mcwaffles2003

The game has an interstellar scope.... at some point along the line of interplanetary travel will need to become easy...

Im not much of a sandbox player so adventure mode will be everything for me (other than multiplayer which I am ecstatic about). Perhaps I misspoke, but I am skeptical or maybe just in awe of how well they will have to balance the vast amount of features there seems to be in this game. Giving each too much detail may bog down the player into a game of constant upkeeping, too little detail and the game will feel hollow. In a game where just leaving kerbin seemed to be a massive hurdle for many, not just due to difficulty but logistics and incentives as well, the scope of the game is just so massive... It's just hard to picture it actually coming together well without cutting out many of the minutia developed in KSP 1. For instance, will commsat still be a thing? Will we still be doing things like putting communications satellites and relays around each body? How long will settling, developing, and expanding a single colony take and other than a VAB why will we even need them? If it is required how long will resource extraction and management take? Will we be able to plan ahead for our colonies and have them automatically fill out or will we have to independently harvest all of the resources manually? The sheer amount of hours that will be required to make substantial advancements in this game seem like they will be staggering but making it any less will feel like the experience is being cheapened. IDK... I'm kind of just lost for words and filled with questions I guess. Honestly if multiplayer is done right I cant wait to see what can be created in a server that plays seriously. The scope, to me, looks like it could make factorio seem minimalistic and watching what hatches out of those MP servers with 30+ players...

Honestly the way it looks, I don't think I will enjoy the stock game as much but the modding scene has me really excited. I just hope the groundwork is laid right for modders.

I just hope it doesn't turn into a very linear and repeated process. Also, no offense, but you might want to take up proof reading.

@Bej Kerman, @SpaceFace545, and @catloaf Please, no discussion in this thread. There are other threads for this.

Im guessing ore and other materials for building new structures hopefully we can get a center of torque for RCS stock

About the main core stage editing, side attatchment editing, ???, and ??? I believe these are the new placement, translation, rotation, and root per sub-assembly icons If this became a thing (I wish it would) I would totally be on board with more variance in stock fuels

Your processor would start a house fire.

The map always being shown on a second monitor is something Ive been wanting for a while. In the case of a 3rd monitor, a place to put all my GUI screens from mechjeb, KER, etc would be nice

But funds push a player to build efficiently. If funding were not part of the game people off the bat could just build 1,000 ton monstrosities to get to the moon with 15,000 dV to spare. Thats fine if that's what you came to KSP to do and sandbox mode is there for that, but largely people playing career mode are looking to play under certain constraints and limitations imposed on them that they have to overcome. Then why are you arguing so adamantly about a mode you have no interest in playing? Also, whats with these numbers you keep posting? Are you just making a note to self for when, exactly, you made a post? Because the forum already does that with accuracy to the day.

Sorry, I do not intend to ruffle any jimmies here, I missed your earlier post, my mistake. I thought you meant in that a player can advance very far along one branch before advancing modestly in another (I also play a lot of probes before crew). My mistake and apologies. We've been capable of sending people to the moon since then, there has just been no will to do so, as you stated earlier. Modern techniques don't allow us to recreate the old F-1s (the blueprints/schematics are available, but the engineer notes didn't survive and most parts of those engines were hand built with little un-noted nuances) but there are unbuilt schematics for modern F-1 b alternatives which would have greater thrust with orders of magnitude less parts if built. quick reference: Perhaps here there is misunderstanding between us. When I here story I think of an overarching plot that guides a player along. But if simply having sequentially related contracts with an opening "debut" counts as story enough to you then we are in agreement. But as for a more prominent story with quest lines, fleshed out predetermined lore, and such... I am more averse to that. For instance, Factorio, if you have ever played it, begins along the lines with "You're an engineer and you've crash landed on a barren hostile planet... Please get off the planet" In my opinion, that is not much of a story, perhaps a narrative, but more than enough to get the game going and all that is shown until the "Game Finished. Victory!" screen

@AlamoVampire Would you care to give me a more fleshed out idea of what kind of story you would find suitable? Personally, as I said earlier, I feel narrative would undercut the experience. Instead though I would enjoy continuity between contracts. Something like multiple companies that rely on having payloads put into orbit for a purpose and as the game progresses those companies continuing contracts would supplement their own purposes. For instance, one company would like to make a telecommunications array where you are given a premade payload(s), in the form of a non-editable sub-assembly, and are needed to place those in specific orbits, perhaps with certain interconnected conditions like they must maintain a certain spacing. Perhaps the local govt could contract out having some of their telescopes and other types of scientific instrumentation put into orbit/landed or crashed on bodies/etc... IMHO this is whats lacking most in the career mode contract system, purpose through continuity. A narrative could be established, but I don't think it would be the thing that fixes the larger problems in career mode. As for the: I disagree, the tech tree progresses fairly logically and in a game balanced manner, though the fact that it can be completed without leaving the kerbin system is absurd. It's not like the "tech tree" in real life has always progressed in a perfectly logical and incremental manner. Look at lasers for instance, they could have been developed in the 30s but took until the mid 50s. All the required tech, optical techniques, and the knowledge required was available but the atom bomb and nuclear reactors came first somehow. Why would it be so hard to imagine sending a rocket to the moon before developing advanced jet engine technology? It's just a matter of focus and motivations. Also, how ridiculous is it that we sent people to the moon with less computational power than a pocket calculator?

Honestly, I like the lack of an overarching narrative. I just want to build a space program and fulfill requests for customers. I would like to see that the contracts being asked to complete would have some sort of continuity between them, but a narrative driving the whole thing, to me, would seem out of place and constraining. For instance, space x/blue origin... whats the "narrative" here? Build rockets, build bigger rockets to fulfill customers needs, acquire money, build bigger rockets, fulfill more challenging customer needs, acquire more money, establish space infrastructure, repeat until humans can go anywhere... No need for a threatening the world story, or one kerbals dream to finally go to the moon plot device to drive this. Just make your own story through the history of your own space programs failures and accomplishments. The entire point of career/science mode is to slowly progress through the large assortment of different parts so you can get a grasp of how/when to use things and career mode forces the player to do so efficiently opposed to sandboxes "here's every part in the game... have fun figuring that out with no guidance". By the end of career mode you've essentially gotten to sandbox mode with monetary limitations until you have more money than you can spend. Would having a screen pop up at the beginning of career mode saying something along the lines of: "Kerbins climate is becoming unstable and the global political inaction of the world has left the species with only once choice... You must create a space program capable of transporting the population of kerbin and colonizing other planets that are even harder to live on than Kerbin will be after it has been ruined. Scientists estimate you have 250 years to complete this mission! Good luck kerbal, the fate of all kerbal-kind is in your hands" Then the game continues as normal... Would something like this really make the career mode that much better? In my opinion it adds nothing more than another window I have to close when I start a career.

I'm confused, doesn't T2 also own KSP 1 also? Wouldn't this all already be happening?

The L4 and L5 Lagrange points wouldn't just be orthogonal to the line between rask and rusk at the baycenter along the plane of rotation?