AlexTheNotSoGreat

Members
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AlexTheNotSoGreat


  1. My only issue with the new capsule is that it might be too much like its real-world counterpart for the stock game (and is the only issue I have with the MK1-3 pod). Other than that, which is just a minor pet-peeve anyway, I'm really looking forward to new part designs!


  2. The worst I can imagine with the "DLC v. Modding competition" is a situation like that of Cities: Skylines. And with them, there was a healthy mix of good DLCs (After Dark, Natural disasters, mass transit), traces of their content entering the main game, and a noteworthy modding community (Maps/building assets comparable to planet/part mods). With KSP, I imagine big mods (on the scale of USI Kolonization, To Boldly Go, or KSP Interstellar) being able to become DLC.  However, with more time and skill available to T2 than the mod devs (not to insult Roverdude or anyone), plus access to the full KSP code, any DLC could easily provide much more than even those mods mentioned, including proper integration of certain plugins and continued support (no need to update ModuleManager or Kpernicus with every update, or worry about the mod being discontinued). The community would still have the ability to produce mods such as individual planet/part/visual packs, but the big ones could be done as the new DLCs that add perhaps much more than any one modder could accomplish.

    If anything, don't try and panic about potential C&D letters to a modding community much bigger than even GTA, or a modding system already hardened into the game code getting removed.


  3. On 9/21/2016 at 7:01 PM, Jonfliesgoats said:

    A cool long term experiment: greenhouses!

    That would be nice if when life support is implemented.

     

    On 9/20/2016 at 7:01 PM, The_Rocketeer said:

    @AlexTheNotSoGreat

    I love the idea of making outposts, bases and stations that are essentially 'science farms', with some sort of production synergy depending on which experiments are attached to the craft and how many and which astronauts are aboard. The MPL sort of does this, but in a really dissatisfying way. What I'd like is less of the 'run the experiment and send the results' approach, and more of the 'place an experiment and return later to see what you've learned'.

    Another idea I really like is 'modular experiments' instead of 'experiment modules'. This would sort of marry contracts and science experiments into a sort of puzzle that uses the actual data from various experiments in various situations to solve. The closer you get to the precise answer, the better your science reward. That way you reward the player for repeating experiments without insisting on it - pursuit of a perfect score is a choice, but if you just want to rush it and finish fast you just fulfil the basic criteria for a less-substantial reward, without worrying too much about (for example) flying at the perfect speed at the perfect altitude, or being exactly 500m from a biome boundary.

    This all sounds great. I did have the MPL's way of science in mind with this, but with general experiments at lesser degrees. So a crew report could give small amounts of science per day, but for, say, a year, and you get decent science (0.05sci/day LKO = ~21.3sci/year). And the concept of experiments working to answer a large question is brilliant! Geological activity on Mun with seismic/gravity scans, weather patterns on Duna with a few separate landers in different areas with barometers sensing for periods of time, and so on.

    On 9/22/2016 at 2:01 AM, Veeltch said:

    I just want the experiments to gather data as long as they are active. They consume EC anyway.

    I feel like this is already done in a way with the EC to transmit the info, but still a nice detail piece.


  4. 11 minutes ago, vasya pupkin said:

    Rephrasing what authors of the game said more than once - this is not a game about research of science (in this case, and there are others), but about launching a rockets...

    People most likely said the same thing with 1.2 and communications networks, making the game too hard. Like the system made in 1.2, this revamped science system wouldn't be hyper-realistic, with analyzing and properly making in-depth observations, but would still display at least some form of realism. The whole reason for my concept is to eradicate the very simple "click and send" science system in KSP currently, and make something at least a little bit more "enriched," if you will.

    7 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

    I love the idea of overhauling the science system.  I do like science points to spend on development, however.

    I think long term experiments, more sensors and more dynamics to measure would all greatly increase the variety of missions you can do in career mode.  Earlier I mentioned adding speed and acceleration dynamics for testing and science.  

    Long term measurements are a cool paradigm and we already have a model for doing similar things.  We scan for more by putting a probe in a polar orbit and it magically gets the data we need.  We don't have to wait for a thousand or so orbits to build our data.  We could do something similar for long term orbital surveys.

    For long term surface data, what about sensors that have to maintain stability for a given amount of time (so many days).  These would yield more science, but they have to be oriented just so (vertically, horizontally, etc. so a tipped over lander wouldn't cut it).

    Anyway, many more science options and much more expensive tech progression would create a more varied game experience.

    You seem to get the idea I'm wanting. A more diverse and dynamic science system is what I'm meaning, yet still able to "Keep It Simple Stupid."

     

    9 hours ago, Laie said:

    Radio Yerevan: in principle you're right, but I think science-over-time can be palatable and even a good gameplay element if you frame it well. Have you ever used Scansat? Mapping a planet takes time, and yes, you can timewarp right through it. Yet it feels right, while the stock method of just handing over the map as soon as you entered polar orbit is jarring.

    The better you can give the impression (1) that something is actually happening while you wait, the better it will work. Scansat is hard to beat in that regard, I can't think of anything that would come even close. But generally, setting a timer when deploying an experiment and providing the science points when $INTERVAL has passed would be bad. A solar observation satellite that yields a few science points every couple of weeks might go over better. Or a seismometer left behind on the Mun.

    Bonus point if you can frame it so that people don't feel like they have to timewarp-milk it for all it's worth, but can just accept it as something that keeps going while they do whatever they want to do next.

    --

    (1) or illusion, as the case may be. Because fundamentally you are right about time-based mechanics in KSP. The point I'm trying to make is that an illusion can still be enjoyable.

    Same here. You get a better feeling out of when you get your science with mapping and long term scanning.