Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pandaman

  1. 3 minutes ago, Serenity said:

    It probably wasn't the perfect choice of word to use but that's how it felt for me.

    I feel there is a very difficult balance between limiting the creativity and being accessible and easy to use.

    Lately the trend is for games to be more ''mobile'' oriented with very narrow paths to explore and utilize.

    I understand its almost impossible to satisfy both sides but it scares me to see the industry going to the lets keep it simple and straightforward.

    I don't want games to be like interactive movies that guide me in every step.

    Not saying this is gonna happen with Kerbal it's only my fears but i am hopeful.

    I completely agreee with this. 

    I don't like the idea of a 'story mode' for anything other than a specific tutorial series of missions.

    I very much doubt that KSP2 will be dumbed down at all, in fact they have said as much.  They just want to give players the appropriate tools and information to actually play and enjoy it.  That way they will retain more players that would otherwise give up after a few hours because they get frustrated with it.


  2. 18 hours ago, Serenity said:


    Yes it has many rough parts but in this video its described almost as an impossible game to enjoy and create crafts to traverse the Kerbal universe.

    I don't think it is disrespecful, it highlights one of the major flaws KSP1 has.  It is incredibly hard to just open it up and play,  even enough to see if you like it.  Not impossible I know, but very off putting to many, especially if they have nobody  on hand to ask how things work.  You shoudn't need to have to resort to youtube to even learn the basics, that info should be accessible in game.

    I really hope the tutorials in KSP2 cover the UI game functions as well as they seem to be covering the 'rocket science'.

  3. KSP is well known for it's steep learning curve.  The fact that most of us seem to have needed to ask Scott Manley to show us how to do things shows that the current  in game tutorials are simply not adequate.

    And not just for the the 'rocket science' things.  The instructions as to how the game systems and features work are very poor too.  To the point where I am reluctant to reccommend KSP to people who would probably love it because the game does very little to show you how to even play it, never mind how to reach orbit or go interplanetary.

    The KSP2 tutorials look like they are going to remove that barrier for both new players and 'converters' like me, who will still need to learn the nee UI and game mechanics.

  4. 7 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

    Wait, you can connect two vehicles with fuel lines now? I thougt they couldn't d othat yet

    You need to 'dock' them with a claw first, then attach two fuel lines - one each way.   But using the method above doesn't require fuel lines (until they decude to 'fix it' of course), as you aren't using the 'fuel transfer' function.

  5. 6 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

    Which brings me back to what I said a few posts up – in my opinion the entire Sci mechanic is kind of DOA and needs to be rethought from scratch; the MPL is just the cherry on the cake.

    Agreed.  That's why i only pjay sandbox now.  I like the idea of career, and would want to play it, but it just doesn't inspire me to continue playing it after the first few missions.  Hopefully the KSP 2  equivalent will be to my liking.

  6. 4 hours ago, InfernoSD said:

    I think the research lab in KSP1 is one of the worst ideas put in to that game. Any situation in which you progress simply by holding down the time warp button is not fun or interesting. For that reason I hope first-time discoveries are the only research you can do, but I suspect we will get a mix of both again.

    I do get your point, but it is perfectly possible to 'do something else' whilst the Lab is doing it's thing.  Just because you can time warp through it doesn't mean you must.

  7. 27 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

    I expect that in KSP2 progress will be constrained by resource availability and colony level. That means that any difference between adventure and sandbox mode will be much smaller than in KSP1, assuming that adventure mode has some mechanics for unlocking the tech tree and sandbox doesn't.

    I am certainly interested in seeing how it works, and looking forward to trying it out.

    I just hope it holds my interest more than the KSP1 science and career options.  But hopefully sandbox will be there in some form anyway.

  8. 31 minutes ago, jastrone said:

    well it wouldnt be much of an adventure if you already had everything unlocked. there must be something blocking you from reaching the goal. thecnological progresion fills that need perfectly

    I disagree,  I play Sandbox exclusively.  Each to their own, but as much as I like the idea of them I just can't get on with career/science modes as they are now.

    I have loads of adventures, It's just that 'unlocking tech' isn't one of them.

  9. Nice idea, but I don't think different buiiding variants for different environments will happen.

    If it is done anything like in KSP1 each 'building' will effectively be a part of the  overall structure, a bit like large versions of the ISRU converters.  So we add on the bits we need (radiators etc) to enable them to work in the environment we place them in where needed

    Not to mention the additional design work involved, 

  10. Surface refuelling has always been a bit 'fiddly', the recently added ability for engineers to attach fuel lines has made it easier, but it can still be a finicky process.  The 'obvious' procedure is to have a mining station that harvests, converts and stores fuel, which is then transferred to the vessels needing fuel, either directly or via 'tanker rovers'.  This requires  accurate landing and/or several docking (or claw and fuel line connecting) procedures  to transfer the fuel.

    Here is a slightly different method that I just tried and seems to work ok, and is less fiddly...

     The 'mining station' is itself a moderately large rover that has a drill, a small ore tank, power generation (i use fuel cells) and a little fuel storage (sufficient  to run the fuel cells while starting up), cooling radiators etc.  And a small claw for connecting to the target vessel.  The whole thing uses a large Mk3 cargo bay as a chassis.  As long as the vessel needing fuel lands somewhere near the refuelling rover all is good.

    Essentially, I drive the refueller up to the target vessel and connect using the claw, that way docking ports don't need to line up.  Start the fuel cells, deploy the drill, start the converter and leave to simmer until done.  The tanks on the target fill up, once done I disconnect and can drive to the next 'customer'.

    I don't need fuel storage on the surface, as I mine and convert 'on demand'.  So therefore I don't  need multiple fuel truck runs to and from the storage  facilities to the target.  And I can 'drop' my refuelling rovers wherever I need them without thinking about needing additional supporting infrastructures.



  11. 1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

    Of course it can, and they can. However, I would prefer that it doesn’t, and they don’t.

    I do understand, and fully respect, this point of view.

    My 'logic' behind the basic suggestion of some way to enable players to learn about people or events referenced in game is to build on the 'accidentally educational' aspects of the game.  If players feel forced to learn it can spoil the fun, but if a gentle prompt can somehow let them know that 'this name has some significance' and can give them a relatively easy way to find out how to learn about it, should they wish to, then why not try to find a suitable way to impkement it. 

    However, it is paramount that the fun of playing the game is not disrupted.  We all play for fun after all.

  12. 30 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

    As this is not about KSP itself, the thread has been moved to Kerbal Network. 


    38 minutes ago, Kernel Kraken said:

    Isn't squad headquartered in Mexico City? I hope everyone on the team is okay. @SQUAD Are y'all alright down there?

    Yes it is.

  • Create New...