The BTSM/BTW divide

[FlowerChild]

That being said, the endgame of BTSM is therefore very enticing to me. I love the idea of having a fleet of reusable ships stationed around the solar system, using them to ferry cargo around to build bases on and above celestial objects. I really want it to make sense for me to do things like build a refueling base on Minmus or the Mun, shuttling propellant up to an orbital station, and having interplanetary vessels restock there in order to save 700dv on a trip out of Kerbin's SOI. And similar setups at Duna and elsewhere, etc. Though that sort of stuff is all possible in BTSM, the incentives weren't quite there yet for me. I think part of it was just that Tech9 was the end of the game, so why put in the effort if the fun was going to end immediately afterwards? A tech10 'you've beaten the game' node might be enough to overcome that reluctance for me though. Or some totally different challenge like the doomsday clock idea you've mentioned before.

Well, there's already a tech 10 "you win" node, which was one of the first things I added when I gained the ability to modify the stock tree, so you may be a bit behind in the updates ;)

But yeah, the end game is definitely something I want to work more on in the future for pretty much the same reasons that you mention. What's in there so far is just the beginning of that really, but for now I want to hold off on developing it any further as it looks like Squad potentially has their own base-development stuff coming in the next release. I'm not sure if it's only going to apply to Kerbin, or to other celestial bodies, but I do want to see what they put in before putting any additional time into it.

For the non-permanence argument, have any of you seen seen the persistent space station networks being built?

It's really only towards the end of the game though, so I can see why that aspect wouldn't be apparent to people going into it.

[Equitis1024]

Well, there's already a tech 10 "you win" node, which was one of the first things I added when I gained the ability to modify the stock tree, so you may be a bit behind in the updates ;)

Haha, awesome! Yeah, I took a break a while ago, and I guess I have not been following the BTSM thread as religiously as I thought I was. :)

I am hoping that Squad adds stuff that is useful to you! At least KSP development hasn't gone the way of Minecraft yet, where 'updating to a new version' means 'ripping out all the new features because they ruin everything'. ;)

[tedium]

honestly it's just ksp... one of the things i love in minecraft is building bases that are like frontier-stations, there for future benefit when you want to expand in a direction. the fact that the only way to build a space-station on the moon is to land one there is pretty much the sole reason why i get bored of playing ksp every time i go back to it. and i've looked at your mod a few times, even tried it once. it was great to be challenged, but beating a challenge isn't reward enough for me... i want an epic space base that can gather materials to build rockets to launch more missions to further places to build further bases and so forth until i own the galaxy and gather 90% of the suns power through a giant evil solar array that makes the sun look like a deathstar. i know, i'm a dreamer... what can you do

[Katalliaan]

I've gotten a bit bored of the stock system in KSP, so I've been playing using mods that change the system. The last thing I would want is to end up with a case where I either can't progress because I can't get the science or with a case where I can get a ton of science too easily. I've also been experimenting with FAR, which I know you have no interest in supporting.

Basically, I know you put effort into balancing it, and I don't want to throw away that effort by combining BTSM with the kinds of mods I want to use.

[FlowerChild]

I've also been experimenting with FAR, which I know you have no interest in supporting.

Well, I did try to support it as stock aero is one of my biggest pet peeves with the game. However, as was detailed in the related thread here, I wasn't happy with the end result, and threw away a lot of my own work once I accepted that.

What I found was that it didn't make the game hands down better. It improved some aspects while introducing a fair amount of rather obtuse complexity, unpredictable and rather odd results (like I really wasn't a fan of my rockets spontaneously inverting and rocking back and forth like a pendulum which felt very unnatural), and covering the screen in a very un-stock GUI.

When I asked people if they thought it made BTSM better, the answers pretty much echoed my own feelings on it: that things weren't really better, just different, and ultimately if that's the case I'd rather have fewer mod dependencies given each one increases the amount of work in supporting BTSM.

NEAR might have been a viable option once Ferram released that as it got rid of the GUI and some of the more arcane aspects of FAR, but I avoided it at first as it was being bundled with tracking software that I wasn't comfortable with. Now, Squad has announced in the past couple of weeks that they'll be revamping stock aero themselves, so it's definitely the wrong time for me to switch aero systems until they get that done, as it may result in me effectively having to do the same job twice in rebalancing for a new aero system.

Basically, I know you put effort into balancing it, and I don't want to throw away that effort by combining BTSM with the kinds of mods I want to use.

That's no different from BTW though, so not really related to this discussion. BTW is even less compatible with other mods, and it's even easier to run a separate instance with KSP.

[TheGatesofLogic]

I love BTW, and I very much enjoy BTSM, but they aren't quite on the same level. What I enjoy in pretty much everything is a highly complex environment, but that complexity should be from the interaction between multiple different things. In BTW I can enjoy a survival experience while developing the complexity as I go through my creations. In BTSM things are limited into singular 'parts' or 'missions,' and that doesn't help incredibly much with what I enjoy. When playing ksp the biggest joy I have ever had was constructing massive power relay networks in KSP interstellar, because of the complexity and permanence of those networks. Thus the biggest issue for me with BTSM is the simplicity. This comes in two ways. The first is in the way BTSM itself handles it's systems. The systems in BTSM are vastly less complex and require considerably less thought than the systems in KSPI for example. In my gameplay style less thought is a bad thing. The other aspect involves ksp itself, and in this regard I'm probably rather unique. For me KSP is trivially easy. By this I don't mean that the career mode is easy, which is pretty much universally known, but that all aspects of ksp from transfer windows to suicide burns to targeted landings and even to aerobraking are excessively simple and intuitive to me. So to justify this for me a lot of complexity has to be added, and I just don't see this in BTSM.

For the record, FlowerChild, I am not certain what you mean by your rockets suddenly inverting while using FAR... The only things that could even possibly cause that would be a design that is poorly constructed (if you design it like a pancake it will fly like a pancake) or you were trying to do a "gravity turn" that resembled a stock gravity turn (bad idea) or you were accelerating far too quickly with a strange design (Mach can be slightly unintuitive). Could you elaborate? I'm just curious because I've always enjoyed FAR because it made things far more intuitive, but also heavily rewarded learning the more advanced concepts as you go.

Also, FAR's data windows only really apply to planes, since they are designed for lateral flight, so they really shouldn't be encountered except by players who enjoy the complexity of aircraft building, though this is a terrible argument for leaving them as they are as it amounts to "if you don't like it, don't use it" which is one if those territories I loathe to enter.

Also, when did Squad mention an aerodynamics revamp? I thought that was all speculation?

[FlowerChild]

, I am not certain what you mean by your rockets suddenly inverting while using FAR... The only things that could even possibly cause that would be a design that is poorly constructed (if you design it like a pancake it will fly like a pancake) or you were trying to do a "gravity turn" that resembled a stock gravity turn (bad idea) or you were accelerating far too quickly with a strange design (Mach can be slightly unintuitive). Could you elaborate? I'm just curious because I've always enjoyed FAR because it made things far more intuitive, but also heavily rewarded learning the more advanced concepts as you go.

I wasn't flying a pancake man. I don't even do that in stock. In retrospect my angle of attack was probably excessive, which caused me to spin out of control, however that still didn't explain the pendulum type behavior that looked like someone was holding the rocket by a string and swinging it back and forth.

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about FAR either, as I get way more than my fill of those over on the KSP forums. Suffice it to say I did not find it improved the experience sufficiently to justify the ongoing maintenance cost it would have entailed.

[Stormweaver]

For the flipping issue - I remember back when I was testing the FAR version I often had to do stupid things like sticking a handful of flat rockomax adapters at the bottom of my lifting stages to offset the non-aerodynamic payloads. Any flat surface near the top of a rocket was a risk. But hey, enough about far, what with stock aero getting revamped for the scope complete version.

On topic, while I profess to enjoy BTW more, I find it a lot easier to just pick up and play BTSM when I'm bored - and drop it as fast - wheras on the rare occasion I do play BTW these days that's normally all I do for a week.

[Magnas]

I imagine a big part of it is probably the nature of the people who play the games.

Minecraft is easy. By nature and by design, it's overwhelmingly more creative. There's no emphasizing things like certain builds to prevent monsters from popping up. You just light the place with torches. Material is easy to come by and the real challenge is in MAKING a game to play.

KSP is creative with practical application. A pretty rocket that doesn't hit orbit is worthless when you're trying to get to the Mun. The beauty arises from the practicality and learning how the underlying mechanics work. Only once you understand it can you truly attempt to make it pretty. Your screenshot is a prime example- it's absolutely beautiful, especially for someone who is a casual space nerd. And it's beautiful BECAUSE it's functional and clearly put together with care.

The difference is that people who grew bored with Minecraft had an outlet with BTW's challenges. The overhaul of mechanics gave every single little thing you find a purpose. To borrow a line from the Stanley Parable demo: it's the buffalo of game design. Nothing is wasted.

KSP thrives on trial and error. The idea of a career mode works because it's about providing risk management, advancement, etc. But the creative mode was so immensely popular because, unlike Minecraft, there's still a challenge to it. It's not just, "pretty rocket!" You still have to practice and try different things.

The reason BTSM probably doesn't necessarily grab the same people is because the challenges present in the game are fulfilling enough or they're TOO challenging. It may be a simplified version of space travel to some degree, but it's still rocket science. A lot of people still play the game solely for the creative outlet and goofing off to see what they can create. So BTSM is there but it's not (yet) fulfilling a dire need for something unless you're an avid career player with qualms about the way the game plays.

At least, I'd guess that's what it is to some degree. It's definitely something that is in demand. Minecraft creative is completely different from KSP creative because Minecraft has no real function outside of redstone circuitry. But Minecraft survival isn't really "survival," which meant a lot of people got bored of it quickly. It's harder to get bored with interesting mechanics in something like KSP, I imagine.

[FlowerChild]

Well, don't get me wrong, I'm plenty happy with the audience BTSM has. This really isn't about that.

I'm asking more because the audience for the two mods is completely different, with a few notable exceptions that cross back and forth and enjoy both, not because either is lacking in that department. So, I was wondering what motivates people to enjoy one and not the other.

Trust me, there are plenty of BTSM players that probably wouldn't touch BTW with a ten foot pole :)

[dawnraider]

I tried BTSM when it was first released and kept playing it on and off for a couple months, but I eventually got bored of it and haven't come back since early .24. Part of that is the lack of permanence. I also didn't like trial and error sort of gameplay, just as a personal preference.

The technical side of the game also wasn't really to my tastes. I like the systems in BTW because I can visualize a system and how all the parts will fit together, and it is extremely intuitive for me. KSP, however, is not that way for me, and to put a ton of effort into a ship to have it fail miserably was extremely disheartening, and was the main thing that lead me to abandon the game.

[Ethinolicbob]

KSP, however, is not that way for me, and to put a ton of effort into a ship to have it fail miserably was extremely disheartening, and was the main thing that lead me to abandon the game.

I was in a similar category to you.
However this play through there are a lot of things like weight limits and far more refinement to the tech tree, this has stopped me from over-designing my ship and thus failing. Currently I am up to unmanned science at the Mun and I have only had no failed builds (only failed re-entry. Didn't notice the first pressurised manned probe no longer had a heatshield until the complementary science was unlocked)

[jakerman999]

I'm going to try and detail my own personal feelings on the matter, given that they're different from what's largely been expressed so far.

I find that Minecraft isn't so much a game, as it is a toy (a sentiment I've seen on these forums before), and that BTW forces it into a game. The added rules, challenges and complexity introduced by BTW make the program something that I play, rather than just play with.

A similar thing happens with KSP/BTSM, but there's a greater divide between the game and toy aspects as I perceive them. KSP is a toy that I enjoy, I can mess around, experiment, try outlandish things that occasionally work, and I'm given what amounts to a light guidance. BTSM on the other hand, is not my type of game. It feels more like a checklist of "this then that, followed by this" with the end result being mastery and victory, rather than the end result just being enjoyment.

There's also a loss of immersion comparing BTSM to BTW. BTW is an experience, it's something you can get lost in. I've never gotten lost in BTSM, every time I view the tech tree, or switch from hanger to launch, or even load a quicksave, I feel dragged out of the experience. These are all things that break the illusion of being in control. I suppose it isn't a very strong illusion in the first place (3rd person rocketry?) but in KSP that's ignorable because it's a toy. BTSM actually detracts from my enjoyment. Perhaps I'm missing some part of the appeal, but I suspect it's more a case of just not what I enjoy.

[devak]

It's not BTSM, it's KSP that drove me away.

I would've liked some permanence -true-. But most of all, i still feel like i'm launching rockets for the sake of launching rockets. Kind of how people in MC go about, build some cool houses and then that's it. BTW made it possible for me to like the game, as i felt it provided incentive. Not just incentive for digging up iron in the first place, but also incentive to build redstone contraptions, and even houses and villages.

KSP has absolutely none of that. I launch a ship, it goes somewhere, that's it. science is only a small motivator. Had they implemented the resource system, building new bases would be fun.

Lastly, i am sick of the repetition of launching rockets from the KSP facility.

[brab]

I play both. And I suck at both: in BTW I've finally managed to reach windmill stage, and I'm starting my search for diamonds (just to get netherhack: using lava to light wood blocks to cook food in a cauldron barely does the job). In BTSM, I'm still trying to get a kerbal in orbit (I can put stuff in orbit, but the pressurized pod is too heavy for my current rockets).

I really like both, but I find that BTSM is lacking something it used to have: ways to experiment. With the addition of money, I cannot just build rockets and try them: as soon as I see they don't work, I "revert to vab" and tweak them. I managed to get some cash through some contracts, but lost it all by killing a Kerbal (I landed in highlands, fairly slowly (9m/s) but the pod started rolling on the side of the hill and it exploded … I still need to unlock legs). So now doing anything is some grinding (cheap weather survey rockets) followed by more advanced rockets that usually don't work. I find that BTW does not have this grinding aspect: it's quite hard, but there is always something to do, and even dying can be fun (or a source of variety). Failing a mission in BTSM is never fun (it used to be when is would not cripple the game because of lack of funds).

To put it another way: BTW and BTSM both greatly enhance sandbox games by giving directions to them, but I find BTSM (and mostly KSP) restrict the sandbox aspects a little too much.

[FlowerChild]

Ok, going to lock this one down, not because anyone did anything here, but rather because as the days are going by having a thread devoted to things people dislike about something I've devoted so much time to is just getting downright depressing for me :)

Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I have a much better impression of the reasons behind the divide between the two audiences.