• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

427 Excellent

1 Follower

About Master39

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

1,017 profile views
  1. Personally the only thing that upset me was the lack of information, now that we have a period of time that isn't "from 2 months ago to maybe next year" the wait is way easier.
  2. You say this but still haven't explained how splitting up fuels enhances the gameplay anymore than having all the fuels combined and having engine performance tied to the engines. Complexity is being added for no reward beyond complicating the titles of the fuel tanks and making logistics later in the game more arduous. Then I made the wrong example, my fault, next time I'll use another game altogether to make examples so I don't step over some random argument.
  3. This is exactly what I was expecting, something ending that "it may release any time between 2 months ago and 3 years in the future"
  4. I'm not lobbying for anything except for more meaningful choices and a deeper, layered gameplay. I created an example in 2 minutes using the fuel argument as a base not knowing I was apparently stepping on a minefield, I don't care about the fuel argument, I don't care if metallic hydrogen is not realistic and I don't care if having only one fuel was simpler, I care about the gameplay aspect of the game.
  5. Yes to both, they both gameplay expansion to that "one Ore to do everything" that's the actual resource system, also having more fuels early on prepares the players for when they'll have to manage and produce nukes, fusion fuel and metallic hydrogen.
  6. I'm arguing for a better gameplay, over simplicity and over realism, the fuel one was just an example, not something I'm intrested in goin OT on. My point is that the whole argument is not realism vs simplicity, everything else is an example.
  7. I would say that yes, most engines use only one fuel, but I would also see a gameplay opportunity for some very specific hybrid engines but I don't know if that's realistic as that isn't my concern when thinking about new gameplay.
  8. In my example you have Kerolox as early-game fuel for cheap engines, hydrolox as a cheap to refine fuel with low tech refineries anywhere there's water and methalox as an option for Eve and Duna, but that's only an example I put together in 2 minutes to make an example of gameplay over simplicity, not an actual proposal.
  9. If they don't add anything in terms of gameplay let's simplify, if they add some compelling gameplay then let's add them in a realistic way, that's my point. In that specific relply I was just remembering that the game is designed around the progression mode, not sandbox, just like Minecraft is designed around survival and not creative. The fuel is just an example I used 3 replies above in an example I thing adds more gameplay but I'm not advocating for having more fuels, I'm doing it for more gameplay.
  10. Then let's make the jets work in vacuum, or any engine without fuel at all, that's also punishing by the standards of other space games. I don't se how 6 fuel tipes are ok but 8 are unbearingly punishing for people who want to be creative, we're just arguing about arbitrary limits. Remember, I'm arguing for gameplay, not pointless realism, obviously if you decide to ignore the main mode of the game you'll also find the related gameplay features to be useless, but I would argue that pairing tanks and engines it's hardly considerable a mild inconvenience at best and that the devs should not cut content from the progression mode to keep the sandbox simple.
  11. It was an example from my previous response on the fuels topic on which different fuels have different uses and are unlocked at different time to scale things gradually towards more advanced engines and fuels, that's why i used the LV-T45 and the Vector, one is a beginner, low tech, simple tier 2/9 engine while the other is an advanced, costlier, tier 8/9 engine, the same tier of the Ion propulsion. My point is that it would be useless to have such a thing "just for realism" but it would add value to the game if it has some new gameplay to bring, like having specific engines being more useful on specific bodies because you can extract and refine their fuel, differentiate the exploration because if everything is just a mere "Delta V challenge" i don't see a reason to ever plan an interstellar mission. It surely can't be as simple as KSP1, in KSP no choice, design or specific part matters for anything, you can just strap a seat on an orange tank with a vector and call it a successful Jool mission, some complexity is to be expected just not to have a "progression mode" that's not a broken mess like Career and Science are. On top of that we already know of 5 or 6 new fuel tipes (one of which is actual nukes!), and we know that part of the colonies point will be to refine/synthesize them so that probably means we'll have some multiple resources to work with (and the abundance of containers in all the screenshots seems to point toward that) and that's even without counting the fact that you will be able to build and launch missions from colonies, I don't think they will just drop a 200m wall in the learning curve for the sake of "tradition", base building is already completely different from what we know (that's hacking together space station parts with workaround because base building is not present in the game), and I more than certain that IRSU operation will look nothing like we know in KSP1
  12. The problem here is that everyone is thinking this as 2 variables, "simplicity" Vs "realism" when the problem has at least a third variable, "gameplay". I'm opposed to both the "realism for the sake of realism" and "simplicity for the sake of simplicity" approaches while I'm all-in for new, layered gameplay, one that's adjustable with difficulty options as in all management, simulation and sandbox games especially in KSP which is all of the above. I don't want to pass an afternoon calculating fuel ratios, designing a turbopump for a new slightly different methane engine just because that's realistic, but I would find having to choose between the "cheaper on Kerbin" Kerolox LV-T45 engine and the "costlier but you can IRSU on Mün" Hydrolox KS-25 Vector a more engaging gameplay than just strapping any engine you esthetically like because they just all work in all situations for the sake of simplicity. The same reasoning can be applied to any other aspect of the game: life support, automation, programming and so on, the priority should be to have a compelling gameplay not one as simple as possible to the point of being empty but not a super complex one to the point of needing spreadsheets to be able to play.
  13. Environmental hazards life support is something I expect since I first saw that radiation shielding and heard Nate talk about "nothing like you're used in the mods" when asked about life support. Habitat requirement (like having spin gravity for long periods of time in space), radiation protection, different suits for different situations (no need for RCS packs on Eve, maybe something to resist the pressures and temperatures)
  14. Complexity for the sake of complexity or realism is useless, but complexity for the sake of gameplay could be fun. New players are not a problem, you can start the game with Kerolox and solid boosters like is now, ad Hydrolox when developing the IRSU on Mun-Minmus bases and the Methalox when making the first bases on Duna-Eve and then gradually adding the more exotic fuels.
  15. Even without the radiation shielding we have rotating habitats and resource containers, that's already something more complex than KSP1 "just put everyone on seats strapped to the tanks"