nikokespprfan

Making current planets more interesting brainstorm

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Why not both? After all, discovering something about a celestial body not only earns valuable knowledge in real life, but gives bragging rights to those who discover it. Be nice if something similar could happen in 2.0

 

9 minutes ago, monstah said:

I think what he means is "no more science point mechanic"

Exactly. Unless science points were somehow repurposed to not limit the tech research, but I really don't see that happening and can't imagine how could that be done in a non-convoluted way, so it would be better if they were completely gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some thoughts.

To me the reason to go to other planets should be because of resources, science and habitation.

 

Science:

As proposed by many ppl here. Let's have some more places to do diverse experiments, or new Experiments. Maybe adding some minigames.

 

Habitation:

One of the main endgame goals should be to colonize other planets with Kerbals. The more Kerbals we have living off Kerbin, the more founds we get. There should also be underground habitations, to protect Kerbals from hard stellar radiation and atmospheric storms.

 

Resources:

Ok, this would require a bit of rebuilding the economy, but i think it would be great if Kerbin only had a limited amount of resources of fuel and Ore (for example). We should have to actively mine Ore (or refine it into fuel) on other planets and bring it to kerbin to either sell it or use it for our own puropses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Drelam said:

Science:

As proposed by many ppl here. Let's have some more places to do diverse experiments, or new Experiments. Maybe adding some minigames.

I think the problem here is that, currently, "new experiments" means "new part to click your mouse on". So, adding new experiments adds no new fun. Minigames, maybe, but the whole concept of science is still iffy.

29 minutes ago, Drelam said:

The more Kerbals we have living off Kerbin, the more founds we get.

That is an awesome idea! Never thought of it that way. You should need to actively keep them alive, tho, to stop it from being too exploitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science should actually do something useful for the player.

Atmospheric analysis can allow you to predict flight paths through atmospheres, for example. Map zoom view tied to how you've imaged the planet. Then add the details to the worlds so that this information is useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2016 at 0:32 PM, Van Disaster said:

Biome hopping does absolutely nothing for sandbox. There are things which would add to sandbox just as much, like more detailed resource extraction for one, which would also add to career. Biome hopping to more differing biomes is still not going to keep you on a planet very long.

 

On 7/11/2016 at 11:10 AM, kBob said:

<SNIP>

I think at this point  leave the existing planets as is terrain wise and just add another planet or three and some more moons (especially around Kerbin but other places too).  The new heavenly bodies can then be much more varied with an Olympus Mons here and a Marianas like trench there and so on. 

Then to go with these maybe add some more options for doing things, plenty of ideas around for this (e.g. hydrogen mining, more interesting and varied science gathering options, more reasons to sustain bases and etc. ).

kBob and Van are on the right track...why not have locations on planets/moons that are tougher to get to, but offer better science and better resource mining:

Iimagine kBob's Marianas trench on the Mun - really deep and narrow with cliff walls on either side - was carved by an asteroid rich in resources and geological science. The only way to get it is to figure out how to get into and out of this canyon. To mine it, you'll have to do it repeatedly, but it's twice (or more) as good of a source for science/resources as anyplace else you've discovered. Imagine it's tough enough that you'll need better rockets/skills than most players have when they first visit the Mun.

Now you have a challenge and a reason to revisit a location. You wouldn't feel like you'd "unlocked" that stellar body and never had a reason to go back again.

A second example could be a volcanic plateau which requires special planning and heat management.

Edited by tjt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there could be somthing like civilian population mixed with Extra planetary launchpads. You need a sizable city to build rockets and such. But many of these people behave like tourist (you can't use them derectly) Maybe there could be an economy! Transferring  resources to their Habs or selling ships and debris (which deletes them) gives you money and building rockets still costs funds. You could also train or retire Kerbouts which efects the civilian population and your wallet A small fraction might want to become a torest in career mode or volunteer to be a kerbalnout for free.

Edited by Planetfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2016 at 9:27 PM, adsii1970 said:

Nope. Did some research. It comes straight from NASA. And you can find another NASA link here. Space.com has an article here that also discusses the size range beginning at Jupiter's size at the small end of the range.

Nope, Discovery Channel got it right...

But...wait...remember this is the Kerbin universe where real world physics do have some leeway.  If we can have all kinds of parts and craft that breaks the bounds of physics, putting a small brown dwarf in the Kerbol system should surely be possible... :confused:

Just because some things are unrealistic doesn't mean everything should be. Having an object small enough to be in orbit around a gas giant (not another brown dwarf or a star) would by definition mean it is incapable of fusing hydrogen and helium in its core.

The thing about brown dwarfs being the size of Jupiter is that they may have Jupiter's radius (or even smaller), they most certainly do not have Jupiter's mass. In fact, all brown dwarfs and more massive gas giants will be as big or slightly smaller than Jupiter, because it just further compresses and compacts the gasses. In the case of a brown dwarf, it compresses it so much that the atoms begin to fuse deuterium in the core. Having a smaller object made of hydrogen and helum than a brown dwarf would absolutely mean at least a fifteenfold reduction in mass

As for making the system more interesting:

The above for visuals. As for gameplay mechanics, having clouds and weather would really improve the gameplay for atmospheric planets. Each planet could have a unique or semi-unique gameplay element.

  • Axial tilt for all planets.
    • Moho: 0 degrees. (3/2 tidal lock)
    • Eve: 177 degrees.
    • Kerbin: 24 degrees.
    • Mun: 0 degrees
    • Minmus: 12.3 degrees
    • Duna: 18 degrees to ecliptic.
    • Ike: 0 degrees to orbit, 18 degrees to ecliptic. (1/1 tidal lock)
    • Dres: 4 degrees to orbit.
    • Jool: 3 degrees to orbit.
    • Jool's moons: Made to orbit around Jool's equator, zero axial tilt from equator.
    • Eeloo: 120 degrees to orbit.
  • Moho could get its superheated atmosphere back.
  • Eve's weather:
    • Clouds which never rain.
    • Clouds covering almost the entire planet, making solar panels much less effective.
    • Hotter and colder areas depending upon latitude.
    • Slow-ish winds that, due to the high atmospheric pressure, could knock over taller craft if they aren't strutted to the ground.
    • Hurricane-speed winds that appear only at certain regions of the planet that would spell out hell for any probe attempting to land or for any rocket attempting to launch.
    • Liquid gallium oceans, makes parts 50% as impact tolerant.
  • Eve's rare active volcanoes that occasionally erupt and cause Evequakes and clouds of smoke and ash. These could rain down and coat solar panels.
  • Kerbin could have weather cycles that we're familiar with, but with very calm weather near the KSC so that launches are never delayed.
    • Weather at the KSC as a difficulty mode.
    • Occasional 
    • High winds at most beaches.
    • Rain is common at sea.
    • Snow at the ice caps and tundras that would snow-over solar panels.
    • Fish and sea weed and coral and things as ground scatter in the oceans.
    • Seasonal variation of tree and ground textures. (Would require separate color maps for Kerbin that depend on Winter/Fall/SummerSpring that fade in and out with the season)
  • Duna:
    • Local dust storms. Despite high wind speeds, the low pressure of the atmosphere means that you're not likely to be tipped over. However, your solar panels can get dusty, your wheels can become less efficient (requiring more power for the same torque), and landing gear might lock up.
    • Planet-wide dust storms. These happen only rarely, but last for several months when they do.
    • Very thin, wispy upper water-ice clouds.
    • Seasonal variation of ice cap coverage. (would require separate color maps for Duna that depend on summer/winter and fade in/out with the season depending upon the hemisphere.
  • Dres could have common Dresquakes from some unknown geological effect.
  • Jool's Weather:
    • Thick, large, towering clouds of ammonium hydrosulfide, water, and ammonia ices. The temperate bands contain algae and other various forms of life.
    • An oxygenated atmosphere from said life.
    • Lighting can strike and temporarily remove control capability from probe cores or command pods.
    • Powerful winds can sweep craft off course.
    • A model of the interior oceans of gas giants, including the liquid hydrogen and helium, and metallic hydrogen oceans, as well as solid icy/silicate core. It would be nearly impossible to reach these regions with conventional technology.
  • Jool's Radiation belts:
    • Can cause damage to Kerbals and spacecraft.
    • Particularly strong around Laythe, much less so out to Vall and Tylo.
  • Laythe:
    • Thick cloud layers which obscure much (but not all) of the surface.
    • Hazy, foggy atmosphere.
    • Volcanoes
      • Lots of them, very often erupting.
    • Occasional hurricanes.
    • Hot springs, areas of water pools and lakes which are hot, some boiling.
    • Yellowstone-like color scheme.
    • Lots of radiation at the surface, from Jool's radiation belts.
    • Cold air, warm ground and oceans.
    • Laythequakes.
    • Very little life at the surface, but deeper down is an advanced and primordial ecosystem of fish and things.
    • Smaller, around the size of Duna.
  • Vall:
    • Cryovolcanism, with jets of water ice that can push spacecraft around, potentially damaging fragile bits like solar panels and antennas.
    • Cryovolcanism can be sampled to return organic compounds and, if you're lucky and in the right place, actual living samples.
    • Vallquakes.
  • Tylo:
    • Already fairly interesting for gameplay in terms of getting to and from the surface.
    • Thin atmosphere, useless for parachutes or wings or jets.
    • Smaller, around the size of Duna, but twice as dense (twice the gravity)
  • Eeloo:
    • Minor cryovolcanism.

 

 

Or you know, just add some more planets anyway.

Quote

Players: We want more planets.

Squad: We need to wait until we've made planets more interesting first.

Squad: *has some planets already made and finished*

Squad: *Releases KSP v0.21, totally ruins the look of Duna.* (old) (new)

Players: We still want more planets.

Squad: Like we said before, we want to make the planets more interesting first.

Players: OK

Squad: *doesn't*

 

Edited by GregroxMun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bop and Gilly should be long lost potato bretherin.

Spoiler

Here's a random script I made. Don't look if you don't want to cringe.

 

Bop: Sup bro?

Gilly: And I see you dozing off into the empty void as always! You should be ready when a kerbal approches and look stunningly amazing that they're captured by our beauty!

Bop: Aw, gee. Getting crispy so soon?

Gilly: *inaudible scream*

Bop: Because it looks like you're going to fry.

the end.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Raging Sandwich said:

Here's an idea:

Make every planet's surface in the game be covered in bacon.

@SQUAD make it so!

That would imply hogs on Kerbin but I've seen no sign of them or indeed any other animals (except the birds we hear).  So I'm afraid this would be impossible to do given the game's mythology, biology and well it would just be plain disgusting.  Now covering them in ice cream, that's feasible after all we already have a moon that appears to be make from mint ice-cream and before you say where are the cows it's made from some kind of nut milk or maybe they use sorbets.

Edited by kBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Raging Sandwich said:

Here's an idea:

Make every planet's surface in the game be covered in bacon.

@SQUAD make it so!

I prefer cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, tater said:

Science should actually do something useful for the player.

Graphs. This game needs'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Graphs. This game needs'em.

Yes, I would agree. What I would like to see is the ability to compare celestial bodies in KSP that is based on the data provided by the player's activities. An example of variables that could be graphed could include:

  • Minerals/ore/resources available
  • Atmospheric composition
  • Gravity

This way, when you are trying to decide which one you want to put a base on, or attempt to colonize, you have real data to base your decision on. This should be available in all modes (sandbox, science, and career). For me, this seems like something that should be easy to do and it would make probe missions absolutely necessary before attempting actual kerbaled landings.

And I was thinking about something last night - what if one of the current planets/moons were made to have a caustic atmosphere? I will admit, I watch a lot of science fiction, some good and some bad and have done so since the late 1980s. I was watching a movie from the 1960s, not sure what the name was, and it actually had people landing on Venus, just to find the atmosphere was caustic; every hour that passed simply meant that much more damage to the craft. The atmosphere was literally dissolving the outer layers of the lander!

Now I would not want to have that kind of time line in KSP, but having the ship's integrity reduced each day on the surface may make for some interesting challenges. It could also expand the science tree by requiring studies in "advanced" composites to handle such an atmosphere...once it was discovered by the player that it was caustic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Now I would not want to have that kind of time line in KSP, but having the ship's integrity reduced each day on the surface may make for some interesting challenges. It could also expand the science tree by requiring studies in "advanced" composites to handle such an atmosphere...once it was discovered by the player that it was caustic.

I 100% agree with this. THIS is exactly the way tech research should work, not some dumb, generic points. You go unmanned somewhere, do experiments, choose your research path based on what you want to do next/where you want to go next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I 100% agree with this. THIS is exactly the way tech research should work, not some dumb, generic points. You go unmanned somewhere, do experiments, choose your research path based on what you want to do next/where you want to go next.

The science tree is definitely in need of overhaul. What I do not understand is the selection of parts available... it seems very chaotic at best. 

Want better communications, then do some experiments and earn points, and as you do now, "purchase" that part of the tree. And guess what - the only parts within that part of the tree are...communications related! No wheels, no rocket fins, no cockpits thrown in - as it is now. Simply communications parts are available if this is what was researched. Want better communications, well, then you need to research Communications II, or maybe even Communications III. This would allow for asymmetric scientific advancement, the way it is in the real world opposed to what exists now.

This means that the player would have to make tough decisions when it came to research... do you choose communications now (which would improve probe range/abilities, ship communications, and the tracking center) or do you research better rocket parts at this particular time? Or, do you need to research how to improve the launch facilities and other launch aids? It would definitely make progression of the game slower, but it would provide a science/tech tree that made better sense.

 

Edited by adsii1970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

The science tree is definitely in need of overhaul. What I do not understand is the selection of parts available... it seems very chaotic at best. 

Want better communications, then do some experiments and earn points, and as you do now, "purchase" that part of the tree. And guess what - the only parts within that part of the tree are...communications related! No wheels, no rocket fins, no cockpits thrown in - as it is now. Simply communications parts are available if this is what was researched. Want better communications, well, then you need to research Communications II, or maybe even Communications III. This would allow for asymmetric scientific advancement, the way it is in the real world opposed to what exists now.

This means that the player would have to make tough decisions when it came to research... do you choose communications now (which would improve probe range/abilities, ship communications, and the tracking center) or do you research better rocket parts at this particular time? Or, do you need to research how to improve the launch facilities and other launch aids? It would definitely make progression of the game slower, but it would provide a science/tech tree that made better sense.

 

YES! That's exactly how it should work. War Thunder research tree is a great example of that. Although it doesn't work well, mainly due to the game being multiplayer and the tiering system being "meh", but that's the way it should be in KSP. Each part could have its own node and it wouldn't hurt the game as much as the current tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graphs? Sure. I was thinking more robust tools to actually fly spacecraft.

1. Have current map mode be an actual map. That means it works day and night. It also means that the data shown on the map represents what is actually known about the terrain. Kerbin starts with an awesome map that can be zoomed in to a camera altitude of a couple thousand meters, say. The Mun can be studied on the kerbin-facing side to a higher altitude than the current map can zoom. Duna is a smear, about what it looks like when you first enter the SoI, no closer. Other planets are similar to that. Far side of the Mun is blank.

2. Add some camera parts (crew capsules can be assumed to have them) and mapping ability (scansat-like). How and where you take images adjusts the zoom level of the map. Such imagery needs to first be reduced, so orbital labs can do this work, or it can be sent home. Just flying low with crew won't cut it, you fly low, but your map view will stay zoomed out until you reduce the data.

3. Add something like the Trajectories mod, but it has hooks to be turned on to varying accuracy per world. Starts the game off, and as you do Kerbin missions, it becomes available for kerbin, and requires "science" to be done at other target worlds to be used on those worlds.

 

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that making every planet its own special thing is a good idea. I mean, The Mun, Ike and Dres are bassicly the same, Expect for science value, and distance in my opinion. So maybe make some planets have its own rescources, wich you could sell back on Kerbin to earn money. And maybe special landmarks, okay okay, some landmarks are special in KSP, but most body's are bassicly just flat and basic to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I haven't had time to read through this entire thread, so apologies if this point has been brought up before. 

I noticed some early posts about 'why do we go to planets IRL and how can we translate this into a game' and the answer came back as pretty much, 'because we want to push the frontier and find out new stuff.' That's all well and good, but the problem is that all the planets in KSP are entirely pre-made. With the exception of some variation in ground scatter (which I'm not entirely sure isn't a bug anyway), every pixel of every planet you land on will be exactly the same every time. You will get the same science readings at every spot every time. Mistakes aside, pretty much every planetary landing is the same. The issue is that we are never uncovering anything truly new, just things that have been pre-placed by the developers. Truly interesting and exploratory gameplay occurs when the unexpected occurs. If you've visited Duna once, there's very little reason to go back there, because (poles excepted) it is pretty much the same wherever you land. 

What we need isn't just more things, it's different things, and things that are different with every game. In an ideal world I would suggest that each new save would result in a completely procedurally generated solar system (with perhaps Kerbin itself excluded), but I find it unlikely that that'll ever happen. Instead, I think the practical solution to the planetary exploration problem is to have every planet be procedural to a degree. Perhaps the overall topology is pre-defined, but each time you play, a certain set of attributes is randomly adjusted for each planet. These attributes could include:

  • Size/mass/surface gravity
  • Atmospheric density
  • Temperature
  • Weather (including cloud cover, which would hide the planet surface necessitating mapping probes)
  • Have some degree of texture/colour variation
  • Orbit (maybe Moho is suddenly furthest from the Sun and Eeloo is closest) and placement of moon(s)
  • Surface type (e.g. sand, rock, mud, lava flow) - this variation should occur at a small enough scale that rovers could easily visit 2-3 different terrain types in one mission
  • Cratering (dependent on atmospheric density)
  • Terrain scatter (is it flat and barren or are there clumps of deadly sharp rocks that make landing a real challenge?)
  • Semi-random procedural surface features (implemented in the same way as craters currently are) e.g. canyons, mesas, sand dunes etc.

Importantly, all of these things should be linked together so that there is a logic to them, and should reflect the scientific readings you can obtain. 
What needs to be set up is a system which makes exploration not a boring task (go here -> take sample -> come home) but something interesting, rewarding and vital to the success of your space program. 

Each new game would bring a new surprise. Perhaps you arrive at Duna to find vast oceans and a thick atmosphere; maybe Eve is dry, cratered and barren. Different locations on planets should come with different surface features and different hazards; perhaps your lander may slip and fall in sand dunes, or get stuck in a muddy area, or be vulnerable of tipping over on an exposed hillside if there are high winds. This would require proper exploration before any serious manned missions; sending first a probe to scout for landing sites and check out the overall features of the planet (Is this planet big? Does it have an atmosphere? What's the surface temperature like? Where is the flat ground?) before deploying unmanned landers to check out landing sites. Only then would you be able to send a manned mission, safe in the knowledge that you are coming down in a place that isn't going to instantly kill you. 

More thought needs to be put into this to make it workable, but I'm pretty sure that the only way of making surface exploration interesting beyond the first time you visit each place is some degree of randomisation. This could be linked with other gameplay mechanics such as an observatory/space telescope part (having to actually discover the planets as their orbits shift around with each game) or some sort of 'Grand Tour Mode' where you're challenged to build a single craft that can visit as many planets as possible (with points awarded for each landing etc.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to support those in this (long) thread that have suggested the ability to qualify to "build bases" and I imagine that in something like the way one gets the damaged KSC "repaired".

Go to an area and do a number of trips in and out.  Mine some resources.  Hit some trigger that says, "OK, now you can choose to build a spaceport here".  It would allow you to refuel ships and be used as a hub for exploration.  Run enough ships in and out of the hub and then be able to build or deploy ships there the way the VAB does at KSC.

I have an ion-powered "flitter" capable of transporting 24 tourists in lo-grav environments.  (I play exclusively in Sandbox mode.)  I'd like to run tours to canyons and interesting peaks and see what gives at the poles, but I'd need mining sites along the way to refuel it.  (I'm going to have to cheat with replenishing xenon but my rule will be that if I have the monoprop on hand in a fuel truck to fill it, then I can top up the xenon, too.)  More than tourism, I'd find it fun to make settlements all over the Mun and run suborbital flights to move Kerbals around.  It'd be fun to set a 5-year alarm on every Kerbal that goes off to say, "Jeb is homesick for Kerbin", and book him a flight back home to see his Mom...  :)

I ran a "game" recently to land Kerbals (male & female :wink: ) onto every island on Kerbin just for fun.  It was fun, too!  I haven't really gone near spaceplanes much but it doesn't really feel right to take the stock "heavies" and touchdown on grass.   It'd be great to be able to qualify to build an airport (say, when the local population of Kerbals passes some threshold).

When I first heard about mining in KSP, I thought, "yeah, that will be boring".  In effect, it's been a great reason to practice landings and make 'em close to the fuel truck!

I guess I can do all the above with stock KSP but a lot of life now in KSP is becoming more and more about pumping fuel or driving a surface truck from drill rig to drill rig or tending ISRUs...  When you've done that enough in one place, it would be great if you could say, "yep, I've earned it, give me a space port here".   Well, my 2c fantasy...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11.07.2016 at 3:52 PM, Van Disaster said:

Most people don't even bother going to the ones we have already, there's no point adding any more unless there's a specific reason to do it.

Because they mostly look similar. There is insufficient "Life was Planets are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get".
And they look similar because they are large (even when they are 10 times smaller than IRL).

Say, Spore/Twinsun planets are ~1 km in size and contains more wow-places per area.

Skyrim / Fallout gameworlds are ~5x5 km, i.e. mostly of the same size like Spore planets. And you spend enough time just walking through, because they are not large and flat, they are maze-shaped (even without underworlds).
Also even when there is a global addon for them or a mega-mod, adding an additional piece of Skyrim / Wasteland, it doesn't expand the world itself, it creates an addiotional 2x2 km.
The same with underworlds, etc. The same with other action games (Halflife, Unreal, Quake, Heretic, Hexen, Doom, so on).
And they all are overfilled with living details, rather than desert planets.

So, Kerbin planets are: too small to soothe Realism masochists hardcore adepts (you can build an SSTO plane and fly to Duna — what to say more?),  but too poor with details to be a dollhouse and a box of chocolates.

If just add more details (which is probably absolutely necessary), even thousand of them, they will be lost in endless planetary wastelands, as now are.

Probably, this is an obligate result of a contrarity put into KSP from the very beginning.
From one side it is a semi-realistic simulator of the hardcore space exploration. With mechanics, logistics, ballistics and other -cs.
From another side it is a casual toy and chocolate box where you build a rocket getting its parts from a junkyard, and where you just put a rocket engine onto a washing machine and fly to the next-door planetoid with a disneyland on it, without that physics-schmysics. (Bargain Rockets, Rusty Rockets, Orcs, etc).

So, it lacks torments for the former ones and is too big for the latter ones.

 

Probably, the only way to solve this dilemma is to maintain KSP (or mods) in two different directions: Megalomaniacs and Toybox Dwellers.

The former ones need a galaxy of large and wild planets, brown dwarves, neutron stars, mega-volcanos, gravitational tsunamies, mile-deep canyons and surface-to-orbit delta-V at least 20 km/s to be happy.

The latter ones need a micro-galaxy of several dozens Spore/Twinsun-sized Spore/Twinsun-like toy-planets, very different and totally unrealistic, where they can fly on a home-build SSTO rocket from time to time fueling it on a fuel station, gather artifacts and diamonds and enjoy  Except of Spore, there is another amazing example: Little Big Adventure (LBA) 2.
Planets with dense gaseous oceans where you can (float? fly?) by boat. Twin planets enough close to each other to watch what's going on there.
One-cave or one-castle planets. Put a large hotel onto Gilly onto a large rock, switch on its window lights and watch how this looks like in the night.
 

Spoiler

Samorost_world.jpg

And of course FlashGordon-style in gameplay (just look at its planets and crafts).

 

Also there is a lack of such structures even if without dwellers:

Spoiler

c1824494acacc42c5f879629f56c273b.jpg



 

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 11:36 AM, Planetfall said:

Maybe there could be somthing like civilian population mixed with Extra planetary launchpads. You need a sizable city to build rockets and such. But many of these people behave like tourist (you can't use them derectly) Maybe there could be an economy! Transferring  resources to their Habs or selling ships and debris (which deletes them) gives you money and building rockets still costs funds. You could also train or retire Kerbouts which efects the civilian population and your wallet A small fraction might want to become a torest in career mode or volunteer to be a kerbalnout for free.

A more interesting economy is certainly a good idea.  But you'd have to be careful not to turn it into a 4x game.  But as has been said before having a reason for needing to build and expand stations would be nice...something beyond contracts.  If a planetary station could generate an income based on it's size and population minus maintenance costs for a net figure, that might be fairly simple and give a reason to keep and expand stations.  If a station doesn't grow slowly over time it's maintenance expenses could increase while its gross income doesn't thus giving an incentive to slowly grow it.  Once it has reached a certain size/population it would then become capable of manufacturing rockets etc. for more income and starting satellite colonies.

Selling ships is an interesting idea.  If you sold a rocket ship to a tourist than that tourist could become a private pilot perhaps with a different skill set than KSC pilots (perhaps they might have an auto pilot/alarm clock and could take over repetitive tourist contracts with only occasional need to do maintenance, income would slowly decrease over time and a maintenance stop at a base would reset the income to full).  I though about buying/selling ships (using funds) between players using an in game mechanism (a craft file importer/exporter) but while it might add something for a multiplayer version I not sure...perhaps just a simple in game craft file exchange (especially since consoles have no easy way of accessing craft files) would be best and just keep the selling of ships limited to Kerbals.

One thing though maybe once a station has been established it could be consolidated into a few parts as much as possible (docking ports, e.g. would remain separate) to reduce part counts as otherwise a city sized colony might become too much of a burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21.7.2016 at 8:36 PM, Planetfall said:

Maybe there could be somthing like civilian population mixed with Extra planetary launchpads. You need a sizable city to build rockets and such. But many of these people behave like tourist (you can't use them derectly) Maybe there could be an economy! Transferring  resources to their Habs or selling ships and debris (which deletes them) gives you money and building rockets still costs funds. You could also train or retire Kerbouts which efects the civilian population and your wallet A small fraction might want to become a torest in career mode or volunteer to be a kerbalnout for free.

That's an excellent idea!

This wold also allow a lot of new Habitation parts, like esucation or recreation centers and construction sites. Like you said a whole working economy could be created, which would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Major Jim made a Kerbal swing and sea saw, so we have a head start on the recreation centers! :P:D 

that would be an interesting mechanic but it would inply Kerbal phycology which I feel would take some of the goofienis out of the Kerbals

Share this post


Link to post
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.