• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,653 Excellent

1 Follower

About Pthigrivi

  • Rank
    Space Cat

Recent Profile Visitors

4,091 profile views
  1. I agree getting that balance right is difficult but is so worth it. Having that sense of urgency and making time important to the game is a huge value add. I personally like USI-LS the best but even that could be simplified some. It avoids the magic part and milk run problems by offering a few different recyclers and greenhouses to extend the flight duration to several years with a little planning. Kerbals also have a “hungry” grace period of a couple weeks so you dont have to worry about LS too much early in the game. Like I said it could be even simpler than USI, so removing or condensing down concerns about radiation, stress, and homesickness into a single habitation factor would be important. Im also personally against random part failures.
  2. Well I do like what I'm seeing, but the proof as always is in the pudding. I love the idea that there'd be a nod to real physics and believability but my main concern is that the mechanics are really solid and the game is actually fun. Above all else mechanics make or break games. If there's a smooth but challenging progression and well balanced, multiple strategies for success each with their own pros and cons and varying synergies depending on how you combine them and juggle and convert different resources I'll be very happy. This could be especially important if they're thinking of ways to integrate life support--the way you can turn hydrogen and oxygen into water and back for instance--some really simplified nod to that could make for a lot of clever gameplay.
  3. That's true. Honestly the number of times most folks are refueling in orbit around other planets is probably pretty small (I find, anyway, though that may change with multiple systems.) The big issue is LKO and the occasional Munar/Minmar refueling station depending on your IRSU setup. It's awfully nice to send up all your modules dry and top it all off in orbit. The real question is at what point of sophistication does automating supply runs become more cumbersome than just flying them. As you've been saying on the one end you could have designated vessels which you've designed and just tell the game through some interface > go from KSC to this docking point on this schedule and dump these onboard resources. From the mods I've seen (and feel free to correct me if Im wrong) it seems really difficult to program specific vessels to do this kind of thing and have their flight plans physically modeled, especially on interplanetary scales. Between Mech Jeb and a few other supply scheduling mods many of the pieces are there, but tying it all together in a non-buggy way capturing a reasonable quotient of edge cases is a whole different problem. You could have dozens of assigned vessels and docking ports, any number of different timings to line up with transfer windows, half a dozen different transferable resource types on each craft. What happens if the resources needed from an intermediary station aren't there? What happens if because of an inefficient transfer the automated vessel runs out of fuel? What happens if a docking port is blocked when they arrive? Does the automated system know to prevent this or do you have to preplan every docking and transferred kg? I'd be happy to be wrong and AI can play KSP soup to nuts nearly as well or better than I can, but its probably more feasible to have resources more or less 'magically' dumped here or there at preplanned dates at some cost.
  4. The simplest solution is to rely on IRSU and the ability to make 100% self sustaining bases so you didn't need supply runs.
  5. So happy to see all this. Much love yall <3
  6. Oh I mean Im still gonna see how fast I can get things to go haha. And yeah.. I do think orbiting lagrange points would be cool but it's probably better for performance to keep the bodies on rails... I might be wrong about that.
  7. Cool. Didn't know if there was a plan in place to make a new official forum or if this one would serve both projects going forward. I actually quite agree Squad has been super receptive to community feedback and I hope that continues with KSP2.
  8. I tend to agree it might make things more complicated than necessary to model special relativity. Im sure they can just set engine power and interstellar distance such that getting above ~.3 c is unlikely.
  9. Hey btw is this forum the official venue for feedback and conversation about about KSP2? They mentioned how much they appreciated the community built up around KSP1 but I haven't seen anyone from Star Theory chime in here, just the Squad folks.
  10. I’m also a Mac user so I’d love to see it. Does anyone know if there’s something screwy going on with apple? It may be a coincidence but I’ve seen two games recently promise Mac support and then either cancel or drag things out with no word on why. Frostpunk was particularly annoying cause they’ve taken a lot of folks money for a Mac release scheduled for last February and aren’t giving refunds.
  11. I think this is kind of the difference between managing logistics and micro-managing logistics. There's still the implication that growth will enable new kinds of resource gathering, presumably fuel sources at the very least, and Im hoping whatever might go into LS and habitation would be as dead simple as it could be while still being something worth having. I guess what I'm saying is it's no fun to come back and find your colony dead, but it's also no fun to have empty game mechanics. There needs to be something going on, some carefully balanced system of trade-offs so players can chose to, say, stick with a low-population LFO mining operation or scale up to support bigger and better tech--or better yet--have parts and pieces to swap between different strategies, converting fuel to life support or vice versa to enable more colony growth or more fuel output. If there are no trade-offs there's no game and it's just a zero-stakes sandbox sculpture.
  12. This is a legit point. In almost all my saves since 2014 or so I've been setting up bases on Duna, Eve, Laythe, Vall, etc. The main issue is the huge disparity in warp-times between interplanetary and local KSOI missions and I can imagine a similar jump when going interstellar. If you're always busy locally it takes a long, long time to do anything significant at Jool. While I still think colony mechanics should rely on something that at least calls attention to real-life LS and ISRU I'm inclined to think demanding frequent resupply is out. Hopefully its something like set up some starting infrastructure, let things grow over a few years, come back, expand, repeat. I also hope maintaining balance is at least a little challenging--resource processing and recycling, greenhouses, habitation, nurseries, etc.
  13. Ditto. I'll be pretty bummed out if colonization doesn't employ some kind of simplified life support and habitation mechanics, some way of meeting kerbals basic biological needs. It's one of the most important aspects of real-life space travel and adds so much to gameplay, (urgency, time-based mechanics, etc.) Im cool if they make it possible with some planning and ISRU to make things self-sufficient so we can set it and forget it. Just put consequences on a toggle for players who'd rather build sandbox set-dressing rather do some resource management.
  14. There was some mention of this in the dev trailer I believe, that accommodations would be made to make really large stations and bases.