Jump to content

mcwaffles2003

Members
  • Posts

    1,728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,493 Excellent

3 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    Space Picture Taker

Recent Profile Visitors

4,241 profile views
  1. Why would having kerbals nearby make it just a toy instead of an exploration asset? Just have the kerbals in orbit of the planet. The drone is still an effective exploration asset and the lag is gone. I just want to say... that craft... dope. There would be new constraints to work with (bring a kerbal) but that isn't getting in the way of any of this... Just have a kerbal in orbit that has comms with the probe. Is it as easy as what you've shown? No but it's not much harder either, it adds another factor, but you can still complete the same exact mission, no automation required. If you can get a probe to do all this you can put a kerbal in orbit nearby, probably on the same trip. What is so bad about putting a kerbal in orbit? Also, you're making an argument for realistic mission profiles while including fly by wire space probes... Furthermore, you're arguing to take away an entire genre of possible play style when including it make your play style just marginally more difficult. I'm here arguing for us both to be able to play our styles and your saying my play style shouldn't even be included in the game while yours is. Would it really have taken all the joy you've spoken of to have also included putting a kerbal in orbit in your mission profile or could it have instead added to it? I just want a simple toggle to allow for time delay.
  2. I expect establishing colonies to also be central to the games goals not only to create new launching points but also to develop resource acquiring infrastructure. That said, I still don't expect colony establishment missions to take up a large proportion of the total missions though. I doubt we'll be seeing 1 colony per planet and am instead expecting 2 or 3 probably per star system. Also, as I've said, if someone doesn't want to use probes due to landing difficulties then why not just make it a manned mission? I keep asking this and no one answers. I made a thread a while ago where I ask how central people think kerbals are to the game: The response was very clear that the vast majority felt they were absolutely essential and to my surprise over 20% of people chose "Absolutely essential, they are the core focus of the game and without them KSP is utterly worthless" And now I keep suggesting people just bring a kerbal and the only response I am hearing is something like "but now probes are impractical" when a "probe" is just a spacecraft absent of a kerbal. Just add the kerbal... I thought these little green dudes were the heavens mana of the game but apparently using them in a craft is akin to witchcraft. As I've discussed in other science threads I hope to see science experiments to be useful in a practical manner, along with or aside from tech tree advancement mechanics. This said, I also expect if the tech tree still exists and is anything like that in KSP 1 it will be more appropriately balanced as I'm sure the devs are aware this is a genuine concern. Didn't you just say science returns were already excessive? I feel like if we want people to bring more kerbals that they would need more purposes for kerbals to fulfil. With the current attitude of the community though I don't see this happening. Pilots would be useful if they weren't just heavier probes so currently there's little purpose to bring them. Engineers would be useful if ships required maintenance, but the community is largely against having parts demonstrate wear-and-tear or have "random" failures. Scientists are useful in that the multiply science gains from experiments, but as you've just mentioned, that's actually a problem. Though they're also useful in resetting single use experiments. Having medical kerbals or gardener kerbals would be nice jobs for crew members to have but the community is mostly not in favor of any form of life support being included in the stock game. I'm sure there are plenty of other jobs that kerbals could fill but making those jobs worth while would require making the lack of a kerbal in those positions comparatively detrimental since if that was not the case no one would be incentivized to use them. And with the majority of the attitude, as I'm hearing it on this thread, is that isn't what people say they want. So I doubt we'll see people bringing many kerbals along for any reason beyond showing that they can as is currently the case. You keep saying this but have yet to justify it... You are someone on this forum who I respect and genuinely believe to argue honestly. So please, tell me how my proposition shoves autopilot down peoples throats and takes away peoples ability to manually fly. I've asked multiple times and have yet to hear a direct response. I don't mean to nag and won't ask again.
  3. How? Kerbals are always there. You literally always have the opportunity to fly.
  4. As things stand, what's the difference anyway? Probes can't plant flags and collect surface samples... that's about it. It's apparently a significant element if it's worthy of having an argument about. Also, I'd argue the case right now is that half of the gameplay is already gone since the functionality of probes and crewed craft are no different when they could be. So instead of having 2 different options with different pros and cons worth weighing against one another and fitting to the necessary task at hand we have 2 of the same options where choice is effectively arbitrary. Adding a delay isn;t incorporating new gameplay elements? Also, adding and subtracting gameplay elements aren't the only relevant aspects of game design. I'm talking about balancing the existing gameplay elements. Currently, what purpose do I have of bringing a kerbal into space? Genuinely, can you make a good argument for me to bother launching kerbals into space? Cause so far, to me, they're just dead weight, which is the last thing you want on a rocket and even more so on the final stage of a rocket. At best in KSP 2, so far, I have to bring a kerbal into space whenever I want to: Establish a new colony (very niche) Plant a flag Retrieve a soil sample Show caution incase I lose signal at a critical moment (only real purpose imo) That's about it... Conversely, why would I avoid bringing a kerbal into space? They add substantial mass to my ship in the worst place They serve no special function in flight that gives any advantage to my ship I'm rarely ever building a colony I rarely need to plant a flag and I'll do that the same mission I build the colony I don't need a surface sample (job will probably be taken by things like the new resource scanner anyway) Unless you somehow didn't plan your entire trip absolutely perfectly and the very unlikely scenario of anything on your ship has gone wrong or didn't function as expected. /s Also, this comes off as assuming there is no fun in actually trying to plan a trip out fully ahead of time... No, something becomes "OP" when choosing anything other than it is obviously/intentionally putting the chooser at some overall disadvantage. And currently, attaching a kerbal to a rocket makes the rocket perform worse while adding pretty much nothing of benefit. That's the thing though, I want kerbals to be more than just another science experiment that I've attached to a rocket... I want kerbals to matter beyond head-canon. I feel that probes have stolen the place where kerbals could have shined the brightest... as pilots flying the ship, even without a stock autopilot the kerbals have had their jobs stolen by automation. Commnet has never been an issue for me since I always establish a satellite network at my destination before doing anything where occlusion can be an issue and I'm happy commnet was introduced to the game since it has given me a purpose to bother establishing space infrastructure. That said, how often are we going to be starting a colony? and if the only time I need a kerbal is when Im starting a colony, then yes they are effectively just a single part like any other. I'm not trying to take flying out of the game. Just bring a kerbal if you want to manually fly far from a comms center... I don't get why this is so difficult, especially as you've been trying to convince me that bringing a kerbal isn't that big of a disadvantage anyway. I'm just trying to expand our gameplay options as opposed to having effectively 2 identical ones. Option 1: Bring a kerbal and manually fly craft. They require a bit more weight which limits delta V a bit, but they're fun to fly with and it's a simpler and more approachable Option 2: Use probes and design automated flight profiles through a VPL. They are more efficient but require the user to learn basic programming skills and practice thorough planning. It's not like everyone is going to want to pick up programming to ensure they never have to manually fly a craft and I really don't understand the apprehension to having this style of play available in stock. If simple rockets, a game much smaller than KSP, can incorporate its own VPL then I see no reason why KSP with a new big fancy studio and plenty of experienced devs can't. If you dont want to use programming... then just bring a kerbal.
  5. Not if you bring a kerbal pilot, then option 1 is still available. This is a fair point and I'm not one personally to stick rigidly to realism over gameplay for realisms sake, but I still find the quirk of including a speed of light delay as a fun mechanic to have to work around. This is just my preference though. This seems more like changing the subject than addressing the point of the argument. To the point you are making, kerbals are simply cargo and no more useful than ore or spare parts. Also, in regards to "there's little to no reason to do anything", that's only if your goal is to fill out the tech tree as opposed to completing missions in career.
  6. I'm on the side of including speed of light delay but so long as a system of automation or ahead planning is put in place in the form of a VPL like simplerockets has or a maneuver planner like in mechjebs suite. Having a kOS system in place would be nice too but I think that's a bit too much for the general public as a whole. IMO probes are too powerful as is and there is little reason to bring a kerbal (besides head-canon/challenge/science points). Having them be the access to on the fly maneuver adjustment would make them a lot more useful on a rocket and would make carrying all the extra mass they require worth consideration. Basically once we're flying probes far from kerbin I think probe missions should be planned ahead of time and player automated, not flown with individual key inputs, and kerbals be used for flying by the seat of your pants. If a player doesn't want to deal with speed of light delay then use a kerbal, it's a simple trade off. I don't think this is unreasonable. If a mission planner or VPL can't be included in stock though then I think speed of light delay would be pointless since the real world analog tool wouldn't be there to compensate for the real world analog of the reaction-time debuff.
  7. You got it overclocked to 10GHz or are you just that reassured in the optimizations
  8. Someone is confident in their CPU :p
  9. Generally games aren't doing 500+ part rigid body dynamics simulations while simulating resource management while tracking 10's or 100's of craft in simulated orbits with all of their resources also being managed... [snip]
  10. As I understand it, it's being speculated that regions of connected parts may be hard welded together and treated all as single parts to reduce the amount of joints as needed to reduce the simulated part count. It may sacrifice some "accuracy", but is having a kraken attack blow a ship apart for no reason accurate anyway? Really curious as to how much of the will be automated and how much will allow user intervention.
  11. Honestly surface maps of all sorts would be great assets in this game. Obviously, there's resource maps and biome maps which the addition of space telescopes would fit well with but also maps like inclination maps that display the average slope of the terrain (green being flat, red being sheer cliff), or scatter intensity like rocks and debris with similar colored mapping seeing as this game may incorporate jagged terrain as an obstacle more so than in KSP 1 and players may want to isolate landing spots with largely clear areas with little debris. Along with all of these map types ways to interact with said maps would be great; such as, filters to isolate and only color regions with certain specifications. For instance, with the slope map have a filter that allows the player to only color regions with slopes of < x deg inclinations.
  12. I liked the overlays SCANSat provided. It'd be cool if this functionality was provided in base game though.
  13. Source? Last I checked the window was between Apr 2022 and Mar 2023: https://www.ign.com/articles/kerbal-space-program-2-delayed-again-to-at-least-2022 and Steam has the games release listed currently as 2022: https://store.steampowered.com/app/954850/Kerbal_Space_Program_2/ This gives a window of Apr 2022 - Dec 2022. Same, I think career mode gets a much worse rap than it deserves. Adding different tech trees, strategia, and better mission packs made career mode much more fun and coherent
  14. For real though... I'm just sitting here wishing for that science compendium. I doubt the devs will make it but maybe they've seen the posts and thought it was cool... A guy can dream I'll just tack on some of my prior discussions... Science compendium where research becomes useful guidance for exploration: Telescope based research where launching telescopes helps discover and plot orbits for newly discovered planets:
×
×
  • Create New...