KAL 9000

1.3 - What will it have?

216 posts in this topic

On 3/13/2017 at 2:02 PM, Jarin said:

Honestly, it's been out long enough and popular enough, I'm kinda shocked there's no imitators out there.

Simple rockets is 2d kerbal

Children of a dead earth is kerbal with guns and realism.

But no triple A imitation if that's what you were looking for.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10 de octubre de 2016 at 9:31 PM, klgraham1013 said:

Visual update is all I really want.

YEAH!! The thing that most I want is GRAPHICS!! Like EVE or scatterer....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if RPM was added to KSP... It will be the BEST update EVER!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd KILL for KSP 2. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, cpy said:

I'd KILL for KSP 2. :D

I've discussed it, and no you wouldn't want a KSP2.

Edited by ZooNamedGames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

34 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I've discussed it, and no you wouldn't want a KSP2.

Care to develop? Or give a link to the original discussion if it isn't too old? I'm interested.

Edited by Gaarst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I've discussed it, and no you wouldn't want a KSP2.

I would. If it was about planes only. And not bad.

And finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I would. If it was about planes only. And not bad.

And finished.

Planes only? PASS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

Care to develop? Or give a link to the original discussion if it isn't too old? I'm interested.

From the discussion the best comment I have to say is this-

you can do most of [these suggestions for KSP2] as is...

 

I can write an essay on the reasons why not to KSP2... heck I'll make a video on it sometime soon.

Edited by ZooNamedGames
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

From the discussion the best comment I have to say is this-

you can do most of [these suggestions for KSP2] as is...

 

I can write an essay on the reasons why not to KSP2... heck I'll make a video on it sometime soon.

By that definition, plenty of games with no plot, yet have successful sequels, should just be called new versions of the same game.  Thinking of Civ, SimCity, or really most simulator games.  If that's what we're going to call a sequel, a new version of the same game with more capabilities that you have to buy again, that's fine by me.  Probably more of an issue for console players, as they run mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Soda Popinski said:

By that definition, plenty of games with no plot, yet have successful sequels, should just be called new versions of the same game.  Thinking of Civ, SimCity, or really most simulator games.  If that's what we're going to call a sequel, a new version of the same game with more capabilities that you have to buy again, that's fine by me.  Probably more of an issue for console players, as they run mods.

Game's too bare to leave incomplete at this point.

Not to mention other issues.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, Soda Popinski said:

By that definition, plenty of games with no plot, yet have successful sequels, should just be called new versions of the same game.  Thinking of Civ, SimCity, or really most simulator games.  If that's what we're going to call a sequel, a new version of the same game with more capabilities that you have to buy again, that's fine by me.  Probably more of an issue for console players, as they run mods.

What I think @ZooNamedGames is getting at here is the fact that KSP (despite the 1.0 tag) is still not finished and starting a new project right now would be pointless. Especially if the new game's theme would be the same (spaceflight). And I 100% agree with that.

Now, the distinction between a sandbox game and the state of the game is blurred in the case of KSP. And it feels intentional tbh. It's not cool to have no roadmap and/or have plans to implement something and drop the feature later on and then just go "this game is a sandbox and was meant to be modded from the beginning so I have no idea what are you all so angry about". Then call the thing 1.0 and proceed to making a DLC.

To be clear, I'm not against good DLCs. I'm against milking. I'd rather see SQUAD finishing KSP by adding what's actually needed (dV, mission planner, overhauled parts and career mode) and then either release a DLC or a new game, or both.

Now, I think there are only two ways the potential new game with kerbals could go and it's either a prequel about aviation (build, fly, shoot others in MP + a proper story) or a sequel about far future/sci-fi with interstellar drives a'la Elite: Dangerous except maybe a bit more humuorous.

Let's go a bit deeper on this though. IMHO the best of these two would be an aviation prequel. Why? Well, simply by looking at the aforementioned two genres we could count the games in each of them. The space sci-fi jar is pretty full so a success for a kerbal game in this setting would be pretty hard to achieve as the competition is plentiful (Starmade, E:D, EVE: Online and some others, I don't remrmber the names of, that Scott Manley has played on his channel). On the other hand, an aviation pioneers genre is almost nonexistent. I've seen a few good WW1 and WW2 combat games but a sandbox one in which you build and fly your own aircraft with others? None. There's SimplePlanes that still has MP in development, but other than that? (Btw If anyone could point out another title in which you pilot a self-built plane I would happily click the rep button and proceed to buying that game).

And that is pretty much why I think they should step into these still new waters of build-and-fly-sandbox flightsims as there isn't much competition right now and their chances of succeeding are very high. Especially if they learn from the mistakes made during the development of KSP. I don't hate KSP. it's just not finished.

Edited by Veeltch
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

What I think @ZooNamedGames is getting at here is the fact that KSP (despite the 1.0 tag) is still not finished and starting a new project right now would be pointless. Especially if the new game's theme would be the same (spaceflight). And I 100% agree with that.

Now, the distinction between a sandbox game and the state of the game is blurred in the case of KSP. And it feels intentional tbh. It's not cool to have no roadmap and/or have plans to implement something and drop the feature later on and then just go "this game is a sandbox and was meant to be modded from the beginning so I have no idea what are you all so angry about". Then call the thing 1.0 and proceed to making a DLC.

To be clear, I'm not against good DLCs. I'm against milking. I'd rather see SQUAD finishing KSP by adding what's actually needed (dV, mission planner, overhauled parts and career mode) and then either release a DLC or a new game, or both.

Dead on what I was thinking. Before we can proceed to anything new we need to finish KSP1.

The aviation idea is one I'd support once KSP is fully fleshed out. Sounds interesting. Think it would fit within the KSP aesthetic anyway.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it will have no more overheating bugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully has more advanced IVA, like the ability to move around a cockpit.  That would be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I still think it needs a sweepable swept wing or the ability to add it to other wing items like constructed wings. Basically a joint with the ability to set 2 or more positions to change to.

Not sure if the aerodynamics can utilize that much but I think I've worked on stuff where I would like to see if that the case. Especially for getting from low altitude flight with ultra stability to changing to high altitude and extreme speed.

Edited by Arugela

Share this post


Link to post
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