tseitsei89

Members
  • Content Count

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tseitsei89

  1. Making History definitely falls under category 2 IMO. Breaking grounds is much much better though...
  2. Making History definitely falls under category 2 IMO. Breaking grounds is much much better though...
  3. It most certainly is the DLC culture nowadays. Unfortunately most DLCs fall in to one of the following categories: 1. Developers leave out an important game mechanic/feature that should already be in the base game so they can sell it to customers as DLC and get more money. 2. DLC just adds some new equipment/parts/skills that really dont bring anything new to the game but are just slightly better versions of the original ones. So you have to buy the DLC if you want the best equipment/parts/skills but the DLC doesnt actually give you any new meaningful content.
  4. I really hate the dlc culture nowadays. It fragments the player base. Some play just the original version and some play with some of the dlcs and some with all of them. That makes forum competitions and craft sharing needlessly complicated. Also dlcs are often just a way to milk extra money from customers to unlock features that should already be in the base game...
  5. Yeah I learned a lot about dv and orbital mechanics etc too but having to do the same calculations for millionth time is not that fun or educational anymore... The learning curve is hard enough in this game for new players already even with these tools. Plus seeing the figures doesnt help much if you have no idea what they mean so you kind ox have to learn that stuff anyway. It just takes out the extra grind needed to manually calculate those numbers for every single rocket you build...
  6. Aaahh. Then better scores might be possible since "docking" becomes reasonable option with manouver nodes. I might have to give this another look...
  7. What do you need 10000 part crafts for? I can probably give you some tips how to reduce your part count to reasonable numbers...
  8. Not sure what you are talking about... I'm playing on an old laptop and I can launch 100+ part ships just fine. ~200 parts starts to be a problem but you rarely need that many parts on a ship. Also they have already stated that KSP2 will be much more optimized than KSP1 so there is also that
  9. Of course not every planet, but there needs to be some resource that is not availible on Kerbin to encourage people to colonize at least ONE planet. Sure! I didn't suggest having only one resource on a planet or only one planet having some resource. But cruising through the game (unlocking all the tech and all the parts etc.) by just grinding satellite contracts while never leaving the Kerbin SOI shouldn't be possible. You can do that if you want but then you won't "finish" the game. That is how progress mode works in games. You have to do harder/more advanced stuff as you progress. If you don't want to do that you can just stay at low tech and do missions you already know how to do, but then you shouldn't be rewarded with progress (new tech etc.). If you don't even want to try and progress you can always play sandbox. That is not a real problem since there will always be a new launch window if you just timewarp more. Yes I really hope LS is in the game. It is such an important part about real life spaceflight. And it would also make production rates matter since without it time is essentially free and you can just timewarp how far you want ifyou have even a tiny smidgeon of production going on... No progression mode in any game can work if it gives player a complete freedom. That is just sandbox. Also penalizing and rewarding are essentially the same thing... I mean you could think that a) I don't want to colonize a planet with metallic hydrogen manufacturing capabilities, so I am penalized by not having access to metallic hydrogen. OR b) I used this time and effort to build this colony so now I am rewarded with some metallic hydrogen. You see it's just a matter of perspective. EDIT: probably a good resource unavailable on kerbin would be something that is needed for interstellar travel. That way you could still fly around current kerbol system all you want but you need to actually do something new to access the more advanced stuff and new solar systems. Or if you just want to explore them right away you can play sandbox...
  10. As already stated, with timewarp it doesnt matter if the extraction process takes 1day or 100years. You can just warp until you have enough. Some kind of lifesupport requirement might fix this. Another problem is that if you make slightly more expensive/time consuming it will still be faster/cheaper than building a completely new base. And if you go the other way and make it very expensive people will still feel that they are forced to build bases. Ofcourse in sandbox everything can be readily availible in VAB so you can play that if you dont want to expand your space program to other planets/systems but would rather fly whatever missions you want...
  11. No no no no. All resources should NOT be found on all planets (and definitely not be "buyable" from ksc or be mineable on kerbin). That would make building bases useless once again like in ksp1. There needs to be some advanced resources that you can ONLY get by colonising other celestial bodies. That way you have an actual reason to build cool bases.
  12. As I said earlier in this topic, maybe you cant find all advanced fuels/materials on Kerbin and you need to mine and refine those elsewhere in order to be able to use lategame engines and such...
  13. Hopefully KSP2 will have some more advanced fuels and/or materials that you can't just purchase from VAB (except in sandbox mode) but you have to set up colonies in interesting locations and make those big enough so they can mine and refine those so you can use them. That would be an interesting and natural mechanic to make base building more interesting/necessary.
  14. Yes, copy of the original space shuttle seems impossible with this budget indeed.
  15. Yes and that is exactly why we would need a proper definition of a shuttle from the OP. Is spaceplane a shuttle? If I took your craft above and attached small wing strakes/fins on it, would that make it a shuttle even though it still doesn't look like a shuttle or fly like a shuttle.
  16. Well OP has not even replied what he meant by the word "shuttle". What makes craft a shuttle? If we don't have properly defined rules we can't know what to do. But yeah I can make a craft that costs less than 5000 funds, goes to minmus and returns safely to kerbin.
  17. There is a <5000 funds craft landing to duna and returning in there. Obviously the same craft could easily go to minmus and back...
  18. As you said modders have already been able to significantly beautify KSP1 so I am sure that professional game developers can beautify KSP2. I am still not convinced that KSP is a game that is fun in multiplayer but maybe they find a fun way to implement it. There are so many ways it CAN be don though. This is not hard. Better time warp mod already adds faster timewarp. There are also mods that allow accelerating with faster timewarps. Just implement those and maybe something like Kerbal Alarm Clock and problem is solved. We can already build huge bases on the surface if we want in KSP1. There is just not much reason to do that (other than that it looks cool). There has also already been mods (like Extraplanetary launchpads) that let you build and launch crafts off-world. And again I am sure professional game developers can do at least as well as modders. This is the only point I am actually worried about. I REALLY don't want the game to be dumbed down and made too easy to attract new players. I want a game with some challenge. Yes it is a massive task but making a good game is always a massive task. KSP1 was basically made from scratch and it turned out to be ok. This is not that big of a big task. This is just a design choice that you have to do really early on. KSP1 was already quite mod friendly so I don't see why KSP2 wouldn't be also.
  19. True but as you said it would "break" the gravity elsewhere...
  20. gravity changes with mass of the object yes, BUT it also changes with the distance (radius of the planet). If you have a set radius you can adjust surface gravity by changing planet density to whatever value you want. The problem is that then you change the orbital velocity (speed needed to orbit said planet) to some value that will be inconvenient if the planets are too small. No amount of density changing can fix both orbital velocity AND surface gravity. You can fix either one you want but not both. Just look at Kerbin. Kerbin is balanced so that surface gravity is same as on earths surface, but since Kerbin is smaller than earth, orbital velocity on low kerbin orbit is significantly lower than on low earth orbit... To fix both values you need to adjust both density AND radius of the planet.
  21. Visual programming is just so much more cumbersome than actual programming. And if the UI is done properly simple scripts will be very easy to do with text based programming also. Some basic example scripts provided by the game can be enough to get people started. Simple programming is much easier than people tend to believe. Edit: Also I am willing to say that ksp probably has more players with some kind of coding skills that most games . This is quite math/physics heavy game after all... Edit2: also I am not against visual UI IF text based version is also readily availible
  22. Yeah, not tipping over and finding a good escape trajectory from the mun without manouver nodes. I didn't have much dv to play with... And yes 89 is definitely the max score. I spent a while trying without the advanced rocketry but you just absolutely need the smaller engine. And the other T2 node is just mandatory because of decoupler. I will be truly amazed if someone pulls this off with a better score.
  23. Everyone will notice. It is a game based on orbital mechanics(you yourself said that earlier in this topic). Orbital mechanics is completely based on gravity. If you change gravity you change orbital mechanics and the whole thing the game is based on starts to break down. That is MUCH more severe problem than not having voxel terrain...
  24. Listen to me carefully: This. Is. Not. How. Physics. Work. Just look at current ksp and compare Kerbin to Earth. Kerbin's mass and diameter are balanced so that it has the same surface gravity as Earth, but since Kerbin is ~1/10th the diameter of Earth, the orbital velocity at low Kerbin orbit is only ~2.3km/s while on low Earth orbit it is ~7.7km/s... If they had kept Kerbins radius the same and balanced the mass so that it has that same 7.7km/s orbital speed at low orbit, it would have had significantly higher surface gravity (like several times of what it has now). It is simply mathematically impossible to balance both surface gravity and orbital velocity just by changing the mass of the object and keeping the size constant. The only way to do it would be to fundamentally change the way gravity itself works in the game, but that would be an awful idea for a game that is all about orbital mechanics... And that is why we need big planets EDIT: also 99% of KSP players will notice...
  25. Oh god... If you have no idea about basic orbital mechanics, please don't comment on what is needed and what is not needed... Sizes of planets tremendously affect the dv requirements which in turn tremendously affects gameplay...