Jump to content

Vl3d

Members
  • Posts

    726
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vl3d

  1. There is if you want it to essentially replace sandbox. People should not go though a playthrough of Kerbal Space Program without the Kerbals. Most games have a story campaign and a separate no-playthrough simulation / construction / sandbox mode. It's a solved problem. PS: fine keep kerbals in simulation mode. At least for the parachute biplanes.
  2. It was a joke! I was acting like an old lady because your playtime makes me cranky. There's no reason to have kerbals in simulation mode.
  3. I have a solution to all your problems: Simulation Mode instead of Sandbox Mode. It could be accessible at any time (even while in another save or game mode), all parts would be free and unlocked, all discovered locations accessible at any time in a single player virtual universe. It would be barren and lack all the campaign mode special discoverables of course. Just for raw and creative construction of ships, vehicles and colonies. No resources needed. No kerbals.
  4. I better not see cheaty and exploity modded shenanigans in my precious DRM-enabled persistent multiplayer world. You 7000 hours in KSP1 kids better play in your own local single player sandbox. We follow all physics laws and work hard for what we build in the common Kerbal universe!
  5. They're used because they work well at all speeds, as Elon had stated several times.
  6. Also remember some people are "competitive" with their stock vessels on the forums or on YouTube - I'm not talking about exploits, but really cool work-of-art space ships that make your say: that player is a KSP artist. You need sandbox mode for that.
  7. For colonies yes non-lethal works because of efficiency penalties. But I'm not sure what penalty kerbals on a vehicle should suffer if they get irradiated or run out of air or nourishment? I think they should die - like it normally happens when the ship crashes or when they're in space with no helmet. You clearly get the message that the kerbal died. So I'm not sure where this new PG "everyone should live" train of thought comes from.
  8. I just hate that it's August 2022 and we're still talking about "what-ifs". Yeah we going to find out what features this game has 2 months before release, until then we're just arguing like the poor crooks the Joker threw the broken pool cue down to. We still don't know anything more about the game than we knew in 2020. It's just not the right way to treat a loyal community.
  9. I've been playing out a potential abstract version of the game in my mind, taking into account some possible tech progression and exploration inventive elements that have been hinted. Let's assume there's no boring abstract system of farmable science points. Every tech "unlocks" automatically for you depending on three things: - if you did the science experiments for the tech - if you found / harvested the resources necessary - if your level of knowledge and discoveries is sufficiently advanced (every part could have hidden milestone triggers that unlock it) Let's also assume that we obtain useful information about the universe only through practical science (ground and space telescope, sending probes, doing experiments etc.). This information then allows us to design more complex successful missions. Let's also assume that the progression also favors unmanned before manned missions, as it should. And that kerbals need life support because manned missions are damn hard. And that there are good incentives to build space stations (science, mining asteroid resources, and orbital construction etc.) and colonies (science, discovery of planetary points of interest, transportation infrastructure, resource mining etc.). Let's assume that we need to build and upgrade the communications network. Let's assume we have to explore and exploit the Kerbolar system first, then investigate other stars, exoplanets, build the necessary knowledge and material infrastructure that allows us to design interstellar ships and send them hurling into space. Then we get there and start over. Let's also assume we take into account the long and slow process of prototyping, testing and iterative design. And the accidents. And the story / lore / mysteries / Easter eggs. Well, my worry is this: it's a damn huge amount of work even without any grinding! It makes me afraid for my adult and family life! Who is going to be able to do everything in this game, in a gratifying slow and methodical way, with all the difficulty settings and optional systems turned on? This game is going to take us years to go through. How is there going to be time to explore multiplayer features if we start with single player only? I really think multiplayer has to be baked in or directly linked with the single player adventure. I see no other way to put everything in this game and still allow players to try it all.
  10. Force the player to finish the tutorials and a part of the game before unlocking sandbox mode. That's how other games do it.
  11. You can make powered gliders already, they're called aeroplanes. What does ground effect add that regular lift does not?
  12. In real life a SGL telescope would allow for a ~25 km scale resolution to detect surface features of exoplanets 100 light years away from a distance of "only" ~600 AU from the Sun. There's no other way to achieve this excerpt for actually sending a probe light years away.. which is of course incommensurably more difficult (1 light year is 63240 AU). 1 AU is ~150 mil. KM, roughly the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
  13. Please implement (virtual) gravitational lensing and allow us to build a solar gravitational lens telescope for imaging exoplanets! So we know what we're getting into before sending any interstellar missions. https://www.space.com/sun-gravity-could-help-observe-exoplanets-in-detail
  14. Oh yes, I've heard of the notorious 5 active KSP2 forum users that create Cyberpunk levels of hype for the game. Good thing the other 25 active users always calm things. Otherwise who knows how much wild speculation based expectations could skyrocket. We might even expect team based gameplay.. or even worse.. KSP2 being a persistent world MMO!
  15. Personally I would simplify by merging temperature with electricity, food with water, gas management, medical with gravity and psychological (includes living space and personality compatibility).. and creating storage and recycling parts for each category. But I feel we need to think about: - radiation - electricity - nourishment - atmosphere - medical - repairs Lethal on vehicles, non-lethal on colonies. And doctors would be amazing to treat accidents, illness, psychological issues. I think this system could be simple enough to work in stock.
  16. The hard limits of space exploration are related to the balance between mass to orbit vs how long life support lasts. There's no way around this in real life. One thing that has always frustrated me in KSP1 is how easy it is to just send kerbals in space. It takes out a big part of the engineering incentives and messes up game balance. The lack of life support means arbitrary thoughtless usage of time warp. It means distances and time lose their gameplay value. Example, not taking Delta-V requirements into account: it's as easy to make a base on Eeloo as it is to make it on the Mun. Come on.. we all know the Moon is hard.. Mars is WAY harder.. Venus is basically float-city or no-no. I'm personally all for lethal life support requirements and limitations if they're implemented in a way that's not frustrating. Not all missions should succeed, not all crews should survive.
  17. That's sandbox mode. Also sandbox means you take things out (rules, buildings, gameplay mechanics), you don't put things in the game. Why would you want to worry about anything else but the construction aspects if you play sandbox? It's literally in the name.
  18. Nate also liked this post: In which I say: "... There are "team colors" which clearly indicate multiplayer. This I think it's the most interesting point, because it defines "the team" as a primary abstraction into which "the player" is integrated. Meaning that multiplayer is a primary feature of all gameplay." So I'm hopeful.
  19. Yes sir. "Because our team color application ..." - Nate
  20. Speculation: Single player will also have team-based gameplay, not only multiplayer. And we will probably be able to join single player sessions of friends. The lines between single and multi player will be blurred.
  21. Let it be known that I have come to the logical conclusion that there will be a KSP2 single player mode in which AI-controlled teams will compete against you.
  22. Single player AI teams that are competing against you. Which means you would get a bigger prize if you do world firsts. And there's also inventive to speed up resource harvesting and logistics.
  23. Yes, obviously, but what advantage is there to reducing the in-game time spent going from place to place? That's what I mean. Anyone who has ever played a colony simulation or a (grand) strategy game knows the benefits of having faster logistics, especially in a multiplayer context. We're talking about multiple interconnected systems that need to be synced by in-game time, not by your player time. KSP2 will not be KSP1 with add-ons, because in KSP1 time does not matter. Meaning: you have faster logistics, then you gather more resources. You are first to a destination. You have more efficient life support design. You win the space race. You wait less. You do more trips in an in-game year. You automate more and you sync more transports. It's a ripple effect. The only thing that's simulated in KSP1 are the on-rails orbits, passive science gathering and some resource gathering. Now think about what's simulated in KSP2 and you'll have your answer. It's not just PvE anymore.
  24. Cargo also means parts and supplies, not just raw resources.
×
×
  • Create New...