Jump to content

Devnote Tuesday: 'Super' Tuesday!


SQUAD
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, regex said:

I never said anything about optional.  My thoughts on the matter are that KSP should go for realistic wherever possible and deal away with the elephant in the room that is a toy solar system.  Axial tilt should be included by default as well as a choice of launch sites at different latitudes that players can choose to tailor the difficulty.

I want to see a commitment to a hardcore spaceflight simulator where the player engineers their own craft to see how it fares against the great black desert, not some watered-down toy with "difficulty options" and I certainly don't care how palatable that is to other players.  Whether Squad takes me up on that challenge is their own choice.

If you don't want to argue with me on matters of opinion stop quoting my posts because I will take that as an indication that you want to specifically address my opinion rather than simply state your own.  How much "realism" or "difficulty" belongs in KSP is most certainly a matter of opinion, with Squad being the ultimate arbiter.  All we can do is make our opinions known.

I would say that giving players the option is best. Not everyone has the skills to handle everything, right out of the box. You may be an old pro, but everyone starts somewhere. People get better by incremental improvements. Yes, I am suggesting that there be a setting that adds tilt to the solar system's orbital bodies. In easy modes, that tilt is not present. In harder modes, it is.

I love the idea of KSP being capable of being a hardcore space flight simulator, but it needs to still remain an accessible "toy" to be able to capture the interest of casual, inexperienced, and new players. Remember, those people may give up if it's too hard from the start. It is never harmful to offer choice of difficulty. Taking away choice is how people get to arguing over whether KSP being a toy or being hardcore is preferable...

Bump up the functionality of KSP, give users the choice, and let it be both:wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2016 at 8:35 PM, richfiles said:

 I believe I'm still on my first year, and have missions headed to both Eve and Duna. Kerbal Alarm Clock is my friend! :D
 

Glad to see there is going to be a way to search for specific parts or groups.  On my vanilla career, really do miss having the Quicksearch mod, Kerbal Alarm Clock, and KER(as well as Mechjeb's info windows).  Any chance on getting either KAC or KER type features into vanilla KSP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the game started with a real scale system, if anyone would even be arguing for a toy scale system.

I started playing KSP because of stories of the difficultly of realistically landing on the moon.  Just because something might be more challenging to a new player doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.  Dark Souls and Street Fighter are prime examples.  Sure, you can muck around in either, but that isn't "the game."  I'd argue, KSP should show the real challenges of space travel in a simplified form.  Using a toy solar system is a poor implementation of this, in my opinion, and one that only still exists because of Squad holding to tightly onto the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Kiro said:

The name of the game is KERBAL space  program not EARTH ,space program.  If you want realism there are mods for that.

(I appologize For odd capitolization And speLling My phone hates the new forums)

I think the point of the conversation, and why i brought it up at fiest Pages ago is that under the current engine limitations the mods are incapable of fully realizing the level of realism we desire. To recap:

All celestial bodies in ksp rotate with an axis perpendicular to the exliPtic, ie they all have parallel axis of rotation.

The question is not wether any axial tilt can be simulated, as RO dowse Does by inClining The whole solar system, but if swuad Will ever decote Itself to allowing arbitrAry definitions for each body. 

The quEstion Of latitudes other then the equator for the space center is already addressed by mods. 

These things help with the player who enjoys difficultly, and also the immersion player. Imagine how much more satisfying that orbital photograph of an eclipse would be if all these things were realized, and you were playing with scatterer, eve clouds, planet shine, distant object enhancements and a camera mod.

Aldo A note on optional vs default. AddIng as an option allows for it to be a none save breaking change.

Edited by Errol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, regex said:

I want to see a commitment to a hardcore spaceflight simulator... and I certainly don't care how palatable that is to other players.

...

How much "realism" or "difficulty" belongs in KSP is most certainly a matter of opinion, with Squad being the ultimate arbiter.

First, it's not just acceptable to make your opinions known, it's necessary for us to do so. So thank you for doing so and I support you pleading your case.

But, I hope you can see the potential conflict between the two lines I quoted from you above. YOU want a hardcore spaceflight simulator and you don't care if other players don't. SQUAD has to make their game for a wide audience and MUST care about not only what they want the game to be (hint: that's not a hardcore simulator) and what they believe their audience wants (hint: that includes more than just you.) Personally, as nice as axial tilt would be, it's far down on my list of things I would rather see added to the game.

Squad has made it clear that the highly realistic space simulator of the kind you desire is not the vision for the game they prefer. I can't speak for most of us, but I'm quite fine with their decision in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, HvP said:

SQUAD has to make their game for a wide audience

Nitpick: No they don't.  They may have chosen that route but there is no reason whatsoever that they have to make a game for a wide audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, regex said:

 

Nitpick: No they don't.  They may have chosen that route but there is no reason whatsoever that they have to make a game for a wide audience.

True, but would the game really have been as successful as it is if they hadn't made that choice? They are out to make money after all, appealing to a wide player base as possible is the obvious choice,.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

True, but would the game really have been as successful as it is if they hadn't made that choice? They are out to make money after all, appealing to a wide player base as possible is the obvious choice,.

I have no idea, I'm just after a really good, detailed game.  They're starting to make a resurgence in this indie environment (a friend claims we're living in a "golden age" of gaming, where someone out there has probably written just the game for you) but are still comparatively rare.

Just for comparison, I'd pay triple-A prices, and probably a good deal more, for a professionally-done RO/RSS/RP-0 experience.  Instead, I occasionally (usually when something bothers me nowadays) volunteer time and code to the RO project because that's the sort of game I want to see.

Edited by regex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, regex said:

 

Nitpick: No they don't.  They may have chosen that route but there is no reason whatsoever that they have to make a game for a wide audience.

Apologies for using such a vague and relative term. How about: "Squad is financially invested in developing the game for an audience orders of magnitude larger than the number of people who comment on this forum."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, HvP said:

Apologies for using such a vague and relative term. How about: "Squad is financially invested in developing the game for an audience orders of magnitude larger than the number of people who comment on this forum."

No need to get snarky, the point was that Squad is in no way bound to making a game that appeals to as wide an audience as possible, and that's a fact.  They may have chosen that route, but they are not in any way, shape, or form forced to do so.  Saying "SQUAD has to make their game for a wide audience" (emphasis mine) is flat wrong.

Edited by regex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, regex said:

Just for comparison, I'd pay triple-A prices, and probably a good deal more, for a professionally-done RO/RSS/RP-0 experience.  Instead, I occasionally (usually when something bothers me nowadays) volunteer time and code to the RO project because that's the sort of game I want to see.

I like realism, to a degree (I use things like Life support, KCT, stuff like that) but I enjoy the scaled down solar system, because frankly, I have a young daughter and don't get much time to play. I have no idea how long a launch in RSS takes, but scaling up from a standard KSP launch, my guess is 20-30 minutes. I just don't have that much time! I want to play the game.

You, obviously, do like that stuff, and you know what? that's fine too (not that you need me to validate your opinions). That's the great thing about KSP! You get to play with RSS/RO/RP/probably another acronym I've forgotten. I get to play with my tiny solar system but introduce a degree of realism. That guy over there gets to play with a model solar system and have indestructible Kerbals and instantaneous launches. Everybody wins! I heard someone on the pre-release thread describe KSP as a "modding framework" and I think that's pretty accurate. KSP is a goodish game, but mods make it great.

TL:DR what you perceive as the games weakness, IMO is it's strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

I have no idea how long a launch in RSS takes, but scaling up from a standard KSP launch, my guess is 20-30 minutes.

Really depends on the LV but I've had high TWR SRM launches in the six minutes range.  Average is probably around nine minutes.  They match real life launches so that's a good reference.

9 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

You, obviously, do like that stuff, and you know what? that's fine too (not that you need me to validate your opinions). That's the great thing about KSP! You get to play with RSS/RO/RP/probably another acronym I've forgotten. I get to play with my tiny solar system but introduce a degree of realism. That guy over there gets to play with a model solar system and have indestructible Kerbals and instantaneous launches. Everybody wins! I heard someone on the pre-release thread describe KSP as a "modding framework" and I think that's pretty accurate. KSP is a goodish game, but mods make it great.

TL:DR what you perceive as the games weakness, IMO is it's strength.

I mean, this is all nice and fluffy, but what's the point?  Are you trying to refute my opinion on what the game should be?  Are you trying to tell me my opinion is wrong because I have something that mostly works for me?  Do you think my opinion in some way takes away from how great KSP is?  Are you mad because I have an opinion about how a video game should be that leaves some people out?

1 minute ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Can we not get into the realism debate yet again? It's not really pertinent to anything mentioned in the devnotes this week.

It's not so much about realism as it is about "Your opinion on realism excludes us".  Or something.  I really can't tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, regex said:

a friend claims we're living in a "golden age" of gaming, where someone out there has probably written just the game for you

This is true for me. It's called Kerbal Space Program. Really it's like someone went into my brain and used the neural pathways to construct the perfect game for me. This includes both the goofiness and more hardcore aspects and both the realistic and unrealistic parts.

(except lack of info displays, of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@regex: Getting back to the original argument about axial tilt as this discussion seems to be getting nasty, here's some reasons why I don't think SQUAD should do axial tilt. It would require a stupid amount of reworking, no doubt introducing more and more bugs (and "planets going where they are supposed to go" is mercifully bug-free at the moment) so that... Um... You have to do some normal/antinormal burns and also Kerbin gets an Arktic Circle. The only other effect is that the realism junkies will stop yelling that "HarvesteR shouldn't make the game that he wants to make, he should make the game WE, a tiny minority of the forum users who are themselves a tiny minority of players, want!" For about five seconds, anyway. 

<Note: I am not saying your opinion doesn't count. What I am saying is that I think you are acting like HarvestR's entire vision for the game is wrong and he should just rebuild every aspect of it, and I disagree.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hobbes Novakoff said:

It would require a stupid amount of reworking

Yes, I mentioned that in my first reply on the subject; it would require a lot of refactoring.  I also stated that it is up to Squad to decide if it's worth the work.

Just now, Hobbes Novakoff said:

<Note: I am not saying your opinion doesn't count. What I am saying is that I think you are acting like HarvestR's entire vision for the game is wrong and he should just rebuild every aspect of it, and I disagree.>

What an amazing amount of hyperbole you've managed to create there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm back.

Regex, I think the reason are pushing against you so hard is because you are a bit assertive, but that is beside the point.

I would not mind support for all these realism features (that with proper foresight would have already had support) but the game itself should be pretty much the same. Now, a few things.

1. It is not Squad's duty to make this game a framework for something like RO. You're asking for these features (and you know this, I'm not accusing you of not) and is entirely within their grace if they include it. These mechanics/features would require tons of work to complete but would be very nice to have.

2. KSP as a game will always be a semi-realistic space sandbox. It's what Harvester wants and it will stay that way.

3. A RO-Type game developed by Squad would be wonderful. If they make a psuedo-sequel with RO mechanics it would be awesome. I just don't think KSP is the game for it, it should be its own game and it would work 10x better due to being designed for it.

I would seriously love a full on space-sim with building. Thing is, KSP just isn't the game for it right now (not on the mod level, I'm talking about as a game). I do hardcore flightsim (DCS) and love complexity, but I understand that Squad/Harvester's vision is pretty close to what KSP is right now and I think it should stay that way. Like I said before, I do not mind SUPPORT for these features at all. It would be awesome for modding.

You are clearly dedicated to this, and so is everyone working on RO. Really, you should be developing your own game with Squad as this seems to have enough support and buyers behind it. I don't know if Squad wants to do something ever like that though.

Edited by Monkthespy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway....... let's head to the hype train and hype up the lag-away update!

5 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

This is true for me. It's called Kerbal Space Program. Really it's like someone went into my brain and used the neural pathways to construct the perfect game for me. This includes both the goofiness and more hardcore aspects and both the realistic and unrealistic parts.

(except lack of info displays, of course)

Same here. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, regex said:

What an amazing amount of hyperbole you've managed to create there.

Bleargh. That sentence didn't feel good when I typed it. That's not really what I meant. I meant more that you seem to be saying the game should be something that it is not, and that HarvesteR never wanted it to be. While I appreciate that you want more realism, that's exactly what mods are for; Changing something or creating something that doesn't make sense in the regular game, or something that would only appeal to a small minority. (Discounting KSP part packs, which are kind of a special case-I don't know of very many mods for other games that do that sort of thing.) Otherwise, a 1/10 scale solar system is hard enough for me, thank you very much. You want a super-hardcore simulator, without mods? Good for you, but KSP is not that game, and it never will be (especially after they have done an "official" release.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Monkthespy said:

Regex, I think the reason are pushing against you so hard is because you are a bit assertive, but that is beside the point.

No, it's probably because I'm not crowing about KSP being TEH MOAST AWESUM GAEM EVAR (or something, still can't tell) all the time.  I mean, yeah, the fact that I have some 6K+ poasts here on the forums (and have yet to be banned) should hopefully indicate that I like this game, but I'm not sorry that I think it can be improved.  It's gotten much better recently; I think the aero and heating update was put off for far too long and they got the (non-existent) communication on that completely wrong but they got the right help for it eventually, so I'm happy to admit I was wrong in the end.

58 minutes ago, Hobbes Novakoff said:

I meant more that you seem to be saying the game should be something that it is not, and that HarvesteR never wanted it to be.

Nothing wrong with saying that.  Who knows whether some random developer will come along and go "Now that guy there represents an untapped market."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

Dragging this back on topic: what happened to "experimentals by the end of the week"?

Edit: never mind. Just saw the announcement. Usually it gets put on facebook.

Wait.

Wait wait wait.

WE got some piece of important news BEFORE it was posted on Facebook?

My flabbers have officially been gasted.

Edited by 5thHorseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...