Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Xelo

  1. Well isn't that under the assumption that you know how a hypothetical coop will play out between people (or even how coop will work in-game) ? Its not like single-player doesn't exist, if you want a single-player experience.. you just do that. You don't press the hypothetical co-op button with the express intent of playing a singleplayer experience ... You seem to frame coop as if individual progression was the only thing people in a coop server ever cared about, like if it was Id be more then happy with AI competition in that case, but its probably not. I recall Nate saying that the team raced vehicles around when testing procedural wings, and to me that's really fun! but only in the context of there being others to race with? Racing vehicles doesn't contribute to progression at all but it surely would be something you can imagine doing together in coop? And sure people can be doing their separate things, but you can still ask them to help you out on specific tasks, otherwise you really have to ask yourself why you are playing with these specific people in the first place. Or in other words why is it when you invited your friend over to your place, he went off and hid in the garage to play blackjack rather then to play poker with you? The thing about those minecraft servers with separated players that may be applicable here is really just the notion that your world is inhabited by others, they can come and visit you and check stuff out at their own leisure and interact with you directly in game, and vice versa. Its like if the game was generating cool and functional structures as the game progressed or something. Basically having suburban neighbors, as opposed to living in a home out in the woods and calling people on the phone. As for the supply run, its definitely possible* player A saved player B the effort of having to do a mun supply run later on. Player A may not have contributed to the immediate goal of Jool station building, (though again Player B can simply just ask nicely), but they did take a future task off player B's mind and contributed to progression as a whole. * (Not sure how coop causality works here with time warp, we just have to wait and see.)
  2. Which is something that is still not defined. For you sandbox is the equivalent of a creative mode, for someone else is a strictly "no tech tree but everything else is on" mode. I mean its never going to be "clear" or "defined" until the devs say otherwise, were just debating what would be a good approach to it. The two threads are the relevant ones in this context, I don't see anyone digging up ancient Master39 quotes from 2019 here. My point was to define a goal for this 'hypothetical mode' labelled sandbox, then move on from there? Creative mode is really just an example of a goal defined as maximum creative expression/testing in-line with other games, and the choices naturally follow. Do you really want to turn this into an eternal semantics argument about what sandbox ""means"" by saying it isnt defined? Its just a label. Again its like arguing about what the best car or tree is, deciding the intention helps magnitudes with the choices presented. Which would only increase confusion. You make scenarios in creative/sandbox and then play them in adventure/survival. It's a pretty standard setup among many games. Its not a new feature like a different UI screen graph that detracts you from the game or w/e. An option being confusing or not is the entire job of the UX/UI designer. Its a feature in the sense that it more or less changes how the game is designed in its entirety. The game designer will now have to make sure every feature can work in isolation, and every combination thereafter specified in the settings: Its a massive ask, hence why I think such a paradigm shift should be discussed separately(not implemented separately as your response would suggest?), as it puts you directly in the shoes of the 'game designer'. What if you did not have to go by the carefully designed game-modes? How should KSP 2 be balanced around it? And also why I think its more unlikely to happen then you think, this kind of thing will have to be planned from the start or else it just become a crudely implemented feature with none of the customization you want or another delay from immense code refactoring and debugging for features that did not expect to be turned on and off individually. Creative modes are cheats. Cheats are a perfectly legitimate way of playing games, as long as you are not ruining someone else's experience. One of the most popular sagas in gaming history, GTA, wouldn't be fun at all if it weren't for cheats. The story is cringy if you're older than 13 and the "social commentary" is as subtle as a kick in the face. Having to drag through all of it to unlock the fun messing around part of the game is just wasting time. The thing about cheats is the meaning behind the word. A legitimate cheat is a oxymoron. There is a very negative connotation about cheating as it is almost always used in the context of being unfair and ruining an experience. And while your point is that some games require cheating in order to be fun due to bad game design and/or slow pacing, putting that in the context of KSP2 is a bit of an tough ask. Are you implying a creative ""cheat"" mode is only viable if KSP2 is kinda badly made? I think that dearly misses the point, but again its another argument on semantics and the fact we have not defined the goal of a """"cheat"""" feature and are arguing on a different basis.
  3. There's an important distinction to be made between 'sandbox' as a genre of game and 'sandbox' as a gamemode however, the latter is more unambiguous, as while the genre just means the player isnt as rail-guided via game mechanics to play, and instead relies on creativity and resourcefulness to fully explore the game, it is the gamemode that pushes the greatest degree of creative expression and testing as possible. Minecraft is a sandbox genre game with a 'sandbox' gamemode (creative) and its differences are obvious, creative is literally the mode where you play god, there is no game-enforced progression beyond intrinsic creative pursuits like building. Likewise, Space engineers is also a sandbox genre game with a 'sandbox' gamemode (creative), like minecraft the blocks are free, you are unkillable, and you can spawn entire ships and asteroids in. GTA is a sandbox game, without a sandbox mode. Mindustry is a tower defense game with a sandbox gamemode (everything is free, blocks that spawn infinite resources, spawn enemies in, etc). All of these sandbox game-modes have one goal in common, it is to remove essentially all game-enforced progression and allow unrestricted testing and creativity (within the limits of the game's capabilities). KSP however is a unique case of a sandbox game, where the sandbox mode was the 'normal gamemode' and then new game modes got added on later in late alpha which made the normal mode seem vaguely like sandbox. As a result those who have played KSP to the bitter end have a weirdly skewed idea of sandbox, because it was never really designed as a proper sandbox in the first place. @Master39 @PthigriviI recognize the conclusion being pushed here is that, "Oh well, since everyone on the KSP forums has such a unique idea of 'sandbox' how could we ever decide on why or in what form sandbox should exist in the other thread?". I will say that the premise of this poll may be also equally flawed as people answered it with the expectation of KSP1 sandbox and its 'skill progression' in mind. The poll did not state the goal of the gamemode but rather its wildly misconstrued label. (consider instead a poll question like "What features do you want to have in a game mode that facilitates creative expression and testing?") It asks what people imagine when they think of sandbox as if all people want was the label of 'sandbox', like asking what is the best car without stating how you are going to use it. But considering the experiences of people that will be coming to KSP2 and whose idea of sandbox have not been tarnished by the "sandbox" gamemode in KSP1, is this good basis we are discussing sandbox on? Would it be more productive to remove this 'sandbox' label altogether (in favor of something like "Do we need a creative mode?") so we can start from a common understanding? (I recognize the name itself doesn't remove the ambiguity but it at least signals to people that it is not the sandbox we all know in ksp1). I feel like all this poll has revealed is that we're debating about semantics to some degree, not the idea of sandbox itself. Frankly if Intercept is implementing a proper sandbox they would do good to change the label too to avoid the carried expectation. There's also this notion that "sandbox" should be a make-your-own gamemode 'gamemode', where you can turn off core features of the game at will. I feel that should really just be considered a completely different feature altogether like a scenario maker, as that isn't a singular deliberately designed gamemode anymore. It's not to say a creative mode should not be used to make scenarios to be played in adventure mode however, like how other games use their creative modes to make user-generated content (maps and etc). Small aside: I also have an issue with sandbox being compared to 'cheat mode' as that is just bad way of representing a perfectly legitimate way of playing the game. You cheat because you wish to pass a challenge without effort or time spent. You do not 'cheat' in creative, because surmounting challenges was never your intent to begin with and the game offers no explicit reward to surmount them. Its only cheating because you have an unfair advantage over others, but as the adage goes "once everyone's super no one will be", as is in sandbox where everyone can play god and regular progression means nothing. Such a cheat mode can only exist if you can switch between '''god mode''' and adventure easily at will and hence why a cheat menu that offers such a capability is by far not a thing to be compared with.
  4. oh man that text is literally invisible, who designed this website. xD And no this wasnt intended as an attack on your argument since the relative percentages were convincing enough (disregarding the fact the KSP forums is not a representative sample of the majority of people who will be playing ksp), just something I had to bring up because people kept using these polls for some reason even if the numbers were dodgy and I wanted to know why by attacking the poll itself. But in general I do agree that customisability would be nice, I didn't really argue on the basis of every feature in the poll being forced into your game either, just that they be available, whatever form that availability would take. Even if every 'cheat' feature were in sandbox whether you liked it or not, having them would beat not having it, as at least you can just personally limit yourself on what you can do as opposed to waiting for mods that can be unsupported at any time and janky hacks.
  5. Its a bug not because there is a math error but because it is not intentional behavior. Much like how clipping through the wall in Portal is a bug even if the math works out perfectly that in the specific velocities and positions the player is going the physics engine """correctly""" determines the player should enter the void. And no. If the poll says 50 people chose A and 50 people chose B, there could anywhere between 50 and 100 people answering that poll. You dont know if 50 people chose both and A and B or 100 people chose A and B separately, or anything in between. This means that both A and B has a value anywhere between 50% and 100% of votes but it only shows 50%. This makes the poll number rather useless for determining the true proportion of people that agree with the choice. In this poll, the people that agree with "All vehicle parts unlocked" at the time of this comment could've been all 33 out of 33 or 33 out of 347**, or anything in-between so really you only know a vague 'popularity' metric from this, somewhat useful only relative to the other options. We have to just go with the assumption of "Im pretty sure everyone who answered this poll wants every part unlocked" or something like that. In future an option like "PLEASE ALWAYS CHECK THIS OPTION IF YOU ARE DOING THE POLL" would be needed for the MC polls until this is fixed, so we at least have an approximate value for the total respondents. **Its probably upper-bounded by the fact that there's 208 views currently.
  6. I feel like the forum multiple choice poll's percentage numbers may be very bugged, it seems like the poll is weighting each choice/ (the total amount of choices chosen) rather then /(total people voted) as if every time you selected a choice it were counted as a different person. like say there;s a hypothetical poll with three choices: A B C If only you voted on that poll and picked A & B, the poll would read 50% for A and 50% for B. Even thoh it should be 100% for each, because you arent two people that voted for two different options. Likewise with this poll, all vehicle parts reads at 9.03% currently The total amount of choices people have made excluding people who chose nothing and submitted is 321= (29+28+29+25+20+14+24+23+13+13+12+13+14+23+20+16+5) if my hunch is correct the poll would read 9.03%, (29/321) which it is exactly. Ok so I went out and tested this on a old poll (so I can be more sure noone has selected an answer while i was clicking each option), and selected every choice in it. You'd except every choice's percentage to increase, but it does not. Another way to check is by adding up all the numbers of this poll 9.03+8.72+9.03+7.79+6.23+4.36+7.48+7.17+4.05+4.05+3.74+4.05+4.36+7.17+6.23+4.98+1.56 and seeing that it equals 100, which just should not happen on multiple choice unless everyone really did just select only one choice. This all means that there's literally no way to tell if one person picked both A and B or two people picked A and B separately because they would give the same polling result. So yeah, not to be offtopic, but I dont think multiple choice polls on this forum are a good way to go, going forwards.
  7. If really the only reason for a worse sandbox is just because 'the bad game design is just baked into the identity of KSP' then I think that might make it a more convincing reason it should be superseded? That's not to say I am vehemently against just putting a button with the label of 'Classic sandbox' in the game somewhere, for those that just want the rocket engineering skill progression but not the resources kind. That would be great for those that enjoy the 'creative expression within realistic limits' kind of gameplay.
  8. I think this confusion may come from a fundamental disconnect of what a 'sandbox' is. :O Hear me out: normally in other games, sandbox is a testing ground for wacky ideas or just preparing a design beforehand, generally other games put """cheats""" in there to facilitate said testing, design and creative expression. If I wanted to test say a manufacturing process in factorio, Id just spawn the buildings and resources in, place down an infinite power source and just, test it. If instead I wanted to test the viability of a solar powered base on eeloo, I cannot simply spawn a base on eeloo, I have to design a rocket, plan a route and everything. If it blows up mid course, then screw me I just wasted an hour without having even tried my idea. If I wanted to test how my station handles ore processing in orbit around duna, I have to bring my thing to duna, and mine ore from a nearby surface with another ship I have to also design build and ship. Its incredibly tedious. In this sense KSP 1's sandbox is a stunted sandbox that is more of a 'easier' progression gamemode (where the progression is your skill in designing rockets to go where you want) then anything, and unless you use mods that fulfill the rest of a true sandbox's functions (e.g. teleportation) you arent really playing 'sandbox'. Saying spawning resources is 'cheating' in sandbox is indicative of this mindset of KSP1 ""sandbox"", ideally any of the above options in the poll that facilitate an easier time with creative expression and testing would be a good thing to have in a proper sandbox. And i don't think they'll spawn a colony somewhere on every world, maybe instead you'll be able to open the base editor from literally anywhere and spawn base parts, resources and kerbals for free like you can do in the sandbox VAB. :D That way you can just have a colony wherever you like for those photogenic locations.
  9. Its a pretty big IF I feel. You have to pack food before you can fly, and you can only really know how long until after you fly. Knowing how much time you will need is far more difficult then the amount of delta V you need. Fuel doesn't care how long you wait until a good transfer window arrives. There's considerably more 'fail' in the gameplay loop if kerbal deaths are involved. If you screw up a landing on duna or run out of dV in orbit, you can consider your kerbals basically dead unless youve somehow packed an extra year of food. Largely removing the gameplay variety of rescue missions in no revert runs. If deaths have to exist I would only have them happen after a month+ with no food, like well, a normal person, or even far longer then that. As in it only starts to really matter once going interplanetary. A few hours or days of no food being death is far too extreme I feel, it would mean beginning players having to worry about life support before even reaching the mun sometimes? Maybe id do it like this, with time until total incapacitation and disabled abilities dependent on difficulty, ranging between incapacitation in a year and death in a month . Below might be a default difficulty setting. Incapacitation is when the kerbal cant do anything and if they are the only pilot, needs to rely on a probe core ( if in comm-net range) on the ship or a rescue vessel to bring them back to a colony (or a ship that has a medical facility/advanced life support of some sort). The kerbal uh, hibernates in these scenarios c: To avoid cheesy scenarios where you just EVA and let the kerbal occasionally back into the ship to 'heal' suddenly, the kerbal doesn't regain its abilities right away, and with starvation instead eats at 10x the rate, slowly decreasing its starvation until it is healthy again. Also that's a little odd, since vehicle lethality was the least highest rated option out of all 4. Taking into consideration that there are a disproportionate amount of veteran players here, the actual number may be considerably lower in popularity. Don't think the devs will make a system with its own huge diverse set of parts that 80% of players opt out of. They are targeting ""noobs"" after-all, they don't really have to worry about whether veteran KSP fans will buy and play the new game. It is also bad practice to put these 'feature' settings in front of new players before they've even played the game and know what the features/mechanics are, and say that it's a solution to allow the game to be accessible to more people. Would even you know what exactly the hypothetical 'enable life support' checkbox entails when opening KSP2 for the first time? It may be nothing like what you wanted.
  10. I would agree that it would at least be surface-level good on release. But the pre-alpha warning stamped on the latest interstellar episode does not instill me with confidence for 2023 at least not something polished to the point of 'really decent with little in the way of bugs'. Alpha watermark? No questions asked, good chance a well polished game and complete experience by 2023 with time to spare, an alpha watermark may even mean closed testing within the month if you are lucky. But I can only speculate with that dang pre-alpha stage which I'm not sure how to feel about. You could say heck, we don't even know their standard of alpha and beta even is. They might abide (roughly) by my definition taken from my publisher, they might abide by the Wikipedia definition where feature lock happens on alpha, they might say alpha is the release and we will work on it like its an early access game until it is 'complete' (rip). Nothing was said but things can be inferred so personally I will just choose the lowest denominator and pretend that KSP2 is feature-incomplete right now to avoid letdowns, they have not decided on everything they want (do not quote this out of context!), much less solve every one of our ksp1 gripes.. yet. They were even hiring a senior concept artist? This 'late' in development? Is part creation that big of a bottleneck right now? What else have they not realized they needed extra man power for yet? If they only made half the parts by the time of this post with 600(+) parts, you'd need to make more then a part per day to hit the release 'window' with no time for testing. But I'll definitely give them the benefit of the doubt because that is just crystal ball doomer speculation. Maybe they have parity with KSP1? everything up to ""KSP1's content"" are polished and ready, they are just going thru the motions of new content for KSP2 in a essentially feature complete beta engine. They could release it today and itll be 'playable' perhaps, just missing most of the fancy tech and a lot of progression gaps. Clearly they hired professional testers earlier, maybe they really are just undergoing internal alpha/beta testing trying to find the last few inconveniences, progression gaps and really delivering on killing the kraken for good. Speculation but its positive. Maybe their development cycle is per feature, the procedural radiators go from pre-alpha to alpha build and so on and we just get it hot off the press and only see the pre-alpha watermark and I mistakenly assumed it was for the game itself. More speculation. I don't know, I hope I don't appear to claim to know. I wish i knew, but for now I'm just going to set an alarm for march 2023, anticipate and play other very vaguely related games like Extrapolation, The last starship and Cosmoteer that actually have semi-open alpha testing and pray its enough to distract me from ruminating too much about KSP2's development. XD Whatever comes come 2023 will come (haha, English) and frankly I feel we're not entitled to anything good because we haven't paid a cent to KSP2 yet. I agree we dont know anything despite as much as Vegatoxi likes to believe there is some concrete evidence for a vaporware case study. If in the off chance, KSP2 wont ever live up to its name then... some other game will perhaps. I can wait.
  11. If it helps, I've kind of stopped taking anyone's word (for things other then KSP2 as well) on even the year of the release date so long as the words 'pre-alpha' flash on any developer previews, game-play trailers, w/e. Pre-alpha being the stage of (We have a general idea of the game/set of features but there still can be alot of scope creep and features added).* When it hits Alpha (We have the major features locked down, but still not too sure on minor ones)* or Beta (We know and have basically all the features needed prior to release, they are locked down and we are just making them presentable),* then I'll start taking note of the year or month of the release date. Before then any 'release date' is just for marketing purposes and is more speculation then estimation. Working in the games industry its kinda funny how much stuff is added basically last second as planning goes, there's always something you missed, more things to live up to. Tripling a time estimate to pad for unexpected developments isn't too uncommon ('bad practice' sure, but when you're in under explored territory or a new studio its more of a given). Perhaps the people at the newly founded intercept games had underestimated their public release time by just removing the 'padding' for an optimistic schedule or underestimated the cost of essentially building an engine from scratch again, but in the end their (speculative) legal agreement with Take 2 reflected that immense padding and this is what the fiscal 2023 release disclosed in T2's meeting likely entails. Depending on what is stipulated in the publishers contract, if they wanted to delay again there may be legal repercussions resulting in pay being withheld or more extreme measures. I would personally take KSP2 as a case study of whether to propose a more risky but tangible release date, as opposed to a further out but much safer one and which one generates more 'healthy' hype in the long run. But this is going a bit off topic so ill just leave it at that c: *Features as in features prior to first release candidate (RC1) or just 'initial release', some games (esp indie) are released in alpha for financial purposes if their scope is too big and the sales money is needed to fund the remaining development cycle. I dont think KSP 2 will be one of those but that remains to be seen.
  12. Oh, team based multiplayer was confirmed? Or rather more specifically the Team vs Team gameplay your extrapolation on bots would suggest as opposed to just regular coop (everyone is in the same 'team').
  13. getting paid to play ksp2 early, tempting. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Man I wish i could've been born 3 years earlier to meet the years of work requirement for both jobs.
  14. I think its mainly todo with how repetitive and tedious launching from kerbin is, esp as you venture further out. If you could just not do it in a gravity well then, that leaves alot more room to explore and alot more of those minmus scale missions where its measured in days rather then months (Even when there is time-warp i still saw a thread where some people on this forum felt 'bad' for leaving the ksc idle while a long mission is running). They could've gone with just "oh a new KSC spawns on a new planet once youve done enough science there" but thats shallow, people want to build these bases themselves, and hence colonies exist. My argument before was based off the feeling that, once youve "got a colony" or are essentially done looking at the planet, the planet just is 'whatever', another rock to launch from, albeit in a more convenient dV position then the last. It would be nice to have these science engineering challenges tied to these places that encourage exploring the planet and the suite of parts ksp has, even after youve moved on to the next. So that even while you're at the next star system, theres still a reason to go back and take another shot at these activities, perhaps to optimize, perhaps to revisit one you couldn't do before with the level of technology you once had. This time with much more freedom, eventually leading to vehicles designed for the unique challenges of each planet which I find particularly attractive.
  15. did it? The slight difference in name is probably because its 2018 unity not 2021 like im using rn. Unless you are referring to a different screenshot, then count me corrected.
  16. Its just the default desktop build config in unity under the category of (Windows, Mac & Linux), which mainly targets windows. So i don't think it means anything. The title of unity under this default config (even thoh i can only build to windows):
  17. Hot take but I feel for science to not be repetitive they have to be more handcrafted and unique then "activate this machine you brought with you in various locations" or "wait 40 hours for this thing to complete". I dont think there's a big enough carrot other then a literal skinner box to offset boring and repetitive gameplay. Perhaps fitting in with the goofy but grounded theme of KSP, unlocking a better reaction wheel or RCS means doing a back-flip on a rover on the mun or other body with low gravity. Getting a better heat shield may be surviving a kerbin atmosphere entry above some velocity. These are pretty rough examples but the idea is just so you have a neat set of fun engineering-related challenges to do when arriving at a new planet that tests your skills gradually, gives a bunch of concrete but open ended goals and really plays into your ability to build rockets and solve problems in various ways. I'm not saying to remove KSP 1 style science instruments entirely, just that maybe they should be de-emphasized somewhat in a rocket building game in favor of actually interesting challenges that put the engineering focus of the game first. Or at the very least have the science instruments require these kinds of challenges to be functional rather then be used as a shallow token of a progression vehicle.
  18. I don't know man, considering how they have endured the dumpster fire at mine, id say they are more then a good case study for heat shields ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  19. Didn't NASA receive peak funding due to the cold war with the USSR? After the USA won the moon landings and hence 'space supremacy' people stopped caring about the soviet threat(in the avenue of space exploration) and the budget was cut. We then entered a space progression lull before commercialization picked up traction this decade. Had the cold war not happened its likely the moon landings would have happened much later. Major conflict drives accelerated innovation often. But I do agree its probably not the route KSP2 should take when it comes to informing motive or gameplay It could be fun with a bunch of friends that you know well however, at least you can just laugh shenanigans off and set boundaries for whats acceptable so they don't blow up a serious mission. :p
  20. You misunderstand. You see, past a point in thruster power it stops becoming you getting to places faster, but rather getting places to come to you :)))))) Planet redirection anyone?
  21. I like the small local recurring events (e.g. volcanoes (minus the lava), geizers, minor impact, meteor shower) and the positional recurring events (thing passing through rings, alignment, eclipse). Those seem pretty reasonable to implement as special landmarks on the surface of bodies / pre-calculated timestamps and would be cool to have bases near their sites (even if its just for the cool photos). The rogue planet is kind of interesting thoh, as the game progresses it gets harder and harder to catch as its escapes the star system, an interesting way to scale with player progression for sure. I'm not holding my breath on visuals or changing terrain so likely its perapsis is going to be a bit far out or its a rocky world with next to no volatiles to melt or vaporise. The ideas like merging, giant impacts or celestial bodies getting slowly spagettified by the roche limit seem a little too out there owing to how planets are implemented and the insane effort it would take for it to look half decent and not just two spheres awkwardly clipping into each other with explosion particles (simply bc KSP2 is likely to be designed with this never happening in mind , making this feature especially difficult to introduce).
  22. The thing is, KSP2 as described by the planet tech insights does all of the LOD in the gpu. Yknow, the processor that only does an absurd amount of computations in parallel anyway. So the Concurrent binary trees may be a bit redundant to the devs, but it seems to have some advangtages in the tessellation between the borders of Lod (even thoh that can be fixed with quadtrees). Additionally even if the devs used this technique you wont get much of a detail increase, both techniques rely on a heightmap (normally a huge grayscale texture), which is limited by the memory in ur gpu. So even if it has incredible fidelity on a 2km square, you shouldnt expect that level for an entire planet, and hence why ksp2 uses terrain scatter and procedural elements at finer details. Terrain features that dont need to be fully stored and sent to the gpu essentially. As for the nano thing, having it scale to 1m (still very low poly looking) polygons on kerbin is equivalent to having a 1m boulder have polygons the size of bacteria. Having millimeter precision, is like boulder polygons the size of a water molecule. You just cant store that kind of detail in a way thats worth it. I get the hype but its too easy to point at a new technology and not consider its limitations and how its used.
  23. It reads to me more like a 'history' icon whatever that entails; Owing to the arrow on the clock. Perhaps its ur undo history. :0
  24. Im no engineer by far, but perhaps just so its more distinguishable above ground:
  • Create New...