UomoCapra

Kerbal Space Program 1.7.3 is live!

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Azimech said:

You can guarantee?

Very interesting.

Where are your survey results?

What do you think of the complexities with this DLC, where the props, motors, hinges and cylinders are part of, with the programming of the controller? Tried it yet? It's new territory for me and I don't know nothing about it, but it's exciting.

For example, I never asked for these things, didn't know they were coming. But now I'm glad they're there. How can you say then, you know the playerbase? Even if you are in this community since 2012 like me, you are unable to know what the playerbase wants. Only a vague idea, based on personal bias and the amount of information you were able to gather (which is always insufficient).

What about the fact Squad shared my creations thirty times on their official FB and twitter. Do you think most of them were simple designs?

It's a game, not a hyper-realistic rocket aerospace simulator. Adding in some more detailed things is fine, but there's a line to be drawn.

Adding in the minutia of how a rocket engine works is not going to enhance the experience for a massive amount of players and is fine to just keep as a mod, I'd much rather the devs spent their time and resources on other stuff than trying to please some hardcore realism-fanatics. The only thing they could do with engines to make it more complex without too much difficulty for players is different fueltypes, nozzles and fuel cycles with a switch to go back to simple mechanics. I'd argue about throttle limits, start-sequences and restart-limits.

Just because Squad shared your crafts doesn't mean they want to add unnecessary detail and complexity to every game mechanic.

Share this post


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

How can you say then, you know the playerbase? Even if you are in this community since 2012 like me, you are unable to know what the playerbase wants.

We want faster horses.

Edited by HebaruSan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to complexity and so forth... 

I'd maybe point to where some of the new sandbox games are going.  "Stormworks: Build and Rescue" for instance has both an "Advanced" and "Simple" career mode.  I much prefer advanced, which doesn't just require that you add a motor... you have to add an engine and then connect it with fuel lines, electrical systems, gearboxes, alternators and so forth... and then hook it up to a prop/rotor/or jet.  In this particular game, the jets are more difficult to construct than rotor/propeller craft.  They took the approach of treating the rotor/propeller as a single unit and magically managing the blade pitch.  ...but setting up the engines in advanced mode is also far more challenging.  Additionally, building jets is more difficult in that game because you have to assemble the parts of the jet: intake/compressor/combustion chamber etc.  Interesting design options there because it lets you construct a jet for a plane or a turboshaft for a helo with the same set of parts, just arranged a bit differently.

Stormworks is a bit of a different type of game though.  You get to build your craft from the inside out, which is pretty cool.  There isn't any need for part clipping cuz the building blocks are just that... little blocks.  So as for the sandbox designer player base, I would definitely not say the majority are in the camp of basic is better.  I mean in this game there are PID and logic controllers, you can make circuit boards for an autopilot system...  Did I mention you even have to create your control dashboards and hook up the dials to engines and sensors (pitot tubes for speed detection, pressure gauges, heat sensors, gyros, you name it).  I saw someone posted a little Asteroids video game cabinet to the correct scale that you could plop it down in the game room of your ship.  ...then I realized, not only was it to proper scale to your boat and avatar captain, when I walked over to the thing...  It was a working Asteroids arcade game!  There was a monitor on the thing and they used the freakin LUA language (which the game natively supports) to actually code a playable arcade asteroids game!  You can build your own radar display screens in this thing.  So no, I don't really buy any argument that says the overall sandbox player base is looking for KISS building options.  I do however appreciate that in that game they also have the "Easy Mode" that just lets engines work without having to link em up.  Of course when people build and post stuff like that, first question is always "Hey do you have a version that works in Advanced Mode?" 

For me, I like how they implemented the blades in KSP and since I play other games like Stormworks, it feels like it struck a balance for KSP players, maybe even erring a bit on the side of being simpler since we don't have such minute parts to construct craft interiors and properly scaled and functional engines.

Edited by XLjedi

Share this post


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

We want faster horses.

Obligatory mention. In order to pretend this is on-topic, I want to remember that KSP is built in C++ and C#. Two of the horses below. :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

It's a game, not a hyper-realistic rocket aerospace simulator. Adding in some more detailed things is fine, but there's a line to be drawn.

Adding in the minutia of how a rocket engine works is not going to enhance the experience for a massive amount of players and is fine to just keep as a mod, I'd much rather the devs spent their time and resources on other stuff than trying to please some hardcore realism-fanatics. The only thing they could do with engines to make it more complex without too much difficulty for players is different fueltypes, nozzles and fuel cycles with a switch to go back to simple mechanics. I'd argue about throttle limits, start-sequences and restart-limits

I also would not be against a stock RSS like system by size of bodies and orbits, with rebalanced parts - as an optional selection at the start of a new game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

It's a game, not a hyper-realistic rocket aerospace simulator. Adding in some more detailed things is fine, but there's a line to be drawn.

Adding in the minutia of how a rocket engine works is not going to enhance the experience for a massive amount of players and is fine to just keep as a mod, I'd much rather the devs spent their time and resources on other stuff than trying to please some hardcore realism-fanatics. The only thing they could do with engines to make it more complex without too much difficulty for players is different fueltypes, nozzles and fuel cycles with a switch to go back to simple mechanics. I'd argue about throttle limits, start-sequences and restart-limits.

Just because Squad shared your crafts doesn't mean they want to add unnecessary detail and complexity to every game mechanic.

Never said it was a hyper realistic aerospace simulator. But catering to the lowest common denominator - people who don't want to make an effort -  is the wrong approach with a game which arguably attracts the more intelligent part of the population.

You know this game has a very steep learning curve. So what is wrong with some extra complexity ... because we're talking about the DLC here. The DLC added stuff most users have never used before and maybe never will. Infernal Robotics paved the way. So aside surface features, the DLC is aimed at exactly that userbase wanting to do more. Do complex stuff. And I'm glad Squad recognizes a lot of people actually consider KSP a powerful design tool, much more than a game. Because in ways, the editor is the biggest selling point. Not career or science mode. The gameplay is flawed and I haven't had the interest to complete the tech tree since 2014.

 

4 hours ago, XLjedi said:

With regard to complexity and so forth... 

I'd maybe point to where some of the new sandbox games are going.  "Stormworks: Build and Rescue" for instance has both an "Advanced" and "Simple" career mode.  I much prefer advanced, which doesn't just require that you add a motor... you have to add an engine and then connect it with fuel lines, electrical systems, gearboxes, alternators and so forth... and then hook it up to a prop/rotor/or jet.  In this particular game, the jets are more difficult to construct than rotor/propeller craft.  They took the approach of treating the rotor/propeller as a single unit and magically managing the blade pitch.  ...but setting up the engines in advanced mode is also far more challenging.  Additionally, building jets is more difficult in that game because you have to assemble the parts of the jet: intake/compressor/combustion chamber etc.  Interesting design options there because it lets you construct a jet for a plane or a turboshaft for a helo with the same set of parts, just arranged a bit differently.

Stormworks is a bit of a different type of game though.  You get to build your craft from the inside out, which is pretty cool.  There isn't any need for part clipping cuz the building blocks are just that... little blocks.  So as for the sandbox designer player base, I would definitely not say the majority are in the camp of basic is better.  I mean in this game there are PID and logic controllers, you can make circuit boards for an autopilot system...  Did I mention you even have to create your control dashboards and hook up the dials to engines and sensors (pitot tubes for speed detection, pressure gauges, heat sensors, gyros, you name it).  I saw someone posted a little Asteroids video game cabinet to the correct scale that you could plop it down in the game room of your ship.  ...then I realized, not only was it to proper scale to your boat and avatar captain, when I walked over to the thing...  It was a working Asteroids arcade game!  There was a monitor on the thing and they used the freakin LUA language (which the game natively supports) to actually code a playable arcade asteroids game!  You can build your own radar display screens in this thing.  So no, I don't really buy any argument that says the overall sandbox player base is looking for KISS building options.  I do however appreciate that in that game they also have the "Easy Mode" that just lets engines work without having to link em up.  Of course when people build and post stuff like that, first question is always "Hey do you have a version that works in Advanced Mode?" 

For me, I like how they implemented the blades in KSP and since I play other games like Stormworks, it feels like it struck a balance for KSP players, maybe even erring a bit on the side of being simpler since we don't have such minute parts to construct craft interiors and properly scaled and functional engines.

Watched a video ... really like it. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Azimech said:

Never said it was a hyper realistic aerospace simulator. But catering to the lowest common denominator - people who don't want to make an effort -  is the wrong approach with a game which arguably attracts the more intelligent part of the population.

You know this game has a very steep learning curve. So what is wrong with some extra complexity ... because we're talking about the DLC here. The DLC added stuff most users have never used before and maybe never will. Infernal Robotics paved the way. So aside surface features, the DLC is aimed at exactly that userbase wanting to do more. Do complex stuff. And I'm glad Squad recognizes a lot of people actually consider KSP a powerful design tool, much more than a game. Because in ways, the editor is the biggest selling point. Not career or science mode. The gameplay is flawed and I haven't had the interest to complete the tech tree since 2014.

This might just be me, but I think it's quite arrogant to accuse others of not wanting to make an effort because their interests are simpler than yours.

I should amend/clarify my argument to this:

Personally I'm not against the idea of it, as long as it's optional. From what I've gathered you're open to this, so we can move on.

My issue is that I don't think it's the time to start tackling it yet - not when after more than six years there's still serious polishing (more complete part sets, weather/clouds) and features (life support, more planets, more systems/FTL, more mysterious alien easter eggs) that have been missing from the game - features that are vastly more integral to the mechanics/logistics of spaceflight, and the game's story/identity. Features whose absence leave me feeling like I'm playing an incomplete game.

Once that's all done, by all means please, bring it on.

Edited by Bartybum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.