KSP 2.0 - What would you expect (or wish) for a sequel?

[Bigbootie]

Ok I concede that the ability for co-op would definitely be fun. But MMO, no way. However I would be fine with any of this if they fix and enhance the base game first and leave each game mode as a seperate option.

[Motokid600]

Honestly just a better visual feast. That's it. Space is something that is visually stunning. So much so that astronauts say it changes you down to the core. Just the sight of Earth from orbit changes you as a person. KSP falls VERY flat in this department.

[Tourist]

Honesty I can't see that there would be a squeal... at least not from Squad. My understanding is that this is a situation where a Harvester pitched an idea to a business in that was not a game developer and they decided to take a punt on the idea and on Harvester. It was a one off gamble and paid out big. But I can't see all the staff working on KSP now being retasked by Squad to a new Squad product.  

Rather what I think will happen is KSP will wind down, KSP developers and staff will move on to other companies and projects, aided by what must be a pretty competitive resume. Squad will no doubt feel encouraged to take a chance again, if the chance arises... but it may not be in games, it will be in whatever idea excites them and they think they can get a return on. 

That being said, another games company buying a license to create something with the Brand or the even rights to the IP outright is a distinct possibility. Although that comes with risks for the Kerbal brand and the game.... Hello microtransactions!! Pay 10 dollars to launch five more ships. $2 for 1000k/s extra Delta V. PULL THE LEVER! 

What I think is more likely (but not that likely unfortunately) is games inspired by KSP. Space flight sims, space colony simulators, funny S'polsion physics games etc.

I'd like to see more all of these things.

[Tw1]

I'd like it to be like KSP is now, with a few improvements on the solar system and physics, but with a big departure in the way career works. I'd like to see it being a management simulation worthy of the well made spaceflight sim it currently is, giving the player full control at every level. 

And also bring out the potential of the exploration and discovery side of things which science in game fails at. 

 

-Overhauled and detailed planets 

Our old favourites would stay, and keep their basic maps and key characteristics, but get a art pass with some consultation from a geologist or too, and ideas from fans, and from various fanworks.

 

-Planets becoming detailed and interactive.

With some seasonal and random change to make revisiting or permanent bases more interesting. 

-A few new dwarf planets.

 

-Science for more of its own sake. 

Science which is more like exploration, graphs to make, maps to complete. Continuous data, rather than discrete biomes. 

-(Also changing Biome to Terrain or something which makes sense) 

 

-Use contracts to actually bring space endeavour to life, rather than just short points quests.

Make tourism to set bases and stations a thing. Add contracts for experiments it would be difficult to model with one part- cassini's relativity test, etc longer term data collection, long term studies in stations and bases, etc. 

 

-Refraiming the came's management aspects to be more about gains vs costs over time. 

A set budget per time period, where you're earning are based on what you achieved in that period. Reputation and historical achievement could be multipliers.

KSC maintenance, crew on rosters, and crew in space etc, would be on going costs. Research in space, commercial satellite services, etc, could work like contracts with long term payout.

Make it feel like I'm running something here, not just scoring points. 

 

-Making the game focus more on sustaining the space program over time than unlocking stuff. 

Make there be feed back about the different areas which your program is pursuing, like different types of research, your public opinion rating, environmental impact, etc. Some nice big positive vs negative dials to manage. Have difficulty of these's ratings slowly increase. 

-Less involvement of others groups in space until you've done quite a bit. 

This is more personal taste, but I'd like to be the pioneer, not a later upstart. 

 

-Let the game live up to it's full, multi genre potential. 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Tw1

[ispeedonthe405]

Multiplayer. The primary reason I only play this game in short spurts is that it quickly becomes boring in the lonely, single-player universe. The very nature of KSP -- the concept of building not just a rocket, but an entire space program -- cries out for cooperative play.

Edited June 18, 2016 by ispeedonthe405

[Lunar Sea]

CRYOVOLCANOES

[MircoMars]

KSP like it is  planned to be  now but created in it's own custom made engine.

[Jarin]

Non-unity game engine. 

[flyboy67109]

life support and alarm clock 

[magnemoe]

On 6.6.2016 at 3:29 AM, Tourist said:

Honesty I can't see that there would be a squeal... at least not from Squad. My understanding is that this is a situation where a Harvester pitched an idea to a business in that was not a game developer and they decided to take a punt on the idea and on Harvester. It was a one off gamble and paid out big. But I can't see all the staff working on KSP now being retasked by Squad to a new Squad product.  

Rather what I think will happen is KSP will wind down, KSP developers and staff will move on to other companies and projects, aided by what must be a pretty competitive resume. Squad will no doubt feel encouraged to take a chance again, if the chance arises... but it may not be in games, it will be in whatever idea excites them and they think they can get a return on. 

That being said, another games company buying a license to create something with the Brand or the even rights to the IP outright is a distinct possibility. Although that comes with risks for the Kerbal brand and the game.... Hello microtransactions!! Pay 10 dollars to launch five more ships. $2 for 1000k/s extra Delta V. PULL THE LEVER! 

What I think is more likely (but not that likely unfortunately) is games inspired by KSP. Space flight sims, space colony simulators, funny S'polsion physics games etc.

I'd like to see more all of these things.

An version 2.0 is likely to sell to lots of ksp players making it an fairly safe bet. Notice that most games are follow ups. 
it would also be far simpler to make than the original game.
An plan was to include multiplayer in the 1. version, not sure if this stands. 
KSP interstelar with new systems would be on top on my wishlist. 
 

[Kaizen]

A possible very-far-future end goal for KSP:

Quantum chromodynamics for superrealism.

[wumpus]

On 6/5/2016 at 4:53 PM, Combatsmithen said:

 But seriously. It would be cool if everyone could work together, but since thats and impossibility. NO MMOS!

In another thread (potential KSP DLC, I think) I floated the idea of a "KSP Raid".  Pretty much "one seat in NASA mission control = 1 KSP player".  Just one flight, but full realism and a small army to control it.

Somehow I doubt it would be all that popular.  You might try an orbital mod.

[Curveball Anders]

On 2016-06-08 at 1:42 AM, ispeedonthe405 said:

Multiplayer. The primary reason I only play this game in short spurts is that it quickly becomes boring in the lonely, single-player universe.

If I feel lonely in KSP I fire up EvE.

Then when I go back to KSP I love the fact that it's single player more than ever

KSP lets me design and play with my own ideas of a space program without having to bother with anyone else.

[Tourist]

Given how sequels often work in this industry, I'd expect KSP 2 to completely pay homage to the original... except that now it will be a brown-toned cover-shooter, about a 30-something man with a 5 o'clock shadow getting vengeance because a family member was killed by an evil PMC (I realize "evil PMC" is a bit of a tautology).   

Edited June 15, 2016 by Tourist

[blorgon]

7 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

If I feel lonely in KSP I fire up EvE.

Then when I go back to KSP I love the fact that it's single player more than ever

KSP lets me design and play with my own ideas of a space program without having to bother with anyone else.

My brother and I used to design a lot of crafts and come up with missions and big plans for colonies and space stations. We would build something and send the craft file over to whoever was playing on a common save file that we also shared. It got extremely tedious though. I would absolutely love being able to play with him real time. Mostly stuff like building colonies, and science missions where one of us could be in the lab doing experiments and the other could be piloting. We also have really wanted to be able to freely move in IVA. I really think that by the time a KSP 2 would even be possible, somebody will have worked out a way to do multiplayer in a very elegant way. 

[Tourist]

On 6/15/2016 at 4:46 AM, wumpus said:

In another thread (potential KSP DLC, I think) I floated the idea of a "KSP Raid".  Pretty much "one seat in NASA mission control = 1 KSP player".  Just one flight, but full realism and a small army to control it.

Somehow I doubt it would be all that popular.  You might try an orbital mod.

I also don't think that would be as fun as it sounds. Remember, sure alot of people were involved in a NASA launch, and all those jobs were important, and because of the gravity of the occasion, exciting to be a part of, but to be honest much of it was just looking at a screen and saying things like "Flight, Jim is AOK but I'd like to see Buzz get more sleep."

[blorgon]

On 6/17/2015 at 10:31 AM, Tank Buddy said:

I don't think KSP is sequel-able.

I mean, really, anything that you would put in a sequel could be either updated or modded into the game, so what's the point? (besides making more money for SQUAD.)

I can definitely see KSP being sequel-able. Some day in the near future, we're probably going to get to a point where the limitations that Unity places on the game will outweigh the benefits of continuing to use it. I think at that point—or honestly, even now—it'd be easier to build a brand new game from scratch in a custom, dedicated engine than it would be to try to port it to a new engine while also overhauling it.

I know it's hard to imagine multiple installations (in the sense of a series of things, not .exe's), since the game just updates here and there to add new things, and we're all just used to that cycle. It's hard to imagine that there'd ever be a last update. But I can definitely see a point in the future where a brand new KSP would make more sense, and frankly, I'd welcome it. I really honestly would be happy with a "next-gen" style of sequel, where almost all of KSP as it currently exists is a part of the new game, but with massive overhauls to everything and lots of new additions. I'm thinking of the kind of jump in quality and power like upgrading from PS2 straight to PS4.

Whether that will happen is certainly moot, but isn't really in the scope of this thread. I prefer to keep these kinds of things purely hypothetical.

[sumrex]

Alien Abduction:  You start off with a few Kerbs abducted and dumped in a distant solar system.  They have to build up escape to another and another etc etc. to get home.  Don't tie the user to just one solar system.  Go the no mans sky route and create do some random system generation.

[Triop]

More

Cockpits

Cockpits

Cockpits !

 

[Tyko]

On Multiplayer...how the heck would you do time acceleration in an MMO / Multiplayer? Multiplayer I think you'd be locked into 1:1 time.

On other improvements:

1. More interesting planets/destinations - It seem like the Kerbin local system is so much more interesting (more biomes) than the other planets I've visited. I wish there were more things to discover than a handful of biomes for all of my travels.
2. More science - some of the mods offer more dynamic science options (cooler science devices, more interesting stories) but the prob with those is they are hard to balance so I don't out-science the tech tree too quickly.
3. Kerbal crew traits/skills - I'd love to see kerbals start with and earn traits that would differentiate them from their companions. Maybe a pilot gets a bonus 5% to an ability like maneuver speed, power efficiency, engine ISP, landings, rover driving..nothing game breaking, but enough that you start to pick one over another for certain types of missions.
4. Richer story-based contracts, ideally even multi-step contracts. I feel like I get spammed with equipment testing, satellite placement, tourist contracts and would love to see major story-arcs created through contracts. An example could be the Kennedy/Saturn project - it started with getting men into orbit, then to orbital docking, then moon flybys, finally moon landing and safe return to Kerbal.
5. Integrate key mods into base game - Kerbal Engineer Redux comes to mind as something I wouldn't play the game without.
6. more stabler 

Edited June 21, 2016 by tjt

[cubinator]

MOAR boosters. Everyone needs moar boosters.

[Vermil]

I understand that a lot of people think MP is fun. However, when developers open up what is essentially single player games for multiplay, they always have to make some changes to UI/gameplay/interaction which in my experience ruins valuable and unique aspects of the originally conceived (or previous version) single player game. Some may think MP is worth it. I don't. Essentially, my opinion is that adding a MP element always ruins the single player game, - at least to some extent.

What I'd expect from KSP 2.0 is an interstellar element, with space technology like the Daedalus project, and some neighbor solar systems of course. From what I understand, this is not immediately possible to add to KSP as of today.

I'd also expect more and better balanced (the challenge) planets, and more to discover and explore on them. But that, I gather, should be possible to add to the 64-bit client of our current KSP.

I'd like a more planned and rational hierarchy of rocket components. Planned as in serving the gameplay progression. We have mods, so this can be argued to be a non-issue, but the stock assortment feels peculiarly incomplete and unfinished. The problem with mods is also that the sky is the limit. It's easy to get into the habit to "buy" the solution, instead of solving the problem - which is really the essential gameplay element in KSP. But again, it should be doable to the 64-bit version today.

As for planes, I pretty much refuse to meddle with them, since I feel that the essential design craftsmanship is missing from the current system. You don't design aircraft by bolting together parts. You have to be able to adjust things like wing area, aspect ratio, profile thickness of every wing and fin. And the aerodynamic simulation should reasonably accurately model the consequences. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

 

Edit: P.S.  In my judgement, a KSP 2 would be a prime candidate for becoming one of those "Oh-but-the-first-game-is-much-better.-That-is-the-one-you-should-get" -games. A successful KSP 2 would require some very talented lead game designer with delicate touch. And the slightest interference from people like EA marketing dudes would immediately, utterly ruin it.

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by Vermil

[Znath]

Landing gear that doesn't explode for no dang reason.

[Umlüx]

better graphics

more parts

new and powerful physics engine

starsystems and FTL travel

realism level is fine as is imho.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Umlüx

[Vaporized Steel]

I would want to suggest procedural parts. But I'm sure that one will never see the light of day. It's so non stockish, I can even buy into the mindset of the devs not willing to go there.
What I do want is build in tweakscale.
Procedural parts make things complicated in terms of VAB/SPH building complexity. I don't even think that way myself because I'm accustomed to KSP for very long. But from a developers viewpoint you want game functions to be simplified, with a mentality of over simplification. It's likely why procedural parts are not part of stock and not going to be stock.

I don't even know if that is the developers mentality, but I'm kind of very very sure that this is the reasoning behind it. The game needs to be easy to operate (or as easy as can be) out of the box.
So every amateur space pioneer who just happens to go to steam and say "yippie" this KSP sounds cool doesn't get his head shaken violently.
A stock tweakscale function will be very straightforward. Click or slide and all the part specifications change with it.
It will save parts, you can choose for instance how big your aircraft wings are without having to add incomparable parts to let's say a BIG-S wing just to get enough lift.
You can change wheel, gear, fairing, and aircraft wing settings, so should you be able to have a tweakscale setting.

If a simplified tweakscale setting would be introduced, it's only going to make the game better without complicating it for amateur players. Maybe even add a "unlock" tweakscale setting in the game settings menu or on the part settings menu before tweakscale settings are visible so the part settings menu remains easy to operate.