Both starts speak to different people.
Hello,
I think both methods hold merit, but the tutorial one has a wider audience.
When I tried the planetary start, I would have been very lost had I not played the tutorial one first. SE2 is my first Keen game, I have no prior experience with Space or Medieval Engineers, and as such the learning curve would have been very steep with the variety of things that we can do and how we can do them.
The original, tutorial introduction, helped me understand the different concepts, each mission serving a learning or re-doing purpose.
Someone coming from SE1 would probably prefer the planetary/no tutorial-minded missions as they would instinctively know how the mechanics works -- or easily adapt from prior experience.
That's about it for now! Great game, keep up the good work!
I like this feedback
Fair points. I think I would have enjoyed a tutorial more that had been guided pre-almagest and pre-emergency on the ship. As in, periodically your two engineers were woken up to generate fuel and do routine repairs on the Calypso over the 10K year trip there. In that environment you could teach all the various skills players would need, establish how the brothers don't get along nearly as well as you'd expect, and provide backstory.
Then the ship arrives in Almagest, crashes, eject and there is zero handholding from there on what to do because the 'tutorial' happened before you were in a crisis. It feels jarring and oversimplified because you're doing the tutorial in the middle of the primary game crisis and then solving half of it for the players through story.
Anyway, welcome to the SE-verse!
Fair points. I think I would have enjoyed a tutorial more that had been guided pre-almagest and pre-emergency on the ship. As in, periodically your two engineers were woken up to generate fuel and do routine repairs on the Calypso over the 10K year trip there. In that environment you could teach all the various skills players would need, establish how the brothers don't get along nearly as well as you'd expect, and provide backstory.
Then the ship arrives in Almagest, crashes, eject and there is zero handholding from there on what to do because the 'tutorial' happened before you were in a crisis. It feels jarring and oversimplified because you're doing the tutorial in the middle of the primary game crisis and then solving half of it for the players through story.
Anyway, welcome to the SE-verse!
Hello, welcome to SE. 🖖
Hello, welcome to SE. 🖖
Thanks fro the welcomes!
If you like the idea -- having both to chose from at the start -- don't forget to vote!
Thanks fro the welcomes!
If you like the idea -- having both to chose from at the start -- don't forget to vote!
100p dude.
The super hand holdy start IS AWESOME... for someone who never played SE1... and if you have a lot of time in SE1, it's horrible, boring, and pointless.
I think the Algamest story tutorial playthrough is a great intro for first time SE players. I think it's a great idea to increase the player base.
I also think that they need to just give us the Algamest system, with NO STORY. NO COLONIZATION. Pure sandbox. No hand holding. For those who want a more authentic SE experience.
Players who follow the Algamest story will eventually get some familiarity with the game, and no longer wish to have their hands held. Then if they want, they can also enjoy the sandbox.
The current plan... everyone has to suffer through the Algamest story? ugh.
100p dude.
The super hand holdy start IS AWESOME... for someone who never played SE1... and if you have a lot of time in SE1, it's horrible, boring, and pointless.
I think the Algamest story tutorial playthrough is a great intro for first time SE players. I think it's a great idea to increase the player base.
I also think that they need to just give us the Algamest system, with NO STORY. NO COLONIZATION. Pure sandbox. No hand holding. For those who want a more authentic SE experience.
Players who follow the Algamest story will eventually get some familiarity with the game, and no longer wish to have their hands held. Then if they want, they can also enjoy the sandbox.
The current plan... everyone has to suffer through the Algamest story? ugh.
Well, the current plan is an evaluation and feedback from players.
I hope they keep both. The same content, with the same missions but:
- Choose the tutorial and you need missions to progress;
- Choose no tutorial, you have everything unlocked and the missions do not have the progression, just the rest coins and items.
In time there will be NPCs, thus the stations should not be "empty", nor the sites I would guess.
Well, the current plan is an evaluation and feedback from players.
I hope they keep both. The same content, with the same missions but:
- Choose the tutorial and you need missions to progress;
- Choose no tutorial, you have everything unlocked and the missions do not have the progression, just the rest coins and items.
In time there will be NPCs, thus the stations should not be "empty", nor the sites I would guess.
I'm not sure I like either of those and there are definitely better ways to accomplish both end goals without absolute handholding on one end and 'here have it all, go play' on the other. Even SE1 had a complete sandbox (though klunky) way of unlocking technology as you went along without just handing everything to the player right out of the box. Tying it to missions is too much of a railroad, especially since you have to do the emissions in absolute order.
I'vc mentioned in other threads that I like the idea of learning new blocks by finding and disassembling them in such a way that once you've taken a thing apart, you start to learn how to put them together through reverse engineering. Also, allow us to find datapads as loot or mission rewards (both) that contain the 'schematics' for various new blocks. Look that ship, maybe you find a blueprint to a whole ship you can project and build, maybe it's just how to build a gravity generator. Doing it that way drives additional exploration outside of missions to try and find and learn new stuff.
I'm not sure I like either of those and there are definitely better ways to accomplish both end goals without absolute handholding on one end and 'here have it all, go play' on the other. Even SE1 had a complete sandbox (though klunky) way of unlocking technology as you went along without just handing everything to the player right out of the box. Tying it to missions is too much of a railroad, especially since you have to do the emissions in absolute order.
I'vc mentioned in other threads that I like the idea of learning new blocks by finding and disassembling them in such a way that once you've taken a thing apart, you start to learn how to put them together through reverse engineering. Also, allow us to find datapads as loot or mission rewards (both) that contain the 'schematics' for various new blocks. Look that ship, maybe you find a blueprint to a whole ship you can project and build, maybe it's just how to build a gravity generator. Doing it that way drives additional exploration outside of missions to try and find and learn new stuff.
So you are a “new” player, aha?
Why do you even know about Medieval Engineers ;)? I played SE for 10+ years and never played ME and never felt the need to even mention it anywhere.
Then you managed to find the “classic” start in a submenu and somehow understood that this particular world and the “default survival” start are "two starts" that “speak to different people”?
“Tutorial start holds a wider audience”?
Sure, good tutorial IS very much needed. But naming tutorial/campaign as "default survival" is misleading or a bad marketing.
The only true “default survival” is free-form sandbox survival where players set their own goals, like it was in SE1 and all other games of the genre.
All the survival mechanics have to be designed around that core idea. Different starting conditions surely have to exist to allow to offset the difficulty, allow different playstyles. The "tutorial start" is basically a particular starting condition, and it SHOULD be named accordingly in menu.
The “classic” survival world hidden in a submenu is just a ridiculous patch over a fundamentally broken survival mode right now. It is also what you can easily call the opposite of being hard. Much easier than even basic Minecraft. You don’t even have to open any crafting menu to build stuff and resources are literally under your feet. There is nothing to survive yet, besides boredom and terrible UI/UX.
We are in the middle of a “survival foundations” vertical slice, and yet we are asked to test contracts.
This “contracts survival” is not survival at all. It’s a completely different thing.
There are not such a thing as “both starts”.
If you continue to pretend that this “tutorial/contract” thing is the default survival mode, then you might as well rename SE2 into something else. You can't just throw away most of the key ideas that were working well, replace them with shallow and dumbed down ready solutions that require almost no "space engineering", and then call it a sequel.
So you are a “new” player, aha?
Why do you even know about Medieval Engineers ;)? I played SE for 10+ years and never played ME and never felt the need to even mention it anywhere.
Then you managed to find the “classic” start in a submenu and somehow understood that this particular world and the “default survival” start are "two starts" that “speak to different people”?
“Tutorial start holds a wider audience”?
Sure, good tutorial IS very much needed. But naming tutorial/campaign as "default survival" is misleading or a bad marketing.
The only true “default survival” is free-form sandbox survival where players set their own goals, like it was in SE1 and all other games of the genre.
All the survival mechanics have to be designed around that core idea. Different starting conditions surely have to exist to allow to offset the difficulty, allow different playstyles. The "tutorial start" is basically a particular starting condition, and it SHOULD be named accordingly in menu.
The “classic” survival world hidden in a submenu is just a ridiculous patch over a fundamentally broken survival mode right now. It is also what you can easily call the opposite of being hard. Much easier than even basic Minecraft. You don’t even have to open any crafting menu to build stuff and resources are literally under your feet. There is nothing to survive yet, besides boredom and terrible UI/UX.
We are in the middle of a “survival foundations” vertical slice, and yet we are asked to test contracts.
This “contracts survival” is not survival at all. It’s a completely different thing.
There are not such a thing as “both starts”.
If you continue to pretend that this “tutorial/contract” thing is the default survival mode, then you might as well rename SE2 into something else. You can't just throw away most of the key ideas that were working well, replace them with shallow and dumbed down ready solutions that require almost no "space engineering", and then call it a sequel.
Easy now folks, this isn't steam. This is about providing feedback to the devs, not trying to measure the size of your slide rule against others here. Be civil, be constructive, be space engineers.
Easy now folks, this isn't steam. This is about providing feedback to the devs, not trying to measure the size of your slide rule against others here. Be civil, be constructive, be space engineers.
Replies have been locked on this page!