Jump to content

kfsone

Members
  • Posts

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

56 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've spent literally the last week working to attach a large Mun base to a ground anchor so it I don't have to turn cheats on to spawn it without it flipping over / crashing itself into the ground. Now, the GARNET reactor in the base overheats and shuts down every time I leave physics range of the base and come back. The thing is, the reactor isn't hot - it hasn't been used in a while, it should actually be healthy, and I don't see anything in the part's SFS data that should cause this. Is there some way I can fix this? The base has a massive amount of heat rejection and the reactor itself has a heck-ton It occurred to me that perhaps the problem is that I *haven't* used the base in a while, but that's because I've had to spend an entire week fighting the game's extreme desire to launch this base into orbit or waggle all the parts until they explode (see the huge number of manually added struts). Side note: Building a base with a large footprint near a grand-slam experiment is a fantastic way to quickly get massive amounts of science; regular 1e9-1e11 impacts make for lots of seismology data, as long as you remember to turn off collision damage before you click Fly. If I edit the SFS file and change the CoreIntegrity to 100 and state to 0, then it comes back to a working state but immediately shuts down and damages itself on loading. PART { name = reactor-125 cid = 4281215308 uid = 1606797284 mid = 3112283054 persistentId = 998920866 launchID = 104 parent = 149 position = -14.636277198791504,3.2554168701171875,42.443935394287109 rotation = 0.00949838944,0.124046631,-0.00670795003,0.992208302 mirror = 1,1,1 symMethod = Mirror istg = 0 resPri = 0 dstg = 0 sqor = -1 sepI = 1 sidx = -1 attm = 0 sameVesselCollision = False srfN = , -1 attN = top, 156 attN = bottom, 149 mass = 1.06700003 shielded = False temp = 257.04494791662256 tempExt = 255.83656592192247 tempExtUnexp = 200 staticPressureAtm = 0 expt = 0.5 state = 0 PreFailState = 0 attached = True autostrutMode = Grandparent rigidAttachment = True flag = rTrf = reactor-125 modCost = 0 modMass = 0 moduleVariantName = moduleCargoStackableQuantity = 1 EVENTS { } ACTIONS { ToggleSameVesselInteraction { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } SetSameVesselInteraction { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } RemoveSameVesselInteraction { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } AutostrutOff { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } AutostrutRoot { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } AutostrutHeaviest { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } AutostrutGrandparent { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } ResourcesEnableFlow { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } ResourcesDisableFlow { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } } PARTDATA { } MODULE { name = ModuleUpdateOverride isEnabled = True stagingEnabled = True EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = FissionReactor isEnabled = True UIIcon = 1 UIName = MX-1 'GARNET' Fission Reactor CurrentSafetyOverride = 1300 CurrentPowerPercent = 25 AvailablePower = 0 TimewarpShutdown = False TimewarpShutdownFactor = 5 CoreIntegrity = 0 FirstLoad = False EfficiencyBonus = 1 IsActivated = False stagingEnabled = True lastUpdateTime = 139357268.04754806 EVENTS { } ACTIONS { TogglePanelAction { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } StopResourceConverterAction { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } StartResourceConverterAction { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } ToggleResourceConverterAction { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = ModuleCoreHeatNoCatchup isEnabled = True CoreTempGoalAdjustment = 0 CoreThermalEnergy = 257014.13069399877 stagingEnabled = True lastUpdateTime = 139357268.04754806 EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = FissionGenerator isEnabled = True CurrentGeneration = 0 CurrentHeatUsed = 0 Setting = 0 stagingEnabled = True EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = RadioactiveStorageContainer isEnabled = True stagingEnabled = True EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = ModuleB9PartSwitch isEnabled = True stagingEnabled = True moduleID = meshSwitch currentSubtype = Inline EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = TweakScale isEnabled = True active = True available = True currentScale = 3.75 defaultScale = 3.75 defaultTransformScale = (0, 0, 0) DryCost = 44376 OriginalCrewCapacity = 0 stagingEnabled = True EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = ModuleKaboom isEnabled = True delay = 0 isGlued = False stagingEnabled = True EVENTS { } ACTIONS { KaboomAction { actionGroup = None wasActiveBeforePartWasAdjusted = False } } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = ModuleB9PartInfo isEnabled = False stagingEnabled = True EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = AttachedOnEditor isEnabled = True active = True originalPos = (0, 27.520853, -4.25419617) originalRotation = (0.707106829, 0, 0, -0.707106829) moduleVersion = 6 stagingEnabled = True originalAttachNodePos = (0.0, 1.3, 0.0) originalAttachNodeSize = 1 originalAttachNodeOrientation = (0.0, 1.0, 0.0) originalAttachNodeOffset = (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) originalAttachNodePos = (0.0, -1.0, 0.0) originalAttachNodeSize = 1 originalAttachNodeOrientation = (0.0, -1.0, 0.0) originalAttachNodeOffset = (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = ModuleCargoPart isEnabled = True beingAttached = False beingSettled = False reinitResourcesOnStoreInVessel = False stagingEnabled = True EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } MODULE { name = KSPPartVolumeModule isEnabled = True stagingEnabled = True EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { } } RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge amount = 200 maxAmount = 200 flowState = True isTweakable = True hideFlow = False isVisible = True flowMode = Both } RESOURCE { name = DepletedFuel amount = 0 maxAmount = 65 flowState = True isTweakable = True hideFlow = False isVisible = True flowMode = Both } RESOURCE { name = EnrichedUranium amount = 64.093507812807914 maxAmount = 65 flowState = True isTweakable = True hideFlow = False isVisible = True flowMode = Both } } Entire SFS file is here If I don't turn the cheats on, the base self-destroys on unpack incrementally. By "incrementally", I mean it gets worse with every reload until I restart the game. 11th gen i7, 32GB of ram, nvme drive, rtx 2080, mods: [x] Science! Continued (xScienceContinued 6.0.0.10) Astrogator (Astrogator v0.10.3) AT Utils (AT-Utils v1.10.1) B9 Part Switch (B9PartSwitch v2.20.0) Breaking Ground (BreakingGround-DLC 1.7.1) ClickThrough Blocker (ClickThroughBlocker 1:0.1.10.17) Community Category Kit (CommunityCategoryKit v112.0.1) Community Resource Pack (CommunityResourcePack v112.0.1) Community Tech Tree (CommunityTechTree 1:3.4.4) Configurable Containers (ConfigurableContainers 2.6.2.1) Contract Configurator (ContractConfigurator 2.1.3) Contract Pack: Field Research (ContractConfigurator-FieldResearch 1.2.2) Contract Pack: Research Advancement Division (ResearchAdvancementDivision 1.2.1) Deployable Engines Plugin (DeployableEngines 1.3.1) Distant Object Enhancement /L (DistantObject v2.1.1.8) Distant Object Enhancement /L default config (DistantObject-default v2.1.1.8) Dynamic Battery Storage (DynamicBatteryStorage 2:2.2.5.0) Editor Extensions Redux (EditorExtensionsRedux 3.4.3.5) Engine Lighting Relit (EngineLightRelit 1.6.3.4) EVA Enhancements Continued (EVAEnhancementsContinued 0.1.15.3) EVA Refueling (EVARefueling 0.1) Extraplanetary Launchpads (ExtraPlanetaryLaunchpads 6.99.3.0) ForScience! (ForScienceUpdated 1.6.0) Fuel Tank Expansion Rebuilt (MunarIndustriesFTX 0.9.7.1) Global Construction (GroundConstruction 2.7.1) Global Construction Core (GroundConstruction-Core 2.7.1) Harmony 2 (Harmony2 2.2.1.0) Hide Empty Tech Tree Nodes (HideEmptyTechNodes 1.3.2) HyperEdit (HyperEdit 1.5.8.0) Interstellar Fuel Switch Core (InterstellarFuelSwitch-Core 3.29.4) Kaboom! (Kaboom 1.4.0.1) Kerbal Attachment System (KAS 1.11) Kerbal Dust Experiment (KDEX v2.0.2) Kerbal Engineer Redux (KerbalEngineerRedux 1.1.9.0) Kerbal Improved Save System (KerbalImprovedSaveSystem v2.4.2) Kerbal Inventory System (KIS 1.29) Kerbal Joint Reinforcement Continued (KerbalJointReinforcementContinued v3.6.1) Kerbal Planetary Base Systems (KerbalPlanetaryBaseSystems v1.6.16) KSP Community Fixes (KSPCommunityFixes 1.19.1) KSP Recall (KSP-Recall v0.3.0.1) KSP_PartVolume (KSP-PartVolume 0.0.3.3) Making History (MakingHistory-DLC 1.12.1) MechJeb 2 (MechJeb2 2.14.1.0) MechJeb and Engineer for all! (MechJebForAll 1.3.0.7) Mission Controller 2 (MissionController2 2:3.2.0.0) Module Manager (ModuleManager 4.2.2) Near Future Construction (NearFutureConstruction 1.3.1) Near Future Electrical (NearFutureElectrical 1.2.3) Near Future Electrical Core (NearFutureElectrical-Core 1.2.3) Near Future Exploration (NearFutureExploration 1.1.2) Near Future IVA Props (NearFutureProps 1:0.7.1) Near Future Launch Vehicles (NearFutureLaunchVehicles 2.2.0) Near Future Propulsion (NearFuturePropulsion 1.3.5) Near Future Solar (NearFutureSolar 1.3.2) Near Future Solar Core (NearFutureSolar-Core 1.3.2) Near Future Spacecraft (NearFutureSpacecraft 1.4.3) Part Wizard Continued (PartWizardContinued 1.3.9) Patch Manager (PatchManager 0.0.17.4) Physics Range Extender (PhysicsRangeExtender 1.21.0) PlanetShine (PlanetShine 0.2.6.6) PlanetShine - Default configuration (PlanetShine-Config-Default 0.2.6.6) Procedural Fairings (ProceduralFairings 1:v6.2.1) Procedural Parts (ProceduralParts v2.4.1) RCS Build Aid (RCSBuildAid v1.0.6) ReStock (ReStock 1.4.3) ReStock+ (ReStockPlus 1.4.3) Rover Science Continued (RoverScienceCont 2.3.5.6) Sandcastle (Sandcastle v1.0.9) SCANsat (SCANsat v20.4) ScienceAlert ReAlerted (ScienceAlert 1.9.10) SimpleFuelSwitch (SimpleFuelSwitch 1.4.2) Smart Parts (SmartParts 1.9.16.2) SpaceTux Library (SpaceTuxLibrary 0.0.8.4) StageRecovery (StageRecovery 1.9.5.4) Stockalike Station Parts Expansion Redux (StationPartsExpansionRedux 2.0.10) Stockalike Station Parts Expansion Redux - Internal Spaces (StationPartsExpansionRedux-IVAs 2.0.10) Toolbar (Toolbar 1:1.8.0.8) Toolbar Controller (ToolbarController 1:0.1.9.8) Transfer Window Planner (TransferWindowPlanner v1.8.0.0) TweakScale - Rescale Everything! (TweakScale v2.4.6.16) TweakScale Redistributable (TweakScale-Redist v2.4.6.16) Utility Weight (UtilityWeight 2.0.0) Zero MiniAVC (ZeroMiniAVC 1:1.1.2.4) I'd *just* installed physics range extender and have it disabled, disabling/uninstalling planet shine didn't have any appreciable impact on performance.
  2. We may have different values for "optimal" and "viable". KSP1 has a pretty hefty cognitive burden on maintaining a non-trivial base or station that has nothing to do with astrophysics and everything to do with how ksp implements its physics and the recursive sunk-cost fallacies that are built into vehicle packing/unpacking (tl;dr: because unpacking a vehicle is slow, they're sloppy about restoring its physics and you end up with impulses instead of moments which jump into the sack with some very silly rounding errors to rip vehicles/stations/bases apart. The KSP1 sfs loader seems to be about 450x slower than it needs to be and well over 2000 times slower than a naive binary approach using something like protocol buffers to handle the format) Maybe it's a mods thing, but I've also never had access to a sufficiently staffed science lab operating before reaching a point where I'm down to the completionist stage So not only the optimal way but - for me - also the only
  3. I guess my thinking is that KSP1 proved - to a degree - that you can make significant segments of that structure optional to cater to multiple "play" goals. Here for the physics and making SpaceX-mockup youtube videos? -> Sandbox. Here for interstellar base-building and couldn't give a rats about re-playing the KSP1-portion of the game? Select-a-Science(*) mode; and ... (* Select-a-Science: Show you the science tree and literally let you uncheck what nodes are available/not, with an "all" toggle to one side; I'm not sure if this is just spit-ball padding for the larger point or an actual idea)
  4. and I'm not suggesting this doesn't need more than a split second of thought - and let me also carefully reiterate that I'm not trying to suggest a one-size-fits-all force mode of gameplay. I can understand why KSP1 was a free-for-all, but most gamers don't actually like it when they get unfettered freedom or when grind is reduced to a single easy to move progress bar My point wasn't to design a constrictive system, tho, simply one with reasonable feedback. Trying different engines defaults to driving engine research. A lot of folks ended up running out of money when they played KSP1 the way you'd think it's supposed to be played, and if they stuck with the game they became risk-averse, and that turns part selection into a crude min-max with extreme penalties, so they'd end with a very limited vocabulary of parts they would use for specific functions (cf various youtubers saying "I made this video because people commented I only ever use the ..."). Unlock nodes would be a first step in making it possible to move the currency around, but there should multi-science should probably both be an option and some solid ways to move your points or incoming to other branches. Very interesting. Especially if they're wanting us to put time into building bases, I think a healthy long-tail of science needs to be there. I think players who are playing ksp2 will get gratification from seeing continued value from being able to keep earlier bases relevant. But in the spirit of sandbox, these nuances need to be opt-in: "Let them eat cake"
  5. Yes, yes, yes: that kind of feed-back loop is what I'd expected as "science", rather like in games like EverQuest 1 where using a skill is how you get experience in it ("You have become better at Sense Heading! (2)") My playthrus tend to consist of: Orbit, Mun, Minmus, otw to Eve and done. I've added a few base-building / construction mods in the hopes that this time I might set up a station on Gilly and land/launch from Eve, and then maybe reach Duna, but I suspect I'll probably mothball the game again before then because I'm starting to get that sense of fighting the game's aspirations over its capabilities. The fact I'm even considering editing the .sfs file to recover the crane I worked so hard to put on the Mun is a bad sign
  6. Disclaimer: I do think KSP2 has to give people a dashboard for their gameplay experience. The KSP1 science tree was a compromise between sandbox and hardcore simulation that was satisfying the way a lethal overdose must be. Typically, skill/research/science trees in games have two very important roles that were entirely absent in KSP1: 1- Theme parking: Do your thing to earn more of your thing. D&D lets you choose where you spend your skill points because if you want to play a rogue, you don't want the game foisting str and wis on you; New World turned off a big chunk of players by downgrading the drop chances of player-appropriate gear to encourage trade; if a player wants to build orbital bases, how did their last science spend force them to take 7 new wing-surfaces? 2- Guide rails: Part of the beauty of KSP1 was abusing parts in constructive ways. Those 7 new wing-surfaces might actually have a decorative purpose for building your orbital, but it's pretty unlikely, and KSP1 exasperated that issue by eventually throwing so much stuff into each science gain that you would never bother to engage with a lot of it (I *still* occasionally discover new stock parts or their roles, after all this time). Making me pay 1500 science for 7 wings I don't want so I can pay 3000 for a landing gear I do want and a bunch of "crap" I don't care about ... feels like dealing with my bank. Total finger-in-the-air: I'd instead have "advancement" nodes with multiple unlock conditions and possibly no science, and which start with a minimal number of parts the way the root of the tree does, to encourage you to try. I mean, there's not much point in getting landing-gears until you have the ability to go somewhere to land: so surely you need to either have tried to land back home or done a fly-by behind another body before you start on landing stuff? (In this particular play configuration)
  7. I've been working on a Mun base for a while now, and it's been a brutal learning experience, that I think I can boil down at this point to: I can't seem to stick things to the ground. I'd built a little mobile crane that could carry new extensions, line them up and dock them, but during landing my 3rd component, the instant the base & crane unpacked, the crane either exploded so hard that pieces of it left the kerbol system within a few minutes, or the crane simply landed on the sun. The base also occasionally had a tendency to fly up and meet me during landing, but not in a good way like you'd want. I removed all the auto-struts and that seemed to help. But now, every time I fly into range of the base or every time I exit timewarp, the base leaps up off the surface or begins making a hard turn. Until I turned on "Pause on unpack vehicle" and "unbreakable joints" this would destroy the base 1 time out of 3. So I did a small experiment and used some of the "anchor to ground" elements from KAS etc, and they seem to have the ability to stay put, but I've put a bunch of effort into this base at this point, and I'd like to know if there is some way that I can affix an existing base to the ground? I tried putting a stamp-o-tron or a K&K ground anchor with a docking port, but my base is big enough now that it can't get close enough to dock. Is there some way to affix an existing base to the surface it is sitting on? A part? A mod? An edit of the SFS file?
  8. I disagree slightly - not stripping away time-sinks, but providing flexibility. Plenty of people just aren't going to give a dingo's kidney about bases, even in KSP2, and plenty of people are going to come to KSP2 just for the base building and are going to be going absolutely stir crazy that they can't just request part delivery and spend all their time putting their base together. (My wife is an MMO-housing addict and she keeps asking me questions about building bases in KSP2; 'Is it multiplayer? Can you fly the parts I need so I can focus on building my colony?') I don't think you can make a 1-size-fits-all general play mode for KSP2, not with rocket building, colony building and interstellar travel - it's too diverse. But if I've found one thing about KSP is that's every time I've come back to it after a few months/year hiatus, I totally get into some one particular thing. This time - for reasons in the OP - I've ended up spending weeks focused entirely on building this one mun base. I imagine - I hope - KSP2 won't just add breadth, but will invest KSP1-learnings to also give some depth to the different focus-channels/time-sinks so that the game is more than just a choice between "rockeet" and "get to the mun->build a base->fly to Alpha Kerbturai->victory" If the entire slog of building your first mun colony has the sole purpose of launching your first interstellar, if building the colony can't also be fun and rewarding in/of itself, then a lot of players might not bother engaging with the work needed to work on the second. Conversely: a lot of players aren't going to bother spending months or weeks building a mun base just to punch a ticket that lets them fly to another star?
  9. This is really where I'm speaking to with the science stuff: we're aligned in thinking about the clicky science being a distraction from "rocketeering", but I think from a purely design perspective that when players are building bases they're going to need an investment stake: rocketeering means you're building bases for resupply, etc, so they've already got their stake and forcing them to prance about placing seismometers or triangulating theodolite measurements is going to kill their enjoyment. Building space-stations/bases, tho, if you're not playing rocketeer, and if you're not - oh god I hope not - wandering around in the base playing some kind of minecraft/space-engineers housing game, then you probably came to KSP2 base building because you wanted to play the SpaceX starship debarkee and there needs to be stuff that encourages you to waddle around with kerbals and feeds back into the other gameplay systems without crippling them for rocketeers.
  10. Again, one of my reasons for the post was that base-building has been clearly indicated to be a big part of KSP2. I would argue that - per my #4 - the "grind" in KSP1 is that you are _either_ building vehicles and traversing space, or you're trying to build a base and the flying/building is an inconvenience to you. Please realize I'm only saying that one is a grind to a person focused on the other, in particular because - even in story mode - KSP1 discourages you from learning from your mistakes, it's too expensive. You can't pull off a Starship in Story Mode unless you're willing to put a larger amount of time into doing funding missions. Instead, you revert your way thru to a starship. And that's because there's just no good tie-in between the fundamentals - building and flying - and the progression system. The amounts of science you get from a bad launch are pitiful, there's no wind-tunnel/test stands to mess with for experiments you can afford not to revert.
  11. You're underscoring a point I hoped I had made in the OP; So far all indications have been that KSP2 has invested significant work into base construction. There will be people who are playing KSP2 for building rockets who'll have _some_ need of bases here and there, but really don't care too much about solving life support issues or "doing" science that doesn't get them their next engine; and there are going to be people who want to build space-housing, and don't care about "doing" science to be able to build 1.875m connecting tubes... Deeper play-styles should be opt-in, so you can decide you want to have to run the full gamut of space-program missions to build your first base on Duna: send a digital watch with a camera and an fm radio to get your first 80x60 black and white image; get enough reward from crashing a few landers that you won't even think of reverting and send your first few probes, send a high-res camera so you can unlock suitable landing stuff like legs or drogues that fit the place you're going to. Given the mission stuff added to KSP1, there's clearly some market for that, KSP1 just didn't have to substance to really sell it beyond the core aspects of "build rockets" of KSP1 itself.
  12. I definitely do not want to suggest that KSP2 should be No Man's Sky But if - as the show and tells have suggested - they want more of a base-building focus in KSP2, there's got to be some justification for having kerbals out in the yard, so to speak. You're never going to make it non-repetitive unless you're _really_ doing science somehow - but you could flesh it out by taking something like surveying that requires you to keep moving equipment around. At the same time - per item #4 - I think you should get a healthy stream of science from actually using parts, which plays back into the focus on flying and building. In KSP1, you build rockets. Building bases is really "end game" grind. They've said that building bases is going to be a major factor in KSP2, but all I can think is: why? To me, building rockets and stations is to building bases what lego mechanics is to having 2 blocks of lego. I'm not everyone and KSP1 has done well, so this just comes back round to the different options for and levels of play - there are definitely folks who'll find bases meaningful if they can move their kerbals around in them, so long as there's also a hook, such as giving them the option to play at IVA level and stand your kerbals at specific research displays to finess where your science/innovation progress goes.
  13. The majority of people out there describe KSP2 as a "quirky rocket simulator": it's "a game about building and flying or crashing rockets". What about landing? "I guess, I never really bothered with that". When you say "Moon landing" to someone, they think about guys bouncing around on the moon playing golf, setting up experiments. You might do that once in KSP1 but that quickly teaches you that there's no value to it. We started to get closer to that kind of aspect towards the end of KSP1s development, but it wasn't really "game play". All the other science experiments were still instantaneous. The only really interesting science project I remember from KSP1 was one where you had to drop seismometers to support triangulation. The next thing people think of is photography (well, "pictures"). The famous reflected-in-visor picture, landing site pictures, etc. People get most excited about pictures of Mars when there's the "landing site" oval on them. In KSP1 that gets wrapped up with biome discovery, and again it's instantaneous. Finally, there's the aspect of discovery and innovation. The KSP1 knowledge trees felt, from the offset, like procurement not discovery. There's a total lack of causality between what I do as a player and what my scientists uncover back home, the research tree was also terribly tuned - sometimes you struggled for weeks to get one absolutely critical node, and other times a single flight unlocked you so many nodes that you miss out on critical additions because you just never got around to trying them. A huge chunk of player retention and playability probably went over many players' heads because of this. Given the success of KSP1 there is clearly a decent sized audience that just wants to see their designs land on other planets, but with KSP2s emphasis on base building, there REALLY needs to be reason to want to have a base. I've recently been trying to force myself to build a mun base in KSP1 and ... it's hard overcoming the obstacles given that once it's built, my next step will be to leave it. My point is that I am going to suggest some feature flag ideas that I think would create a richer, more engaging, deeper experience for people who aren't already hardcore KSP1 devotees following IP loyalty rather than things I think should be mandatory play requirements. 1- Science areas: Instead of a single science currency, a split science research system that tempers different knowledge areas and allows different science instruments the opportunity to serve multiple roles in producing science units. Trivially: Orbital Mechanics, Physics, Chemistry; or you could split it into more complex categories like "materials science", "super conductivity", etc, etc. Thinking point: Taking pictures of different surfaces at different resolutions might contribute to guidance systems and landing systems; Sampling atmospheres might contribute to flight controls and surfaces... 2- Science activities: Even if you reduce it to what an away team might do with their "tricoders" in the most mundane episode, there's purpose and input required. In KSP1 you can click EVA, right-click, left-click "surface sample" and hit b in under 3 seconds. Instead, try to _reward_ the player's success in arriving by _making use_ of their interest in being there. Create run-times for experiments, create interference between experiments, maybe use error bars that diminish with science/skill/research, create non-terminal failure scenarios that tie back into research & discover. E.g: flight instruments that are subject to initially undocumented shielding-related failure that leads into upgrade research, a science instrument that turns out not to work when exposed to sunlight on the Mun leading to housing upgrades, telescopes that lead into cooling upgrades, etc, etc. Choose a smallish lexicon of 'experimentation' actions - try turning it off and on again, try running in sunlight vs dark, try doing it at a different altitude or a different velocity or in a different atmosphere, try moving it 100ft from another instrument, etc. Even if science still worked KSP1 instantaneous style, this would give the instruments infinitely more "hands-on" time value. Thinking point: what can you take away from this instrument to become a carrot for interacting with it more directly a handful of times without making it so annoying I'll never bother? 3- Science mysteries (anomalies): When we send a probe to mars, we are incredibly focused in the instruments placed on it for their operability but more importantly to the area they are going to and the science they will conduct. Some of our recent landers have very high-res cameras not for the photo ops - although that helps with funding - but for things like inspecting how the rover interacts with the soil/terrain or looking at the results of geological/mineral instruments. In KSP1 when you build a probe for Juno you just shove all the available science instruments you can on it and ship it, since the restrictions on instruments tend to be very coarse grained: atmosphere or not, daylight or not. You don't have to worry about temperatures, radiation, non-boolean levels of light, magnetic field, etc. And there's no overlap for you to lean in to. Thinking point: can we _excite/reward_ the player for losing signal with the first probe to arrive at Juno due to previously undetected conditions that introduce additional mechanics/gameplay? Thinking point: instrument specialization vs mass -- a probe with 100 generic instruments producing as much/less science than the same probe with a good combo of 3 more specialized instruments (see also science areas). 4- Risk: In KSP1 "story" mode, flying and crashing becomes not-an-option, and there's no soft middle-ground for testing things you build in story mode making it very easy to get bankrupted with no real way to recover, unless you're willing to keep fast forwarding until you get a small enough mission you can fly with enough payback to get you flying again - although that can take actual real time days (or not flying, just fast forwarding, checking missions, saving & reloading). Secondly, there's no payback from flying and crashing in KSP1. When Jeb slams into the ground because the wings came off, there is only what you learn directly about the flight, which is no help if you won't have the money to fly again without reloading the game. This leads to people _not_ enjoying the most fun part of ksp simply because it's stick followed by stick, so as soon as those wings come off, esc -> revert. I think reputation was never fully realized in KSP1, it should be a sort of backup currency that can be leveraged to produce money at the cost of having to do "photo op" missions. Get kerbals to test-fly some shonky variant of a new engine for someone; get some 3d pictures of Duna to showcase Kony's new K-Ray KvK Player (hmm, these pictures are great, but we really need them to be more blue than red, the K-Ray player has a risk of fire if more than 90% of the pixels are red instead of blue...) Thinking point: failure sure be rewarding enough that most of the time players will risk failure-with-a-cookie vs failsafe-without-a-cookie, but sometimes there needs to be a choice/alternative: I shouldn't be unable to move on to duna because I have not yet returned people from the surface of eve.
  14. "5... 4... 3... 2... 1... ... ... Oh, the batteries went flat on the pad" Would it be possible for a mod to make the launch holders/clamps/gantries have infinite power to share with the vehicle?
  15. Our Guru, who art on Linux, gameful be thy design... The urge to suggest variations on the times is strong, but knee jerk Can I ask what sort of scope one has for variation? I mean, would it be possible to build on this a way to have tiers of the different experiments such as a dumb level 1 thermometer that needs 5s to take a reading (if it takes a day to read a thermometer, I'm never going to the drs office when I have indigestion again)? Can the amount of science a particular "study" gives be controlled, eg a device gives 5% if you get a minmum 5s sampling, but needs 60s+ to reward10%, 5 minutes to get 20, 1 day for 100%. { t<5 :- 0%; 5<=t<60 :- 5%; 60<=t<300 :- 10%; ... } (In gameplay terms: you can get flyby measurements, aerobraking measurements, and study measurements) When most people think of the apollo landings their first mental image is either amstrong+flag or an astronaut in mid-stride carrying some complex looking piece of equipment: the latter was them deploying science experiments. I think a lot of kerbal "player"s were expecting to land on planets and do ... something. Instead of land on planets, place a flag and think "next time I won't bother getting off the ladder". The single most interesting science experiment in kerbal to date was the seismology one, which varied results based on how many probes you dropped, so you actually felt like you were even remotely involved in the science. It would be awesome to have more science options that require you to actually spend time on the surface >doing<: "take 5 x 5 minute readings, 100m apart" with a +/-1m window. Surveying ... coordinating two kerbals to make measurements... ZOMG. Thanks so much for this mod!
×
×
  • Create New...