Do you want features to be removed?

[NSEP]

Are there any features is KSP that you want to get removed from the game? honestly, i dont have any. But maybe there are people that have. Do you know any?

[Wjolcz]

Science points. Everything would be simpler and easier to balance without them. The career mode would also be more enjoyable.

[StupidAndy]

I've never gotten to this point, but people hate the contract weighing system? I don't know, I just never get to that point

[septemberWaves]

There are things I'd like to see significant changes in (the science system, for example) but I can't think of anything I'd want to see removed entirely.

[Aegolius13]

If they're not going to revamp the MPL's silly data processing function, I'd maybe rather they just take it out.  It's simultaneously overpowered and really inconvenient to use. As a new player I figured it should use it, and spent a lot of not-fun grindy time trying to keep it fed.  Aand then, all of the sudden, the tech tree is done and there's no objective reason to go anywhere else.  

I no longer use the MPL for its main purpose, but still bring it along a lot for leveling up and "story reasons."  But some people would probably find it underpowered without data processing.  Again, I think a revamp is the best option.  

[OHara]

None, because for each feature I don't like, the game lets me ignore it (strategies) replace it with my own rules via cheat menus (science points, etc.) or replace it with a mod (Kerbnet->ScanSat)

The only annoying feature that leave, for me, is the the loading screens.

[Guest]

Automatic contract weighting. A very simple way to improve contracts massively would merely be exposure of manual weighting settings. So you're prepping for a big Eve return and want the public and potential clients to know? Set a weighting preference for neighbouring planets (or whatever it actually is) and you may go from 'no no no maybe' to 'maybe maybe maybe yes' when sifting through the offers, just like that.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Guest

[Ser]

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Science points. Everything would be simpler and easier to balance without them. The career mode would also be more enjoyable.

What would motivate us to send rockets to space then? Contracts? Eeew...

[natsirt721]

4 minutes ago, Ser said:

What would motivate us to send rockets to space then? Contracts? Eeew...

I don't think there has to be a game-given motivation.  KSP is a sandbox game at heart, career and science mode are just constraints.  In the end, you do what you want, how you want.  That's motivation enough for me.

[Blaarkies]

46 minutes ago, natsirt721 said:

I don't think there has to be a game-given motivation.  KSP is a sandbox game at heart, career and science mode are just constraints.  In the end, you do what you want, how you want.  That's motivation enough for me.

Thats a very good point. Minecraft suffers the same lack of motivation. After you have mined enough for a diamond suit and weapons, you no longer want to mine...theres nothing down there you care about anymore. Dabbling a bit in redstone keeps a minecraft savegame going, the same way that KSP allows weird stuff like Eeloo bases or Eve landers...they aren't practical neither profitable, but we still enjoy that even though it has no "purpose".

I think the Monoliths could teach us a bit about space exploration

[Ser]

1 hour ago, natsirt721 said:

I don't think there has to be a game-given motivation.  KSP is a sandbox game at heart, career and science mode are just constraints.  In the end, you do what you want, how you want.  That's motivation enough for me.

I'd say KSP is a science game at heart, career has been introduced to increase motivation aspect. Sandbox is a "give me everything at once" mode, the furthest from "Space program" idea. As if you played a tycoon game and cheated yourself infinite funds to afford anything without any effort. That's still playable, but loses half of gameplay. I know that many people play like that but I still can't understand what's so interesting in having access to all the parts at once. To try how they work? To look how physics work on every celestial body? Ok, you'll try every single one in 50 launches. What next? Wait for the next KSP update demanding "moar parts"? For me, when you have to care about funds and look for science, and then make hard decisions to get more advanced parts that let you make another step forward gives the most thrill of exploration, and that is called to run your kerbal space program. Of course, if you already have seen and tried everything in 10 launches, there'll be no more thrill and only a stupid grind left.

 

To not stay off-topic, the things I'd want to get rid in the stock game are strategies (I just don't use them), science rewards from contracts and some stupid contracts like kerbal rescue (from my pre-1.2 experience)

Edited February 1, 2017 by Ser

[Wjolcz]

4 hours ago, Ser said:

What would motivate us to send rockets to space then? Contracts? Eeew...

World's Firsts and reputation from them.

[Ser]

21 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

World's Firsts and reputation from them.

Okay, you're first to land on Mun. And that's it? Mun is done, time to head to the next one?

[Wjolcz]

5 minutes ago, Ser said:

Okay, you're first to land on Mun. And that's it? Mun is done, time to head to the next one?

And you get higher funding next month because of that.

It may seem complicated but it's not. If you'd like to understand how it works please check out the mod list thread in my signature.

[Ser]

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

And you get higher funding next month because of that.

It may seem complicated but it's not. If you'd like to understand how it works please check out the mod list thread in my signature.

I understand, in general. That's interesting. But I don't understand the following: to develop a certain part you would have to do a certain set of experiments in certain situations, say to get yourself an advanced rover wheels you'd have to go to Mun and take surface samples there, right? But what if I ignore Mun and go to Minmus or Dune instead and perform similar experiments there, would I find "rover wheel blueprints" under the Dunian rock? If not then that would be weird because that would feel like parts are just spread across the world and certain ones could be found only in certain places. On the other hand, if there's no difference where to perform experiments then it would lead to exploits like gathering everything on Kerbin (or on the closest Mun), getting all the parts as easy as possible and then head to Jool on a supercharged vessel for rep. So it seems that to develop advanced wheels some experiment weight value would be needed, say I could take either 20x samples from Mun, 10x samples from Minmus or 2x samples from Dune. And what's that if not the same science points with body/biome multipliers as in stock, just differentiated and specialized by experiment?

Edited February 1, 2017 by Ser

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Ser said:

I understand, in general. That's interesting. But I don't understand the following: to develop a certain part you would have to do a certain set of experiments in certain situations, say to get yourself an advanced rover wheels you'd have to go to Mun and take surface samples there, right? But what if I ignore Mun and go to Minmus or Dune instead and perform similar experiments there, would I find "rover wheel blueprints" under the Dunian rock? If not then that would be weird because that would feel like parts are just spread across the world and certain ones could be found only in certain places. On the other hand, if there's no difference where to perform experiments then it would lead to exploits like gathering everything on Kerbin (or on the closest Mun), getting all the parts as easy as possible and then head to Jool on a supercharged vessel for rep. So it seems that to develop advanced wheels some experiment weight value would be needed, say I could take either 20x samples from Mun, 10x samples from Minmus or 2x samples from Dune. And what's that if not the same science points with body/biome multipliers as in stock, just differentiated and specialized by experiment?

I actually meant the other thread. The one you're talking about is kind of outdated and the OP is chaotic. Now I look at it and think I overcomplicated things a little bit.

But ok. Let's take the wheels as an example. This is how I'd imagine it: IRL the first Martian "rover" design actually had skids/skis because they (the Soviets) didn't know what the surface would be like. In terms of gameplay it would work more or less like this: Land a lander (on any body because regolith on the Moon is similar to the one on Mars in terms of friction and stuff and to simplify things a bit) -> take a surface sample -> develop wheels needed to traverse other worlds.

 

[/not/pol/]

@Veeltch I dont get why you dont like science. if you had EVERYTHING From the start it would be overly OP.

[NSEP]

19 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Science points. Everything would be simpler and easier to balance without them. The career mode would also be more enjoyable.

I kind of agree, in career, it would be easier to deal with, but in science mode totally not. Because that is like the only gamemode i can play for now (because science points are in the way in career mode) for hours and hours because it actually feels like a game.

8 minutes ago, /not/pol/ said:

@Veeltch I dont get why you dont like science. if you had EVERYTHING From the start it would be overly OP.

It would not, if you need to purchase parts.

Science points dont really make much sense either. Idk how researching something like deep space helps me research a fuel tank for example.

I just read that @Veeltch has a much better idea for science (with the surface sample  and the skis)

Edited February 1, 2017 by NSEP

[razark]

The animated main menu.  Damn thing is annoying.

[NSEP]

Just now, razark said:

The animated main menu.  Damn thing is annoying.

Yup, agree. It always gives me the feeling that when i leave it on, the electricity bill is getting higher because of a spinning sphere for some reason. It makes me uncomfortable.

[/not/pol/]

6 minutes ago, NSEP said:

I kind of agree, in career, it would be easier to deal with, but in science mode totally not. Because that is like the only gamemode i can play for now (because science points are in the way in career mode) for hours and hours because it actually feels like a game.

It would not, if you need to purchase parts.

Science points dont really make much sense either. Idk how researching something like deep space helps me research a fuel tank for example.

I just read that @Veeltch has a much better idea for science (with the surface sample  and the skis)

Deep space logically would give you larger and more efficient parts like big fuel tanks and large engines. it literally makes sense if you think.

[razark]

Just now, NSEP said:

spinning sphere

Not that.  I mean the menu itself.  I'd like to click on it, not wait for it to finish flying about the screen.

[/not/pol/]

1 minute ago, NSEP said:

Yup, agree. It always gives me the feeling that when i leave it on, the electricity bill is getting higher because of a spinning sphere for some reason. It makes me uncomfortable.

And now i give up on everyone in this threads logic.

[NSEP]

Just now, razark said:

Not that.  I mean the menu itself.  I'd like to click on it, not wait for it to finish flying about the screen.

Oh that! Ok.

1 minute ago, /not/pol/ said:

Deep space logically would give you larger and more efficient parts like big fuel tanks and large engines. it literally makes sense if you think.

Well, it does allow you to research your parts to be suitable for deep space, but that is still completely different in regulair KSP.

I mean, i dont have to research another planet in order to make a rocket that wont be used on that planet. Maybe some information might be usefull, but deffinitly not all.

5 minutes ago, /not/pol/ said:

And now i give up on everyone in this threads logic.

Why? Its just my opinion. Just the way how i feel

[Wjolcz]

21 minutes ago, /not/pol/ said:

Deep space logically would give you larger and more efficient parts like big fuel tanks and large engines. it literally makes sense if you think.

I refuse to believe you are being serious.

31 minutes ago, NSEP said:

I kind of agree, in career, it would be easier to deal with, but in science mode totally not. Because that is like the only gamemode i can play for now (because science points are in the way in career mode) for hours and hours because it actually feels like a game.

If you think about it the removal of science points would actually allow for the fusion of Science Mode and Career Mode since your tech is depemdent on money, money on reputation and reputation on things you do (science, contracts, World's Firsts). Science experiments would simply yield reputation directly. Everyone would play one mode and simply choose their playstyle since everything you do yields reputation. You could do science experiments only or Contracts only or both and still progress.