A "KSP Loading..." Preview: The Mun Launch Site (KSP Enhanced Edition)

[wizzlebippi]

I don't get the argument that a base on the mun breaks the game. Truth is a space center on an otherwise desolate planet, regardless of the planet, is unrealistic. 

[Kerbart]

When I saw the first announcement I expected a lot of hating, because... well, this is the KSP forum.

A feature exclusively for the console edition (that so far has been getting the unwanted step child treatment), what could probably go wrong must those naive chumps at Squad have thought.

• An option exclusively for Console. Rhaaaagh! They get preferential treatment all the time!
• An option that, even if it’s not selectable in the game setup, can be completely break the game because it unbalances it (apparently this is the only launch site available)
• It’s unrealistic (take a good look at the game, and let this sink in)
• The list goes on

KSP community, I love you. You never disappoint.

[klgraham1013]

3 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

There are too many options already.

I think we need an option to enable or disable extra options.

I've felt this for quite some time.  I'm a believer that you should stick to your vision.  I might disagree that that vision, but at least you could say you had one.  Imagine if a game in the Souls series had as many options as KSP.  It would dilute the experience and it surely wouldn't have become the phenomenon it has.

1 hour ago, T1mo98 said:

Why do we have a Cheat menu than?

Great question.

[Wallygator]

If you want players to have off-world launch sites, then give them tools and parts to build them.

[GeneCash]

13 hours ago, Deddly said:

I feel that new users might be robbing themselves of the exhilaration of getting all the way to the Mün and taking their first steps from the lander onto another celestial body

Hm, any more than I "robbed myself" when I used MechJeb for my first rendezvous, and for my first docking?

I still enjoyed the h-ll out of my first manual rendezvous and my first manual docking. Edit: to the point I ran around the house and made a fool out of myself...

However, there should not be extra-planetary sites in Career mode, as part of the point is getting there. I do agree wholeheartedly with that.

On the other hand (until recently) I do the "research all tech" cheat as a matter-of-course in Career, as I think the tech-tree is a waste of time.

Edited March 2, 2019 by GeneCash

[SchwinnTropius]

Munar Launch Site: great idea in theory, probably won't be so great in execution. I'm for more options, but also I'm for being able to disable said options. For Career Mode, as a bare-bones minimum requirement, it should require the completion of the Tech Tree; I'd say there should be one or two more Tech Nodes costing ridiculous amounts of Science Points to unlock the site. So far I like the idea of scanning the Mun as one requirement for unlocking, but the scanning side of the game has to be adressed before that's viable; no scanning in background, no persistence of maps generated by scanning. Same for surface bases in general; we need more parts for making bases, and more reasons to make surface bases on other celestial bodies.

[dlrk]

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I've felt this for quite some time.  I'm a believer that you should stick to your vision.  I might disagree that that vision, but at least you could say you had one.  Imagine if a game in the Souls series had as many options as KSP.  It would dilute the experience and it surely wouldn't have become the phenomenon it has.

 

That's ridiculous. Removing options would wreck KSP. Most of us, at least realism/challenge players want the accomplishment of landing a kerbal on the Moon, and building bases and stations. A default moon base that could not be disabled would cheapen that a great deal.


Imagine if a game in the Souls series was dumbed down.

Edited March 2, 2019 by dlrk

[Jacke]

I don't like the implication that the KSP community is becoming divided.

Many products are subdivided into many variants to increase sales (shampoo, snacks, etc.).  But games that need and thrive with a community are hurt by being subdivided.  KSP needs its community.  That community provides information, guidance, entertainment, and free mods that fill in weak or missing parts of KSP.  Although mods can cause negative subdivision, because they are free they have only a weak barrier to adoption.

It's also good for games to support many platforms.  KSP is on Windows, Linux, Mac, and the consoles.  Most of these are kept in sync and the nature of modding hopeful allows it mostly evenly across the platforms.

Consoles with their different controls already stand out.  And I believe they can't be modded.  And they receive the benefits of new game versions only after a delay.

Squad has been tempted to throw the console players a bone with the Munar launch site.  I can understand this.  I also think it's a bad idea.

The DLC Making History is already somewhat of an dividing issue due to its cost.  Now console players will have a feature that divides them from the other platforms.

And if the Munar launch site is spread to the other platforms, there's problems with it being a disconnect to what the game has been before.  Others have made very good arguments about that earlier in this topic.

Unfortunately, Squad has crossed this Rubicon.  Consoles will get that Munar launch site.  It almost certainly will come to the other platforms.

Hopefully the Munar launch site will come with its independent main game settings allowing it to be disabled.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Jacke

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, dlrk said:

Removing options would wreck KSP.

Removing options is how games are made.  Games are all about restrictions.  Boundaries of play.  Goal zones.  Time limits.  When designing a game, you should have a vision for what your product is trying to accomplish.  This is how the greatest games are made.  Even my favorites like Civ and XCOM, which have many options, use their options in a very targeted and specific implementation.  KSP has essentially gone down the path of adding options to everything to try and appease everyone.  Which, as we all know, is an impossible task that no one should actually try to achieve.  Is KSP actually trying to teach young players about the trials of space flight?  Is it merely a silly explosions game?  KSP is a game which, over the past 5 years, has continued to lose any identity it may once have had, and this feels like just another dart thrown wildly at a board of ideas.

1 hour ago, dlrk said:

A default moon base that could not be disabled would cheapen that a great deal.

Which is why I don't believe it should even exist.

1 hour ago, dlrk said:

Imagine if a game in the Souls series was dumbed down.

It would not be a good thing.

1 hour ago, dlrk said:

Most of us, at least realism/challenge players want the accomplishment of landing a kerbal on the Moon, and building bases and stations.

I think we are actually in agreement.  I apologize for the initial rant.

Edited March 2, 2019 by klgraham1013

[Vanamonde]

42 minutes ago, Jacke said:

I don't like the implication that the KSP community is becoming divided.

The KSP community divides itself all the time. Remember the feuds about the Curse partnership? Steam distribution? The Barn? They die down and life and the game go on.  

[dlrk]

With Curse, Squad was WRONG, and we moved to Spacedock. I have no clue why anyone objected to steam. What was the Barn?

The Mun launch site, if it's not a separate toggle, is a game killer though. It's an immersion and balance wrecking dumb-down

[StrandedonEarth]

It's as if they wanted to change the Round-8 tank...

[Lisias]

32 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Is KSP actually trying to teach young players about the trials of space flight?  Is it merely a silly explosions game?  KSP is a game which, over the past 5 years, has continued to lose any identity it may once have had.

KSP is all of that, and more. KSP has the identity the user currently playing it has.

You are right about KSP don't having an identity. It's why different people gathers with it.

I don't mind about a Mun launch site as much as I don't mind the Dessert Airstrip. I use it when I want, I ignore it when I don't. 

We can unite on our differences. Let people enjoy KSP the way they want, I say. And if this puts some coins on Squad's Piggy Bank, better yet.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Lisias

[klesh]

9 minutes ago, Lisias said:

And if this puts some coins on Squad's Piggy Bank, better yet.

 

By Squad you must mean Take Two Interactive. Squad is like a contracted developer now having sold the rights to everything Kerbal.

[Opus_723]

It's a single player sandbox game. If you don't want to launch from the moon.... don't?

Personally I won't use it, but I don't mind it being an option.

[severedsolo]

4 hours ago, Jacke said:

I don't like the implication that the KSP community is becoming divided.

I think by "divided" you mean "one set of players is getting features that another isn't" rather than "falling apart and fighting" (correct me if I'm wrong).

I don't think this is a problem at all. The truth is that the console edition has always been the "forgotten child" - I regularly see console players complaining that they feel abandoned. If this helps, I'm all for it (and they are getting alot of the stuff that we PC players have had since they got their last update too, so even better for them).

Having said that, this is a feature that I really don't want, so perhaps that's why I don't care (for pretty much the same reasons that Snark already covered)

And just in case you actually did mean "falling apart and fighting" (this is a joke and not meant to be taken seriously): Are you kidding? This is going great, nobody has threatened to leave forever, and Snark has only had to write one essay 

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, klesh said:

 

By Squad you must mean Take Two Interactive. Squad is like a contracted developer now having sold the rights to everything Kerbal.

Well if KSP stops making money TTI will stop paying Squad to code it for them.

Not that I think the sale was a good idea. It's just that it doesn't change the reality much from our perspective. Or from the perspectives of the people working on the game.

[Xurkitree]

I really feel that SQUAD should come in and clarify this situation before it gets out of hand.

we already have 5 pages of arguments and very firm ones too. Either i don’t care and please no.

Like anything about its implementation and limitations and future prospects would clear something up.

On the other hand all you guys are hilarious arguing over something that’s just lines of code and keep doing so for the next few hundred pages.

Gods i love ksp

[pandaman]

Great to see console players getting some proper attention, whatever the feelings on the Mun launch site, that has to be a good thing.

If non-Kerbin launch sites get added to the stock PC game then i would happily use them in my Sandbox R&D save as a testing option, in the same way i use 'Set Orbit' now.  But I would disable them for 'normal' play.

[Poodmund]

In before unconfirmed "Serenity" DLC is all about planet-side base building and will actually give the PC players the ability to create launch sites on the Mun's surface.  

[Kerbart]

9 hours ago, dlrk said:

That's ridiculous. Removing options would wreck KSP. Most of us, at least realism/challenge players want the accomplishment of landing a kerbal on the Moon, and building bases and stations. A default moon base that could not be disabled would cheapen that a great deal.


Imagine if a game in the Souls series was dumbed down.

A launch site on the mun diminishes the achievement of a succesful mun mission in the same way the existence of a subway system diminishes completing the New York marathon.

Surely one could cheat and use said facilities to accomplish that goal. But to what end? Most of your friends will, frankly, not care. So it’s not like you gain status, fame or riches from it. You do it for a personal achievement and then you wouldn’t cheat, because what’s the point?

On the other hand, shutting down the subway—or removing the launch site—to ensure pureness of the achievement, greatly inconveniences the bystanders who, for reasons, do not care about it. Maybe they’ve already done it a million times. Maybe they have never, and don’t plan to. But now they can’t get to the other side of town—or get a cheap fueling base on a game system that doesn’t support mods—because some moral knight in shining armor decided for them that the purity should be preserved above anything else. How’s that going to promote the game?

if you don’t like the Mun launch site, don’t use it. I felt the first edition of the Wolfhound was overpowered, so I didn’t use it. I feel like the lander cans are not meant for atmospheric flight, so I don’t use them that way. That doesn’t mean I think that option should be taken away from others though.

It’s great that the console edition gets an exclusive feature. That sends a nice signal that it’s still being cared for. And there are probably two classes of console players: the hardcore KSP’ers who want the game in their living room, and console players whi happened to stumble on the game and are tremendously struggling with it. Us PC players have Mechjeb to get over the hump and keep enjoying the game and get better at it before frustration ends our love for the game. Let the console players have their moon base.

And no, it doesn’t need an option “to turn it off.” The option is you. If you don’t want to use the mun launch site... Don’t use it.

 

[GrandProtectorDark]

8 hours ago, Jacke said:

I don't like the implication that the KSP community is becoming divided.

 

8 hours ago, Jacke said:

The DLC Making History is already somewhat of an dividing issue

No, not really. It's only a small portion of peope that get upset about this and probably move on in a few months. 

MH itself isn't doing any bigger divide than (part)Mod-users vs stock(part)-users. 

How far console is behind pc is doing a bigger impact than this ever will.

8 hours ago, Jacke said:

Consoles with their different controls already stand out.  And I believe they can't be modded. 

It's more of an approval/permissiom type of thing.

 

I've seen some recent news that surviving mars is going to add console workshop modding support without having to pre-approve mods.

[T1mo98]

12 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I've felt this for quite some time.  I'm a believer that you should stick to your vision.  I might disagree that that vision, but at least you could say you had one.  Imagine if a game in the Souls series had as many options as KSP.  It would dilute the experience and it surely wouldn't have become the phenomenon it has.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this.

KSP is a game that everyone who plays it can play it differently and how they like it. It's a sandbox in its most pure form and having a lot of options makes it so everyone can tailor the game to how they like it.
Removing this and forcing everyone to play a certain way goes against everything this game stands for.

The vision for KSP is a game that can be played how the player wants to, which is why the modding community is so massive. This game has something for everyone, removing features and catering only to the 'hardcore' crowd is, in my opinion, a great way to decimate your playerbase. 

The comparison to Dark Souls seems really silly to me, since they only thing that the games have in common is the fact that they're videogames. KSP is a Sandbox with the only story being the one you create for yourself. Souls is a linear hack-and-slash with very specific, pre-determined playstyles. 

8 hours ago, dlrk said:

With Curse, Squad was WRONG, and we moved to Spacedock. I have no clue why anyone objected to steam. What was the Barn?

The Mun launch site, if it's not a separate toggle, is a game killer though. It's an immersion and balance wrecking dumb-down

Than you must be fuming all the time while playing because of the existence of the Cheat Menu...

[DragonsForce]

34 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

And no, it doesn’t need an option “to turn it off.” The option is you. If you don’t want to use the mun launch site... Don’t use it.

I was completly with you, up to this part. Having this automatically enabled without an option to disable it is equivalent to having a big "Add 1.000 Funds" button always active on the KSC screen. Sure, you could ignore it.... But it would be there at every launch, reminding you that for some reason your little green men who just invented rockets by filling a trashcan with explosives already have a base on the mun.
The second (smaller) issue is that you might randomly stumble upon the structure when landing on the mun. Same problem, there should not yet be a base there. Admittedly, the chances of that happening are quite low, but still.

[Jebediah Kerman Jr.]

I play on console, and yeah, a Mun launchsite isn't the kind of thing I want. It just seems too cheaty. What I want is better performance, the DLC, and Kerbal parachutes. Heck, even just better performance and bug fixes. You hear me developers? I emphatically do not want a Mun launchsite. I want the bugs and performance issues fixed so I can actually play this game! 

It is nigh impossible to run a 200 part craft! As soon as I get really into a base/station, It lags at 5 fps! I cannot use a command seat vessel without it exploding when the Kerbal leaves the seat! I had to give up my Mun base project after it became unrunnable at 180 parts! All of this while I watch PC players effortlessly running 600 part bases and driving awesome rovers around on other planets with no lag whatsoever and no rovers exploding!

Please, please, please, developers, please don't add a "Mun Launchsite" before fixing these bugs and performance issues!

Please.

 

Also, we need the ΔV calculator, as we can't really download a mod for that.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Jebediah Kerman Jr.