UomoCapra

Kerbal Space Program Breaks Ground with a New DLC!

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Gameslinx said:

No, I said in the line below that the models should be in the stock game and the functionality should be in the DLC, which is actually a good business strategy. Giving people new things, and saying they can do more with them if they pay a little bit on top of the base game. Seems perfectly fair to me! It's a common business practice.

If that's what you meant, then sure, that seems like it could be a good idea-- give a taste to encourage more.

That said, though, I'm guessing they've been thinking this over a lot, I assume they have their reasons.

Speaking just for myself-- I leave the stock terrain scatters turned on as eye candy because my graphics card can handle it, but I don't pay them much attention at all because there's no meaningful interaction that I can have with them.  Having interesting interactions with them is something I like the idea of, which belongs in the DLC.  If they put "just the models" in the stock game, that seems fine to me... but it also would be of almost zero significance to me because (for me) they'd just be more functionless eye candy that my brain would probably un-see after a few hours of playing.  So for me personally, it doesn't make much difference one way or the other.

1 minute ago, klesh said:

Because the way its being suggested would incentivize the player recurrent spender to want more out of those new terrain scatters than just looking at them.

Sure, but that's mainly a form of advertising to pique people's interest, and the person I was responding to in that particular comment of mine that you quoted sounded positively irate to me.  I didn't have the impression that they were saying "If they don't put just-the-models into the stock game, then it won't impinge on my attention and it simply won't occur to me that there's something interesting to buy out there."  It sounded more to me like "I'm positively angry if they don't and will refuse to buy the DLC out of some sort of moral objection if they don't", which puzzled me.  Was curious about it.

If I've misinterpreted that poster, than that's on me, of course.  :)

3 minutes ago, MiscelanousItem said:

@Snark , the surface of planets in KSP is boring, we can agree on that right?

Absolutely.  That's why I'm glad they're jazzing things up with this new release.

3 minutes ago, MiscelanousItem said:

So if we have more anomalies on them, they will be more interesting, right?

Absolutely.  Gives me a good reason to open my wallet and buy the DLC then, which after all is the whole point of the exercise, from any commercial company's point of view.

4 minutes ago, MiscelanousItem said:

Also it works a bit like a appetizer you give people a bit of your product, so they come back to buy the whole thing!(demos work like that to)

Sure.  Another thing that can work like an appetizer is to make an Announcements post here in the forum, so that people can salivate over it.  Which they appear to be doing.

Doesn't mean doing that way is "right", of course, but doesn't mean it's wrong, either.

For example, speaking just for myself:  if all they added to the stock game was some more eye-candy terrain scatters that I can't interact with in any meaningful way... well, that would be a pretty minor thing for me, and wouldn't make it any more likely that I'd buy the DLC.  Just as the lack of doing so doesn't make it any less likely.  For me, the killer feature is that they're interactable, which needs to be in the DLC or it would reduce the reason to buy.

"I think it would be a good idea to include the models in the stock game" is a perfectly reasonable sentiment and I have no beef with that.  It's just that it sounded like you were saying "if they don't do that then I won't buy the DLC" in a fairly emphatic way, which kind of puzzled me, since it's a very different thought process than my own, so I was curious about the motivation.  That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

copy/pasted from a post on the ksp subreddit.

So I have some thoughts on this. Here's my hot take.

I am not at all convinced this needed to be a DLC. These are the kinds of things which should be added into the stock game. (Except for the suit)

The new surface feature scatter things do not at all look like they mesh (hah!) with stock KSP planets and the default terrain scatters. The idea of having new things to do on the surface is nice, but again, that's really something KSP should have had all along. In all of those pictures, the original terrain scatters are nowhere to be seen. Why not enable those by default, enable colliders on them, and remake the system so that does not destroy low end machines. (Before you say "unity can't do that" beware: I've seen it done before.)

Instead of weird crystal things, it would be great if Kerbin could have trees, big mossy boulders and rocks, *and signs of Kerbal civilization*. Seriously, if you're adding a surface exploration update, it's the *perfect* opportunity to give players something that has been wanted for a very long time: cities to fly through and land at... maybe you could even have little cars and kerbals going around to liven it up, but just the existence of cities, even if it's just a few, will drastically increase the believability of Kerbin. And little towns and settlements, farmlands with fences. Maybe even sparse kerbalized animals. That's potentially the kind of thing that modders could run amok with if given the chance. And you could even add sea life, and sea life in simpler forms on Laythe.

I don't want to be too negative, so here's a positive bit: I've been critical of the art direction of the game for some time now, but I really do like those surface experiments! They look pretty great, honestly. I hope they'll have some functionality other than "run experiment on surface" and I hope they'll have some really interesting experiment packages in terms of new science experiments and reports.

I really do not like the futuristic space suit *at all*. It clashes with everything in the stock game, making history, and even the new parts, which are *rightfully* stockalike. 

I really hope any changes you make to Vall will be something which can be generalized by planet modders to other cryovolcanic worlds. And if you're adding cryovolcanism on Vall, why not volcanism on Laythe! Hot water geysers underwater too.

I like robotic parts. Without some kind of automation though it's hard to imagine making any kind of moving legged creation like what is shown in "Robotic Parts 1." Robotic arm is good. But it shouldn't be necessary on crewed vehicles--if you bring a Kerbal somewhere they should be able to use tools on the surface features directly.

Another thing that would be great for a surface exploration DLC: Surface bases and a more advanced resources system! The ability to construct surface bases--real ones in PQSCity, not just vessels which increase a region's partcount until it becomes unplayable--would really add some depth to the game. Something new for sandbox and late career games. Eventually you could even establish VABs, launchpads, and runways on other planets.

From the features described so far in the OP, the DLC really doesn't deserve a 15 dollar pricetag. The features are not large or numerous enough, and its features don't diverge from the scope of KSP nearly enough, to warrant it. Even Making History, with its historical based parts and mission builder, was understandable as a DLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Snark said:

Functionality in a mod is not the same as functionality in the stock game.

Thank you for explaining this so eloquently. I feel the same way and cannot wait for this DLC to hit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GregroxMun said:

copy/pasted from a post on the ksp subreddit.

So I have some thoughts on this. Here's my hot take.

I am not at all convinced this needed to be a DLC. These are the kinds of things which should be added into the stock game. (Except for the suit)

The new surface feature scatter things do not at all look like they mesh (hah!) with stock KSP planets and the default terrain scatters. The idea of having new things to do on the surface is nice, but again, that's really something KSP should have had all along. In all of those pictures, the original terrain scatters are nowhere to be seen. Why not enable those by default, enable colliders on them, and remake the system so that does not destroy low end machines. (Before you say "unity can't do that" beware: I've seen it done before.)

Instead of weird crystal things, it would be great if Kerbin could have trees, big mossy boulders and rocks, *and signs of Kerbal civilization*. Seriously, if you're adding a surface exploration update, it's the *perfect* opportunity to give players something that has been wanted for a very long time: cities to fly through and land at... maybe you could even have little cars and kerbals going around to liven it up, but just the existence of cities, even if it's just a few, will drastically increase the believability of Kerbin. And little towns and settlements, farmlands with fences. Maybe even sparse kerbalized animals. That's potentially the kind of thing that modders could run amok with if given the chance. And you could even add sea life, and sea life in simpler forms on Laythe.

I don't want to be too negative, so here's a positive bit: I've been critical of the art direction of the game for some time now, but I really do like those surface experiments! They look pretty great, honestly. I hope they'll have some functionality other than "run experiment on surface" and I hope they'll have some really interesting experiment packages in terms of new science experiments and reports.

I really do not like the futuristic space suit *at all*. It clashes with everything in the stock game, making history, and even the new parts, which are *rightfully* stockalike. 

I really hope any changes you make to Vall will be something which can be generalized by planet modders to other cryovolcanic worlds. And if you're adding cryovolcanism on Vall, why not volcanism on Laythe! Hot water geysers underwater too.

I like robotic parts. Without some kind of automation though it's hard to imagine making any kind of moving legged creation like what is shown in "Robotic Parts 1." Robotic arm is good. But it shouldn't be necessary on crewed vehicles--if you bring a Kerbal somewhere they should be able to use tools on the surface features directly.

Another thing that would be great for a surface exploration DLC: Surface bases and a more advanced resources system! The ability to construct surface bases--real ones in PQSCity, not just vessels which increase a region's partcount until it becomes unplayable--would really add some depth to the game. Something new for sandbox and late career games. Eventually you could even establish VABs, launchpads, and runways on other planets.

From the features described so far in the OP, the DLC really doesn't deserve a 15 dollar pricetag. The features are not large or numerous enough, and its features don't diverge from the scope of KSP nearly enough, to warrant it. Even Making History, with its historical based parts and mission builder, was understandable as a DLC.

 

Spoiler

Eye Candy:

0ZviVVd.png

IU7Nt9g.png

eBM54lv.png

I provide all that for free. They're models with the colliders on. You can land on those floating islands.

I wanna stress this is in no way shape or form advertising my projects, it's literally the only mod aside from I think GPP? to add custom terrain scatters. If Squad is seriously charging for this... I have some bad feelings.

Although I do think the functionality of the new surface features belongs in a DLC, the new models alone certainly do not. The stock planets are severely lacking and, artistic preference aside, there's really not much to see wherever you go - that's why the base game so desperately needs these models!

Edited by Gameslinx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gameslinx said:
  Reveal hidden contents

Eye Candy:

0ZviVVd.png

IU7Nt9g.png

eBM54lv.png

Although I do think the functionality of the new surface features belongs in a DLC, the new models alone certainly do not. The stock planets are severely lacking and, artistic preference aside, there's really not much to see wherever you go - that's why the base game so desperately needs these models!

I mean, maybe not those models. The ones shown in the OP are still, in my opinion, pretty bad and incompatible with KSP's art style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GregroxMun said:

I mean, maybe not those models. The ones shown in the OP are still, in my opinion, pretty bad and incompatible with KSP's art style.

I kind of agree, although I'm sure these models are subject to change. The model in itself is alright and could be on an ice planet, but the colour is a little too different. I'd expect them to be blue, to match Eeloo.

Edited by Gameslinx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Gameslinx said:

No, I said in the line below that the models should be in the stock game and the functionality should be in the DLC, which is actually a good business strategy. Giving people new things, and saying they can do more with them if they pay a little bit on top of the base game. Seems perfectly fair to me! It's a common business practice.

You are right, it is becomming common business. I don't play a lot of games, but games that use these types of tactics to try and 'tease me' in to microtransactions or paid DLC raise my neck hairs. I consider it an insult of my intelligence and would even stop me from playing the game entirely. To me those tactics are a great way to allienate your otherwise faithfull playerbase. 

 

Anyway, my money is already burning in my pocket, I'm on the hypetrain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LoSBoL said:

You are right, it is becomming common business. I don't play a lot of games, but games that use these types of tactics to try and 'tease me' in to microtransactions or paid DLC raise my neck hairs. I consider it an insult of my intelligence and would even stop me from playing the game entirely. To me those tactics are a great way to allienate your otherwise faithfull playerbase. 

I see where you're coming from. I believe that this is just some bad impressions gained from the all those debacles with EA. But I believe (and hope to continue believing) that KSP is different from all those other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

To me those tactics are a great way to allienate your otherwise faithfull playerbase. 

You are complaining for companies giving you more than they otherwise would? Personally I think getting more and having the option to get extra features is much better on the consumer, since the company gets more trust. I like to think that Squad cares more about their community than they do about their business practice, and this is a logical thing they'd do if they did (however the latter is subjective)

Backwards logic, but okay. 

Edited by Gameslinx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stock hinges, Robotic parts, surface experiments, flashy suits, Biome exploration...

I ran out of likes today in this one thread...

I see some sleepless nights coming when this DLC drops, this is basically a exponential increase of gamemechanic and adventure.

Probably getting a mild seizure then. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SQUADHow is this DLC going to affect Kopernicus? This is adding new terrain scatter with apparent colliders. Will it be made compatible or whatever? 

Also, 1.8 news when... I WANT MOAR NEW PARTS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to some of the more passionate folk here, Orbiter has been free since 2000. How could Squad DARE to charge money for Kerbal? The gall of those guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lupi said:

In response to some of the more passionate folk here, Orbiter has been free since 2000. How could Squad DARE to charge money for Kerbal? The gall of those guys. 

becaaauuuse MOAR BOOSTERS.

and kerbal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snark said:

Something as complex as robotics is going to have a lot of troublesome edge cases, a lot of complex behavior for the player to master, etc.  If I were to get that from a mod, I'd be at the mercy of the individual mod author's availability. ...

Yeah... but you forget something... I'm good :D ... no, serious now. Infernal Robotics Next will have a release soon and if those stock robotics modules are coded the same way they were in the past or like the ModuleDockingNode, then I'd suggest to use Infernal Robotics Next. But... everyone can choose what he wants...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, fourfa said:

 

Spoiler

R2UiWur.jpg

 

Anyone recognize the middle leg parts on the left-side scorpion-ish craft?  Top is a standard 0.625m liquid fuel tank, bottom is a standard adapter, middle is a ...?

 

Middle is a 0.625m liquid fuel tank with the perpendicular piston piece (with a square base) clipped inside of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will there be a smaller grabber (Mini-Claw) for shuttle canadarms??? OMG!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second pic:

Kerbal's discover Tiberium ....

I'll just leave that here :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*jaw hits floor*

 

Great, now I have to hurry to finish my current save... or at least get everyone back home!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really excited about this! I have always wanted these robotics and experiments in the stock game, mostly so I can abuse their physics and colliders :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that there is more ground scatter, will the ground scatter now make use of instancing or will there still be hundreds of draw calls for rocks?

Share this post


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

Oq76nLhVnFABXGQexBTOWvThitS2KCIWTPuCsxc8

There is no way that thing has enough dV to reach Eve orbit. 

Share this post


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

The deployable experiments will take measurements over time.

Embracing time based mechanics?  Who are you and what have you done with Squad?

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.