Jump to content

StopIteration

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

12 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'd be happy with having some of the promised features get added in later DLCs, but I consider colonies and resource management to be a core part of what I'm expecting in KSP 2 and would be somewhat disappointed if they were not in the game at launch. If they can't get multiplayer (or even interstellar travel) working satisfactorily at launch, those would be fine to add either as a future free update or as DLC as far as I'm concerned. However, in a game like KSP, not all features are good to put in a DLC. I am opposed to DLCs that add more variety to the parts you can use for some task (a la Making History) because sharing the crafts you build in KSP is I think an important part of the game, and if you build with DLC parts, then not everyone can use your craft. So then when building craft you always need to keep in the back of your mind if it's really a good idea to use those parts when you could just use a base-game alternative that any player would have access to. DLC like Breaking Ground are better because there are no base-game alternatives worth considering when building crafts - robotics are a novel feature, so fairly good as a DLC. Ideally though, DLC that doesn't introduce any new parts (only new gameplay features or new planets) would be best. I'd be fine with KSP 2 not having much part variety at launch, but new parts that are not fundamentally different from the existing base-game parts should only ever be added in free updates IMO.
  2. Of course the problem with a base income (at least with no limits on funds - though in some ways a fund limit might make it worse) is you have no reason not to timewarp for 1000 years or so at the start of the game and end up with more funds than you could ever use. That sort of cheese is probably somewhat inevitable with colonies, since they would presumably require passive ISRU gathering of resources rather than money to build things, but at least with colonies, you'd probably need a pretty well-developed colony in order to do that (since you'd need to be gathering a large variety of resources, would need enough storage space to store the resources, and also any life-support mechanic would force your colony to be fully self-sufficient in order to timewarp a lot). One possible alternative to tourist missions would be to have colonists who pay rent to live on off-world colonies and space stations. They'd pay a premium for new and exciting (read inhospitable) destinations, and they might eventually get bored and want to leave. They could also occasionally make demands for you to improve the colony in some way. And of course, like tourists, they don't work for you. This would provide you with a passive income, but would be somewhat safe from excessive timewarp cheesing. But I do agree that money should be somewhat de-emphasized in KSP 2. Since you wouldn't use money to build things at your colonies, you would eventually transition over to building everything with the resources you produce, rather than funds. In the late game, your colonies would passively produce all the resources you could ever need, and so long as all your colonies are self-sufficient, you can go ahead and timewarp-scum for those resources to your heart's content, you've earned it. In the early game, you'd be building most of your stuff on Kerbin using funds, which would be hard to come by, maybe even more so than in KSP 1. I think the way it should work is that even on Kerbin, you build things with resources rather than funds, but on Kerbin you have the option to buy certain resources that you don't have using funds (though not the other way around - no selling resources like in KSP 1).
  3. Wait, you think direct ascent would have been cheaper than doing lunar orbit rendezvous for Apollo? Because I've always heard the opposite. A few hundred million dollars is how much SpaceX would charge for the Falcon heavy launch vehicle itself. But the only thing you're really saving by getting a bigger payload to Mars is the Mars orbit rendezvous part. All the rest of the stuff that makes the mission difficult you still have to do. And then you have the added challenge of landing such a huge payload on Mars, especially if you're trying to aerocapture it (which I'm pretty sure is a lot harder in real life than in KSP). The engineering costs would still be very high.
  4. Actually this raises a good question: what do rocket engines really sound like from inside the spaceship when in vacuum? I would imagine that it might sound quite different (not just muffled). This is a question I actually tried to figure out before for making sound effects for my own game, but I struggled to find any good source material so I pretty much gave up and made a pretty generic sound like you would hear from a rocket launch in the atmosphere. But I still wonder what it actually sounds like.
  5. Yeah, and what kind of propulsion system do you think the UFO uses? It's clearly based on cultural depictions of flying saucers that would have FTL or a reactionless drive. You can pretend it's just a one-way atmospheric entry capsule and that the aliens got here on an orion drive, but I'm pretty sure that's not what's being implied. My main point from the beginning was that I think it'd be great if there were easter eggs that can be interacted with. I gave two examples to explain what I meant because I knew if I just gave the example of the stargates that this would be the knee-jerk response. To be even more clear about what I'm getting at, most of the easter eggs in KSP 1 don't have much revisitability. You find them once, say "oh that's neat", then never bother returning. A notable exception is the Mun arch, which although static, is fun because you can create your own minigames with flying through it, etc. I want more easter eggs like that. An easy way to do that is by having easter eggs with unique functionality, being either fun to play with or slightly useful. It doesn't need to be stargates. That said, I still think the stargate easter egg could fit into KSP 2. Yes, they obviously conflict with the literal stated goal of not having wormholes, but the reason for this avoidance of wormholes is because of the effect they would have on gameplay. In the way that I described them, there would be almost no effect on gameplay. Aesthetically, I can see how they might seem out of place, but to the extent that that even matters for an easter egg in a game that already has flying saucers, you could get the exact same effect without wormholes by replacing it with a brain-scanning cloning device that transmits signals over the CommNet (which is instantaneous in KSP 1).
  6. There's a huge difference between being able to build stargates and having a single pair of stargates exist as an easter egg. Yes, it's scifi tech, but it would exist as a novelty rather than a core game mechanic. As long as the stargates are placed with care (ie far from kerbin, and not on places like eve that have special challenges), it'd be infeasible to use them to get around. This is why I suggested a link between Dres and Vall. Maybe you could save a little bit of dV for some very specific missions if you knew where the stargates were, but IMO that'd make the game more interesting without really compromising the spirit of realistic spaceflight. Besides, easter eggs like crashed UFOs somewhat imply scifi tech anyway.
  7. Personally, I'd love to see a few easter eggs that can be interacted with to do interesting things. For example: A pair of functioning stargates between two bodies. This could be very OP depending on where they were placed, but it wouldn't need to be. A link between Dres and Vall that let kerbals and small craft through for example could be quite interesting without being game changing. A kerbal-sized mass-driver on a small airless body like Bop. It'd be so much fun to cannonball kerbals from the surface and use their jetpacks to rendezvous with a craft in orbit. Of course this one could be constructed instead (I think people have done similar things with rocket engines in KSP 1 even), but an ancient alien kerbal cannon would still be quite cool.
  8. Since they don't require food to live they are obviously completely photosynthetic and don't eat other plants. "Snacks" refer to sources of ionizing radiation, which kerbals find particularly tasty. Kerbals are simply a manifestation of the plant life that covers Kerbin. They were created by Kerbin's sentient biosphere to allow it to extend its green tendrils into space.
  9. It's just a random name you get by default when you mark a position I think. They have that sort of format, like <Name>'s <Something>
  10. "was", I assume. Thankfully, Wikipedia uses "is", so he's fine.
  11. Eccentricity is really just a way to describe the shape of the orbit geometrically, assuming that it's a perfect ellipse/other conic. In real life, the trajectories of planets would only approximate these shapes. You can still assign an eccentricity based on the best-fitting shape that describes the trajectory though. As a quantity, the eccentricity is more just useful for us humans to describe what the shape of the orbit is in a way that is both easy to understand and mathematically convenient. Nothing particularly exciting happens if you have exactly 0 eccentricity vs 0.000001 eccentricity, though the boundary at eccentricity 1 is a bit more exciting since then the orbiting body would escape! Physically, there is no reason why you couldn't have perfectly circular orbits, since in physics we can have a perfect universe with only two objects in it in exactly whatever configuration we want. Real life isn't quite so perfect, but it doesn't really matter. As others said, you can still get as close to zero eccentricity as you like within measurement error.
  12. No, the problem with KSP 1 is you can just mine ore on the launch pad, sell it for money, and use that money to buy whatever you want. But as long as all you get back is the resources you mined rather than money, that's fine. You'd be no better off than if you set up an independent colony on kerbin to mine / refine ore to build ships from (which will presumably be possible regardless since you can build such colonies on other planets). Also the area around the KSC can be made very poor in most resources so that you really would need to set up a separate colony away from the KSC in order to do any mining on kerbin (but again there would be little advantage to doing so). In this case, you wouldn't be able to sell the resources you have, so there would be limited fungibility, but there'd still be some so that you can build an empty fuel tank out of the metal from a recovered command module (minus scrapping losses), but not vice versa (because presumably a command module would require some other resources, depending on how complicated the resource system in the game is). And you certainly wouldn't be able to turn that metal into fuel. Another option with less fungability (but still more than recovering whole crafts) would just be to have scrapping store all component parts + stored resources, and then tack on a refurbishing cost when you want to use the parts. But this has several complications, such as for procedural parts, so I think scrapping to get component resources would be simpler because the system of needing to build stuff with resources would presumably already exist for off-planet bases, so the only change would be to make it so that building stuff on kerbin auto-buys resources you're missing. And I think some fungability is good. No matter what, the ability to build craft off-world with in-situ resources will change the economics of the game quite a bit and de-emphasize the importance of money for ship construction in the mid to late-game. However, there could be some manufactured resources that can only be bought on kerbin (or with advanced colony equipment that would be completely impractical to setup on kerbin just to bypass purchasing those resources). Also kerbals could have salaries. No way to pay that with a pile of ore. In any case, this is a bit off topic to the progression system, though it is somewhat related and an interesting discussion.
  13. Good points. Yeah I think that second option would work well for the economy, although it wouldn't be necessarily need to store full ships, they could just be scrapped for resources, both for their fuel and for the materials used to build the parts. Building stuff on kerbin would give you the option of automatically buying any (non-scifi) resources that you need with money when you try to build a craft but don't have enough resources in store, but otherwise you can use what you already have to save cash. And off-planet you obviously can't just buy stuff.
  14. I've seen some stuff about the logistics, mining and base building, but it's not clear to me if those would actually gate the progression. Certainly it's useful to have mining bases even without having there be exclusive resources where you need to go certain places to get, but that's not really the same thing. My concern with the metallic hydrogen specifically is that if you can just make it from hydrogen gas with a big compressor thing there would be no reason why you can't just make it on kerbin. That would seem to make the progression more like in KSP 1 where all you really need to do is gather enough science points to unlock more parts. And I haven't heard of any other scifi resources other than metallic hydrogen. So I want to know what the progression to get access to the future techs would look like.
×
×
  • Create New...