, couldn't say). There are times I really want to play but can't decide what to do. I'm missing a couple of tools (crutches) from KSP1 that are delaying me from going interplanetary. Then I've also got some strange mental block about time warping for something beyond the Kerbin SOI which makes me avoid it. As if I'm neglecting something at the KSC or leaving some poor Kerbal in limbo. Funny thing is, it's not like time really matters beyond any concurrent missions. I could be still dealing with the same feelings of fear I first had when trying to orbit the Mun for the first time. The further out in space you go, the smaller you feel...

[TickleMyMary]

Yeah... Truly bored with it if I'm to be honest.

I struggle to bother doing anything worthwhile as I really don't care for the bugs anymore and until some major change comes on the scene, I'm sticking with that opinion.

It's quite apparent that they are using this EA as a crutch and I'm just not playing their game anymore... Until they bring something significant to the table that blows KSP1 out of the water (rocket sounds and music don't really ticklemymary so to speak) I really don't wish to devote more time into it than I already have.

KSP1 had its many flaws but MAN could you enjoy it through it's various stages throughout the years... And, fully modded, it is exquisite for a game of its age.

[LameLefty]

23 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

But it's just as true that once you unlock the Tech Tree, science no longer matters either. This is where I think maybe the Devs are onto something with the Resources aspect. You have to figure that you're always gonna need "resources" of some kind, right? If it's done well, I think it can maybe make all of us happy with the gameplay.

Yep, and this the downside to the stock tech tree Science career in KSP1. The Community Tech tree, along with resource-expansion mods from folks like RoverDude, and advanced part mods from Nertea (now heavily involved in KSP2 development) soften the blow here somewhat, as both give you more to DO once you get into your late game. You have a reason to build fuel and resource depot stations, and a whole lot more parts to unlock as you work your way through the tech tree to customize your space program with parts, missions and technology that you want to emphasize). Some of those Community Tech Tree mods add entire tiers to the end of the tree, at ever higher Science costs. This again simply gives you more to actually do to run your program once you work up to it.

Hopefully, as KSP2 gets built out, a lot of those concepts will come into play with building and maintaining our colonies, sending out our expeditions and missions with a purpose and goals. The definite downside to a pure sandbox experience is, once you've gone everywhere and seen most of the coolest sites, why do it again? I mean sure you can simply play KSP like a game of digital Lego (which is what I am doing, basically), but for a real "program" with more than one thing going on at a time, it eventually becomes, "What now?" In KSP1, my late-game saves usually had dozens of satellites around many planets and moons, refinery/prop depot stations around the Mun, Minmus, Ike,  and Vall, mining vessels on the ground or docked to all those stations, flights en route to and/or from Eve, Duna, Jool and Eeloo, and VERY busy set of Kerbal Alarm Clock alarms for transfer windows, SOI transitions, etc. In other words, a real "program" with lots going on to manage and do.

Right now, the state of KSP2 does not allow that but I am looking forward to when it does. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by LameLefty

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

24 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

different strokes for different folks"

That was one of the brilliant things about KSP - a little something for everyone!

[RocketRockington]

@JoeSchmuckatelliYou're not alone.  Per Steamdb charts, the game has fallen to its lowest player counts yet, the patch gave it a bump that reversed the slide for about 8-9 days, but it's now fallen under pre-patch player counts.  It'll be interesting to see if Patch 2 causes a similar delay, or if there will be any turn around if/when T2 starts marketting the game again.  

There's also been falloff in KSP1 players too, seems the hype around the release of KSP2 got people playing KSP1 again and that's fading a bit now as well - though KSP1 still has >3x more players than KSP2.

[Scarecrow71]

56 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

I actually love the funds part of the game. I think it just adds another element to the overall game; especially early on. You need money to build rockets, of course, but you also need money to upgrade the KSC.

I don't disagree with this statement...but the implementation wasn't the best.  In the beginning, it was cool knowing you had to decide between updating Mission Control or the Tracking Station, or building a bigger rocket to get needed science points.  But after you hit a certain point in the game - and it was pretty early on - funds were a joke.  Oh, I need 1,000,000to upgrade this building?  2 contracts later and I'm in business.  And that's without throwing in the administrative policies that you could use to get even more money considering reputation was a throw-away category.

[panarchist]

6 hours ago, Angelo Kerman said:

I'm not so much bored as I am frustrated with showstopping bugs. As a result, I tend to mess around until I run into one and have to put the game away for awhile. There's a lot for me to do in KSP 2, like visit the anomalies. The "boredom" for me is waiting until the next patch hopefully clears up the issues that I ran into.

This right here, 100%.

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I am really confused about what people see in progression. The game dictates what you can and can't do, I'm not seeing the fun.

I think that's why I play almost entirely sandbox. Honestly, I'd rather have a system where I could choose on which date parts unlock, so I could simulate going from 60s NASA ->Skylab -> STS -> FutureStuff without having to worry about getting enough funds / science to level up. I want progression, just not in the traditional way.

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Yeah - I think I only played Science Career for the same reasons! 

Ditto. I wasn't a big fan of it with science either. What I really want is to be able to have science mean something but not have it determine if I can have a space program. Don't hinge my unlocks on it. I want a reason to *do* science, but I don't want it to impact whether or not I can do a launch.

[KSK]

7 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I am really confused about what people see in progression. The game dictates what you can and can't do, I'm not seeing the fun.

I can’t speak for anyone else but personally, whilst I really enjoyed learning to play KSP1; once I’d gotten to the point where I could do most things in space (maybe not elegantly or efficiently but I could do them), then the actual game got rather dull. 

My first successful Mun landing was straight up one of my best gaming experiences ever, but I never really got the itch to go land on any of Jool’s moons.

Likewise landing a probe on Duna was fun and satisfying but I never really got the urge to land Kerbals there too.

I think a lot of the problem for me is that there never seemed to be much to do once I landed somewhere. Hop out, click buttons to gather science, maybe deploy an ALSEP-a-like once I had Breaking Ground. And then what? Hop back in the lander and go home?

Sure I could try building surface bases - I certainly built my share of space stations but, in the vanilla game at least, they were mostly empty ornaments.

TL: DR - I just didn’t find a pure sandbox experience as fun as I thought I would.

On the other hand I’ve played games where the player base demanded (loudly and at great and tedious length) ‘zero to hero’ style progression which seemed to me to take out all the fun parts of the game and replace it with pointless grind.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.