Jump to content

Care Packages make it unnecessary to leave the starting asteorid for much longer


Recommended Posts

Hi. I strongly believe that Spaced Out! should incentivise space travel. And althought it tries to do this - mainly by limiting what you can find on the starting asteroid (like oil or uranium) - care packages invalidate all this effort.

Lack oil? Wait like two hundred cycles (perfectly normal while you try to stabilise your colony) and you are highly likely to get a slickster. Reproduce them en masse and unless you need to swim in crude oil, you'll be alright without leaving the asteroid for another 500 cycles.

Lack a specific plant that doesn't grow on your asteorid? Again, wait a hundred cycles or so and you'll get it. Then plant it and multiply the seeds as needed.

Why aren't care packages restricted to only those materials, critters and plants that are already present (or were present) on the starting asteroid?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can deactivate care packages and you can deactivate teleporters if you want to make the game harder. There are option when you create a new map/cluster

  • Like 9
  • Health 1
  • Big Ups 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tobruk said:

 care packages invalidate all this effort.

3 hours ago, Tobruk said:

Why aren't care packages restricted to only those materials, critters and plants that are already present (or were present) on the starting asteroid?

Everything is entirely in your own control, you can make the choice to use it or not use it. the reason why it is in the care package is for those who are new or havn't learnt or quite simply don't want to make the effort to rush/go into space or want to achieve something long before they reach that point.

This concept is similar to vanilla as some maps lack things like slicksters or pips and space was the only way to get them (And vanilla space was far more hellish for new people with meteors and the need for medium stage or higher space rockets to consider getting critters from space).

In my opinion atleast, It's not a bad thing

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sakura_sk said:

You can deactivate care packages and you can deactivate teleporters if you want to make the game harder. There are option when you create a new map/cluster

Disabling care packages is not the same as making them less OP and nullifiying the core idea of Spaced Out. Wouldn't you think?

8 hours ago, Ntr1cate said:

Everything is entirely in your own control, you can make the choice to use it or not use it

I won't argue with that in the case of single player games - sure, you can decide what you use or shun. But when I first played Spaced Out i didn't realise it was this unbalanced. I'd rather trust the developers that what they offer me as choices has been thought-out extensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I`m pretty sure the plants don`t get offered via care packages until discovered, similar to resources. This woulkd at least require you to go into orbit of a world with the plants. Iirc critters obey a different rule due to the achievement in vanilla that wouldn`t be possible if you didn`t get critters without discovering them. They could change critter care packages to work like seeds and resources and it would partially fix that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sasza22 said:

I`m pretty sure the plants don`t get offered via care packages until discovered, similar to resources. This woulkd at least require you to go into orbit of a world with the plants.

I got 1 oxyfern seed on a planet with no oxyferns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tobruk said:

I got 1 oxyfern seed on a planet with no oxyferns.

Without ever seeing an oxyfern like on the teleport planetoid or from orbit? If so then it doesn`t work like i thought i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Sasza22 said:

Without ever seeing an oxyfern like on the teleport planetoid or from orbit? If so then it doesn`t work like i thought i guess.

I guess I saw the surface of the planet once through a teleporter access. But my dupes never put their feet there. And I don't know if the planet had any oxyferns at all.

Edited by Tobruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sasza22 said:

They could change critter care packages to work like seeds

Critters work like seeds:  you need to discover a critter egg in order for the critter or egg to be available in the printing pod.

There are several packages that don't need to be discover first in order to be available. These are: Algae, Briar Seed, Brine, Coal, Joya Seed, Mirth Leaf Seed, Nutrient Bar, Oxyfern Seed, and several more (they are all listed on the wiki if you want to check it)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tobruk said:

I guess I saw the surface of the planet once through a teleporter access. But my dupes never put their feet there. And I don't know if the planet had any oxyferns at all.

So it turns out oxyferns are an exception and don`t require discovery. But stuff like slicksters, dreckos, reed fiber or pokeshells need to be discovered first. Likely still hovering over the planet would be enough for the most part but you still need to go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just one more call to make everybody suffer, because somebody does not like one aspect. Which can already be switched off. Personally, I find absolutely nothing wrong with care packages and I think the claimed extreme negative effects do not exist at all. They are a pure fantasy. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Gurgel said:

I think the claimed extreme negative effects do not exist at all. They are a pure fantasy. 

and I think extreme negative effects definitely exist solely because some people get triggered and make insane arguments. As per the unwritten laws of modern society, we have to take these people seriously and do as they say (not as they do). Non-compliance will result in social ostracism and (false) allegations that make you lose your job and family.

but since the anonymity of the protects me, I shall cowardly call out the bulldung for what it is. If one really forgoes the more efficient space travel and manages to farm slick oil in viable industrial quantities, then that's their choice. Want a challenge? Then that's your choice. By no means is any of these choices forced and ultimately the charm of a game comes down to variety, achieved by flexibility, which does not make every playthrough the same.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2022 at 11:59 AM, Tobruk said:

Snip

As others have pointed out, accepting something or not is entirely under your control.

A player anecdote: was going for the usual grueling max diff carnivore locavore, with care packages. I had too many dupes and things were looking dire, when the pod offered me a healthy chunk of BBQ. "Run is saved, yay!" I thought at first. But then I said, "Thx game, but I'll manage this time. I can do this!" and refused It.

After some cycles dupes started dropping like flies. I restarted. 

Oh well.. was my decision :wilsondisapproving:

  • Haha 2
  • Sad Dupe 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/5/2022 at 8:08 PM, 6Havok9 said:

After some cycles dupes started dropping like flies. I restarted. 

Oh well.. was my decision :wilsondisapproving:

This is how you find things out. The whole point of ONI. Definitely not a game for people that cannot set themselves limits and goals. And remove the limits again. For example, I am now confident I have suits under control in basically all situations, even when the dupes decide loading all of them into a rocket is a good idea. Hence I very likely will play with suit degradation switched off in the future. I know how to do it, it is not a challenge anymore and I am not about to do the same thing twice. There are also a few things I have never done and may make my goal this or next colony. For example, I have never done research reactors and I have never done Slicksters for oil. 

Edited by Gurgel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can always disable  care package for the challenge.  Which I've done a few times.  

But regarding the issues about not having to leave the planet. That was always the case in almost every asteroid. So long as you have enough water for oxygen, it's always possible to not have to leave.       Care package does give you  more options to change your playstyle.   Like you said no oil  use slickster.   That would be different from what you would normally do for oil.     I like the backup /alternative  option rather than having no option and being cornered into a no win situation.   Such as not having plastic or fiber,  drekkos can help with that.

  It mixes up the game play. 

Edited by RonEmpire
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2022 at 4:01 AM, Tobruk said:

Disabling care packages is not the same as making them less OP and nullifiying the core idea of Spaced Out. Wouldn't you think?

I won't argue with that in the case of single player games - sure, you can decide what you use or shun. But when I first played Spaced Out i didn't realise it was this unbalanced. I'd rather trust the developers that what they offer me as choices has been thought-out extensively.

Take 10 likes from me. I understand the pain of arguing for the game to be more balanced in this forum. It always boils down to, just don't do X or use Y. No, thank you, I don't want also design my own game while I play. Our brains are wired to take the path of least resistance. It often takes some external agency to motivate us to go through a challenge. Especially if the path of least resistance has become the norm in society/social media.

However, in this case, I don't think it is a big problem as they can be disabled during startup. Still, would be better if only gave asteroid specific items only. 

Even Klei have faced criticism for balancing out things like Solar Panel, Food etc. Who needs food to rot when you can just, not put it in carbon dioxide? It is one of those things that make sense on paper, but turn out to be complete nonsense in practice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 2:07 PM, Magheat2009 said:

I understand the pain of arguing for the game to be more balanced in this forum. It always boils down to, just don't do X or use Y. No, thank you, I don't want also design my own game while I play.

You know yourself best.  Others can't mod or create a game to suit your own personal preferences as well as you can.  Take on some responsibility, and make/mod the game to suit yourself.  And no, our brains aren't wired to take on the path of least resistance.  People play games with all sorts of self-imposed restrictions all the time.  Variants of games is one way that people do that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spoonwood said:

And no, our brains aren't wired to take on the path of least resistance.

Yes, lets throw decades of understanding gained from game design, neuroscience and psychology because you believe so. This is not hard and fast rule which will hold true for everyone in every situation but its a good thumb hand rule to understand and describe a lot of human and animal behavior.

There is a concept in game design, "protecting players from themselves". Game breaking exploits are usually removed by good developers because they understand that they ruin the fun for the majority of the player base. Some people can play by immediately ignoring such an exploit, but most don't. They want to have unlimited diamonds in their Minecraft save, only to realize later that finding diamonds was all the fun about diamonds. 

Also, let me make it very clear to you, it is not about me. I am insane enough to have gone an entire 1600+ cycles play-through without liquid locks on a whim. However, I do not simply spam "just don't use liquid locks" on every suggestion post about liquid lock buildings. I understand that not everyone can do that. I for one cannot expect myself to let my food rot because I disagreed with carbon dioxide preservation. In some way, it would not have made sense to not use carbon dioxide preservation without decreased fridge power requirement. This is a very good example of player created fixer upper solutions vs. a well designed mechanic. 

I do not make a suggestion for this game because I want to have something. I post a suggestion because I believe it might make this game a better game. I sometimes post something after having thought months about it. You may disagree with me, but please stop pointing fingers like I am some sort of delinquent who needs to be take more responsibility in life.

You do not appear to think deeply about things you say. You simply type out one good retort you have a 100 times thinking that you have figured out reality. You just wave your hand at any objection which is raised. I have tried to do things the way you and others want me to do, but in practice, it turns into a mess. If you were truly willing to understand, it will take you half an hour of research in game design to figure out how stupid your argument gets if pushed beyond a point. Yes, the game cannot be developed for everyone. There are mods for a reason. However, there is a limit to that argument. A limit you will never try to understand. You will not acknowledge the importance of a well designed game, even though you enjoy it.

This is not reply to your this post specifically, but your replies to my posts in general.

Waiting for you to reply with the same condescending line of argument.

Cheers.

Edited by Magheat2009
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 1:13 AM, Magheat2009 said:

Yes, lets throw decades of understanding gained from game design, neuroscience and psychology because you believe so. This is not hard and fast rule which will hold true for everyone in every situation but its a good thumb hand rule to understand and describe a lot of human and animal behavior.

No, it's not a good rule.  First off, there has to exist a path of least resistance.  Sometimes there is no such optimum or multiple optima.  Basic real analysis/calculus will tell you that.  It gets even worse when blown up into higher dimensions.  Second, for the path of least resistance to get taken, it has to come as accessible.  If it's not accessible, it can't get taken.  The path of least resistance is accessible to people most of the time?  I don't think so.  Third, the phrase can only have meaning with respect to knowing what particular effects come as sought after.  We don't know what people's goals or desires or needs are in general, in all sorts of specific detail.
 

On 7/28/2022 at 1:13 AM, Magheat2009 said:

There is a concept in game design, "protecting players from themselves".

What?  I don't know that, but that sounds awfully suspicious of game designers seeking to justify what they think a game should be like, instead of listening to and accepting player's preferences.

On 7/28/2022 at 1:13 AM, Magheat2009 said:

Game breaking exploits are usually removed by good developers because they understand that they ruin the fun for the majority of the player base.

No, they don't understand any such thing.  They may believe that sure, but understanding that is another matter.  Most developers don't do any serious rigorous surveys of most players preferences.  Also, it's very likely that most players aren't even aware of such exploits, OR disagree with your or some person's assessment of such as game-breaking in a single-player game.

Also, Klei is very clear in that they have kept sandbox mode around throughout ONI's development.  If game-breaking exploits did ruin the fun as you've proposed, why in the world would sandbox mode get kept around?

On 7/28/2022 at 1:13 AM, Magheat2009 said:

Some people can play by immediately ignoring such an exploit, but most don't.

Most people can and do immediately play by ignoring sandbox mode.  Or at least when they know about it.

On 7/28/2022 at 1:13 AM, Magheat2009 said:

I understand that not everyone can do that.

Nonsense.  People can avoid make liquid locks if they try to.  At least given they can play the game, which granted not everyone can do to begin with.

On 7/28/2022 at 1:13 AM, Magheat2009 said:

I for one cannot expect myself to let my food rot because I disagreed with carbon dioxide preservation.

Yes, you can expect yourself to do that.  You could take on that responsibility.  Stop playing like you're powerless in doing such a thing.

On 7/28/2022 at 1:13 AM, Magheat2009 said:

This is a very good example of player created fixer upper solutions vs. a well designed mechanic. 

???  One would think that a well-designed nerf would do something like make more content in the game previously unused, get used right?  Well, tell me, what sort of unused content got used more, because of the food changes?  People were already using fridges with a motivation to do so (they were more space efficient than ration boxes). They were already using lots of power sources.  They were already using metal.  And deodorizers also.  Since this was a "well designed" mechanic, tell me, how did the food changes improve things so much?  What game content did they enhance the use of substantially?

Or how did such enhance players enjoyment?

It's very easy to assume that some change must be good, because it's different.  Or that "increasing challenge" makes things better, since players want to avoid boredom, and increasing challenge does decrease boredom.  Or that some change makes things better, because it fits game designers *a priori* notions about what a game should be like or their a priori notions about what their players want.

It's a much different matter though to know that some change is good.  That it actually fits with most of one's goals, or the goals of greatest importance.
 

On 7/28/2022 at 1:13 AM, Magheat2009 said:

Waiting for you to reply with the same condescending line of argument.

???  Again, just bizarre.  Wow... my own words above said "you know yourself best."  I maintain that 100%.  Do you know what that implies?  You're the one who is in a superior position to know and be able to suit yourself.  Not me.  Not Klei.  I'm in the inferior position of knowing what you want.  And you're in the superior position with respect to getting what you want also.

Condescending - "showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others"  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescending

But hey, I guess you'll still believe I was condescending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you think its OP just dont use it" is one of the most terrible lines that keeps being repeated in game communities. The job of developer is to provide a balanced gameplay, the players cannot be expected to balance the game themselves. Its fine to have a sandbox mode, but there should be at least one mode where developer balance the game for the player. After all its trivialy easy to see that game, which allows literally anything with literally no limitation, would be a terrible game. So it stands to reason that some limitations on what player can do are good. Of course the restrictions muts make the game more fun, and cannot be arbritrary, but they are important.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, GluttonyMain said:

The job of developer is to provide a balanced gameplay, the players cannot be expected to balance the game themselves.

Some balancing of the game is expected of players for any game with difficulty settings.  Players can and do get expected to select difficulty settings quite reasonably.  Or use or avoid something like a sandbox mode like what ONI has.
 

12 hours ago, GluttonyMain said:

Its fine to have a sandbox mode, but there should be at least one mode where developer balance the game for the player

Which player?  In what stage of history of the game?  With what sort of knowledge of the game?  Before or after the game has gotten talked among members of the general public?

Oxygen Not Included is open to 5 year old causal gamers as well as some adults who will spend time doing their own calculations, reading forums, or watching streams and engaging in all sorts of meta-gaming to enhance their skill at the game.  And the graphics and sounds of the game, as well it's physics-resembling type systems, suggest that the game is intended for both audiences.  In terms of balancing on the basis of challenge level how in the world can the game get balanced for players at both ends of skill level, and every skill level in between of which they are many, in the first place?
 

12 hours ago, GluttonyMain said:

After all its trivialy easy to see that game, which allows literally anything with literally no limitation, would be a terrible game.

There is no such thing, since all programs involve limitations.  Thus, I can't see that trivially, because I can't even conceive it as a realistic possibility.  No such thing as a game without any limitation exists, nor will ever exist.  But, I think there are people who do play with sandbox mode.  I don't think that they view doing such as a terrible experience.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Spoonwood said:

Some balancing of the game is expected of players for any game with difficulty settings.  Players can and do get expected to select difficulty settings quite reasonably.  Or use or avoid something like a sandbox mode like what ONI has.

Yes, nothing wrong with having several difficulty options, im not against that.

15 minutes ago, Spoonwood said:

Which player?  In what stage of history of the game?  With what sort of knowledge of the game?  Before or after the game has gotten talked among members of the general public?

That doesnt matter, thats the point. The developers should create a balance that they think is fun. If they choose hardcore game, or casual, thats up to them. Nothing wrong with either approach. They should not, however, just throw stuff at the wall and tell the player to make their own fun. If devs decide to go for casual game, they should balance for casual gameplay. If the choose more difficult gameplay, they should balanced with that. What they should not do, is balance with some difficulty in mind, and than let that be trivialized with unfixed exploits/OP mechanics.

15 minutes ago, Spoonwood said:

There is no such thing, since all programs involve limitations.  Thus, I can't see that trivially, because I can't even conceive it as a realistic possibility.  No such thing as a game without any limitation exists, nor will ever exist.  But, I think there are people who do play with sandbox mode.  I don't think that they view doing such as a terrible experience.

Just becasue it doesnt  exists doestn mean it cannot be used as a though experiment. But for a more realistic examples: the fact that dupes need oxygen is interesting limitation, it gives you goal, and makes coming up with solution feel more rewarding that if you just created a oxygen system for no reason what so ever. The fact that dupes cannot be in hot temperatures is an interesting limitation. It means you need to make infrastructure for suits, or cool the area down. Now neither of those are particularly difficult problems, but ONI woudl still be worse if it didnt have them.Imagine pipes dont break, ever. That just makes the game less interesting. Imagine machines dont have overheat temperature. That just makes ONi less interesting. Limitations is what makes game interesting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GluttonyMain said:

The developers should create a balance that they think is fun. If they choose hardcore game, or casual, thats up to them. Nothing wrong with either approach. They should not, however, just throw stuff at the wall and tell the player to make their own fun. If devs decide to go for casual game, they should balance for casual gameplay. If the choose more difficult gameplay, they should balanced with that. What they should not do, is balance with some difficulty in mind, and than let that be trivialized with unfixed exploits/OP mechanics.

It sounds to me like you expect them to narrow their intended audience.  How would it be beneficial to them for their game to suit fewer people?

6 minutes ago, GluttonyMain said:

But for a more realistic examples: the fact that dupes need oxygen is interesting limitation, it gives you goal, and makes coming up with solution feel more rewarding that if you just created a oxygen system for no reason what so ever. The fact that dupes cannot be in hot temperatures is an interesting limitation. It means you need to make infrastructure for suits, or cool the area down. Now neither of those are particularly difficult problems, but ONI woudl still be worse if it didnt have them.Imagine pipes dont break, ever. That just makes the game less interesting. Imagine machines dont have overheat temperature. That just makes ONi less interesting. Limitations is what makes game interesting.

In all of your examples I don't find the limitations all that interesting.  I find solutions to those problems as much more interesting.

People have played on max difficulty in this game before.  That has the greatest food limitations, stress limitation, etc.  But, after playing such levels, I suspect there exist plenty of people who don't play with them again, or don't always use them, or use them in a different way.  I know RonEmpire has played max difficulty for all achievements in a few games.  But, I've seen that after that he hasn't always played with as heavy limitation.  Also, people have played without gold amalgam on Arboria or The Badlands.  I suspect plenty of them have played some other asteroid and chosen to use gold amalgam, instead of playing with such a limitation as not having such (or having to go to the surface to get small bits of it from the sky).  Also, how many people have played for super sustainable but the very next run just don't play with the limitation of using only clean power sources?

So, I don't see evidence that limitations are interesting in some sort of general sense as you seem to have implied.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Spoonwood said:

It sounds to me like you expect them to narrow their intended audience.  How would it be beneficial to them for their game to suit fewer people?

Thats not what I said at all. I said they can chose whichever approach they want. They can choose the difficulty level that it already has (AKA no change in difficulty). The point is that they shouldn’t hide behind "just dont use it" excuse and balance properly to the chosen approach.

24 minutes ago, Spoonwood said:

In all of your examples I don't find the limitations all that interesting.  I find solutions to those problems as much more interestin

The solutions are only interesting because the limitations exist

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...