should they and if so what should be the 2020 DLC

[Guest]

What should the 2020 DLC be?

EDIT: I am removing ones that obviously no one wants... BAUT all the options were ones I found in other suggestions posts

Most wanted @Private Division take note: Space station science

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Guest

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Did I miss some announcement?

What makes you so sure there will be one released in 2020?

[Geonovast]

2 data points a trend, does not make.

[JERONIMO]

k

[Superfluous J]

You can already set the game so G forces matter.

[klgraham1013]

4 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

What makes you so sure there will be one released in 2020?

A prediction is true until it's false.

[Guest]

One thing I really miss about mods now that I play stock is not having the near future parts stuff. Having some of those NASA planetary reactors (giga power reactor? I forget what they call it) would be welcome... all I have atm is solar or fuel cell... it’s like I’m rubbing two sticks together out there! capacitors were handy sometimes! Just more parts in general would be useful! But yer, some colonisation stuff might be fun so I can make a Mun or Mars base! 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

Outer planets with some new tech suitable for exploring them, such as nuclear reactors for high-output electricity production, very high-power comms, and that sort of thing.

[KerikBalm]

Interplanetary bases module overhaul: A big ol' meh from me, unless that includes life support mechanics

Terraforming: No

IVA experiments (interacting with stuff inside a module): A big ol' meh from me, although being able to move kerbals around in IVA mode, and customize interiors (including changing out modules of an interior section, without increasing part count of the exterior ship) might be interesting

Interplanetary life: No

Tourism: No? what would this even be? something more than the tourist contracts?

Survivability: What does this even mean?

Orbital long term science (Space stations becoming good for something): You mean like the MPL? umm I think the long term science of the breaking ground DLC was its weakest component, so no

Science overehaul: Not sure this will happen given how entrenched the science system is by now, not sure its appropriate for a DLC

Random generated planets and stars (interstellar travel): Meh, I don't see this being competitive with Kopernicus and custom made planets. Procedural/random generation isn't as good or interesting as it sounds, as players of No Man's Sky found out

Radiation and other realistic space issues: Ummm, I think this is a no. The only other realistic space issue that I can think of is heating (already have it, although there's a very wide acceptable temperature range), power (already have it), and micro-meteors (would be just annoying). So... basically, this would just be what? a few radiation shield parts and a reason to keep LV-Ns away from crew compartments?

G-force unresistant: huh? if you mean G force limits, we have that

Cities: No? do you mean building them? on other planets? or decorations for Kerbin? I wouldn't buy a DLC for decorations on one planet that you mostly just try to leave anyway.

Other countries and space races: against an AI? nope, not interested

storymode: You mean like a mission pack (doable with making history)? or a fixed set of contracts when you start a game? The explore contracts already make a fairly good story mode if you stick to them and don't jump ahead.

Armageddon!: Huh? like... the asteroid redirect pack they added as 0.23.5?

 

52 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Outer planets with some new tech suitable for exploring them, such as nuclear reactors for high-output electricity production, very high-power comms, and that sort of thing.

If combined with life support, this could be good, provided the new planets are detailed enough, and pose new engineering/mission challenges (such as a Titan/Tekto like moon).

If they added an additional body with liquid, and did a water overhaul, I think it would do well. I'm talking ballast tanks (better than ore tanks, although they are serviceable now), underwater scan-able features, different science results based on depth and if you are in contact with the sea floor or not.

A single part propeller engine thrown in the mix (perhaps with a single part monoprop powered prop engine as well) for air and sea-craft would be icing on top.Breaking Ground allows for some pretty decent proppellers after all (it just took some time to get used to), but reducing part count is always good.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

If combined with life support

I’m in the ”hard no on life support” camp. It would totally change the game (and make it way way harder.)

[KerikBalm]

14 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

It would totally change the game (and make it way way harder.)

If it could be disabled, such as re-entry heating or comnet, would that still be a hard no?

If they had a part enabling closed cycle life support (take it, and don't worry), would that be a hard no?

In the end, it just increases dry mass for long duration missions. With something like TAC, the basic supplies of 1 pod are enough to go to Mun and back with no added life support parts or mass.

Slapping a single part on a craft is plenty for Minmus.

It really only takes much thought when planning stations/surface bases where kerbals stay a long time doing science in the MPL/increasing mining efficiency, or interplanetary missions.

TAC has basically no effect when derping around kerbin, and just means stays on Mun are short if you don't pack supplies

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

If it could be disabled, such as re-entry heating or comnet, would that still be a hard no?

Yes. It fundamentally changes the way you have to set up your missions. You can't plonk a kerbal into a command seat and send her to Laythe any more. Craft and missions would have to be designed differently for life support on/life support off.

If by your suggestion all it does is increase dry mass for long duration missions, then it's not worth doing. Just roleplay it, stick on an ore tank and pretend it's a life support system. For it to be worth doing at all, it would have to alter gameplay -- supplies, resupply missions, starved kerbals, systems etc. -- and that would change the game into something much more hardcare.

Put another way, it's exactly the kind of thing that is best left to mods. It would make the core game worse.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Guest

[KerikBalm]

23 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

You can't plonk a kerbal into a command seat and send her to Laythe any more.

I don't consider that a bad thing :p

Quote

Craft and missions would have to be designed differently for life support on/life support off.

Often they have to be for commnet on/off (particularly probes with plasma blackout on/off), or reentry heating on/off. When 1.0 came out, there was a huge change to years of established craft design.

Quote

If by your suggestion all it does is increase dry mass for long duration missions, then it's not worth doing. Just roleplay it, stick on an ore tank and pretend it's a life support system. For it to be worth doing at all, it would have to alter gameplay -- supplies, resupply missions, starved kerbals, systems etc. -- and that would change the game into something much more hardcare.

I was talking about the difficulty aspect for space flight. I would like a TAC like system. You'd have water/air reyclers/greenhouses, you'd have certain resources available on certain bodies. Some bodies would allow for surface bases to produce excess life support resources. You could choose between craft with simple stores of life support supplies that need to be replenished, vs ones that operate recyclers, vs ones that harvest supplies from a body.

With TAC, around bodeis that lack a certain needed resource, I have smaller craft just hold supplies, but I add a waste storage container to store the waste of the resource I can't harvest, for recycling when it gets back to a station/base with a recycler.

Whereas on Laythe for example, I'll have a base producing excess of all needed resources. Smaller craft just resupply from it, and don't store waste.

I find it gives bases and stations more of a purpose, and smaller craft actually go visit them for something other than fuel.

The small craft just take 1 extra part (an all in one lift support container), or 2 (+ waste container), and operate mostly just as before, except they need to come back to a base from time to time to resupply.

Its the large motherships/stations/surface bases that get more complex.

Its also landing site selection: I'll look for places I can drill for water and ore at the same time ideally.

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

I don't consider that a bad thing :p

Bad or not, it is a fundamental characteristic of how the stock game works. 

Again: I get what you want, and I think it is very cool in its own right. It's terrific that there are mods that do it. I just don't think that kerbals dying of oxygen starvation have any place in the stock game.

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

If it could be disabled, such as re-entry heating or comnet, would that still be a hard no?

Why would I buy a DLC just so I could disable it?

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

TAC has basically no effect when derping around kerbin, and just means stays on Mun are short if you don't pack supplies

It also means any unforseen circumstance that lengthens the mission is a death sentence.

I've been playing for 6 years, revert and quickload at a whim, and I still screw up every other mission or so. Scrapping each and every one of those instead of sending a rescue is removing gameplay.

Edited June 19, 2019 by 5thHorseman

[klgraham1013]

I often wonder if life support was there from the beginning if this would even be an argument...

[Kerbart]

12 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Did I miss some announcement?

What makes you so sure there will be one released in 2020?

The necessity of a positive cashflow for a company to sustain itself.

[KerikBalm]

21 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Why would I buy a DLC just so I could disable it?

Because it would be one component of a larger DLC... like playing an old unmodified save with Breaking ground (no surface features for old saves), but you still get the robotics and surface experiments.

If life support was its own DLC, then you wouldn't buy it unless you want it (but IMO, it would need to be cheaper than 15 in this case). If it was part of a DLC adding " Outer planets with some new tech suitable for exploring them, such as nuclear reactors ... very high-power comms, and that sort of thing. " and what I suggested to go along with the "new tech suitable for exploring them" : "ballast tanks ... underwater scan-able features, different science results based on depth and if you are in contact with the sea floor or not. ... A single part propeller engine"

Then there'd be quite a lot there even if you don't use the included life support parts.

[Kerbart]

Life-support together with cryogenic sleep. There should be some penalty for putting Kerbals to sleep or waking them up (a limited supply of required medication?). Obviously, cryogenically sleeping Kerbals can’t do a thing, but they also don’t consume snacks and air.

they also leave room for rescue missions if something goes wrong.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I often wonder if life support was there from the beginning if this would even be an argument...

If you followed the Star Citizen forums in the olden days there was the same kind of resistance over there against the idea of survival type mechanics. It’s an interesting phenomenon XD but yer that game isn’t even out yet, far as I know... (I haven’t been keeping up to date these days) so not something arising from a resistance against change, more an anti-survival mentality I would say. Some people just don’t want it. 

(I don’t really mind. I’d Prefer an on/off toggle tho.)

[klgraham1013]

3 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Life-support together with cryogenic sleep. There should be some penalty for putting Kerbals to sleep or waking them up (a limited supply of required medication?). Obviously, cryogenically sleeping Kerbals can’t do a thing, but they also don’t consume snacks and air.

they also leave room for rescue missions if something goes wrong.

This whole, avoiding punishment or bad things happening attitude is sort of off-putting to my old man sensibilities.  I still believe things should be challenging.  There should be consequences.  It makes success that much sweeter.  I know the newest generation of humans doesn't feel this way.  I'm just glad there's still some game developers that still believe a great challenge brings an even greater reward.

3 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said:

If you followed the Star Citizen forums in the olden days there was the same kind of resistance over there against the idea of survival type mechanics. It’s an interesting phenomenon XD but yer that game isn’t even out yet, far as I know... (I haven’t been keeping up to date these days) so not something arising from a resistance against change, more an anti-survival mentality I would say. Some people just don’t want it. 

(I don’t really mind. I’d Prefer an on/off toggle tho.)

See my comment above.

[Guest]

Judging from the pole so far, if the next DLC turns out to be Bases and Science it will be a winner. I don’t know how likely any further science overhaul will be though. There was a heap of new science stuff in this DLC already.

[Klapaucius]

I'd like the ability to build bases AND airstrips and launch sites.  It would require resources.  eg. tarmac for a runway needs to be mined and processed. Parts could be flown in in cargo bays.  And it would be nice if there were a set of modular construction parts that could be assembled on site that do not require using docking ports.  I realize there are mods that do this, but this seems like a good base game add-on.

 

And easy refueling with proper hoses. Again, there are mods that do this, but this, to my mind, is pretty essential. Actually, it should be a base game upgrade.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Klapaucius

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

See my comment above.

”There should be consequences.  It makes success that much sweeter.  I know the newest generation of humans doesn't feel this way.“

Those dumb millennials amirite?...

That’s an unfortunately common point of view. There have been excrementsty people in every generation... this is why “these damn kids today” has been a trope since time immemorial 

You’re just tilting at windmills my friend, the doctor that saves your life when you’re in your 90s will probably be a millennial.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Guest

[Rocket In My Pocket]

10 hours ago, Kerbart said:

The necessity of a positive cashflow for a company to sustain itself.

Well yeah but, that could be 2020, or 2021, etc...

For the record; my question about an announcement wasn't sarcastic.

I've been away on a trip, and have been out of the loop.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Rocket In My Pocket