What happened to increased communication?

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

Just out of curiosity... how did you start playing KSP?

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

I'm not arguing on that part. Just saying that new players shouldn't be overwhelmed with things that can easily be considered an additional challenge.

I'm answering these together because my answer kind of fits both.  Anyhow...

I started with Sandbox.  Which was a massive mistake.  Too many parts, no indication of how anything went together, no idea of how to build.  After being fully overwhelmed by that, I stepped back and went into career, which gave me the progression I was looking for.  I'm used to playing Civilization (did I mention that already?  I did?), which is turn-based and uses money to control what buildings you can pay the upkeep on.  Similar concept to me here, in that money controlled what buildings were upgraded or not, which in turn controlled my ability to build.  It honestly helped me understand far more about weight and fuel efficiency than the tutorials or reading stuff online ever did.

I'm not saying to not play your way.  If you don't want to deal with funds, then don't.  All I'm saying is that you wanted to paint the funds system as being crippling to all players, when in fact it's only your own experience that's at play here.  You do you.

[cocoscacao]

2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I started with Sandbox.  Which was a massive mistake.  Too many parts, no indication of how anything went together

Same. Went into sandbox, looked at available parts, and my initial response was... what is all of this? Then I went into career. Sure, some sort of progression was there, but I had additional restrictions that I wasn't ready for, at that moment. Then I went science mode. Nice intro to each part, no additional challenges.

No personal attacks, I'm just trying to clarify. What's the core gameplay loop in... say... GTA? Committing crimes against humanity with a prostitute on a passenger seat. You can do it with or without money.

What @PDCWolf said, you can reload a save, or restart the game. Reloading a save is fine, but I don't think restarting a whole game due to minor miscalculations earlier is a good game design. Let the player learn, and don't enforce such hard restrictions on him. Keep additional challenges optional.

KSP isn't an easy game to get into. Much of the stuff I do now seems trivial, but... that wasn't always the case. Do you recall learning multiplication tables? No... You can do it by heart now, but that doesn't mean memorizing it wasn't tedious and hard.

EDIT

My main gripe is this... Science mode allows you to play bad and improve over time. Having 0$ blocks you instantly from further experimentation, and forces you to start from scratch. That's bad game design.

Edited April 29 by cocoscacao

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Well.. that's why you had the option to play science before.

The resulting comprise seems to be that

Now I can't even decide to decline a mission...yippee

There was agency in the game(career) before. A great deal of it. All the little changes have removed a great deal of that player agency for a more sandbox approach.

Resources will not really address this on the scale of managing a space agency. Whatever they do go with may be fun.. but I think it will have very little resemblance to what I was expecting.

It's not the funds I'm missing.. or the missions.. or learning curve, or comnet.

It's the culmination created from the melange. I can see some aspects being removed in favor of others.. but it's all seeming to be about mass appeal to the casual player.

The core KSP community member (I feel) is definitely not casual.. at least with regard to KSP hours logged.

So to me.. that approach feels very disingenuous. Then to go radio silent well past the earliest phase of EA.. well it seems intentional

Edited April 29 by Fizzlebop Smith

[cocoscacao]

@Fizzlebop Smith was that a reply for me?

Maybe I am misunderstood here. I have my opinions on this game (and its development/communication) as well as everyone else here. With these last few posts, I'm not questioning those. I'm just saying that KSP 1 allowed you to "start playing it gently", while subsequent challenges were introduced through other game modes/mods.  

[Fizzlebop Smith]

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

@Fizzlebop Smith was that a reply for me?

Maybe I am misunderstood here. I have my opinions on this game (and its development/communication) as well as everyone else here. With these last few posts, I'm not questioning those. I'm just saying that KSP 1 allowed you to "start playing it gently", while subsequent challenges were introduced through other game modes/mods.  

"you" as in the general plural (regarding ALL those that enjoyed primarily playing science mode in KSP1)

I would use "we" but that is not really operative as "I" cannot stand science mode. and feel the game abandoned a large portion of its core community.
The fact that there isn't even an option to "decline" a mission suggests to me, that there will likely never be a game play loop really analogous to what i think of as "career".
(Thank the powers for modders)

I am baffled that they ever thought they could consolidate the two. They are at odd with one another. In KSP1 You essentially have Science. And then you Science (PLUS). The plus of course being all the stuff on top of science that makes career mode what it was. By making "exploration" they have essentially (to me) made an irreconcilable rift in the community. The science player will always be vocal about those "constraints" they NEVER wanted to play with to begin with.
So now there is a select group talking about how poorly implements these things like missions, and funds, and upgrading buildings, 30 count part limits. Because that part of the game was never intended for the style of play that you enjoy. Now those of us that enjoyed all those things get at length discussions trying to defend those things we enjoyed.. when the designer of the first game had the foresight to make us both happy. 

 

Edited April 30 by Fizzlebop Smith

[Jaypeg]

3 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

Same. Went into sandbox, looked at available parts, and my initial response was... what is all of this? Then I went into career. Sure, some sort of progression was there, but I had additional restrictions that I wasn't ready for, at that moment. Then I went science mode. Nice intro to each part, no additional challenges.

No personal attacks, I'm just trying to clarify. What's the core gameplay loop in... say... GTA? Committing crimes against humanity with a prostitute on a passenger seat. You can do it with or without money.

What @PDCWolf said, you can reload a save, or restart the game. Reloading a save is fine, but I don't think restarting a whole game due to minor miscalculations earlier is a good game design. Let the player learn, and don't enforce such hard restrictions on him. Keep additional challenges optional.

KSP isn't an easy game to get into. Much of the stuff I do now seems trivial, but... that wasn't always the case. Do you recall learning multiplication tables? No... You can do it by heart now, but that doesn't mean memorizing it wasn't tedious and hard.

EDIT

My main gripe is this... Science mode allows you to play bad and improve over time. Having 0$ blocks you instantly from further experimentation, and forces you to start from scratch. That's bad game design.

I think the problem is mostly missions/$ making poeople play the most efficiently they can in a bad way - just grinding for hours before anything fun.

You dont want that

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, Jaypeg said:

I think the problem is mostly missions/$ making poeople play the most efficiently they can in a bad way - just grinding for hours before anything fun.

You dont want that

You can adjust the money you get. I only grinded once and that was when I did campaign on the hardest settings, and even then, I never ran out of money because I have a mechanic with enough depth to give me a lot of working angles:

• Employ "strategies".
• Accept contracts and invest the signing bonus onto this or that rocket for this or that mission.
• Build reliable and cheap systems to farm tourist missions.
• Save parts or rockets during the times where I have extra stuff.
• Do multiple missions per launch.
• Accept very challenging missions instead of cookie cutter ones.

Now all I can ever do in KSP2 is click, click, click when the light flashes, get science, waste science on solid rocket boosters which are completely useless... and go on clicking to the next tier, rinse and repeat.

It's watered down, it's boring, it's repetitive, it's not challenging for anyone with a semblance of the basics, and lacks any measure of depth.

4 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

 I don't think restarting a whole game due to minor miscalculations

Failing to run a profitable program is not a minor miscalculation. You start with money, you can get more, you can make more, you failed to do so and make good use of your starting resources.

Easy game = boring game. I'm still waiting for literally anything in this game to be aimed at veteran players.

Edited April 30 by PDCWolf

[cocoscacao]

4 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Failing to run a profitable program is not a minor miscalculation. You start with money, you can get more, you can make more, you failed to do so and make good use of your starting resources.

Poor choice of words on my end. I recall accepting an early contract which required airplane parts I absolutely didn't have, or knew that they existed, or what they are for. I was also unable to find that out, cause I couldn't experiment.

4 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

I'm still waiting for literally anything in this game to be aimed at veteran players.

Yeah, I get your point. Just saying, keep money optional.

[Icegrx]

The reality is, you can have both a science mode and a career mode. There’s absolutely no need to forego one for the other.  Well, at least in the reality of KSP1. 

You hate the grind? You hate making rockets as efficient as possible? That’s absolutely fine, you can play science mode, it’s there for you. It doesn’t make you less of a KSP player and no one is forcing you to do different. 

The problem, there are those of us who love career mode. The grind gives us a nicer feeling of progression. We thoroughly enjoy the early phases of getting everything we can out of as little cash as possible. We like earning cash from missions as a real life space program would. SpaceX surly doesn’t groan when NASA asks for another resupply mission to the ISS, and I want to play as such. Is it tedious? Yeah it is, that’s not a bad thing for everyone. 

Adding back a true career mode would take nothing away from you science people. I’m not understanding why some are so defensive. No one is forcing you to play the way you want. Yet us career folk are being forced to play the way science people want. Point to all the things you hate about career mode, and you’ll find others who love those exact same points. Why should it not exist just because you don’t like it? Science & Career can both happen in KSP2 without one impeding the other. None of this “I don’t like to play that way, so you shouldn’t either!” Attitude. 

 

6 hours ago, Jaypeg said:

I think the problem is mostly missions/$ making poeople play the most efficiently they can in a bad way - just grinding for hours before anything fun.

You dont want that

I do want that. Others want that. You might not want that, but we are out here. Our gameplay desires wouldn’t even affect the way you enjoy science. The same goes for the reverse. 

2 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Yeah, I get your point. Just saying, keep money optional.

This is the entire point! I don’t want to force you to play a certain way, I don’t want PD to force me to play a certain way. 

[Spicat]

10 minutes ago, Icegrx said:

Adding back a true career mode would take nothing away from you science people.

Beside the equivalent to career mode in ksp2 being a long way out (not with cash but resources), the only thing I can think of is development time, it all comes down to that.

Some want priority spent on different things. For instance, visual enhancements are for me a really important feature, for others it's useless and they shouldn't spend time on that. The only problem of having options for everything is time.

Edited April 30 by Spicat

[Icegrx]

9 minutes ago, Spicat said:

Beside the equivalent to career mode in ksp2 being a long way out (not with cash but resources), the only thing I can think of is development time, it all comes down to that.

Some want priority spent on different things. For instance, visual enhancements are for me a really important feature, for others it's useless and they shouldn't spend time on that. The only problem of having options for everything is time.

I do agree with you on this. Time is precious. 
id be happy just seeing a confirmation that they plan to add these things down the road. Somewhere between resources and multiplayer would work for me. I can be patient as long as the communication is there. 

[Fizzlebop Smith]

3 hours ago, Spicat said:

Beside the equivalent to career mode in ksp2 being a long way out (not with cash but resources), the only thing I can think of is development time, it all comes down to that.

Some want priority spent on different things. For instance, visual enhancements are for me a really important feature, for others it's useless and they shouldn't spend time on that. The only problem of having options for everything is time.

 

Isn't that kind of the whole point though?

We are a long way out & have no idea what's *really* planned. I keep hearing that resources will somehow *fix* the gameplay loop.

I would love to hear someday feedback on how they are going to (specifically) address the gameplay loop geared at career players.

If I have to get to the Mun.. or Minmus before interstellar flight is possible, so what? The only way I  see resources having that kind of impact omis of I have to manufacture metholox before I get to leave Kerbin.

So far that doesn't really *feel* like it aligns with dev expectations. Do to no official word.. I cannot help but feel it never will be, and there will never be an official mechanic analogue to career.

It seems at this point, by releasing exploration as the answer.. makes me as a career player.. feel shafted.

Edited April 30 by Fizzlebop Smith

[Superfluous J]

42 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

If I have to get to the Mun.. or Minmus before interstellar flight is possible, so what? The only way I  see resources having that kind of impact omis of I have to manufacture metholox before I get to leave Kerbin.

So far that doesn't really *feel* like it aligns with dev expectations. Do to no official word.. I cannot help but feel it never will be, and there will never be an official mechanic analogue to career.

It seems at this point, by releasing exploration as the answer.. makes me as a career player.. feel shafted.

It seems to me you're setting up the rules so you cannot be happy, and then are being not happy as a result.

43 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

I would love to hear someday feedback on how they are going to (specifically) address the gameplay loop geared at career players.

I too would like this, but am content to wait until they actually say something specific about it before I decide I won't like it.

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Icegrx said:

The reality is, you can have both a science mode and a career mode. There’s absolutely no need to forego one for the other.  Well, at least in the reality of KSP1. 

You hate the grind? You hate making rockets as efficient as possible? That’s absolutely fine, you can play science mode, it’s there for you. It doesn’t make you less of a KSP player and no one is forcing you to do different. 

The problem, there are those of us who love career mode. The grind gives us a nicer feeling of progression. We thoroughly enjoy the early phases of getting everything we can out of as little cash as possible. We like earning cash from missions as a real life space program would. SpaceX surly doesn’t groan when NASA asks for another resupply mission to the ISS, and I want to play as such. Is it tedious? Yeah it is, that’s not a bad thing for everyone. 

Adding back a true career mode would take nothing away from you science people. I’m not understanding why some are so defensive. No one is forcing you to play the way you want. Yet us career folk are being forced to play the way science people want. Point to all the things you hate about career mode, and you’ll find others who love those exact same points. Why should it not exist just because you don’t like it? Science & Career can both happen in KSP2 without one impeding the other. None of this “I don’t like to play that way, so you shouldn’t either!” Attitude. 

Again though resources can accomplish all of that, and I would argue resources are a better fit for KSP because its more like crafting than purchasing and creates natural rather than artificial goals to go out and gather and process them. Missions are okay for folks who like direction but without resources KSP isn’t really a full and open sandbox experience. 

[Flush Foot]

36 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

without resources KSP isn’t really a full and open sandbox experience

Wouldn't it be closer to "without resources [or other limitations], KSP is only a sandbox experience"?

[Fizzlebop Smith]

1 hour ago, Superfluous J said:

It seems to me you're setting up the rules so you cannot be happy, and then are being not happy as a result.

I too would like this, but am content to wait until they actually say something specific about it before I decide I won't like it.

What rules? I'm curious about the method in which the proposed resources will address  core gameplay loops in manner more analogous to career.

I do not see how that will be done. 

I keep seeing resources are the answer. Will resources prevent me from launching a 200t mega rocket 20 minutes after start up? 

No rules there, just uncertainty on how it will reconcile into some sort of experience similar to what I enjoyed about KSP1

If so, awesome. How? Can we get a dev blog on the cliff noted regarding each stop of the roadmap.

No, why not?

.So far (like everything outside the realm of "ooh pretty") has largely been unaddressed.

The Only Real Rule I have regarding EA is that the developer "maintain timely and effective communication about the current state and planned direction of the game

I did make that one up. As long as that is observed, I remain content by & large.. even if I feel the gameplay is abyssmal. 

 

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Flush Foot said:

Wouldn't it be closer to "without resources [or other limitations], KSP is only a sandbox experience"?

Oh yeah I guess I should say sandbox in the broader sense of the word rather than as we've known it in KSP, an open building environment sans progression and story elements. 

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

What rules? I'm curious about the method in which the proposed resources will address  core gameplay loops in manner more analogous to career.

I do not see how that will be done. 

I keep seeing resources are the answer. Will resources prevent me from launching a 200t mega rocket 20 minutes after start up? 

No rules there, just uncertainty on how it will reconcile into some sort of experience similar to what I enjoyed about KSP1

If so, awesome. How? Can we get a dev blog on the cliff noted regarding each stop of the roadmap.

No, why not?

.So far (like everything outside the realm of "ooh pretty") has largely been unaddressed.

The Only Real Rule I have regarding EA is that the developer "maintain timely and effective communication about the current state and planned direction of the game

I did make that one up. As long as that is observed, I remain content by & large.. even if I feel the gameplay is abyssmal. 

 

From AMAs and what we know so far, "resources" will prevent you from using this or that part on your craft until you have set up a mining site and a logistics path to your launch site. Does a part just require the presence of a resource? Does making the part and launching consume x amount of resources? well, they haven't specified yet, though I'm pretty sure it's the first to unlock it in the tech tree, and the second to build the parts and launch them as part of a ship.

Welcome to them waving hands in the air about stuff when they hadn't even designed the heating system for the science update yet at the point they talked about these things.

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

What rules? I'm curious about the method in which the proposed resources will address  core gameplay loops in manner more analogous to career.

I do not see how that will be done.

Therefore they cannot do it?

Note, I have no idea if they can do it or not. I have no idea if they have an answer or not. I'm just not basing my opinion of a game that's not even playable on what I can think of and what I can imagine them doing.

It just seems like you're pre-disappointing yourself to make sure when colonies come out, you're ready for the real thing.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

46 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Therefore they cannot do it?

Note, I have no idea if they can do it or not. I have no idea if they have an answer or not. I'm just not basing my opinion of a game that's not even playable on what I can think of and what I can imagine them doing.

It just seems like you're pre-disappointing yourself to make sure when colonies come out, you're ready for the real thing.

Did i say therefore they cannot.

Nah.. but you infered that so there would be one more step to facilitate climbing that high horse.

My disappointment Is related to the lack of definitive insight into how they will approach this.

Notice the vocabulary usage "I Do not see"

VS the distinctly different "There is no way they will ever be able to"

Edited April 30 by Fizzlebop Smith

[Jaypeg]

13 hours ago, Icegrx said:

I do agree with you on this. Time is precious. 
id be happy just seeing a confirmation that they plan to add these things down the road. Somewhere between resources and multiplayer would work for me. I can be patient as long as the communication is there. 

yes, of course they will add it.
its one of the  roadmap milestones

6 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

From AMAs and what we know so far, "resources" will prevent you from using this or that part on your craft until you have set up a mining site and a logistics path to your launch site. Does a part just require the presence of a resource? Does making the part and launching consume x amount of resources? well, they haven't specified yet, though I'm pretty sure it's the first to unlock it in the tech tree, and the second to build the parts and launch them as part of a ship.

Welcome to them waving hands in the air about stuff when they hadn't even designed the heating system for the science update yet at the point they talked about these things.

yes its called having a plan. Its the first step in the  design process, after brainstorming

We will get more info when we get closer to the date

 

[cocoscacao]

37 minutes ago, Jaypeg said:

We will get more info when we get closer to the date

Yeah... but... the title of this thread... Beating the dead horse one more time, it has decreased.... a lot!

[RUD Everyday]

It has been officially 3 months since the last update for the game

[NexusHelium]

12 minutes ago, gfdgfherytrey said:

It has been officially 3 months since the last update for the game

SoonTM

[Jaypeg]

2 hours ago, gfdgfherytrey said:

It has been officially 3 months since the last update for the game

I we are currently 14 days beyond the average update time. We will most likely get a big update within the next 2 weeks.