Jump to content

GigFiz

Members
  • Posts

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

69 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Guilty. Of being in space! Going to space jail!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,846 profile views
  1. Decades of travel time will be plenty to separate colonies. Sure you can just warp through it, but you can say the exact thing about comm lag. I don't buy the 'teaching people wrong stuff' argument in the slightest for this; anyone who has the slightest knowledge of space (or even just relativity, or even just that light speed exists) knows that communication has a lag time, and KSP isn't going to magically make everyone think we have/will easily ftl communication. Besides, 6 months is a while, but not even remotely insurmountable. Age of sail empires had colonies that could take months to travel to (England to India was 4-5 months by boat, for example). And seriously, half a light year? if you think that, there is a greater problem already. The closest star system to us is 4 light years away, and there aren't all that many under 10. So an interstellar colony, even with truly light speed communication that's four years bare minimum (which is still totally doable for keeping contact, if a bit tough for keeping a group truly unified), and from there you rapidly get to the prospect of colonies having a lag time of a decade/decades (increasingly less doable, obviously). But yes, this is just going to go in circles, or degenerate (or both). I disagree with you, though that one way or the other is fundamentally incorrect way to do it. I certainly have a side I am on, but they are both valid design choices, with arguments that can be made for both and their respective pros and cons. It will be what it is, and if we hate it, this is ksp, someone will mod it to something we like.
  2. You are missing the point. Yes, simultaneous breakthroughs happen all the time; what doesn't happen is for every single time, every piece of hardware engineered out of it is completely identical in everyway for both. Yes, you can explain this as game limitations, but that's still a handwave. You will probably be able to save and load ship designs just like we can now, there is no reason to take it out. Building a nice elegant probe design on Kerbin, then loading and using that same, 100% identical design to launch exploratory missions in three different star systems at once absolutely breaks lag time. Yes, two simultaneous missions doesn't break lag time, but the fact remains that you planned both missions and decided to launch them together in a coordinated manner does, especially if you, for example, built the mission profiles in a complementary manner, so they brought different parts or resources for whatever reason (maybe different levels of availability, or tech level differences, if that was a part of the game), which would be incomplete on their own, but combined with the other expedition has everything you will need/want and that absolutely breaks lag time. Saying it's bound to happen is nothing more than your personal handwave that works for you, which is great, but also disingenuous to say it is anything other than that. In real life, sure, but guess what? The person overlooking multiple star systems at once is you, there is absolutely no avoiding this. Yes you can compartmentalize it all you want in your head, and pretend/plan as if they are totally independent, or warp manually for years every single time you want to take a coordinated action, or handwave away all the jumping between systems away as you being the narrator, as it were, not the controller, but the fact is that having the ability to jump between different systems at will fundamentally breaks those rules, full stop. There are areas were you could then go ahead and enforce it selectively, but the impossible is an inextricable element of the fundamental game concept. Beyond that, it simply comes down to the essential realism/fun dichotomy. As much realism as possible is the good goal, but it is still a game, and there is a tipping point where it makes things no longer fun, especially if there aren't serious positive tradeoffs to go with it (and I don't mean tricky, or has a steep learning curve, or difficult to understand, just genuinely non fun (at least to the majority of players. There is no completely universal/objective grading of fun, obviously)), and that's where you start alienating all the non-super hardcore people. It's why distances are compressed: yes you need to have a sense of how long this kind of travel takes, but as long as you can do that, warping 15 years rather than three adds nothing. Requiring a bunch of extra manual warps to account for lag time because someone wants to keep their colonies coordinated adds nothing, and leaving it out can easily be explained by time compression, for the same reasons that we have distance compression. We simply stand at different places on this issue, and that's fine, and interesting to discuss. The only thing that I will say that you are absolutely wrong about is saying that the developers are doing something dishonest/disingenuous/wrong if they do not include this in the game (though I think most of us would like an in game acknowledgement/handwave about it).
  3. Well, like I said, gameplay wise, you gotta bite some bullets in order to have ftl lag, and it looks like you are good with that, so that largely resolves the inconsistency. Although to say it literally doesn't matter is more accurately to say it doesn't matter to you, which of course is a perfectly valid preference. I would suspect, though, that most people (whatever % that may actually mean) would not want to deal with different part selections in different systems (that said, I am perfectly into part limitation based on level of resource availability/infrastructure development, so there is a valid argument for you to ask how that is any different), and I still doubt that it is something that they would want to bother spending the man-hours with implementing differentiated tech trees. It would also raise the question of: is your only option that you have to just wait for transmission lag (and really, if you are wanting that tech for a project in a different system, how exactly do they know (in-game perspective) that they will be getting that new tech and just have to wait for it) ? Can you just re-buy the same techs separately in different systems (and if so, why are they all somehow getting the exact same parts every time, even though they were researched differently) rather than wait for the transmission to arrive (time warp is a thing, as you said, but so are transfer windows, and some people might not want to wait)? Do you then have different science scores in different systems? There are also certain limitations regarding lag time that cannot be done in game and would have to be self imposed. Example: you have two systems colonized and want to go for a third; you decide, for whatever reason, that the best way to do it is to launch simultaneous expeditions from both current systems. Technically, if you immediately build and launch both, you are breaking lag times, and it's literally impossible for the game to be able to know this. Now you can launch them separately based on transmission times, or wait a certain amount of time to account for coordination before launching both, but that's self imposed at that point. You can also say that, well missions are planned so long in advance that of course there was time for it to be communicated and coordinated, but at that point you are handwaving it away, and that raises the question of why are doing it for this, but not for these other things. Also, if there is already a head canon handwave for people about implicit transmission times, why is it so important that it be expressed explicitly. If we take it as read that these would be happening, then all you are left with is the fact that, for anyone who wants to synchronize their tech tree, an extra step of clicking the time warp button is not compelling gameplay. While I get your point about ones position of omniscience as 'director', no matter which side of the issue you fall on, it gets a little weird (but that's also just the nature of it being a game). Time lag like what are talking about is one issue if you are a real director person, for example. However, if you are a more godlike figure, why are they talking to you directly and giving you missions (and tutorials), etc. The actual reasons are obvious, but at a certain level of seeking verisimilitude, you really have to not think about it too hard, I suppose. And it is very true that this is a different game, and that interstellar travel raises questions and issues that were pretty safely ignored when confined to a single solar system in the first game. And that's why we are having these conversations in the first place anyway. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what approach they take.
  4. Honestly, I'm fine with that. I picked quantum, because someone had brought it up, and because it's the closest option to semi-plausibility without completely making stuff up. I'm also not an expert, but I am aware of the issues with quantum comms: it fascinated me enough to spend a good amount of time researching/reading about it. It certainly does look as though it does not work in a way that would allow that to work, but the easy handwave is that we have been completely wrong about lots of things in science in the past (not a bad thing, just the nature of scientific progression), so why not just say this turned out to be one of them. Our best understanding says no, but our best understanding is always evolving. I'm not actually saying that's the case, and that's not a well you want to dip into super often in speculative fiction, but it's kinda the best one around, in this case. I'm not actually not super attached to how they do it, and preferences along those lines will be super YMMV for any given individual. I was primarily hedging a guess that people might prefer a quasi-tech related solution rather than a laws of physics one, but if it's the other way around, that's cool too. Your solution has a good appeal, honestly, and removing general relativity from the KSP universe may break some things, but it also kinda solves/mitigates other issues as well, like the ever increasing energy requirements required for interstellar travel as you get closer to c, and the fact that, even with ftl communication, the entire concept of 'now' is a hell of a lot more wibbly than most people realize
  5. I think of sandbox and first example that comes to mind is Minecraft. The most common use there seems to be building monstrous or generally bonkers stuff, so you don't have to spend time finding/harvesting all the materials to do so. So I think of it as something with no limits or set goals; you are handed everything there is on offer and allowed to totally run wild. If you want to just screw around and build some sort of total insanity, unless you really want it in your main save, sandbox is a great way to go. Like people have said, too, it's a great test bed for things too, and probably faster to execute with a clean save than with a copy of a save file with a bunch of ships. Thinking about it, one group that would be unhappy without a true sandbox, is youtubers; I guarantee that all/most of the crazy excrements that people like Matt Lowne build are done in clean sandbox saves. There would always be workarounds if there was no sandbox, but then you are just having to jump through arbitrary hoops, whether in or out of game, in order to create one. May as well just have it from the start at that point. Fwiw, I always play on career mode. While I have always found it rather leaves something to be desired, especially the mission system, I like having at least some non self created goals and limits/progression, so personally I am hoping for a much more engaging career mode. I fully understand though, that not everyone is that way, and I totally see why there is a need for a sandbox. Honestly, any sort of at least relatively open-ended creation simulator should really have mode that gives completely unfettered access to all the tools.
  6. This is one area where gameplay dictates that they need to (and should) take liberties. Besides, from a non-diagetic standpoint, there is no, and never has been, a comm speed limit (or in game as well. not like there is any lag time sending back science from Eeloo. it would be short enough, and you can head canon it as having a lag, or that space probes now are justing executing instructions sent earlier, but gameplay wise it makes no difference) . As the 'director' of your space program, as long as you can jump from ship to ship any time you like, or jump over to control an interstellar probe and make a course correction, or plan new missions based on working on a colony then immediately jumping back to the space center in another system to build it, communication is functionally instant, and imposing a limit elsewhere is arbitrary. If relativity as we know it makes a functionally unified interstellar government/empire/whatever impossible, then it has to be handwaved away in the name of gameplay. Furthermore, since there are going to be shipyards on/around other planets, then without fast communication, how are you building a ship with parts they just figured out how to make yesterday in a different star system? You would technically need a non synchronized tech tree in order to be consistent, and I absolutely guarantee that they will not do that (besides implementation time, it would be a gameplay annoyance, and a big turnoff for non hardcore people. It's one area that will, and should, be left to modding, if people decide they want that). And if you (the general you) are not willing to fully bite those bullets one way or the other, now you are asking for inconsistently applied physical (in game) laws, which I would argue is way worse, from a realism standpoint, than some sort of scifi-futuretech. Quantum comms probably are the way to go here (yes our best understanding says it's impossible, but it can at least be handwaved away by saying it turns out it is possible, or is just possible in the ksp universe. If the Jool moon system is impossible, then we have already have a universe with at least slightly different physical laws), because they are the closest thing to a decently scientific answer; I guess they could maybe say micro wormholes or something also, but I don't see how that's any better, and they've already said that's a territory they want to stay away from (at least for travel, but one could surmise that it would be odd to use it somewhere else). Besides, do you just keep making antennas bigger and bigger and bigger? Better to have more exotic looking parts that just have really serious power costs. Also, If they aren't going have some sort of futuretech, the only other option, really, is to pay basic lip service at most and then just ignore the problem altogether, and I would imagine most of us would not prefer the option of the issue just being totally ignored
  7. I mean, there are actually two mods in that picture. The one on the left is for planning interplanetary transfers, so it wouldn't even be introduced until players reach that level, and even then probably not until after they have done a couple. The one on the right is literally just like the stock maneuver, just with numbers instead of handles, and some additional info (and can leave out the bottom half at the start. If that's really too complicated to you...idk. That said, I do actually agree that it shouldn't be all dropped on new players at once. Unless you specifically go and change to it manually, it should start with a simplified version of the maneuver one, then the more robust one, then a simple version of the transfer planner, then the full version. And yes, I would like the option for it to be like that in stock, but if it's not, then of course I will find a mod (these exact ones, if he remakes them for 2), just like I did before.
  8. I want the stock maneuver ui to be 100% the same as Precise Maneuver. When they added the alarm clock and updated the maneuver ui, I gave them their shot and, while they weren't bad per se, I still immediately reinstalled Precise Maneuver and KAC. Also make the alarm clock just like KAC. Also give us a pork chop plotter identical to TWP. Not only are all three mods great individually, but the integration between Transfer Window Planner, Precise Maneuver, and KAC is simply superlative. This. Give me exactly this
  9. I am very much with you there. Complicated and/or punitive life support systems are a terrific ground for interesting and fun (YMMV a lot) mods, and it the behind the scenes framework should absolutely allow them to do that (which I am certain that it will), but that stuff should stay way the hell away from the stock game. There will definitely be mods for it, and people that want that kind of thing will seek them out, but in base game, plenty of people would just get bogged down or overwhelmed or discouraged, which just stops being fun, and then what's the point? So even if it could be toggled, it can't be on by default, and I bet you that most people would never switch it on, so then it's just a waste of time to implement and we have circled back around to -----> mods
  10. Yeah it makes sense that this would be a topic that has been heavily discussed, in much detail, for a long time around here. Oh god, I didn't even think about the whole 'visiting biomes more than once to get all the science' thing. Probably because I never did it, cuz, like you said, it's awful and shouldn't be part of the game. And yeah, I always did feel a little weird sending someone out to get a EVA report in the upper atmosphere; yes, it's true that you can have an orbit where you just dip down and skim through the top, but it's still...disconcerting. One thought would be to have biome categories as a scientific meta level above the specific ones, ie: could still have lesser/greater/great/etc flats on Minimus, which could be nice for locating things and for resource searching, but the meta-category would be 'flats', which would all be the same for science porpoises. It would allow them to actually increase the number of biomes, for flavor and geolocation, but at the same time also decrease the number of places you need to gather science. And of course, little specialty locations is a nice idea. Makes exploring fun and lets it be rewarding without just being a long-ass checklist. I do think it could be cool for there to be same variation in what different conditions matter for different experiment, like the example of only being able to get science from a barometer reading in space one time ever, full stop. Though I do see an obvious danger there: even if it was cool and added realism, if there is too much variety, the inconsistency could easily turn into a time wasting hassle as far as keeping track of what works where, and then we are back to what you said about not respecting the player's time. RE: useful information. YES! There is a lot of good ground to be had there. There are some things in KSP that involve either a little TOO much trial and error, or just a straight up web search, that could be integrated. For example: first time sending a craft to land on Eve and wondering about parachutes? Right now: close your eye and guess or google it. But it would be so much better if instead you could send a satellite with equipment to do gravity and atmosphere analysis, maybe also have instruments that you could put on a suicide probe into the atmosphere to get useful telemetry with. Once you do that, now you can get information in the VAB to help you. Perhaps stuff like safe deployment speeds and then like; at minimum have it show how low your final speed will be with parachutes fully deployed. Just one possibility, but there is some really interesting space there to take useful outside information people might look for, and make it diegetic. I was just spitballing, but I did like the thought I had about having some scientific/engineering advancement from actual gameplay choices. Now, there certainly are potential problems if you tied it to full on node unlocking: the last thing you would want is for a player to lag behind on/be locked out of techs they want because unlocking them requires types of gameplay that they don't enjoy, but if it was just little bonuses even, that could be fun. They couldn't be unbalancing, and it would be best to have the requirements be secret and at least somewhat procedural (so you can't just look up a guidelist on the internet), but it could add neat little unexpected, occasional rewards. Say...maybe you like doing insanely fast re-entries, so after some of those, your team might figure out a way to make your heat shields a little stronger or have more ablative capacity. Or you really like to use one specific engine, it might get some performance enhancements, or get an alternate version that can use a different fuel type. Stuff like alternative looks/clustered versions, etc, would be cool in brainstorm land, but not really not a good use of finite dev time in reality, but the other stuff doesn't seem like it would be too terribly difficult/time consuming to do. Like you said, though, at this stage in development, the science system/treadmill is probably fully ironed out and implemented, and just being worked on at the level of tuning and tweaking. I am definitely glad to hear that the signs you have been seeing are promising. Hopefully we get something that fixes the issues with the current system, and is fun and compelling (I'd enjoy a few surprises, too)
  11. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what direction they go. On the one hand, lots of experiments is very true to life in some ways; part of the goal of space exploration is the furthering of scientific knowledge; I know the ISS always has a ton of experiments running at any time (I recall a video with Chris Hadfield where he said at least 50-100 at any given time, I think), though that something moreso reflected by the research labs. On the other hand, as you said, doing the same handful over and over, just in different places, gets repetitive, not to mention that it doesn't always make sense to be running the same stuff over and over; something like taking soil samples in lots different biomes makes good and true to life sense but, similar to what was mentioned, taking barometer readings over and over in different orbits over different bodies wouldn't exactly add a whole lot to scientific knowledge. Then there is stuff like the nebulous 'mystery goo' and 'materials study', whatever those may be (really just an abstraction of a huge number of different things). Plus, on the purely gameplay side, doing stuff like building a biome hopper early on to cheese a crapton of science out of the moons (especially minimus) is, perhaps, not the most compelling gameplay. As a bit of contrasting opinion though, I thought there were too few, not too many, experiments in KSP (though I just added more with mods. Of course that would be overkill with how easy it is to unlock everything in stock, but CTT and other accompanying mods give me a reason to need all that sweet, sweet extra science), though perhaps for similar reasons, ie: gathering science feeling the same most of the time. On the other hand, I think you are right about it getting repetitive just cramming the same handful of parts into every vessel; though I do conceded that just going the route of adding a greater variety of experiments does have a cost/benefit there, because if the underlying framework of science gathering remains the same, then adding a greater variety of experiments is just adding dev time to create, model, and write all the text for them, for what amounts to a purely cosmetic benefit, really. So it's still back to needing changes to the underlying science system and gameplay treadmill for it to mean anything, really. Of course, if was established that the existing science regime needs to be reworked or at least spruced up, then we must ask: what do you replace it with? Even if experiments are passé, we need to gather science somehow. The research lab may be more realistic in some ways, but just clicking 'start research' and waiting is even less compelling gameplay. Not to mention that fact that the much greater scope of KSP2 and the accompanying parts and tech involved should mean a much bigger tech tree (which I am totally in favor of, by the by; pump that science grind crack right into my veins, baby), which should translate into needing way more science over the course of unlocking it. So what then? Do you lower the science cost and instead have monetary and time costs, also? Do you make gameplay elements part of unlocking? For example: getting research from specific experiments, on specific bodies/biomes, to give our scientists enough to make greater discoveries in a related field, or maybe needing a certain number of launches, with certain engines, in order to give our engineers enough data to create bigger/better ones. For colonies, it would make sense that you would need to get to a certain level of size/complexity in order to reach greater tier of new fancy hotness. Etc, etc. Then, if you do something like that, does it then accompany the existing framework, or do you ditch the 'science' currency altogether? That does have of realism advantage, inasmuch as 'science' and 'reputation' as currencies are quantified numbers drawn from nebulous, and totally unquantifiable/subjective concepts, (now, that's not necessarily a bad thing; functional gameplay always requires some level of simplification and quantification, but it is a little incongruous when you think about it, and certainly invite more interesting replacements, if ones could be found and implemented). Although, does totally doing away with it then run the risk of ending up with similar issues as what we have now, just wrapped in a different flavor of purple? Really, though, this isn't more than just rambling and speculation, cuz they didn't consult me about it (quite rightly because of course not and who are you anyway and how did you get into my office?), so all it boils down to is: yes I hope the science system is different, and that whatever we get is super more fun/compelling/all around awesomerer/blah blah blah, etc etc. So yeah.......... Anyway, I'm Ted Kermin (or someone who stole his identity at least) and this has been me talking a bunch
  12. One other, fairly minor one: wheels. Just a nice simple interface/overlay to show you the direction the all of the wheels will turn (and I would like a button to reset them to all having the same direction as forward. It's not enjoyable having to sort through having some inverted and some not, because it was being finicky about attachment when you built it, or you added them at different parts of the design process and lost track, etc), as well how evenly/levelly they all will contact the ground.
  13. Very much this. I like doing side corridors or layouts with multiple paths on stations and bases, and just fun or weird structures/designs with trusses and beams, and I very often think of how much I would like this feature. If it creates any weird issues, just have it as a part toggle, a la rigid attachment and autostrut. I heard that this is something the devs have mentioned at some point, so it seems like a decent possibility we will get this; fingers crossed.
  14. A minor one is I would like a way to manipulate the navball to see other parts or at least have arrows. When you have a target the indicator isn't on the part of the navball you can see, it can be aggravating to find it again. I also use the docking indicator mod, which is great, but sometimes I back things into to dock, and for that it's useless (yes you can reverse the control direction, but that can be a pain to if you have to do it repeatedly. On that note, I'm honestly not sure the best way to do this would be, but it would be really nice to have some kind of better camera angle for docking. Constantly shifting the camera to check all the directions can be aggravating for tricky docking maneuvers. Maybe have a docking camera mode where it split screens into to multiple camera angles at once. And on that note, I would like a better in flight camera (VAB too, but I have fewer issues with that one. Annoyingly, the hangar has a better camera, but that's not my preferred building. It's also just annoying that they have different cameras, as if we couldn't possibly need full camera movement on both), Being able to free translate and pan (at least in free camera mode) rather than having to keep re-aiming the camera would be much. Also, it would be really nice to be able to roll the camera a full 360. Having to for things upside down because my ship isn't oriented a certain direction can make finding what you need more difficult than it needs to be.
  15. Ok, so I've been messing around with EVA Construction more, including in zero-g, and I'm expanding my opinion somewhat: I'm glad they did EVA Construction; it's a wonderful concept and absolutely something the game needed/benefited from...but the execution is just atrocious. It's awkward and unwieldy, the building process is inconsistent with other parts of the game, it doesn't feel logical, and it's just generally inconvenient all around. I would love to see it overhauled into something more user-friendly and logical in KSP 2. Hell, it's fine even if they don't necessarily want it to be too easy at first, just have construction arms and the like that you can unlock to add more functionality and increase weight limits. Edit: Oh yeah, and all is only if it even lets you do anything (especially trying to move an already placed part) without everything going spaghetti kraken or just exploding, which is what usually happens.
×
×
  • Create New...