Jump to content

Pthigrivi

Members
  • Posts

    2,035
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pthigrivi

  1. If there is an atmosphere it would be cool if there were rolling dunes in those broad plains.
  2. One basic question is axial tilt confirmed?
  3. The thinking would be that if you've got a built-in fuel plant at KSC (that really should produce raw materials for rocket parts too) you're essentially just converting time into resources and then into rockets, so why not just skip the extra UI and have the game calculate production time based on how big/complex the rocket is. It's just less on the screen to fuss about. To me the trade off is that production time is more of a black box, and that seeing the production rates and resources early preps you for what to think about as you start colonizing. It also levels the playing field and creates a consistent logic throughout the game, and creates some nice strategic tradeoffs. But, like I said, this is all just theoretical and subjective and I couldn't say what would really be easier in practice. I agree with Master on the pitfalls he listed, and there are others as well like the aforementioned failure state problem, time-warp abuse with budgets, imbalanced incentives between production on Kerbin vs offworld, etc. Some of these might be acceptable, some might not be and need solutions, and hopefully the solutions don't make things more complicated than the problems are. One of my favorite solutions to some of these problems would be to add bonuses to Boom event milestones based on fixed calendar dates. For instance if you landed a probe on Duna by day 1000 you get an extra 20% on top of the main reward. This gives a gentle incentive to use time wisely and discourages milking inefficient resource collection by time-warping.
  4. This is what Im wrestling with. In a sense its more complicated locally but less complicated globally, because its copying a simplified version of a system already in the game for consistency rather than inventing a new one. You’d also start tanks-full so it wouldn’t really effect you for the first few launches. Still, its pushing something a little complicated pretty early in the progression, so its worth a doubt. Im open minded about all this and taking the title of the thread literally. Im just letting all these tumble around like sneakers in a dryer for the moment.
  5. So I came up with one possible solution to a few of these problems: having a fuel plant at KSC. It seems to me like the hardest thing to implement and manage in a game like this is a resource, because each resource is interacting all over the game and it needs sources and sinks and has to be carefully balanced with everything else and if its fundamental like money its taking up player time and attention throughout the game. And since, ultimately, this is a rocket sim and with some economy elements rather than other other way around ideally you'd have as few basic currencies as possible. Then you've got all these other pitfalls like incentive imbalances and failure states and obsolescence to worry about. So I'd love if the logic of colonization just applied from the beginning of the game to the end and we could skip money entirely for simplicity's sake. What I thought might solve a lot of these problems at once without creating a wholly new system would be to treat KSC kind of like a colony, and right from the beginning one of the buildings would be a fuel plant. When you first started it would just produce Methalox, and it would have a decent recharge rate and capacity so you could do anything you wanted in the Tier 1 VAB and get yourself to the Mun just fine. But it would take a few or several days to recharge between launches and start to introduce players to thinking about time as a resource. As you expanded though you could spend research points on upgrading its supply rate, capacity, and start adding on things like Uranium and fancier fuels over time. Rather than introduce a whole new system that fades away in the middle of the game this instead begins to introduce players to the way colonies will work right away, balancing production and capacity, thinking carefully about fuel efficiency, etc. Most importantly to my mind it doesn't exhaust and force you to start over. It also creates another important strategic choice for players. They can either invest their research on augmenting fuel production on Kerbin and focus on launches from there, or they can spend it on ISRU tech at the science facility. This makes it much easier to incentivize colonization and manage difficulty settings because you can just jigger the research costs. This does bring the whole time element into it because you are time warping for a few days between launches until your storage tanks are full, but I personally like that. Again it's introducing players to what they can expect when they start colonizing, and it spaces things out so you aren't maxing out everything you can do in KSOI in a month and then time-warping 200 days to the first Duna window.
  6. Apparently Im going to dance all around this topic today. I'll thank @SciMan for making me consider the cons here. There are a couple of problems with the 'free parts on Kerbin' model: 1) If parts are free, is recovery meaningless on Kerbin? It seems like there would be no real point in recovering anything but live Kerbals on Kerbin if rockets are reproducible for free. This would also mean there's no incentive for stage recovery, even if it was logistically feasible. This isn't a huge problem , but it does take some of the SpaceX-ey challenge out of it in the latter half of the early game as you're sending up multiple modules and trying to get established. You're better off ditching everything but the crew capsule which means there's very little creativity encouraged in re-entry and recovery strategies and could make all launch configuration profiles from Kerbin very same-same. 2) Are supply-routes from Kerbin also free? And if not, what do they cost? Let's consider @t_v's example. I've built a small colony on Minmus mining fuels and metals to make rockets but I need more uranium to make NERVAs and boost energy production. I know there's uranium on the Mun and dV-wise it would be worth setting up a mining colony and shipping it from there, but if I can just launch it from Kerbin for nothing why would I bother? The more I think about it the disincentive against building colonies and ISRU is kind of strong here, which is the opposite of what you want. And if money does only serve as a medium of exchange is that its only use-case? What is and isn't part of of the transport 'cost'? I think it gets really complicated, which we're also trying to avoid.
  7. It's a good question, and yeah lots of games do have failure states. It depends a great deal on the type of game it is. To me it would be nice to avoid failure states for the same reason you want reverts and quick-saves--to cut down on the amount of time and frustration lost to backtracking. Its one thing to lose 15m or an hour to a bad landing, but having to restart your whole career and start from scratch because you painted yourself into a corner seems probably too unforgiving. A note in defense of currencies though: parts aren't the only things in the game with potential costs. There are tech unlocks, potential building upgrades, kerbal skills, etc. Im really happy they're taking a hard look at some of the fundamental game dynamics like these cause they need work. I might be in the minority in my feeling that science is salvageable with a deep overhaul. All of the manual right-clicking and dismissing pop-up windows while in flight is maddening. Having different experiments could still work but you need a "collect all" button, or just make them harvest automatically. Right now they're a grindy distraction. I actually like the idea of processing things like surface samples in off-world labs but they should chew through data at a steady rate and then halt, not taper off into annoying endless diminishing returns. Same with collection--all collection should be 100%, and there should be much less science out there so the Mun and Minmus mine-out relatively early and you have to press on to interplanetary missions to keep advancing. Breaking Ground was in the right direction with surface features that require precise landing and surface exploration, but this was somewhat undermined by the lack of orbital mapping. As far as Im concerned you could cut out all of the "high above" and "low over" data, reduce the number of biomes, and add scannable surface features and you'd be half-way there. Basically a lot of streamlining to cut down on micromanagement and tedious repeat missions to nowhere. Maybe I'll take another stab at thinking this all through later. Point is, some sort of simplified way of gathering scientific data from other planets and points of interest and processing it in labs could be one form of currency, whatever you chose to call it. It would augment flags + footprints missions nicely and deepen the exploration process. I think this currency could be spent both on tech unlocks and on building upgrades, though each of these need major work. Having that one currency for both creates an important strategic fork, because players have the option to, say, get a fancier engine and make a better rocket or upgrade their VAB to make a bigger one. Those kinds of strategic tradeoffs are super important. Then there's stuff like repair abilities, varying autopilot capacities, mining and research efficiencies--the kinds of things that were tackled by Kerbal skills in KSP1. Honestly touring kerbals around to level them up individually is tedious enough in KSP1, and doing that for hundreds of colonists sounds like a nightmare. I think all these could be abstracted and earned collectively by meeting off-world population thresholds. This would create an underlying incentive for growing your colonies without requiring a lot of micromanagement.
  8. Definitely. Usually folks on the internet feel like they have to put a stake in the ground and defend one position to the last but I think both systems are entirely workable, and Timmon's might even be simpler, which all things being equal is usually better. The only thing thing I'd add in defense of some date-based rewards is endless time-warp doesn't just effect resource collection, and there are other reasons why you might want to discourage it. Another big one is interstellar travel. If, as I hope, there are ways to create closed-loop LS there is nothing really preventing you from making a big Methalox rocket, reaching solar escape velocity, and leaving your computer to time-warp over night through a 100y low velocity journey to another star system. It kind of voids the entire tech tree, which is insane. There really should be something to discourage this. @t_v was not wrong to say that I am altering the psychology of the game, but I happen to think its a good thing rather than a bad thing. It's something you learn when you make games: single player games tend to be fun about as long as there's something to strive for, some final reward that you can't have until you've accomplished X. After that the tension deflates and only hardcore completionists will stay involved. Everyone else will start over and hopefully get some replay value. To start, since KSP2's scope is so, so huge, probably at least a couple of other star systems, you really want to hold the final tech rewards at least until players have landed kerbals on an exoplanet or two. Maybe it's the Antimatter engine or some really cool colony modules, or both. Whatever that thing is really sets the scope, and after that, hopefully, players find colony building fun and rewarding enough to just be in pure-creation mode as they visit other star systems with their fancy new engines and parts. In other words the only reward that outstrips the tech tree is growth. We don't know much about adventure mode, but what I find really clever about the idea of Boom events is the direct linkage between discovery and kerbal population values, that the more planets you land on and the more you're able to find the greater your population will be. This could and should directly control your overall production capacity, be it flight-crews, research, food, energy, and/or resource harvesting rates. It could define not just how big and how cool your colonies can be, but also what kind of technologies they can support. What I think time-based rewards do besides discouraging tedious warp-grind is to create a kind of temporal architecture for growth. If you want your colonies to be as big and as bad as they can be you really want to get those extra 20-30% boosts. It creates a small sense of urgency, and asks players to consider time not just as something to warp through to the next window, but as a resource to be utilized and make the most of each mission. It would be an extra reason to make really efficient resource processing systems or consider the advantages and disadvantages to harvesting and growing locally vs shipping everything from Kerbin on long transfers. It's just an extra, optional layer to consider and I think would add a huge amount of depth to the gameplay without punishing casual players too much.
  9. We've talked about the money thing before and I think its an interesting question. There's no particular reason it absolutely needs money, and a lot of my favorite games don't have it. But we really don't know how Intercept feels. It has a lot to do with that transition from Kerbin-based launches in the early game to colonization and offworld production chains in the later game. @shdwlrd is right it also has a bit to do with fail-states. Presumably off-world parts will have part-costs in terms of resources, and you could just skip money and supply players with a certain amount of resources from which to build their first few rockets on Kerbin. This however wouldn't avoid the failure state pitfall because you could launch a few rockets and fail to meet any goals and find yourself 'broke' and unable to do more. So perhaps rockets are simply 'free' on Kerbin, but you're limited instead by available parts and stricter height and mass limitations in the tier 1 VAB. (I've never liked the part-count limitation, but thats me.) You still have to think about efficiency because the name of the game is seeing how far you can go with smaller, lighter rockets. Thats where your bang for the buck comes from--unlocking more with less. In a way this disincentivizes colony building because parts cost resources off kerbin while they're 'free' on Kerbin. But in another way parts are 'free' in both places. The reason to build something at the mun with local resources rather than building it on Kerbin and shipping it there is that it's easier. The drive to produce things locally is not economic but logistical, and is ultimately driven naturally by gravity wells and transit times rather than artificial value.
  10. Yes one important thing we've learned is Timmon's graphic illustration skills are much better than mine haha @Timmon26 Seriously excellent. Agreed on all points. I would emphasize the value of clustering and overlapping resources though too. It should be a slightly open-ended strategic puzzle picking your colony and extraction sites to make things as lucrative and streamlined as you can make them. Good points, and who knows, Timmon might have the right of it in flattening things out. I completely agree that balance is a big part of it and that these dates would need to be adjusted from one difficulty setting to the next. In fact I think it could be one of the most important ways difficulties are managed. The dates couldn't be arbitrary, but based specifically on the timing of launch windows and more-or-less generous hohmann transfers, giving a bit of padding for imperfect maneuvers. On normal difficulty there's no need for these dates to be difficult to achieve. They're only there to prevent time-warp abuse. And yes, Im definitely using FOMO as the main tool to discourage endless time-warping. I think its important though that these date-based rewards are optional bonuses--maybe 20-30% on top of the main "Boom" reward that would pay out whether you missed the date or not. I think a lot of players will make sure that they get a probe off to Duna on the first window and a crewed mission on the second window to gobble up all the bonus rewards. This would probably incentivize having a few simultaneous missions going, which isn't everyone's taste. I tend to think though if we're setting up colonies and establishing supply routes and multi-planet infrastructure that simultaneous missions are more or less inevitable, that one-off missions would be more of a KSP1 thing. But of course if you just wanted to kick back and play it one mission at a time and not worry about missing bonuses you'd still be able to progress and grow at your leisure.
  11. Looks amazing yall Question for folks who know more about real engines: can this bit get scrunched up a bit for nutters like me who will try to use this for big landers? I feel like it's nice to have that vertical dimension as condensed as possible in that application.
  12. Here are a couple of diagrams showing what I mean about the number of basic resources. The first shows what happens if you only have 2: With 4 though the game challenges you to think more dynamically about expansion. These could be close enough by for an over-land supply run, or on a nearby moon even: And things get more interesting when you have whole planets that lack some resources and you have to think creatively about living off the land:
  13. @SciMan It's true, and we talked a bit about that. I won't speak for Timmon but I think he's right about the overall scale of complexity that could work. I figure by now Intercept has a pretty strong idea what they want to do so its just us theorizing, but in general my feeling is you want colony management to be as simple as it can possibly be and still allow for creative strategies. Most intermediate steps can be abstracted and condensed into the various refineries. To start I agree with him that you'd want at least 3-4 basic mineable resources. If you only have 2 resources from which you produce everything one of two things happens: either they overlap and there are places where you can build a colony and have everything without effort, or they don't overlap and there's no place thats particularly better to build than any other. 3-4 creates a more dynamic landscape where there are places where a couple of these resources overlap but you still need to expand and build new outposts and supply lines to go to the next level. In KSP1 there's just Ore and you have option load it up raw or process it on site. In reality it would almost always make sense to start to process it very close to where it was being harvested to cut down on transport mass. We'll see what intercept has in mind but I think you could just have drills and pre-processors that work together for each basic resource. After that the question is how many intermediate steps are absolutely necessary. In Timmon's diagram they go on to further processing in refineries to get different fuels, and workshops and reactors to make parts and energy. You could have an intermediate step with smelters and uranium enrichment facilities--but do you need to? For me realism isn't enough. Players should only be bothered with intermediate steps if they create a gameplay opportunity like being able to use one resource for two different end-uses or to streamline transportation in supply lines.
  14. Apropos, @Timmon26 did a pretty sick diagram of how colony economics could work and described it here:
  15. @Timmon26 Frostpunk is great. Much different game, (kind of brutal actually) but as a case study in well-tailored game mechanics its just brilliant. Population management is similar to Banished or Rimworld in that you set tasks and the AI workers go do it, and it has a day-night cycle which would obviously not be a thing for a game like KSP2. But one nugget that might be useful is the ability to click on a building and allocate 10 or 15 workers and that lets you modulate its output. If some modules like greenhouses and fuel plants required a certain number of personnel to maintain you could quickly click around your colony and assign them. It seems like a streamlined way to use Kerbals as a resource without totally bogging players down with individual assignments. And to my mind if you're loading dozens of kerbals at a time into transport and colony ships you'll need a way to move them around en masse anyway. In terms of the steady-state stuff time warp creates all kinds of weird dynamics and I think its a really clever solution. I hear what you're saying about ship/colony distinctions,... its tricky. To my mind time has always been a factor, and we should learn to lean into it. One of the helpful things in that is the cyclical nature of launch windows creates a kind of rhythm in the timings of most launches. A round trip to the Mun takes a few days, because of its inclination there are efficient windows every 25 days to Minmus, Duna windows open about every 500 days with 300 day transits, Jool a little more frequently but with much longer transits, etc. Over long periods time warp isn't regrettable, it's just something you have to do. The best I've come up with is to use the dates produced by these rhythms as goals for players. I guess we don't know much about these 'boom events', but if they're anything like milestones you just give bonus rewards for accomplishing them before a given date. Say if you landed your first Kerbal on Duna by day 1000 you'd get a 10% boost in kerbal population, or if you landed a probe on Laythe by day 1500 you'd get a free tech unlock. These would be on top of permanent, deadline free rewards just for accomplishing the task. Time-based bonuses for specific tasks would create a subtle incentive to do things relatively quickly without punishing players for time-warping when they actually need to. This doesn't fix the whole problem, because there's still plenty of time to build a whole civilization on the Mun before your first probe arrives at Duna, so you'd also have to restrict tech based on exploration more carefully and tailor ISRU rates to be challenging but not grueling based on the tech players are likely to have at any given point (no easy feat). But creating time based bonuses does alleviate the time-warp to infinity problem. The deeper question you've already posed though. The truth is if you're collecting resources and building colonies an economy management sim is what you have. The question is, what kind is it? How streamlined can it be so that it feeds into and informs the central gameplay--building rockets and flying them--without utterly dominating? Whether its steady state and results are instantaneous or whether its collection rates and converters its still a matter of balancing inputs and outputs to produce the desired result. This kind of mechanical resource management is already something we do with KSP1--making sure we have enough fuel for each stage, making sure we've got sufficient power supply and heat dissipation for Convertotrons, feeding some back into fuel cells to save mass or to deal with low light-levels far from Kerbol, etc. I, personally, love these little engineering puzzles, and would love to see colony management follow the same logic so there's a consistent theme from vessels to colonies that grows steadily in sophistication as you develop. And I think understanding time as a factor in that is absolutely possible, just tricky. For instance life support. Everyone freaks out about it because they're afraid everyone's going to die. But if your colony is producing it in the black all that will happen is the tanks will fill up and then it will coast. If you miscalculate and fall behind on power generation and the greenhouses shut down then kerbals get grumpy and their production drops to 60%. Nothing catastrophic, you just re-jigger your power supply and move on. I think this kind of challenging but not punishing resource puzzle sounds really fun.
  16. @Timmon26 Thats awesome! I love it. Im still wrapping my mind around thinking of everything in terms of collection rates... wouldn't storage capacity effectively do the same thing? As in you could time-warp until they were full and then that would be your cap for new launches? I also understand from something Nate said that launch sizes and mass would be controlled more tightly in the early stages with VAB upgrades. There might also be other scaleable and un-punishing ways to discourage players from time-warping to infini-money. But I think its a really interesting idea and I'll spend a bit of time pondering all that. I also really like your flow-chart. It's really well thought out. Im guessing Intercept proooobbbabbly has already got this kind of thing mostly nailed, but it's fun to think about, and I think we're close to the same page in terms of the kind of complexity scale that makes sense give or take a resource or two. For me its like... what is the right number of raw, harvestable resources, what are the minimum necessary intermediate resources, and how do end-products relate to other fundamental game systems. I think you've done a great job diagramming a way that could work. Starting with harvestable resources, more and more I think we want at least 3 or 4 minable resources--volatiles, metal ore, uranium ore and He3 seem great. I say this because I think we want to have areas of overlap where two but not all of those resources are prevalent. If there are only two basic resources from which you can draw basically everything any area of overlap will give you everything you need, and if there are no areas of overlap there's nothing special about any given place. With 3 or 4 you create a topography of opportunity where some resources overlap without giving players everything. Its also the reason I think Plastics are important as a building resource, because it means you'd need at least 2 basic resources to build new rockets and colony modules (Volitiles + Metals) and leaves Uranium as a rare resource for energy production, orion fuel, and hi-tech parts. The wild cards for landscape resources might be energy--wind and geothermal, or potentially areas with higher research value. Finding clusters of these kinds of overlapping areas of higher value would then be a big part of the surveying and prospecting process prior to putting down stakes. Maybe tomorrow I'll do a couple diagrams to show what I mean. PS Have you ever played Frostpunk? What did you think of its worker management system?
  17. I tend to agree with @Master39, and fortunately thats all heavily confirmed by intercept. KSP1 has a fantastic backbone in its lego style rocket construction and flight. Where it has struggled has been in integrating career elements like science and contracts. We had the ability to 'build fly dream' but not a reason to. To me building colonies and exploring other star systems provides that reason. I think they’re trying to hit just the right tone, that colony building will be like rocket building in that you have to think about physics and systems and efficiency, but it shouldn’t take so much away that building and flying rockets becomes secondary. Building colonies creates reasons to make unique prospecting missions and complex landers for delivering equipment and resources. Its a reason to learn to land reasonably precisely, or explore regions you wouldn’t bother with on a flags and footprints mission. If done well it could feed into mission profiles and landing goals much more seamlessly than contracts ever did. Accomplishing all this with reasonably tight, solid game mechanics and resource economies is a real challenge, but Im hopeful they can pull it off.
  18. This is not so much a suggestion as a thought experiment exploring the ways a game like KSP2 could make some of the ideas from real-world ISRU into a fun, playable experience. There are a few essential principles in this, to my mind, in this order of priority: fun gameplay, efficient mechanics, and allusions to real life physics. Im going to focus on the 2nd, as I think it's the hardest part and mitigates the other two. Its important to realize in this that real-life will always be much, much too complicated to emulate exactly and be fun, and given how complex KSP1's basic framework is its critical that colonization not utterly dominate player time. So the question for me is how few resources and processing steps are necessary to convey the idea of ISRU? Fuels, Parts, and Life Support Starting with fuels we have some guesses: Methalox, Monoprop, Xenon, Uranium, He3, MH, And likely H2 and Antimatter. From a purely chemical standpoint the raw materials for these are relatively few: Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Xenon, Helium-3, and Uranium. But from a harvesting standpoint even these can be simplified. From my perspective H2O and CO2 could be gathered together from the surface as "Ices", Xenon and O2 could be extracted directly from some atmospheres, He3 from surface regolith, and Uranium from mining. Thats only 3 basic resources: Ore, Regolith, and Gasses, which could then be processed into CH4, O2, H2O2, Xe, U, He3, and H2 and further into MH and Antimatter with the appropriate processors. Each of the 3 basic resources could be scanned and understood with values from low to high, which would only effect the rate at which they could be harvested. Or it could be that concentrations for things like He3 and Ices are displayed independently in scans, but this might make it more complicated to harvest raw regolith and process it later and know what you're going to get. Next come Parts, and I'll include both rocket parts and colony modules in this. Again to me this about maximizing simplicity while creating good gameplay, and fortunately I think real life does us some favors here. Im going to simplify the raw materials for most parts as Metals, Uranium, and Plastics. I say this because I think both Metals and Uranium could be produced from Ore, and Plastics could be produced from Regolith as an analog to either ethylene or basalt fibre. The reason for the latter distinction is it would cause players to consider both high-quality Ore and Regolith concentrations when picking colony and mining sites, or come up with ways to transport and combine them. Again Ore could have a single concentration rating and be separated using different processors, or Metals and Uranium could have their own individual concentrations depending on the location. Last is LS. Now, I understand many players trepidation at this topic, but I think there are ways to make this both manageable and fun. Given understandable concerns about players time-warping and accidentally killing whole colonies I think there are 2 ways to approach LS as a resource. 1: LS would be an engrained requirement for increasing crews and populations. In order to add more crew to a large vessel or take advantage of population booms you would need to add Hab modules that increase max crew capacities. We could assume onboard systems are closed loop and that LS is a static resource necessary only for building new habitable modules. In that way it would be just like Metals or Plastics as a part cost, but would instead be produced with greenhouses or MELiSSA style regenerative LS modules fed with Ice rich regolith and nutrients from Ore. 2: LS would be a resource thats consumed over time, but the consequences for running out would be relatively minor. It could be created by greenhouses, extended by recyclers, and made indefinite with regenerators. You'd need to pump it around just like any fuel, and you'd be inclined to make sure you have enough on any vessel without a regenerator, but if you ran out it would only make Kerbals Grumpy and less productive, not dead. Using an overall vessel-wide Happiness rating could also encourage players to add other more luxurious habitation modules like centrifuges and recreation facilities and diversify the kinds of later-game modules you'd want to add to growing colonies. That would lead to a resource flow that looked roughly like this: Ore> Metals, Uranium Regolith> Plastics, Methalox, Monoprop, He3, H2, MH, Antimatter Gasses> Xenon, O2 Ore+Regolith> LS And the following processors: Refinery > Metals Enrichment Centrifuge > Uranium Polymator > Plastics Fuel Processor > Methane, Oxygen Monoprop Processor > Monoprop He3 Factory > He3 Electrolyzer > H2 Metalic Hydrogen Foundry > MH Antimatter Plant > Boomsauce Greenhouse > LS None of which sounds crazy overwhelming, but I think is just enough to get players thinking carefully about surface concentrations as they're developing and expanding their capabilities.
  19. I could potentially see fewer experiments honestly, or at least making collection automatic or completely rethought to avoid tedious right-click menus.
  20. Goootcha. That makes sense. Id been thinking about whether non-nbody lagrange simulation/ approximations were possible for other things like satellites.
  21. Interesting. Cant you just put it on rails to follow the L2 point?
  22. So rad to see the process on this. And congrats Nertea that's fantastic news.
  23. I cant remember exactly but I feel like in my reading about real-physics interstellar travel they were only accelerating to .15-.2c. I guess you're suggesting they might also want to buff that to get in-game time-warps down? One thing to consider in all this is that by the time you're sending interstellar vessels you've probably got an entire economy of other vessels tooling around the Kerbol system, and because all of these vessels require attention from time to time--launch windows, circularizations, dockings, minor course corrections, etc, max-warping all the way to another star uninterrupted might not really be something that's likely to happen anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...