Jump to content

Master39

Members
  • Posts

    1,115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,984 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,985 profile views
  1. And realism already provides for that. No, it's not, it's not an engineering problem at all. It's a fundamental physics problem, it's not possible. but this is going off topic to old threads Honestly you just seem to be blind to anything strictly gameplay-related, to the point of trying to correct the scientific accuracy of random examples completely missing the point one is trying to make. Go back to my comments and replace every IRL substance with a purely ficional one, if you can make sense of the gameplay message then come back to me with an answer. If you can't do that then there's no point in further continuing this discussion. When all you have is an hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  2. If there's no arbitrary gameplay limitation in a fuel there's no reason to have that specific fuel in the first place. Example: - Kerolox has slightly more powerful engines, but it's available only on Kerbin and that's limits it's usage to the early game. - Hydrolox is slightly worse but you can manufacture it with an IRSU unit. If the devs don't need the "slightly stronger but only available on Kerbin" fuel niche in their gameplay vision then there's no need to have two fuels there, no matter how cool or realistic it is. Without its own gameplay niche it's any different fuel is just useless clutter (and this is valid for any "realism for realism's sake" feature). So making it and storing it it's just fanta-engineering at this point, we can assume it would be relatively easy (just like we do with fusion engines, ignoring all the possible engineering problems) or we can make up owr own realistic-ish limits to make that specific fuel fits the gameplay niche it was created for. Remember that this is a sequel of KSP, if they just needed the kind of performance to fit the engine power progression they had in mind they could have just picked up one of the exotic nuclear thermal designs and made them work with "liquid fuel" produced by sucking with a straw from any random rock laying around and ignoring any radiation concern.
  3. How safe it is to store it for months? For years? Decades? Hydrolox is relatively easy to procure in a new system, ideally hydrolox and methalox would be the two kind of fuels that are refineable with portable enough equipment given the right raw resources. How complex is the equipment to manufacture the stuff? How much resources does it require? (we already know that's the biggest building between factories) how long to build it? How much power and raw resources does it consume? How fast it is? There's going to be a difference (I hope) between bringing low tier simple fuel production equipment and kick-starting a whole self sufficient colony just to have the fuel to land on a planet. As far as you can tell, by ignoring all the possible gameplay implications of a fuel choice. The gameplay requirements are all that matters for every different kind of fuel, the game doesn't need to have kerolox, methalox and hydrolox if they all behave the same and are all obtained in the same way. It's useless to have helium-3 fusion drives, antimatter torches and nuclear Orion pogo sticks if you make the fuel for those engines in the same way by simply putting a straw in a random asteroid to suck out a magic do-it-all "ore" to turn into the relevant fuel with an universal generic "IRSU" module. The logistical and manufacturing gameplay differences between them it's all that is going to matter when it comes to fuel choice, because if the difference it's just performance then you could just make different kinds of engines using the same fuel and save that complexity for other parts of the game. At least that's what I hope, because if you can easily make all the fuels the same way, and you can just plop a fully grown colony wherever you want with just an oversized lander the last problem KSP2 is going to have is an OP mmH one, but a generic lack of any kind of difficulty or balance while still having an overly cluttered gameplay.
  4. Add a little boiloff to mmH and now your lander tanks won't survive the interstellar transfer, now you need to build the whole colonial infrastructure to manufacture mmH in the target system, make that costly enough and you now have 2 possible outcomes for an Ovin mission: Use a conventional chemical lander, let's say methalox or hydrolox, the IRSU plant required is the easiest one and can fit in the lander itself (like in the Martian) or assembled in place with minimal equipment (let's assume just another lander worth of equipment and a Kerbal engineer to assemble the thing). Use mmH: You literally need one of the biggest third tier (1 land,2 assemble, 3 build in place) colonial factories and also one of the most power hungry ones, even if you can transfer mmH over interstellar distances is not a smart move, it just means you're doing an interstellar expendable mission with your fuel source for landing operations being half a century of transfer time away from where you're actually operating. Remember this? The smallest is the methalox fuel plant, the biggest the mmH, not exactly convenient or portable. You're forgetting the gameplay aspect of the matter, there are a ton of ways to make the pixie dust engine only viable as a late game colonial cargo lander option while also making it not practical for exploration purposes.
  5. We're talking about KSP2 here, at 60€ if they can't keep up with ReStock+ then there's no point in buying the game in the first place, let alone DLCs. I don't think the difference between Squad and a real game studio needs to be explained again (hint: it's not normal nor common that a modding team can not only keep up but beat the studio at a full asset revamp).
  6. It's a random example of a made up potential DLC for a game that hasn't released yet and that doesn't have a modding scene yet, do you really need specific API calls and documentation to understand a concept as simple as the difference between a mod and a game DLC? The kind of access to assets, talent and the workforce the actual studio making the game can put on the table compared to hobbyists working on their spare time? Solar sails were just an example, one based on the fact that this community has shown interest in them, the devs mentioned them during the podcast interview as something interesting to potentially explore after release and the fact that they work differently enough from rocket engines to warrant a dedicated solution. That's the problem with the nostalgia effect, we only remember the good part of the experience, we don't notice the good that comes with change. For once in that simpler time there was no space (lol) for a game as niche as KSP.
  7. Everything DLC worthy is going to become a mod at some point, how are they going to make them worth the price? Polish and integration with the stock game beyond what mods can do, a thing is adding a hacky fake engine in the form of a solar sail and somehow using some commnet functions to make a fake antenna building that acts like the beaming station, another is a DLC that adds a stock framework for beamed propulsion and a bunch of uses for that in the form of stock solar sails. But that's just an example, but everything is going to be a mod, at that point why waiting for KSP2 when you can throw a bunch of mods together and get something somewhat similar on KSP1? I know there's a big portion of nostalgia effect talking, but you remember how small games used to be? And how little supported they were? One of my favourite memories from my early gaming experiences was the PS1 Spyro trilogy, 3 games released in 3 years, 0 post-sale support of any kind, far from being bug free. Honestly I prefer the modern model of games updated and expanded for years instead of the old "yearly full price hit or miss release".
  8. Which is already a wild assumption, the only reliable info in the post is the asset itself, for what we know it could have been in the "filler for the show and tell posts" folder for 6 months or even more.
  9. Only people that doesn't know how coop games work, I just finished playing an Enigmatica 2: Expert run (modded Minecraft) with my friends on a paid hosted server (a quite heavy modpack) and we had 6 slots for 6 people and usually were around 2 or 3 online only on the evenings. That's not a dead game, just a small server between friends, on Stellaris, Europa Universalis, Factorio or a miriad of other games it would be considered a crowded server. In Sea of Thieves each servers has up to 6 ships, every ship has a crew between 1 and 4 players, usually server aren't full and 4 people Galleons are quite a Rare sight. Not every game is about massive amounts of players, and I bet KSP2 won't be either. I have been part of a Minecraft Towny community for almost a decade, 6 years of which I was in the management staff of the server. At its peak the server had hundreds of active players and 40 people online was considered a dead day, we were the most popular server in my country (while the popularity of Towny RPG server lasted). In all that time we got less than an handful cases of griefing (and it was in the middle of the Minecraft griefing YouTube craze) and all of them were quite limited in scope and solved with 2 commands, one to ban the griefer and the other to rollback the action of that specific player, leaving intact the rest of the server. If that was ever to fail we had a location based rollback function, a world-side backup system and a server side backup service. But most of that wasn't for the griefing, and we never had to use them for that, Minecraft worlds just don't like being used for too long while often changing version of the game and of the installed mods. Griefing in multiplayer is blown out of proportion by the popularity of the (mostly fake) videos on YouTube. Your loss, I paid 10€ for it, played it with some friends, built my base, never got griefed and met a PVP player only once or twice in the couple of months we played (and they ignored us when we didn't return fire). Playing a typical Bethesda game in Coop is something else, I hope their next games have a coop option too (not MMO style like 76, I just want to bring a couple of friends with me in a dungeon or Dwemer ruin instead of a dumb NPCs). Sometimes it really feels like half of this forum never played a multiplayer game in their life.
  10. The iPad needs a dedicated port of the game, wasting dev resources, the SteamDeck is just a PC, no port needed and at worst we'll have people asking for a more scalable UI or better controller support. If the Deck used the same proprietary crap Nintendo and Apple use I would be the first against a port of KSP and the last to buy one. Discussions about power, size and screen aside, the Deck is a PC, that's the main selling point for most buyers, will KSP2 work on my Deck? I don't know, maybe it does then good I can continue my save from my PC with the same mods, maybe it doesn't and then I just play other games from the same library I don't have to buy 2 times due to proprietary crap anymore. The Deck is going to have the biggest library a console ever had at launch, even if less than half of Steam games works on it (and given the amount of remakes, remasters and remakes of old remasters that fill the console market nowadays it seems like playing old games is not a problem for anyone).
  11. I have a PC, I have a Nintendo Switch and, while on the go, I'm currently playing NES Games on an unlocked PSP GO. Why? Switch games cost way too much, I don't want to buy crappy ports of indie games for 30-40€ when I already have the same games on PC and I paid almost nothing for them (I have 12 pages of keys I still haven't activated on the Humble Store). The deck is basically as portable as a Switch, with cheaper games, not having to wait ages for ports, emulators without having to unlock or hack it and, in the same form factor and weight allowance of my switch + my laptop, in my backpack I can fit the Deck and a lapdock to replace both devices. On top of all of this I can also continue at least some of the gaming I do on my main rig, maybe not loading a colony with 30 ships landing and launching, but I'm sure the Deck is going to manage the VAB and the Spaceplane Hangar of KSP2 just fine if I want to do some light craft designing and/or flight testing and with Steam Cloud for saves I don't even have to have different saves (having a different PC and Switch save is what stopped me from finishing Hollow Knight a game I got in a 5€ bundle for PC and paid some 20-30€ for the switch version)
  12. @SciMan I was replying point by point but then I realized that there's a huge difference in how I see the whole career working: KSP1 career is based on limiting your ability to do any mission you want with the need of money and then give you the money by doing made up missions that usually are only marginally relevant with your overall program (and you have to do all the work to make them somewhat relevant, like using satellites contracts to launch science probes) and are almost completely abstract (launch a space stations that doesn't actually do anything, bring ore from A to B but you don't have a mine in A nor a use for the ore in B). I see the colony system in KSP2 as a solution and replacement for that, colonies are going to do some useful work, the easiest examples we already know of are the extraplanetary launch centers and the ability to manufacture advanced fuel and build in orbit giant spaceships, but with the confirmation of the need to discover the planets around new stars it's easy to think about observatories or science laboratories or outposts and after that it's even easier to think a ton of sub-categories or specific things they may make a colony useful for. Building colonies won't be like building stations out of plane fuselages in KSP1, you'll build them because you'll need them to advance your space program and, instead of multiple made-up grind missions needed to pay that one single missions you want to make, you'll have multiple setup missions every single one of them building toward a larger goal. That's why I don't see money covering the same central role it had on KSP1, at some point you'll be managing different resources mined all over the place and moved around to make them available to your space centers to build new ships and you can basically add money to this system in 2 ways: Just another resource like the others, automatically "mined" over time by setting up the right kind of infrastructure, the infrastructure itself expanded as the needs of your space program grow. A grinded currency that has power over everything, like science, you have to do single missions you can't automate to acquire the amount you need to go on in your space program. With both the main problem resides in the early game that should focus on pretty much free experimentation and early exploration while the player begins climbing the learning curve, and of the two I prefer 1 with the caveat that I think the funds should never give the player the ability of just spawning resources outside Kerbin and/or allow to teleport them around (I sell my iron on Duna and I buy it on Laythe, avoiding the need of setting up that specific supply line) since we already have science working that way. IMOH the economic side it's not a core element of KSP, it's just a tool to make you build and launch more rockets, if it makes you do less of that it's not a good tool.
  13. Factory games are based on production lines and conversion rates, that makes for a terrible gameplay for KSP, I don't want to pass my time building a factory in the BAE at a colony, that's why there should be more raw resources, every one of them with a "refinement" stage and an optional "manufacturing" stage, maybe 2 for the most complex final products, and those raw resources should be scattered. That way you set up the production lines easily and then focus on the logistics and actual rocket flying, mining equipment landing portion of the game, which is closer to the "build and fly cool rockets" core experience. On the crew side I think that the logistics of shuttling around crews, crew rotations for bases and stations that aren't colonies and habitation requirements and environmental hazards for working and efficiency bonuses are a more interesting gameplay element than wathever type of Kerbal-fuel bases life support they can come up with. Money as a cheating tool to acquire resources you don't mine anywhere it's a big no-no for me, ok on Kerbin, since you'd have to build supply lines from and to the KSC to access that conversion mekanism, but not on colonies. The whole system of colonies, mines, stations, offplanet launch centers and orbital shipyards is the mean to give you something to do, new and different ships to build all the time to solve logistical problems and slowly build the huge amount of infrastrutuce you need to support your multiplanetary civilization. Free conversion of resources everywhere would break that, suddenly you don't need to track down and scan for all resources, you just need to build your colony on an expensive resource hotspot and convert it int everything else you need with the magic of money. It's like when in stronghold crusader instead of collecting all the resources in a balanced way you just build a crazy amount of candle makers and buy everything else by selling candles. I think that would require Valve to change the way the workshop works, but I'm far from being an expert of what tools for developers there are in SteamWorks. Surely the Devs are not going to develop their in house version of a workshop from scratch just to add this small feature. A craft design is only as good as the person designing it is at flying. If you don't know how to fly, you don't know how to design something that flies well.
  14. Not talking about valid or not valid, just discussing the pro and cons of various alternatives. With the exception the extragerated extremes like having the whole periodic table in game or just having a single universal "ore" I'm not really against any of the proposals of this topic. On specifically how a timer does that @Pthigrivi explained it better than I could ever do, while also adding the pitfalls of my own idea.
  15. The options we were discussing about were: Money from missions like in KSP 1: disincentives trial and error and teaches the player to just use revert and quicksaves. Money become more and more meaningless the farther away you go from Kerbin. Money from a budget: still a resource that's meaningful basically only in the early game, after that it becomes clutter. A single resource "ore" from a budget: oversimplification of the colonies resource system to basically turn minable resources into minable money. Multiple resources generated by the KSC at different rates: overcomplicated for what it's replacing. Free everything at the KSC: makes reusable designs pointless and allows for resource routes spamming of free, expendable, cargo ships to everywhere. That's were construction times come in, it has the same effects of a budget with a simpler setup.
×
×
  • Create New...