It's not about resources, it's about goals, right? So what are the options?

[allmhuran]

All of the angst about resources is not, I expect, strictly about resources as such. Consider... what is it, exactly that people like about the idea of resources? Speaking for myself, and several other regular posters who have explicitly stated this, and perhaps the forum in general, the thing that we liked about resources was that it gave us some kind of "objective", or goal.

But what exactly do we mean by that? Does the science system do the same thing? That's also a goal... but several players, including myself, see a difference. In fact, given that the squad statements are to the effect that resources were turning out to be grindy, I suspect that squad was discovering that resources worked too much like science points, and we have already experienced the "grindy" problems with science points.

So, here's the dealL KSP is, at its core, a sandbox. So when we talk about goals and rewards, what would we mean? Here are some common objective-reward types.

1) Plot advancement. This one is obvious, but KSP does not, and will not, be a game based around a plot, so the objective-reward system in KSP can't be to advance the plot with the reward of seeing how that plot unfolds.

2) An alternative to a plot based game is an empire building game. Terraria is such a game. While there is no plot, there are a number of stages of progression through the game, from basic mining, to crafting, boss fights, a transition to a whole new mode with interactions between various parts of the environment, and so on.

3) An extension to empire building games is to see how the "total system" you have built behaves under the various automatic processes that occur within it. The canonical example here would be Sim City. There are certain processes occurring... traffic, population movement, etc, and as you build your empire your challenge is to optimize these processes, with the reward being a well functioning, elegant system where, say, traffic flows perfectly, the population is happy, and so on. Tycoon games would fall into this category.

4) There are other kinds of objective-reward systems as well that are, conceptually, simpler. For example, an entertaining little pre rendered video when the player achieves something is an objective with a reward. A lot of older games fall into this category - simple shoot-em-up games with a little cutscene once you have won the game.

I think what most people expected from resources would be a conversion from a pure sandbox into a type 2 or possibly type 3 game, in which your space program is a form of empire you would be building, because that is the kind of thing that people who have done a lot in the game tend to do by default. They have bases everywhere, satellites everywhere, fuel stations, big intersterllar motherships in various places, and so on. What they are missing right now is something that connects all of those disparate things together into some kind of unified whole... an empire if you will. It's easy to see why resources would play a role in a game like that (analogously, ores in Terraria). And so the fact that Squad has dropped resources may suggest to some people that they have dropped the concept of making that transition.

But there are a couple of problems with that expectation. First, as far as I know Squad has not said whether or not that kind of shift in gametype was something that they intended to develop, so assuming that resources was leading up to that might be mistaken. Second, if Squad do intend to make that transition, there may well be other ways to implement it that do not require resources in the way that we have been discussing them.

So I put the question to the readers out there: What kind of objective-reward gametype would you ultimately like to see?

Type 0 - strict sandbox, just what we have now. No change.

Type 1 - Plot based (this seems unlikely)

Type 2 - Empire building

Type 3 - Empire building with systemic interactions.

Type 4 - Identical to type 0 but with "cute" rewards, like little cutscenes on certain achievements.

Type x - Something else! Describe your own (but I don't think I've left much out here, so be clear about why it's a different category)

Edited December 16, 2013 by allmhuran

[ArmchairGravy]

Ah, a good discussion.

From the KSP web page: "KSP is a game where the players create and manage their own space program. Build spacecraft, fly them, and try to help the Kerbals to fulfill their ultimate mission of conquering space."

So, KSP is a space program simulator. NASA Tycoon, so to speak. Type 3 on the list.

What is the purpose of a space program? To me it is to put payload x at point y. Deliver this satellite to geosynchronous orbit, place this base on Minmus, take this rover and land it on Duna. Frankly, I would have gone this way with the game instead of going with science. A space program is supposed to deliver science vehicles. JPL does the science that NASA delivers. So now we have NASA/JPL Tycoon. Which is fine by me.

What does it mean to conquer space? This is where people stand up on their soapboxes and start yelling. Is it to fully unlock a tech tree? Is it to have manned returns from every planet and moon? Is it to exploit the natural resources of a solar system? All of the above plus keeping your customer base happy while fending off rival programs? Building a death star and blowing Kerbal to smithereens? What does conquering space mean to you? Probably something different than me.

Thus Squad is in the unenviable position of either trying to please everyone and failing, or focusing on a few core features and failing to please everyone. Either way they have unhappy customers who feel they don't have the tools to conquer space.

[tntristan12]

Goals, yes. Goals, goals, goals! Right now there aren't many goals, which is why so many people were dead set on resources. Because resource gathering is a major objective for real-world space agencies. Even severely defunded NASA has plans to go mine asteroids for the time being. Living off the land is a primary objective for any permanent base on another world - just look at the existing concepts for a Mars colony.

Resource gathering is not just about getting more fuel and oxidizer for the return trip, or building ships off world and sending them farther out (although that is a definite bonus). This I feel is the limitation to the Kethane mod, and the primary reason why I would like to see it built in to the stock game - so that it can be fully integrated with a host of new, useful, and far more interesting features. I'd love to see life support become a thing. Building munar habitats out of local regolith! Perhaps scooping the oceans of eve for a rare fuel that would allow you to power interstellar technology.

Resources are not just about resources, so if Squad is able to allow the expansion of KSP into these kinds of areas without adding resources as they were initially outlined I guess I'd find that to be a good compromise. I just want to see there be a clear progression of challenge and content, eventually culminating with the settling of other star systems. Is it wrong to dream?

[Themohawkninja]

Something like type 2.

While type 3 would be nice, such optimizations would probably amount to any sort of "better" engine. It seems quite clear that Squad doesn't want there to be engines that are better than others, but rather that there should be engines that fill certain niche roles that others can't. Implementing "better" engines would also be quite pointless in the case of sandbox mode, because there wouldn't be much point in using the inferior engines, and therefore less parts would be utilized by the player.

[regex]

I suppose from your descriptions here that a type 2 game with type 0 goal definitions is what I'm looking for in KSP. Progression is fun but having the game define my goals for me (ala set missions or "scripting") rather than providing opportunities to set my own goals isn't.

Furthermore, I believe that resources should be something you do when you get there, not be the reason that you are there. They should allow interesting mechanics such as replenishing life support or in-situ fuel production, but shouldn't be some grindy requirement in order to get currency (the current Kethane model satisfies the replenishment requirement to a certain extent but is itself grindy). Gathering resources should be an active part of gameplay, not a passive exercise in physical timewarping.

Edited December 16, 2013 by regex
Clarifying my Kethane statement.

[tntristan12]

I agree with regex. There should be many different means of gaining currency/reputation/whatever measure of success Squad eventually wants to go with, but I feel like resources are one of the most important of those. Science works very well in helping advance the tech tree, and maybe could also contribute to reputation as well. We do need some other goals, or ways of accomplishing this however. Generally I feel the more mechanics though which a player can approach success, the better.

[Kegereneku]

It may surprise people, but I've never believed they would introduce the "ship building" type of resources, and I sincerely don't think KSP have any use for that. (edit : aside from fuel making I mean) Space Exploration is a matter way to serious, hard, and dangerous to just be a matter of mining and selling stuff. (there's no way to make it economically viable anyway)

So I really wouldn't be surprised if the "Tycoon" things was only a way to attract more people than if they sold the game as "secure a budget to explore hard to reachother planet with unmanned rover without meeting a single alien".

Considering your list. I think we should just talk of "Progression" rather than "empire building". Put aside the 2 others planned mechanic "Money" and "Reputation" the game is primarily driven by what technology you dispose of, and the "end of the game" even if there isn't any could be considered as the point where you got enough science to get all technology and managed to at least send probes to the surface of all planets and moons.

The way you do it may lead you to "build an empire"... of support ship and space station, but ultimately they were only a mean to a goal.

It's not a matter of exploiting planets.

It's not a matter of claiming planets as ours, even if we do plant flag as old conqueror.

It's unlikely to be a riveting plot of action, romance and adventure leading to the saving of the world from asteroid then the alien conspiracy who pushed the asteroid, culminating to a final battle against a Kardashev Type II Civilization (google that).

So at best it's a question of pride and exploration (or maybe the other way around).

Myself I'm an Engineer so I couldn't care less about amassing untold wealth as long as I'm given new technology to toy with and objective to challenge me.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Kegereneku

[Smidge204]

Being a sandbox game at heart; Type 0. You have to make your own goals.

Career mode adds only a little bit to it, IMHO. Throws up a few extra hurdles to increase the challenge, but does not fundamentally change the nature of the game. Resource gathering is just another set of hurdles between you and what you want to do. I do not mean to make this sound like a bad thing, but that's exactly what it would be.

In a game like this, if you can't keep yourself entertained by making your own goals, then it will very quickly lose it's "flavor" and value. Add in career mode and resources, fine... but if you can't make your own goals, then the game is "over" once you've filled out the tech tree and built all the resource gathering whatever you could ever possibly need. Now what? Start over again? Meh.

The real problem with resources as a "goal" is it presumably requires maintenance. It's something you have to do on a continual basis even if you really want to do something else. That's what makes it a grind. At least with science, the goal can be accomplished (full tech tree), you get that satisfaction and can move on to something else. If you are required to gather resources, then you will always be required to gather resources no matter what, and that's a pain. That, I think, is why it was shelved.

OTOH if you're not *required* to do it then there's almost no point, unless it's to merely find a resource and put a magic machine there that extracts it for you indefinitely, in which case it's just like Science but under a different name; do it once and forget.

=Smidge=

[allmhuran]

Just to be clear, my post isn't about wanting resources back. I'm simply pointing out why, in my opinion, there has been such a big backlash about its removal. Personally I think that there might be other ways to achieve the objective-reward mechanic, and that's what my list is all about, so I'm not too fussed... but I did think resources seemed like an obvious one.

Progression is fun but having the game define my goals for me (ala set missions or "scripting") rather than providing opportunities to set my own goals isn't.

Yep, as we've discussed in other threads, I definitely agree with this. But I don't think there's any conflict here. Sim City lets the player do whatever they like, there's no set missions, and yet there is still the persistent, long term goal (optimize your city)

The real problem with resources as a "goal" is it presumably requires maintenance. It's something you have to do on a continual basis even if you really want to do something else. That's what makes it a grind

(...)

f you're not *required* to do it then there's almost no point, unless it's to merely find a resource and put a magic machine there that extracts it for you indefinitely, in which case it's just like Science but under a different name; do it once and forget.

I'll reply to your second statement there first because that's an easy one. I totally agree with this. Indeed, the issue that I have with KSP at the moment, the reason why I'm not having as much fun as I think I could be, is because it feels to me like all I am doing is adding art, in the form of still life pieces composed of landers, rovers, etc, to an otherwise static and lifeless universe. As you say, if "resources" just means you can send a machine and have it sit there doing "resource gathering", but with nothing stemming from that, well, that's just another still life you have sitting out on a planet somewhere. I build my rocket, get my cool Duna base, and... what? Look at it. It doesn't do anything. I'm just building an art gallery.

But I don't agree that empire implies tedious manual maintenance, nor that maintenance implies grind. All Tycoon games involve adding pieces to your system which then change something about the state of the whole system from that point forward. In most of them this just happens automatically, so there's no grinding. Now, that kind of automation would be difficult to achieve in KSP for resources. What we'd need would be something like the automatic movement of those resources around the system - which I'm not sure is really feasible. And this may well be precisely why resources are not the best way to switch from pure sandbox to something more Tycoon-y. Perhaps it could be done though - perhaps you could launch your tanker and "program" it to travel back and forth between Kerbin and Duna moving resources from the Duna mining base to your giant space station in munar orbit.... but that would be automating the parts of KSP that are absolutely fundamental to the gameplay, like mechjeb on steroids, and I don' think this would be a good path to go down.

Nevertheless, it's certainly not the case that an empire mechanic necessitates grinding, else we would be saying that games like Sim City, which are games about nothing but empire building and maintenance, are nothing but grinds.

Edited December 17, 2013 by allmhuran

[ArmchairGravy]

Smidge, I'm not sure I can agree with KSP being a sandbox at heart. Remember, it's "create and manage". There is a sandbox mode, which covers the "create". Now Squad is working on "manage", of which science is a part. What form will the rest of "manage" take? A lot of people were chomping for resource management. I'm not really one of them, although I have enjoyed the Kethane mod and wouldn't mind seeing a few more resources scattered about. That being said, the resourcing flowchart was a complicated mess, and did not look at all fun. I think that resourcing would be a nice option, just like having all of the different planets and moons provide options for gameplay. Since Squad is a small development house they must maintain a focus on providing a fun and rewarding game experience for all players. I think they've nailed it to the wall so far. They can't devote their resources to providing all of the options that different people want, but have instead let the modding community provide them. The modding community was the first to have multiplayer.

The question remains: What form will the rest of "manage" take? I think multiplayer is being tackled by Squad so they can get some base code put together before erecting the House of Manage. What I'd like to know is the floor plan for this house. We know there is a science room, and I've heard that there will be a mission room and a reputation alcove. Is that all or will there be more? I don't really care one way or another as I'm perfectly happy with what I have. I'd just like to know what Squad thinks the house will look like, and am not sure they even know yet.

[Eric S]

All Tycoon games involve adding pieces to your system which then change something about the state of the whole system from that point forward.

This is actually close to my first impression of what Harvester said during KerbalKon. The problem they had with the resources system that they had laid out was that it was a micromanaging grind and not fun. I've said as much about Kethane. Yes, it enables me to do more interesting missions, but the enjoyment came from those missions, not from finding/mining/processing kethane. I got the impression that Harvester wanted to find a fun way to enable the same types of missions if possible (or at least non-grindy), and would rather not put something that is pure grind in the game and then suffer backlash from removing it if/when they came up with a better solution.

[allmhuran]

Absolutely, I believe that is exactly what is going on.

[S4qFBxkFFg]

...the issue that I have with KSP at the moment, the reason why I'm not having as much fun as I think I could be, is because it feels to me like all I am doing is adding art, in the form of still life pieces composed of landers, rovers, etc, to an otherwise static and lifeless universe. As you say, if "resources" just means you can send a machine and have it sit there doing "resource gathering", but with nothing stemming from that, well, that's just another still life you have sitting out on a planet somewhere. I build my rocket, get my cool Duna base, and... what? Look at it. It doesn't do anything. I'm just building an art gallery.

I'm glad this point has been raised, because that (combined with a space/flight sim) is exactly how I'd like "my" game to be. In real-time strategy games, I always preferred construction of my base/castle etc. to the pitched battles. I can't comfortably say this makes me an artist, it's just the way I prefer to play the game. I don't think I'm alone here.

Following that thought, I think my ultimate goal with KSP would be to turn the Kerbal civilisation into a multi-planet sustainable one so that even if Kerbin sustained multiple Chicxulubs, the Kerbals could still survive and flourish. In this scenario, some sort of resource extraction and processing would be absolutely necessary.

However, I don't think the goal I've just described is something that can realistically be put into KSP version 1.0, at least not in a form we could best appreciate.

Summarising the above, I'd like resources, but I'm happy to wait and see what the devs come up with next - for all I know it could be something I'd find more enjoyable.

Just don't forget that some of us like creating a "masterpiece" we can sit back and admire - it should be possible to keep us happy whilst also satisfying those who prefer different aspects of the game.

[allmhuran]

I'm glad this point has been raised, because that (combined with a space/flight sim) is exactly how I'd like "my" game to be. In real-time strategy games, I always preferred construction of my base/castle etc. to the pitched battles.

I totally get where you're coming from.

I spent the last several nights building my home base in terraria. I planned it out so that the NPCs would be a long way from the ground so that mobs could spawn at ground level. Then below it a bit of an arena, with a lava moat, dart traps, some walls to constrict where the mobs could go, and I even had my crab engine gel factory at the point where I intended to stand during battles so that I could farm gel while also farming materials from the spawned mobs.

I only actually used the whole thing twice.

But I think the important thing was that I *could* use it. After I had built it I was able to "test" it and see if it worked. Once I knew that, I didn't really care anymore. Similarly, in an RTS, the base construction seems to be the fun part as long as it is possible, at least in theory, to test your creation somehow.

Right now in KSP this mechanic works perfectly well for rocket building. You build the rocket, and then you get to see if it works. Does it fall apart, does it get into orbit, can you land it somewhere? Great stuff.

But what was the reason for building the ship in the first place? In Terraria I built my base to house my mobs and allow me to keep enemies out (and farm them). My ship in KSP doesn't have a similar reason to exist. It would be like terraria without the mining, mobs, or NPCs. Basically just a different kind of MS paint.

[DaMichel]

Instead of the grindy stuff (science included) i would much rather see a mission based progression with a cost system. This seems to be half way implemented and then abandoned unfortunately.

Basically the game would give you goals like bring instrument X to planet Y and you would earn money for completing the mission and a recycling bonus for bringing stuff back for reuse. You'd have some starting money and most parts would be available. The limiting factor would be money (just like in real life i guess ) and you would have to try to build your rockets as efficiently as possible. Ofc you'd have to pay for each part on a ship for each launch. You could make test launches for free. Revert To Hangar would give a full refund.

Mission would start easy, like making a suborbital flight, then become harder, ending with getting some science lab to jool and back or something like that.

[DaMichel]

But what was the reason for building the ship in the first place? In Terraria I built my base to house my mobs and allow me to keep enemies out (and farm them). My ship in KSP doesn't have a similar reason to exist. It would be like terraria without the mining, mobs, or NPCs. Basically just a different kind of MS paint.

KSP is IMO first and foremost a simulator with virtual Legos. Why do people play simulators? I mean flight sims. For the enjoyment of just flying around, and the challenge i guess. All Sim games that i know also have some sort of missions or campaigns: DCS, ToH, ARMA ... (see where i'm coming from). They just give you objectives. Go some place, deliver something, shoot something, etc.

I believe that this is a good direction to go in. Hence my suggestion in the post above. I'd also increase the difficulty level by adding more simulation aspects like life support and heat management (optionally i suppose). Don't get me wrong. The Lego aspect of KSP is big and totally justifies simplifying things.

[Smidge204]

But what was the reason for building the ship in the first place? In Terraria I built my base to house my mobs and allow me to keep enemies out (and farm them). My ship in KSP doesn't have a similar reason to exist. It would be like terraria without the mining, mobs, or NPCs. Basically just a different kind of MS paint.

This kind of gets back to my point about the game needing a large degree of self-direction. You look at it as putting bits of art around... but for me, the game is more about the process of getting that "art" in place, rather than the final product. Self imposed restrictions add challenge without the frustration of having a challenge forced upon you.

Not that I don't understand where you're coming from. Sure, at some point it gets tedious, but that's when you set yourself a new challenge. Restrict which parts you use, or how many, or force yourself to make every launch 1,000 tons MINIMUM. Use only SSTO space planes to build a Laythe base. Build a scale model of the Eiffel Tower on Eve using trusses and docking ports.

The question remains: What form will the rest of "manage" take?

Bingo. You can add resource management without grind. For example, you can either get an allowance, or you can earn based on mission performance (various ways to measure that), or you can add optional objectives with fixed budgets (Mission: Land a Kerbal on Duna for $20,000 or less), or impose deadlines or objectives. Or you could add resource management in the form of having to manually and endlessly collect it, which potentially means a lot of waiting and fiddling with things you don't necessarily care about just to get to the things you want to do.

What I think is most important is that whatever form it takes, the player is not OBLIGATED to participate in it for the entire game. At some point, I feel, the game should step aside and let you play how you want.

=Smidge=

[CaptRobau]

KSP is IMO first and foremost a simulator with virtual Legos. Why do people play simulators? I mean flight sims. For the enjoyment of just flying around, and the challenge i guess. All Sim games that i know also have some sort of missions or campaigns: DCS, ToH, ARMA ... (see where i'm coming from). They just give you objectives. Go some place, deliver something, shoot something, etc.

I believe that this is a good direction to go in. Hence my suggestion in the post above. I'd also increase the difficulty level by adding more simulation aspects like life support and heat management (optionally i suppose). Don't get me wrong. The Lego aspect of KSP is big and totally justifies simplifying things.

There are different kinds of simulators. Flight sims are about mastering flying various craft. They often have objectives/missions. KSP is like that, but also has elements of building sims such as SimCity. Those rely on interacting systems (industry attracts people with jobs, but also makes an area less desirable through pollution, etc.). Those games generally don't center around objectives or missions. This means KSP can't just be about missions, nor can it not be entirely without it.

[Moonfrog]

The main goals of space programs at least for most in the industry that are not business types trying to make money or glory names for themselves. Is exploration.

Imagine archaeological dig on another world, or a telescope satellite that lets you view planets at a distance, and see your own flag. Has to be something out there, for you to discover.

You could build a base with a listening post radar satilllite, you could get a message that says, strange signal detected, Probe xv9 originally thought to be lost has been discovered passing between the orbits of eve and moho. Should we go recover it and discover what it has found.

Or asteroid detected on collision course to kerbin, mount a mission to divert it or blow it up.

It needs random events, something out there that other than rocks. Also long term scientific experiments like that are not just click, but actually progress over time.

Why can't a sateliite put in orbit of something continually transmit data? provide a sort of Science leak, not just data points. You could get a scan of the planet or something.

Also you could be given ridiculous quest type missions, to discover is the Mun really made of cheese? bring back a sample to dertermin if this is true.

I see KSP and the kerbals as being fun, but I feel realism will destroy the fun of the game. Real life exploration is fun to do if your doing it, but its pretty boring, its just a bunch of rocks out there. I think we need to be more creative and get away from the realism aspect, not too much cos it is a space simulator but, its also a game isn't it?

[LethalDose]

There's some screwy logic going on here that seems to indicate that the devs and some players seems to think the resources are the goals.

In games that have resource management mechanics, the resources typically serve as a means by which to achieve goals, not the goal itself. So I really don't get the point of threads like that this state the "Resources aren't the point". They aren't the point directly, but are the point indirectly because they're a means to the end. You don't have to choose between goals and resources.

[LethalDose]

An explicit "solution":

Rocket parts cost money

Fuel costs money

Building and fueling large rockets to get to more distant targets (Moho, Jool, Doohoo) becomes cost prohibitive. Especially considering how much fuel is needed to get more fuel from the surface to LKO.

Securing your own fuel in orbit instead of purchasing it is a vastly more economic solution.

You pay for rocket parts, provide your own fuel, and get back to exploring the Kerbol system.

Resources as a means to achieve goals.

30 second solution.

[tetryds]

I belive missions will be our goals.

They will give us a reason to keep going.

And the further you go, and the more reputation you have, the harder it may get.

To the point that every single mission turns into a not-just-a-matter-of-money challenge, requiring you skills to accomplish.

KSP is not about ruleing the space, it's about proving to yourself that you can do it.

That's also why the game MUST remain hard, and never get easier, but simpler to learn.

KSP has a difficulty I cannot find anywhere else on the modern games, it's a game where if you fail you have to go back to the drawboard and plan everything again, not hit "retry" and keep going.

[allmhuran]

There's some screwy logic going on here that seems to indicate that the devs and some players seems to think the resources are the goals.

In games that have resource management mechanics, the resources typically serve as a means by which to achieve goals, not the goal itself. So I really don't get the point of threads like that this state the "Resources aren't the point". They aren't the point directly, but are the point indirectly because they're a means to the end. You don't have to choose between goals and resources.

The confusion here seems to be just about different kinds of goals. I agree that resources may be a means to achieve some other longer term objective. But the resource is also the objective with respect to some specific mission. In a game like sim city, you might say optimization is the ultimate goal. But that optimization will take place over the course of multiple player actions, and each of these is what you might prefer to call a milestone. The progression through the milestones that they player thinks are good choices in a very real sense is the game. For example, In Sim City you need to provide people a way to move around. So your short term goal is simply to build some roads that achieve that without blowing your budget. In other words, in Sim City the game gives you a reason why you should build roads. Over the longer term, one of your goals will be to optimize your roads and integrate them into a smoothly running city. The same kind of mechanic is true for all empire-building style games.

So, this thread is not at all about making a choice between goals and resources. I thought that was pretty clear from my list: it's about different kinds of objectives, progression, and ways of engaging the player, of which resources is one, and certainly not the only one. It's a thread about game design theory, not whether or not KSP needs a "resources" mechanic. There are completely different mechanics that serve the same purpose to the game design that have nothing to do with resource collection. The question is, which type of game do you want to design?

[ÄlveKatt]

Isn't KSP supposed to be an educational game? What I want is similar challenges that a real space colonisation program would face, with the possible solutions available based on NASA consultants and maybe Hard Science Fiction novels for some more exotic solution possibilites.

That said, a fun final goal would be to construct an interstellar generation ship and send it on its merry way.

[allmhuran]

<cynical mode>

I'm not sure KSP was originally designed to be an educational game as such, it's just a fun game that is also educational. But they have recently been getting a LOT of attention from people who may be willing to throw money at them if they focus more on making it specifically an educational game... which may be why we are seeing such a strong push by the devs to focus more on the new players (baby friendly) rather than working on the more advanced (challenging, interesting) stuff.

</cynical mode>