TBenz

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

117 Excellent

About TBenz

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So, what? You'd be fine with them selling a $60 full rewrite of the game as an "expansion"?
  2. "I want them to go through all the work of creating an entirely new game for me, without paying them for it." You do realize these people need to eat and stuff right?
  3. It's stated in this same thread, the 5th post. There's a full FAQ.
  4. It's not. It's a very advanced fusion drive, which at the end of the day follows all the same principles as any other rocket engine, and cannot exceed (or even reach) the speed of light. It's essentially just an over-sized Nerv with the ISP kicked up super high (and an entirely different type of reaction going on and likely a completely new fuel... but still).
  5. It runs way deeper than that. The amount of rewriting required to fix some of the bugs in KSP 1 would amount to nearly creating an entirely new game. Which they ultimately decided to do, hence this whole KSP 2 thing.
  6. Warp Drive was stated as not happening in an interview with the creative director, Nate Simpson. While I can't say if we will get binary stars, it has been confirmed that we will get a binary pair of planets, Rask and Rusk. From the official website: and we got a good look at the two in the Developer Story Trailer. Also confirmed on the official site: and in the interview as well:
  7. This is nonsense. Everyone will be able to unlock the tech nodes. Any serious competition will start everyone off at the same tech level and let them unlock during the challenge, with the sole exception of intentionally allowing starting tech differences as a handicap. If anyone wants to complain about the tech nodes they don't have unlocked having better parts, the answer is simple, "unlock those tech nodes then". This is not a classed based game where you pick a class and are stuck with it for the match. Everyone has access to all the parts through playing them game, there's no need to balance everything that draconianly. Please go spend some time playing Space Engineers or a similar multiplayer sandbox game. Your experience with PvP flightsims from the 80s is almost entirely irrelevant here.
  8. Uh, what? Seriously, KSP deathmatch? Do you... Do you understand how any other multiplayer sandbox game works? This is borderline nonsense. There are plenty of ways to do multiplayer that don't involve the kind of arena competition that you seem to associate with "multiplayer". You might want to better familiarize yourself with how a mechanic works in other games if you are going to start a thread spouting doom about it.
  9. I'm ambivalent on the visual design of the elements. I like the idea of higher tech holographic displays, but I'll need to see a better quality video (or maybe even get some play time in) before I can pass full judgement on how well they work for me functionally. As far as the layout goes... ho boy. I don't like having something as important as the Navball in the bottom left corner of the screen. In fact, that entire bottom left corner feels too busy, while the HUD starts to thin out too much on the bottom right. And there is plenty of real-estate on the top of the screen that isn't being taken advantage of (which is made even worse in this screenshot because the main focus, the rocket, is actually below the center of the screen). I'd prefer to see more things shuffled around, ideally in a layout similar to KSP 1. I don't want to hinder the creative freedom of Star Theory, but when you have an avid playerbase already trained to look at specific parts of the screen for specific information, you may want to consider capitalizing on that for the sake of familiarity and adoption. Edit: Oh, and before anyone says it, yeah, I get that this isn't necessarily representative of the final UI. Just putting my 2 spesos out there for consideration.
  10. None of that will actually be an issue, so long as KSP multiplayer has two things: Private Servers Mod Support Multiplayer has worked perfectly fine in other creative sandbox games, like Minecraft and Space Engineers, notably because those games still allowed the players to form like minded groups where modding and community moderating allowed tailor fitted experiences, same as what you get with single player. If Star Theory were to try and force everyone onto public servers with no mod support, then I could see some of those issues arising. But that seems like such a bad way to setup the multiplayer that I don't imagine Star Theory would go that route.
  11. Based on the PC gamer article, it sounds like colonies won't require much, if any, management if you don't want to keep expanding them. Source Personally, I think that's for the best, as any KSP game should focus more on exploration and expanding horizons. I don't really want to get bogged down with micromanaging colony logistics and the like. That was always the biggest hurdle I had when playing with any of the colonization mods.
  12. N-Body physics entails a lot more than just unstable orbits. I'd love to be able to park a station at a lagrange point. And, for what it's worth, requiring RCS to automatically stabilize the orbit still has relevant gameplay. Namely that it requires you to design stations and satellites with the facilities to stay in orbit, and either regularly supply them or plan around them having a limited functional lifespan. I seriously doubt N-Body physics will happen, because it will add a lot of complexity to both the code and gameplay, but there could be some nice benefits nonetheless.
  13. I tried to play through several times without doing insane time warps. And going anywhere further than Duna just wasn't happening. It's what? 5, 7 years to Sarnus? Ignoring the wait for the transfer window. And that's the closest of the OPM bodies. It doesn't much matter if they do expanded Kerbol system with low tech engines, or interstellar flight with high tech engines. You are still looking at years to decades of flight time. Hell, I've seen people run missions that go on for centuries, just in stock KSP. Unless you are insanely committed, I don't see anyone going much further than the KSP 1 bodies without leaning heavily into timewarp, regardless of what way KSP 2 is expanded. I can understands concerns about advanced engines trivializing interplanetary flight, if it wasn't for the fact that they don't look like they will be cheap or easy to field in career or science mode. And if you are playing in sandbox, you should probably already be familiar enough with setting whatever constraints you need to keep things as reasonable/unreasonable as you'd like to have a good time. I cringed at every explosion and destruction. I also found it humorous and appropriate. I don't see it as a crutch. I see it as a running joke common to the majority of the community. And it's not about the end goal of KSP being a "disaster simulator" or downplaying the successes and triumphs of the players. What it IS, is a humorous admission of a sometimes painful truth: we've all been there. Who here hasn't forgotten to check their staging? Who here hasn't had a lander tip over on some remote body? Who here hasn't misjudged some burn or another, and smashed into the ground, burnt up in the atmosphere, or crashed into their meticulously designed space station? Kebral Space Program isn't a game about mistakes and failures. It's a game about learning from mistakes and failures, and trying not to make them next time. Bad things do still happen, and it always sucks when it does. But we don't get all down about it and give up. We take it in stride, we take it as humor, we say "lol that's so kerbal", and then we go and build something better next time and succeed. Being able to spin those failures as a community meme helps Kerbal Space Program. It prevents many players from getting discouraged, or feeling inadequate, or thinking that they can't ask others for help with their problems and mistakes. It reinforces that these mistakes aren't shameful, and that we as a community don't take ourselves too seriously. It's something that would not exist if the community majority hadn't run with it just as much as Squad did, and Star Theory leaning into angle in the trailer tells me that they have been paying attention and are in touch with how most of the community views the game. Which, IMO, is a good sign.
  14. If you sacrifice balance for realism, you do actually stand to lose things. Excessive imbalance among the engines can and will result in many players favoring certain engines and not using others, which leads to less viable design variety. And I shouldn't have to explain why less viable design variety is a bad thing for a sandbox building game. I'm fine with discussing the SRB balance specifically. But making sweeping changes to practically every engine in the game just to improve the SRBs is a very bad approach. You only want to fix what is broken, and I would not say that the other engines are problematic from a gameplay perspective. Now, addressing the SRBs. I'm assuming you are talking about using the kickbacks for a space shuttle replica. Lets compare a directly Kerbalized translation of the space shuttle's SRBs to the Kickbacks. The SRBs on the shuttle had a 3.7 m diameter and 45 m height. Given that we are assuming the Mainsail as an analogue to the F-1 with a rough 66% size scale, that means that space shuttle SRBs should clock in at roughly 2.5 m diameter and 30 m height. The kickbacks is 1.25 m in diameter and 15 m high. That should make it pretty clear that the kickback doesn't work as a space shuttle SRB, and shouldn't really be compared to the shuttle's boosters. I am all for having a larger SRB to fill that need, especially since one of the things KSP 2 is trying to do is allow for larger and more ambitious ships. But buffing the SRBs to try and make them performance be "in line" with a much larger booster design doesn't seem like a good idea. In my opinion, the SRBs we have provide reasonable performance for their size/mass/cost, and any need for more powerful SRBs should be filled by new and larger parts.
  15. They also have AA batteries that you bolt to the side of your rocket for more EC storage. Total part realism has never exactly been the highest priority. Sure, many of the engines take inspiration from real world analogues. But they aren't all 1:1 copies and this is not a simulation of real-world spaceflight with completely real-world rockets and parts. It's Kerbal Space Program, and has Kerbalized parts with Kerbalized stats and Kerbalized balance. Part of making a good simulation game is knowing what parts to simulate (orbital mechanics, CoM/CoT balancing, fuel constraints, ect) and which parts to gamify (the exact ISP and thrust output for every engine).