michanst

Additional for future features

Recommended Posts

1. Food. Water. Oxygen. To add to the Ore mechanics. Kerbals should die without it or in due time due to aging or sickness.

2. Weather. Typhoon etc on planets. Im not talking about visuals. Making it harder to navigate.

3. More planets that leads to neighboring galaxies.

4. Random malfunctions. Wear and tear out of nowhere. Hehe!

 

Currently I made my first successful landing on Mun. Alas, one way trip. Born on Kerbin, Died on Mun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Note that there are several good mods for life support, and also many many threads to discuss these mods, and whether it should be stock. Although it's ultimately a moderator's decision, not mine, I propose that we don't start the discussion here again.
  2. Just weather and wind would be awesome - but it is REALLY difficult to add to the game, and nearly impossible to add to the game without dropping the framerate to something unacceptably low.
  3. I would be in favor of more planets/moons, and made a post with my wishlist in a different thread. I would be in favor of a few extra stars, for some really ambitious missions. But I don't see the point of adding the neighboring galaxies. Realistically you're talking about something that's over a million light years away. You can only get to those with warp-speed reactors... and that's just outside the scope of a space simulator.
  4. No. Please don't. The game is difficult enough as it is.

Congrats on the Mun landing. Try to bring your Kerbal back next time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yes please. However, as with most difficulty-increasing features, add an option to disable the requirements for life support. Just like the comm-net requirements in stock right now.

2. Yes as well. An option set to accompany this feature would be good though, to reduce intensity for better FPS to keep low-end PC owners in the game.

3. Planets yes, galaxies no. The only feasible thing I could see happening is probe missions if a life support feature was incorporated alongside. The amount of time it would take would mean alot of sci-fi features being added, not so much space simulator as @Magzimum mentioned.

4. Yes yes yes. I want there to be a reason for me to set up abort staging. I'm comfortable enough with my designs to launch with no abort feature or revert/quicksave options. The idea of random malfunctions and breakdowns is something I would enjoy. As with the other features suggested though, add an option to disable it at players' choosing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Magzimum said:
  1. Note that there are several good mods for life support, and also many many threads to discuss these mods, and whether it should be stock. Although it's ultimately a moderator's decision, not mine, I propose that we don't start the discussion here again.
  2. Just weather and wind would be awesome - but it is REALLY difficult to add to the game, and nearly impossible to add to the game without dropping the framerate to something unacceptably low.
  3. I would be in favor of more planets/moons, and made a post with my wishlist in a different thread. I would be in favor of a few extra stars, for some really ambitious missions. But I don't see the point of adding the neighboring galaxies. Realistically you're talking about something that's over a million light years away. You can only get to those with warp-speed reactors... and that's just outside the scope of a space simulator.
  4. No. Please don't. The game is difficult enough as it is.

Congrats on the Mun landing. Try to bring your Kerbal back next time!

I don't really look into mods. I was hoping for an official life support from the developers.

I did post something about visuals on my other post and got my first experience of KSPs mods. Though I like it, it cripples my FPS, so I ended up not using those.

All I wanted is for more mechanics in game and not visuals.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in ye olden days, it was stated pretty clearly that life support would never be added to the stock game. Something to do with them not wanting to add "time based mechanics" into the game. As stated above, there have been many threads about this, and you're free to search through the forum for them if you want more info (just don't necro them). Of course, this viewpoint may have changed now that Harvester isn't in charge anymore and the dev team has pretty much rolled over a couple times. There's certainly been enough whining in these forums for life support to be added that I wouldn't be surprised to see it eventually become stock.

In my opinion, the stock game is good as it is. If you want additional mechanics, thats what mods are for, and Squad has been very good about working with modders and making sure the game is moddable. That's one of the great things about KSP. You can change the stock game as much as you want to suit your playstyle. I personally happen to like the stock game the way it is (as far as game mechanics go) and would not like seeing them add in a bunch more things that are currently mods I don't use or care for. There's one game mechanic that got added to stock several versions ago that I still hate and thank God that they gave us the option to turn it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Johnny Wishbone said:

Back in ye olden days, it was stated pretty clearly that life support would never be added to the stock game. Something to do with them not wanting to add "time based mechanics" into the game. As stated above, there have been many threads about this, and you're free to search through the forum for them if you want more info (just don't necro them). Of course, this viewpoint may have changed now that Harvester isn't in charge anymore and the dev team has pretty much rolled over a couple times. There's certainly been enough whining in these forums for life support to be added that I wouldn't be surprised to see it eventually become stock.

In my opinion, the stock game is good as it is. If you want additional mechanics, thats what mods are for, and Squad has been very good about working with modders and making sure the game is moddable. That's one of the great things about KSP. You can change the stock game as much as you want to suit your playstyle. I personally happen to like the stock game the way it is (as far as game mechanics go) and would not like seeing them add in a bunch more things that are currently mods I don't use or care for. There's one game mechanic that got added to stock several versions ago that I still hate and thank God that they gave us the option to turn it off.

I guess I have to start browsing and reading posts here. I'm still new to KSP, having bought the game this December. My reluctant for not reading tutorials, looking at mods and other members posts was to refrain me from "brainwashing" as how I approach and play the game. Playing the game with zero idea at all and discovering things until it works out is really fun and rewarding.

 

You're right about mods. The only reason why I want the official feature (made by developers not modders) is because of so-called-bug-free and good support. Most mods are infested and abandoned, more likely being incompatible with another version/patch in the future. I just don't want to go to through that hassle, not unless that mod is highly stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, michanst said:

You're right about mods. The only reason why I want the official feature (made by developers not modders) is because of so-called-bug-free and good support. Most mods are infested and abandoned, more likely being incompatible with another version/patch in the future. I just don't want to go to through that hassle, not unless that mod is highly stable.

I think you'll find that these forums are filled with thousands of players who are pretty passionate about those "infested and abandoned" mods. A simple glance at the front page of this site will show you that the "Add-On Releases" forum has more posts than any other by a pretty decent margin, and most of the active talk is not just complaining about abandoned mods.  Be prepared for some of those people thanking you for sharing the wisdom of your 9 posts in a less polite way than I am doing.  Welcome to the forums

Edited by fourfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Predictable failures? As long as they are optional I'd say why not. But random, unpredictable failures? Hell no!

Predictable failures through wear and tear or accidental damage are just like we already have to some extent; heat explosions, damaged wheels, broken solar panels, over stress, over pressure, GLOC. I can think of a few more like that that could be added.
But random failures without any kind of predictability will do a lot more harm than good. It will result in A LOT of rage quits. Think of it; you've spend days, weeks maybe preparing your grand Jool V mission only to plough into one of Jools moons because your darned engine won't light for no apparent reason. If random failures are ever added they MUST be optional!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2017 at 4:10 PM, Tex_NL said:

If random failures are ever added they MUST be optional!

Or, they should at least be able to be fixed, partially if not fully.  This is a whole 'nother can of worms (how do you 'fix' a busted engine?) but if we get a stockalike KIS sorta deal it makes repairs at least feasible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2017 at 6:28 AM, michanst said:

1. Food. Water. Oxygen. To add to the Ore mechanics. Kerbals should die without it or in due time due to aging or sickness.

2. Weather. Typhoon etc on planets. Im not talking about visuals. Making it harder to navigate.

3. More planets that leads to neighboring galaxies.

4. Random malfunctions. Wear and tear out of nowhere. Hehe!

1. I would be okay with a stock life support mechanic, but I think Food/Water/Oxygen (i.e. TAC-LS) is too much for stock. It would need to be something much simpler. Something between Snacks! and USI-LS. Though, I'm so happy with the mod options at this point that I'm not sure I see a need here. Players serious enough to want this are generally happy with mods, and there are solid mod options

2. YES. Even if it's just a strong wind that makes EVA awkward and landing ships a bit dicey. I'm not sure how I feel about destructive events. I'd be super liquided if a tornado swept through my base and randomly destroyed hours and hours of hard work. That's not fun. But if its simple environmental effects that's fun. Maybe something that causes a communications blackout, or a lightning storm that fries (i.e. drains) your batteries.

3. I don't want more galaxies, honestly. If you do that you need some incredibly powerful new parts... And that's a HUGE new addition. But YES to more planets/moons. I'd like another dwarf planet in the asteroid belt, and I'd like one or two more gas giants.

4. Only if it's a Hard mode difficulty option. I've tried these mods and I don't find them very satisfying. I like the idea of some drama... But most of the time it just makes me frustrated. Especially with probes. Send a probe to Jool and odds are very high that the tank will blow a leak on the way there and the whole mission is a waste. Crewed missions aren't that big a deal. Pack an engineer, maybe some "spare parts" type resource, and he can get out and fix the problem. (though, that's more a dull inconvenience than a fun game mechanic) Probes are just screwed and that's no fun. I think there's potential here... But I haven't seen a mod that tacked it very well yet. Best solution I can think of is that the game tracks how long it's been since you took control of a craft, and then weights malfunctions by time spent away. And scale it by distance from Kerbin. Not realistic, but more fun that way. I'd prefer if malfunctions only happen on stations, bases, and satellites that have fulfilled their initial purpose. And this is probably easy for the game to figure if it realizes you haven't done anything with it in a while. Then malfunctions become repair/rescue missions rather than "Wow that's annoying... okay all better" or "Are you freaking kidding me? There goes the last two hours of effort..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jofwu said:

2. YES. Even if it's just a strong wind that makes EVA awkward and landing ships a bit dicey. I'm not sure how I feel about destructive events. I'd be super liquided if a tornado swept through my base and randomly destroyed hours and hours of hard work. That's not fun. But if its simple environmental effects that's fun. Maybe something that causes a communications blackout, or a lightning storm that fries (i.e. drains) your batteries.

Sounds fun. Oh No! The MAV is tipping!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"liquided"... What the heck did that autocorrect from...


Anyways, I should add one other thing that would make bad weather or part failures more acceptable in my opinion: a warning. Send us a message that "satellite X's antenna is going to fail if you can't fix it in 20 days" or "Duna base Y is going to have a major sandstorm in one week, get the Kerbals inside".

And perhaps instead of total failure, parts would just be less efficient. (which I think some mods do) Make engines a but less efficient instead of inoperable. Take away some of a probe's SAS modes rather than make it uncontrollable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2017 at 4:28 AM, michanst said:

1. Food. Water. Oxygen. To add to the Ore mechanics. Kerbals should die without it or in due time due to aging or sickness.

Short Answer: No

Long Answer: It's hard to add life support without it dominating the game play. I'd rather be exploring than managing logistics. Habitability mechanics on the other hand would be potentially interesting because it would give you the design challenge without the tedious resource management, but implementation is tricky to say the lest

On 3/6/2017 at 4:28 AM, michanst said:

2. Weather. Typhoon etc on planets. Im not talking about visuals. Making it harder to navigate.

Short Answer: No

Long Answer: This is a randomized element that could potentially ruin a mission a long time in the making during its late phases. Simply put weather physics could be ragequit inducing. that being said I don't mind visual elements and obstructions, clouds on jool, eve, and kerbin, foggy mists on minmus, dust on duna, lightning and rain on laythe. It would all make the game prettier and even if purely visual it could still potentially provide more mild challenges.

On 3/6/2017 at 4:28 AM, michanst said:

3. More planets that leads to neighboring galaxies.

Short Answer: Planets Yes, Galaxy No

Long Answer: adding another gas giant system or going interstellar alone will give you more worlds to visit than you typically would in a single play through. Going intergalactic therefore seems excessive.

On 3/6/2017 at 4:28 AM, michanst said:

4. Random malfunctions. Wear and tear out of nowhere. Hehe!

Short Answer: NO
Long Answer: HELL NO
Longer Answer: As with weather physics this is another ragequit inducing idea I'm not payed a nasa salary so I'm not gonna put up with it.

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.