Jump to content

Tw1

Members
  • Posts

    4,550
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2,758 Excellent

5 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    Internet Explorer
  • Location
    Somewhere between LEO and the mantle
  • Interests
    Space(Obv.), Geology, Architecture, Computers, and lots of other stuff.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,601 profile views
  1. It's been a while since I've been to these parts, so I hope that slow, forum pace is still ok around here. But anyway, What I wanted to add here was that when it comes to time based game mechanics, it's often missed that warping isn't just a skip button. Things can happen over time, and that imposes a cost, and a challenge. Maybe you've designed a resource collector wrong, and it runs out of power and fails to collect enough before your planned launch window. KSP1 kinda did this if you skimped on solar panels. Maybe your thermal system is bad, and means leaving something close to a star too long eventually causes it to overheat - right there could lead to interesting decisions over cheap short lived vs expensive permanent stations and probes. Maybe if you go to long without doing anything of interest, your funding gets cut. Plus, scheduling is already a thing in the game - launch windows and rendezvous times. If they can work in time based game mechanics which feel natural like them, it's only going to make KSP feel a little more like you're actually running a space program. Yes, it's going to make going out to Jool quite different than runs to the moon, but that's part of space exploration. Casini launched when I was in pre-school. It arrived when I was about 11, but I'd left university before the mission ended. Working out what sort of schedule to launch Jool probes at should be part of the challenge. Plus imagine a probe using early tech tree parts at Jool while more advanced ones are landing closer to home - that would be a very authentic space program experience. As people constantly raised, even back when I was more active here, something about contracts felt off. I have long suspected it's because KSP never embraced any management sim game mechanics - which made if feel like the player didn't have control over the organization they're supposedly running. In games which do involve both design and management - Cities Skylines for example - if things aren't set right, leaving the game running for too long only leads to problems. If you don't adequacy fund a hospital, leave the population to grown things might reach a tipping point where people die, then you don't have enough people paying rates, etc, etc. It means you have to get things right and keep what's going to happen over time in mind. That's why I think the full career mode mode should include such mechanics - those are problems you'd expect to encounter running a space program. Not a lot, but just a small amount of this sort of higher level thinking could round out the game. Time based mechanics don't work when if it's always fast forward = more pay out. But fast forward can also mean more costs. Cost/benefit/time is what makes that sort of thing work. It feels more real to have to take time into account, instead of things just happening instantly. (Plus, having something like experiments that take time to do would make warping the long times between encounters feel less wasteful)
  2. Oh this is cool news. But I really hope they think it through better than the original game did. Everything after science first game out was the weakest side of the game. The rocketry was elaborate and well thought out, the science was just a series of fetch quests. The tech tree ended up becoming what most players new to the game saw as the main progression, rather than just a start, and overshadowed actual space exploration. It didn't help that everything was then framed around 'contracts' which reduced players incentive to set their own goals. Please don't directly mirror the first game here. This part never lived up to its full potential in KSP1. It deserves a rethink for KSP2.
  3. I have had bugs like this a few times. Some glitch in the mirroring system - it made making rovers quite difficult
  4. Will this produce identical planets to PQS+? Or will there be changes?
  5. That's pretty small for a non-glich exploit craft. I like your weird looking propeller set up
  6. I'm glad to see him look so happy about it Who needs probe cores? Kerbals are far more useful
  7. In a random sample of 21, i only got 3 female kerbals. There may be something going wrong with the generator here.
  8. I've been playing around with rovers, and they are all struggling to go up slopes. IRL, I think a car can do about 20 degrees, and the Curiosity rover is programmed to attempt slopes up 30 degrees. I took a rover with bigger wheels to The Mun, and it had similar struggles. As did this stock vehicle, And this thing: Idk if it's realistic or not, but they feel underpowered to me. To make rovers more useful to play with, I think wheels need better ability to take on slopes. Especially so we can make things with proportions like this: Rather than having to cram on as many wheels as possible like I tried with my larger vehicle.
  9. There isn't really one non-binary look or set of features, so as long as none of them explicitly were saying they're gendered either way, any of them could be. But we've had female kerbals for years. Here's some old photos of mine with helmets off so you can clearly see faces/
  10. I always think back to the old Kerbin City mod, which put their main city in the harbour some way to the south on the same continent as KSC
  11. I'm still nervous about what my old favorite Minmus will be like. I know the idea is that it will be glassy rathe than icy, and don't care as long as it still gets to be smooth, lumpy, and shiny. Also hoping to see an improved mountain range behind KSC, and the old island airfield apear in some form, but I've been too nervous to really look into it
  12. TBh, if anything I would have prefered them rolled back. They were a little too consistent, and a little characterless.
  13. Is having a kerbal with you to watch a launch good luck or bad luck
  14. This. It's like they learnt the word from minecraft. Even back in the day we thought it was silly, but they never changed it. This too. This would be better than the tech tree approach, especially I think in my ideal science system, there would be three levels. 1. Passive sensors - scanners, instruments, etc, Stuff which you just turn on as part of your ship, and return data based on the situation they're in. Novel situations bring you more interesting (or maybe valuable) data. 2. Active experiments - stuff you have to interact with. Drilling stuff, or chemical tests, stuff you actually have to move around and click to make work. 3. Long term projects. Stuff you set up to run then leave for a while. Research in stations and bases, or something which involves signals between multiple probes, or that you deploy on the ground for long term data collection. We kind of got these all in KSP1 by the end, but it would be nice for them to be designed in a more comprehensive way from the start. Something that makes them interact in interesting ways. I hope KSP2 embraces (cost / time x depreciation) mechanics. There's potential there which was wasted in KSP1, fast forwarding years was too easy a choice.
×
×
  • Create New...