Limited Sandbox Discussion
- Thread starter NathanIsOnline
- Start date
I agree, but I still fail to see how that justifies cutting the grind at the point of ship design rather than easing the grind at the point of resource acquisition. You're saying "tedium bad" but treating one activity as sacrosanct for no logical reason.
Clearly its already an extremely compelling part of the game, analogous to combat. It's so compelling you're concerned you might have to stop doing it to get some more resources right? Doesn't that firmly place it in the payoff category? Building a larger/more complex device IS the payoff and ultimate goal of every other activity. It's the "fun part" for a ton of people, and all of that work is done in the design phase, not the build phase. Mind that once you've got the thing designed you literally have a tool to just spray it to life, and the capacity to completely automate that process.
If we're going to cut the tedium... shouldn't we be cutting the time spent doing the tedious parts of the game, like that mining space rocks you want to avoid so much?
That's hyberbole used by people upset about a change to squelch conversations that are the entire purpose of said discussion forums. Tyranny implies players dictate decisions by force. they don't, and never have, on any video game forum. Implying that they do displays a huge assumption about how development actually works compatred to the reality of how it works. Sometimes the vocal minority is right. Sometimes it isn't.
Clearly its already an extremely compelling part of the game, analogous to combat. It's so compelling you're concerned you might have to stop doing it to get some more resources right? Doesn't that firmly place it in the payoff category? Building a larger/more complex device IS the payoff and ultimate goal of every other activity. It's the "fun part" for a ton of people, and all of that work is done in the design phase, not the build phase. Mind that once you've got the thing designed you literally have a tool to just spray it to life, and the capacity to completely automate that process.
If we're going to cut the tedium... shouldn't we be cutting the time spent doing the tedious parts of the game, like that mining space rocks you want to avoid so much?
That's hyberbole used by people upset about a change to squelch conversations that are the entire purpose of said discussion forums. Tyranny implies players dictate decisions by force. they don't, and never have, on any video game forum. Implying that they do displays a huge assumption about how development actually works compatred to the reality of how it works. Sometimes the vocal minority is right. Sometimes it isn't.
Last edited:
The sandbox feature was already shelved due in large part to a 10 page thread championed by players who haven't even set foot in the game. Considering the fact that people periodically ask about it on discord and are disappointed to hear that it's been scrapped, and the fact that it was controversial even in that ten page thread, this isn't hyperbole. If I stop responding to this thread it's because I'm tired of posting 100 words and receiving 1200 word diatribes to wade through, not because there aren't people in the community that would like to see a sandbox.
I find this whole thread pointless. The whole premise of the OP is based on a fundamental misunderstanding: There WILL be a limited sandbox mode... it's called the ship designer. You will be able to create designs and fly them around to test basic functionality, all without spending resources to do so. Perhaps they will also implement some basic targets to shoot at and a couple asteroids to test mining as well, eventually.
Exactly what the OP requested - a limited sandbox mode, is already in the process of being made. And it will also have the benefit of existing inside of the game itself, making stations feel more alive and active as Vexus is promoting.
What's the debate here?
Exactly what the OP requested - a limited sandbox mode, is already in the process of being made. And it will also have the benefit of existing inside of the game itself, making stations feel more alive and active as Vexus is promoting.
What's the debate here?
He pointed out your usage of "tyranny" is hyperbole in context; players, and forum posters at that currently, have no power to impose any system on any game. You do not need to set foot in a game to know if it will be good, or if it will have flaws. Most people see a game trailer and know from that if they are interested in a game - they do not need to play it first to really know. People can see something nice, having never had said thing before, and like it, and know they'll like it, before buying it.
Likewise, of the thousands of games that have existed over time, certain things work, and certain other things don't. If Starbase is to become an MMO, an offline server mode for ship editing and flying around your own personal universe is detrimental to the MMO experience. You seem passively upset that the devs are attempting to craft their core gameplay around their own idea of having thousands of players interact in the same game universe, and are not instead making an offline sandbox for you to play in the sand within. I am not mad at the presence of safe zones, though I'd prefer a game without safe zones if at all possible. I recognize their need in the gaming market, and have gone so far as to realize and suggest that the safe zones need to be massive, so potential malicious players have no opportunity to mess with anyone who just wants to live inside the game world without conflict.
If you think an offline sandbox is somehow better for the MMO experience and for the longevity of the game, then present why - calling forum posters tyrants doesn't really further any discussion. As someone who is often a lurker on game forums, I know all too well what happens when the vocal minority screams and cries and begs for some feature and gets it - failure. No one here is screaming or crying or begging for a feature. Instead, people are pointing out that with Starbase, the things people want, like a ship editor, can be present in the single game universe that everyone else exists in, which will bring the game alive as people get to see each others' creations. In other words, if the net result is basically the same thing - design your ship in game much like the station designer mode (as Atreties pointed out), and that can be kept in the live game for others to be a part of, why not include that into the main MMO experience, and not have players dipping offline all the time to their own personal retreat? The key point is if the game doesn't have people moving around and doing things in your online virtual city, the game feels empty and people leave. Everyone is valuable. If the desire is to be an MMO, they need to not split their vision and resources into multiple game modes. They need to focus on one unified game experience for everyone.
I am not fond of people crying for features; it does often lead to ruin for games. My approach is to point out past successes and failures and point out, "If this is the goal for the game, these are the things that have failed in the past with other games, and these are the things that have worked in the past for other games, so we have some evidence of these things being good or bad for Starbase." It is then ultimately up to the devs to decide, as in all games, how to proceed. But my intention is nothing except the best outcome for Starbase.
Likewise, of the thousands of games that have existed over time, certain things work, and certain other things don't. If Starbase is to become an MMO, an offline server mode for ship editing and flying around your own personal universe is detrimental to the MMO experience. You seem passively upset that the devs are attempting to craft their core gameplay around their own idea of having thousands of players interact in the same game universe, and are not instead making an offline sandbox for you to play in the sand within. I am not mad at the presence of safe zones, though I'd prefer a game without safe zones if at all possible. I recognize their need in the gaming market, and have gone so far as to realize and suggest that the safe zones need to be massive, so potential malicious players have no opportunity to mess with anyone who just wants to live inside the game world without conflict.
If you think an offline sandbox is somehow better for the MMO experience and for the longevity of the game, then present why - calling forum posters tyrants doesn't really further any discussion. As someone who is often a lurker on game forums, I know all too well what happens when the vocal minority screams and cries and begs for some feature and gets it - failure. No one here is screaming or crying or begging for a feature. Instead, people are pointing out that with Starbase, the things people want, like a ship editor, can be present in the single game universe that everyone else exists in, which will bring the game alive as people get to see each others' creations. In other words, if the net result is basically the same thing - design your ship in game much like the station designer mode (as Atreties pointed out), and that can be kept in the live game for others to be a part of, why not include that into the main MMO experience, and not have players dipping offline all the time to their own personal retreat? The key point is if the game doesn't have people moving around and doing things in your online virtual city, the game feels empty and people leave. Everyone is valuable. If the desire is to be an MMO, they need to not split their vision and resources into multiple game modes. They need to focus on one unified game experience for everyone.
I am not fond of people crying for features; it does often lead to ruin for games. My approach is to point out past successes and failures and point out, "If this is the goal for the game, these are the things that have failed in the past with other games, and these are the things that have worked in the past for other games, so we have some evidence of these things being good or bad for Starbase." It is then ultimately up to the devs to decide, as in all games, how to proceed. But my intention is nothing except the best outcome for Starbase.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2020
- Messages
- 54
@Vexus o7
Thank you. I was trying to get this same point across to my buddy last night about why an offline mode is bad. I played EVE for years. I absolutely LOVE that game. If I didn’t have two kiddos and a wife at home, I would probably still have 2+ accounts and be scanning wormholes every day looking for Tengu’s to ambush ;D. Honestly, I could probably go back to EVE now and enjoy it somewhat, but the experience would be sort of boring for me at this point only because I wouldn’t have the time or be able to devote the attention to the combat aspect of the game.
As for Starbase, I cannot wait. I haven’t been this excited about a game since The Witcher 3. The fact that safe zones will exist makes the game much more attractive imo to those who do not have the ability to devote all attention to not getting murdered all of the time, but still want to build things and have fun with the MMO experience. I personally will spend a ton of time in safe zones probably in SSC to get the hang of what works, but then working on building things from scratch. But one of the major things that will attract people to Starbase besides the FPS, Ship building, and MMO aspects is the risk aspect. That is what attracts a ton of people to EVE. Why build a decent ship if you plan on PVPing? Why waste the time? Because what you do with that ship might actually (I’m hoping) change the current status of the game’s universe. No matter how large or small that change is, you have now changed the game, and people will see that in some way or another.
Thank you. I was trying to get this same point across to my buddy last night about why an offline mode is bad. I played EVE for years. I absolutely LOVE that game. If I didn’t have two kiddos and a wife at home, I would probably still have 2+ accounts and be scanning wormholes every day looking for Tengu’s to ambush ;D. Honestly, I could probably go back to EVE now and enjoy it somewhat, but the experience would be sort of boring for me at this point only because I wouldn’t have the time or be able to devote the attention to the combat aspect of the game.
As for Starbase, I cannot wait. I haven’t been this excited about a game since The Witcher 3. The fact that safe zones will exist makes the game much more attractive imo to those who do not have the ability to devote all attention to not getting murdered all of the time, but still want to build things and have fun with the MMO experience. I personally will spend a ton of time in safe zones probably in SSC to get the hang of what works, but then working on building things from scratch. But one of the major things that will attract people to Starbase besides the FPS, Ship building, and MMO aspects is the risk aspect. That is what attracts a ton of people to EVE. Why build a decent ship if you plan on PVPing? Why waste the time? Because what you do with that ship might actually (I’m hoping) change the current status of the game’s universe. No matter how large or small that change is, you have now changed the game, and people will see that in some way or another.
Last edited:
That's exactly what I said here. If they allow you to test your devices/wiring/YOLOL in the ship designer, and add some clay pigeons or dummy asteroids to shoot at, then I think most people will be satisfied. That isn't confirmed, though. All we've heard so far is basic flight testing and structural integrity checks.
I find it concerning that a person in charge of moderating discussion and quality controlling the content of forum posts both can't be bothered to "wade through" the forums, and directly demonizes members of said same forum because they have a difference of opinion.
Discussion isn't "tyranny"
No feature was cut due to a forum thread.
You know both of these things to be true yet you're incapable of admitting you're prone to the same bad takes as the rest of us.
I think you're leaving this thread because your positions have been dismantled and to admit this would erode your authority as a moderator and your theoretical street cred as a member of the community. You've displayed throughout this thread an inability to admit faulty positions, or indeed concede that your subjective opinion is not objective fact. In stead you've invoked your assumed authority to "steer the conversation" away from addressing the shortcomings of your own position, and when that failed, resorting to calling those who disagree with you "tyrants" posting "diatribes" that you, looking down upon we mortals can't be bothered to respond to.
I'm not convinced you're cut out for this job.
Discussion isn't "tyranny"
No feature was cut due to a forum thread.
You know both of these things to be true yet you're incapable of admitting you're prone to the same bad takes as the rest of us.
I think you're leaving this thread because your positions have been dismantled and to admit this would erode your authority as a moderator and your theoretical street cred as a member of the community. You've displayed throughout this thread an inability to admit faulty positions, or indeed concede that your subjective opinion is not objective fact. In stead you've invoked your assumed authority to "steer the conversation" away from addressing the shortcomings of your own position, and when that failed, resorting to calling those who disagree with you "tyrants" posting "diatribes" that you, looking down upon we mortals can't be bothered to respond to.
I'm not convinced you're cut out for this job.
As much as I appreciate that having a moderator icon paints a convenient target on my head, badgering people out of discussions with personal attacks and word-stuffing doesn't mean you've won the argument, it just means people are tired of putting up with you. I think it's important to remember that these discussions exist because we all are invested and excited about the game, and want it to be the best we can imagine. Things can get heated, but blistering flamebait doesn't make the game any better.
If my "street cred" is diminished by backing away from a polar position and trying to find a compromise, then so be it. I think with a few minor additions the in-game editor can make most people mostly happy -- you get your bustling, active stations (something I want too!), and you reduce most of the tedium in the ship design and iteration process. I certainly don't want people doing full combat tests for free in "VR" for example. I just want to make sure my YOLOL devices work and my guns are aligned properly before having to do a full build and teardown (and potential mining run for replacement materials) to fix a structural issue.
If my "street cred" is diminished by backing away from a polar position and trying to find a compromise, then so be it. I think with a few minor additions the in-game editor can make most people mostly happy -- you get your bustling, active stations (something I want too!), and you reduce most of the tedium in the ship design and iteration process. I certainly don't want people doing full combat tests for free in "VR" for example. I just want to make sure my YOLOL devices work and my guns are aligned properly before having to do a full build and teardown (and potential mining run for replacement materials) to fix a structural issue.
Last edited:
Some more information from Ville on Discord today about how the Starbase Station Creator (SSC) hangar system currently works:
That seems pretty solid to me. I'd be more than happy if that was the final feature set, especially if it was being done "visibly" in the hangar as it happens. Thoughts?
Code:
Recatek
@VilleFB [1stRCT] Can you test YOLOL and other devices (weapons) in the SSC?
VilleFB [1stRCT]
@Recatek Currently: yes to both. (I tried that some time ago so I don't know if its thing in release)
Recatek
Oh cool. How does it work? As you're designing a ship in the SSC can you just walk around on it and press buttons and such?
VilleFB [1stRCT]
Yes. you just enter "game mode" and fool around in the scene like it was real game
VilleFB [1stRCT]
But, I'm not sure if that's going to remain like that. LauriFB might have most up to date answer to that.Perhaps you should shy away from using hyperbolic and divisive rhetoric like "tyranny of the vocal" in the future. That was the moment this thread transitioned from reasonable discussion to flamebait.
This, your statement, was a clearly intended implication backed by the appearance of authority that people bullied developers in to a shift in development. You doubled down and elaborated in a second post this was absolutely the intent of that statement, and took an absolutely polar position, bemoaning a ten page thread and appealing to popularity by invoking "people on discord" as if their opinions are more valuable or valid because they disagree with the call the developers have decided to make.
You don't have a target on your head because you're a moderator. You were engaging in the very behavior you're supposed to prevent.
I called you out for passive aggressive shitposting because its literally your job to stop people from passive aggressive shitposting.
I hope you and everyone else can avoid this kind of pointless tribalism in the future and just talk about the game like normal human beings. If they can't, I'll call them out. If I can't, I hope you're around to call me out.
This, your statement, was a clearly intended implication backed by the appearance of authority that people bullied developers in to a shift in development. You doubled down and elaborated in a second post this was absolutely the intent of that statement, and took an absolutely polar position, bemoaning a ten page thread and appealing to popularity by invoking "people on discord" as if their opinions are more valuable or valid because they disagree with the call the developers have decided to make.
You don't have a target on your head because you're a moderator. You were engaging in the very behavior you're supposed to prevent.
I called you out for passive aggressive shitposting because its literally your job to stop people from passive aggressive shitposting.
I hope you and everyone else can avoid this kind of pointless tribalism in the future and just talk about the game like normal human beings. If they can't, I'll call them out. If I can't, I hope you're around to call me out.
I'll give you the last word on that topic. What do you think of the SSC feature set above? A reasonable sandbox compromise?
To be completely honest I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I was merely weighing in on the flaws in the economic arguments presented. I'd happily use either model, but can see real merits both ways. It was never going to make or break the sandbox either way, just influence the pipeline of vehicle design.
This particular model of "simulation testing" the basic functionality of a thing before trying to apply it looks to address what seems to be the largest concerns of all involved that do feel strongly about this. You'll still need to field test it for fitness for purpose, but you can rapidly prototype basic functions without clogging up airspace with half built spaceships.
This particular model of "simulation testing" the basic functionality of a thing before trying to apply it looks to address what seems to be the largest concerns of all involved that do feel strongly about this. You'll still need to field test it for fitness for purpose, but you can rapidly prototype basic functions without clogging up airspace with half built spaceships.
Right. I want to make sure my doors work, my engines are aligned correctly, and so on. If I can build a ship in the designer hangar, hop on the simulated version to press all the buttons and sit in all the chairs, fly it around a bit and fire the guns, that's the tedious part of the iteration process that I think should be abstracted out a bit. PvP combat testing is perfectly reasonable to expect to have to do with real paid-for ships. As long as once you get to that point you know it flies straight, shoots straight, and all the levers do what you expect them to.
Your asteroid hauler flies straight, but you'll need to pick up some rocks to see if the theory matches reality. Your combat ship might fly but does it turn fast enough to track targets? At some point the proverbial rubber has to hit the road and I think making that point be in world in stead of simulation seems like a good idea. Means enemies can spy on people fieldtesting new designs, adds a little economic risk and some intuition factors to design, etc.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2020
- Messages
- 11
Most of the arguments against sandbox mode rely on there not being any kind of testing being possible in the editor. If you can perform basic YOLOL, flight, and SI checks in the editor, the desire for R&D to be massively slowed or have a steep cost are both no longer relavent.
Since it's confirmed you're able to perform those simple checks in the editor already, there's not really any case against adding some asteroids, targets, and possibly allowing two ships to be spawned at once to test things like docking systems. The only remaining case to be had against a sandbox mode like this is that destructive testing can be carried out without cost. Personally I feel this should be allowed to help level the playing field between large and small groups; but if preventing weapons from doing damage is what it takes to get such a sandbox mode added to the game, I'm willing to make that compromise.
My desire to see a sandbox mode is wishing to see a time and convenience benefit for the ship design process more than any other reason; I have a full time job with an odd schedule IRL, I do not wish to waste my limited free time flying a ship to the asteroid belt and back 14 times to test a mining ship; or having to build and disassemble fighters while trying to keep track of drifting pieces of hangar as I try to get carrier system working.
Since it's confirmed you're able to perform those simple checks in the editor already, there's not really any case against adding some asteroids, targets, and possibly allowing two ships to be spawned at once to test things like docking systems. The only remaining case to be had against a sandbox mode like this is that destructive testing can be carried out without cost. Personally I feel this should be allowed to help level the playing field between large and small groups; but if preventing weapons from doing damage is what it takes to get such a sandbox mode added to the game, I'm willing to make that compromise.
My desire to see a sandbox mode is wishing to see a time and convenience benefit for the ship design process more than any other reason; I have a full time job with an odd schedule IRL, I do not wish to waste my limited free time flying a ship to the asteroid belt and back 14 times to test a mining ship; or having to build and disassemble fighters while trying to keep track of drifting pieces of hangar as I try to get carrier system working.
Right, you want to perfect your design offline without playing the game. This is the main point against an offline sandbox. You want to avoid the important trial and error which is generally present in every game, in the hopes the devs spend extra time creating this offline area for you to play the game in for free with no effort, no MMO component, so that you don't play the actual game - you only play the actual game after you've beaten it.
What you see as wasted time, is just part of the MMO experience. There's actual reasons to why an MMO generally has someone level up from Level 1 to Max Level. Why go through and kill all the stuff? Why explore the world? You're asking to reach max level instantly and bypass the 'time consuming' running around the world doing things. And that's where the problem is. Without people running around doing things, there is no MMO.
More specific to your quote, you can be fairly sure a ship that can hold a box, can also hold materials from mining. In other words... if you can fit a box in your ship, you're not going to need to test if you can mine. Likewise, if you need to 'simulate' hauling a full asteroid, well, you've got a lot of big objects around you to test with. Testing a cargo lock beam setup - use boxes. There's no real... complexity here. Since hauling in a full asteroid is a high reward, it should be an unknown for your first ship that attempts it. Likewise, a market develops where people sell ships of various sizes to haul in different sized asteroids. Slower, bigger ships, can grab bigger asteroids; in turn, those asteroids might be more infrequently found. These 'issues' will sort out extremely quickly as the community finds standard configurations that generally just work. You sitting around the game world testing cargo locks on boxes or maybe asking someone with an asteroid-sized ship if you can attempt to carry their ship to test your mining ship cargo lock beams is player interaction critical to the game world. The game cannot flourish without you being a part of it.
What you see as wasted time, is just part of the MMO experience. There's actual reasons to why an MMO generally has someone level up from Level 1 to Max Level. Why go through and kill all the stuff? Why explore the world? You're asking to reach max level instantly and bypass the 'time consuming' running around the world doing things. And that's where the problem is. Without people running around doing things, there is no MMO.
More specific to your quote, you can be fairly sure a ship that can hold a box, can also hold materials from mining. In other words... if you can fit a box in your ship, you're not going to need to test if you can mine. Likewise, if you need to 'simulate' hauling a full asteroid, well, you've got a lot of big objects around you to test with. Testing a cargo lock beam setup - use boxes. There's no real... complexity here. Since hauling in a full asteroid is a high reward, it should be an unknown for your first ship that attempts it. Likewise, a market develops where people sell ships of various sizes to haul in different sized asteroids. Slower, bigger ships, can grab bigger asteroids; in turn, those asteroids might be more infrequently found. These 'issues' will sort out extremely quickly as the community finds standard configurations that generally just work. You sitting around the game world testing cargo locks on boxes or maybe asking someone with an asteroid-sized ship if you can attempt to carry their ship to test your mining ship cargo lock beams is player interaction critical to the game world. The game cannot flourish without you being a part of it.
Last edited: