sh1pman

Kerbal Space Program 2: Master Post

Recommended Posts

A game ending development has never meant the community for it disappears or that the game is somehow no longer worth playing.  Back in my day, games actually ended development before they were released.  Just look at Street Fighter.  There are still community's playing Super Turbo and Third Strike.  Honestly, I look forward to KSP1 reaching completion, and hope it can go out on the high note it deserves.  Modders will no longer have to deal with an ever changing target.  Everything will be able to mature without fear of being broken.  I, for one, have a feeling KSP1 will be up there as one of those games I continue to return to, some of which are older than some on these forums.  Time means nothing when the quality of the product is so awe inspiring.

Edited by klgraham1013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, KSK said:

Without some kind of FTL mechanism ... interstellar journeys are going to take a long time.

That's certainly true in game time.  Perhaps KSP 2 has a new paradigm to map game time to player time - especially if multiplayer is to be supported.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Time means nothing when the quality of the product is so awe inspiring.

Well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of my own thoughts on what I'd like to see or how I envision things could be implemented for KSP2.  I'm not saying these are how things should be, just some back of the napkin ideas.  Most of my ideas revolve around a career-type game mode.

Game Modes
 - I like the idea of a sandbox mode and a career-type mode.  Maybe still have a strictly science mode if you'd like.
 - Sandbox means exactly what you think, all systems are available, all parts, all game mechanics not related to career progression, etc.
 - Career meaning some type of progression is required.  This should be customizable and you should be able to pick and choose to include or exclude some of the progression mechanics.
 - Difficulty, as now, should be separate from career/sandbox but related.  I should be able to choose whether or not I want life support - and if I want it - a couple different levels to choose from.  Same for comms.  Same for part reliability.  Same for flight mechanics.
 - I like the idea of unlocking different solar systems through career progression.
 - A lot of the ideas below assume a career type game, not sandbox.

Interstellar mechanics
 - A few have pointed out that simply interacting with bodies at the outer edges of the Kerbol system requires lots of time warping - which means ignoring anything else happening closer/faster.
 - I like the idea of building towards a pinnacle tech group and building a ship that meets specific criteria for interstellar-rated transport.
 - If you just unlocked some tech, knock it together, and launch that is ultimately unfulfilling to me.  I'd like to see a mix of tech unlock, career progression mechanics, and time/effort being put into presence is space systems.  The exact criteria are minutiae but you should have to do things like keep a certain amount of presence off-Kerbin for a long time, build different types of installations and operate them ongoing, etc.
 - There should be a difficult block of science/career progression to identify/qualify other systems
 - Once you actually have an interstellar-rated craft, you launch towards another system and that system becomes "unlocked" for career use.  Bypassing a need to actually travel.
 - Each system you have unlocked in a career mode is a separate "instance" of your save and each of those "instances" can be worked on independently of the others.  They are "time independent" or something like that, and you begin another instance with the resources you brought with you.

Procedural parts
 - Decrease part count and make the damn things procedural.  Seriously.
 - To me it makes more sense to have limits within the procedural building that are pushed out with science gain.  Like, you can build X-type of fuel tank only up to Y-size by default.  Put some time+science into it and now you can build it larger, or build it to different tolerances (gravity/stress/pressure/whatever).
 - Focus on different types only where it makes actual sense.  Have different engines for burning LH and RP1.  Have different engines for atmo and vac.  Have different tanks for different use cases, not necessarily just for different fuels, like some many mods allow you to switch right now.

Science investment
 - Perhaps science can be a time + 'science units' investment and not just take 27 temperature readings and build a dozen types of new and better engines.
 - Science unlocks should require a mix of things that include straight time on project.  You need 30 days, 4 months, whatever to unlock the next node of abilities.
 - As more difficult/advanced nodes are researched also require usage.  Want to get "level 3" LO/LH engines?  Well, we need a combined 5000 seconds of actual real-world flight.  Want level 4 of the same?  Now we need another 5000 real-world seconds with level 3 engines but some of it needs to be in another planetary SOI for... reasons.  Doesn't exactly matter - the concept does.
 - As an interplay between the (very necessary idea of) procedural parts and science, let players push hybrids or specialty parts from science.  Let them research very specific avenues to very specific parts - like amto and vac optimized engines.  OR, if they want to have LH engines have really good atmo performance and RP1 engines hybrid between vac and atmo that should be a thing they can unlock too.
 - Sample returns and other body ISRU required for advanced materials unlocks.
 - Doing things like this can gate science advances behind required missions and visits to other places.  Crawl before you walk.  Walk before you crawl.  If you don't want the progression - that's why you have a sandbox mode.

Career Mechanics
 - Some folks lament having to be potentially bogged down with "boring stuff" if you have to keep far-flung colonies and space stations supplied.  What if instead you had a mechanic where your rockets can be "rated" with a certain reliability, lift capacity, and systems engineering.  You could use these "rated" systems to auto-magically (just funds and time) fulfill logistical or transport needs.
 - Firstly you have base requirements.  The main space centre at Kerbin could be made to have logistical, building capacity (rockets and such) and 'background' personnel for off-world work.  These start small and are upgraded like other facilities.
 - A combination of those new facilities and 'rated' systems keep your stations/bases/colonies staffed and equipped as required.  You basically setup "trade routes" for lack of a better term.
 - What I mean is for example, you have a science station in orbit around Minmus.  It requires A life support, B maintenance and parts, and C crew transfer every D months.  You have a system rated for Minmus delivery of cargo which carries up to a specific amount.  If it meets that station's cargo requirements "every D months" then you can just 'set and forget' the necessary runs.  They happen in the background and funds/personnel are allocated depending on the available reserves.  If the rated system isn't able to meet the cargo requirements maybe you need 2.  You would could have a separate rated system for crew for Minmus delivery which handles the crew transfers.  Or you could have a hybrid crew/cargo rated system.
 - Building out infrastructure should be a goal but getting bogged down in sending enough toilet paper to Jool would drive me crazy.

Also, simply having interesting, engaging, and useful missions WITH rewards that players WANT to chase is critical.

Anyhow, just some thoughts.  Wonder what you think?

Edited by Idleness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 4472TJ said:

No, files are not cross compatible

I would love to see something offical about this. It seems folks are just guessing at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I would love to see something offical about this. It seems folks are just guessing at this point.

Complete game rebuild. Answer is no. However, nothing stopping modders from converting/modding the future KSP2, if it gets full API/code access. (Game saves for example are just notepad/text files, so fairly easy to convert).

Share this post


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

As most new games (of significance) you can almost guarantee it will NOT be Windows 8.1 or below. I say 8.1 as Microsoft were very quick to dismiss 8.0 and 8.1 was one that many people tried to avoid (general rule, avoid every second Windows). As Windows 7 will no longer be supported from Jan 2020 you can guarantee that Windows 7 will not be a minimum, 8.1 possibly a minimum but I'd go as far to say Windows 10 will be the min requirement. It gives developers more room to move into the future if Win 10 was set as minimum..

Microsoft were quick to try and get people onto Windows 10 by offering a free upgrade to Win 10 from July 2016 through to Jan 2018.  So if you missed out on this free upgrade, then start saving to purchase Win 10 (if your system can cope with it).

CPU - x32 or x64. Given KSP 1 moved away from x32 and moved to x64, and Windows 10 majority being x64, I'd say x64 will be required. Adding x32 support for KSP2 would be going backwards.

Memory. As I have dismissed x32 bit being considered, and x32 was limited to around 3.5 gb ram, the push now for many games is x64 and 8gb, I'd say you will need 8gb minimum here.

GFX card. The push for smooth, reflective, DX10 / DX11 graphics, you would need to consider a graphics card with DX10 or 11 as minimum. So Nvidia GeForce 8 series and above. ATI's 3400 / 3600 series and above. I wouldn't be surprised if DX11 will be the requirement however.

HDD - I'd use 10gb as a rough number. I wouldn't say minimum but could well be. So for now, I'd say 10gb would be a safe bet.

I guess my computer will be able to run it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably the most exciting news I've seen in gaming for a number of years.  I've just signed up to the KSP forums to leave a comment to vent some of my excitement.  Some brilliant minds are being put together to make this and I cannot wait to see the result.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope KSP 2 meets our expectations.

It'd be a shame for it to flop. I also believe that parts should become procedural, instead of having 500 parts.

Seriously, I actually stopped playing for a while, and now that I came back, I have  trouble finding the right fuel tanks and engines. Too many parts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Squad isn't developing the game, and is merely providing input and loosely guiding the devs, is honestly a good thing in the long run. Squad, a smaller studio when compared to Star Theory, can continue developing KSP 1, meaning even if KSP 2 sucks the old game is still being developed and kept alive. 

Star Theory, with its larger studio, higher budget, and extensive knowledge and passion for the old game (some devs even had a couple thousand hours on the old game) know what made the old game bad, good, and great, and considering they're getting guidance from the old devs I have zero belief they're going to majorly screw anything up.

Plus, any other things that would dissuade me from being hyped have already been cleared up:

  • It's on Steam
  • No microtransactions
  • Squad is somewhat involved
  • Devs know what they're doing

I have full optimism in this game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be too much to ask for a story line?

I remember reading about the dropped story idea about the lost civilization that left the monoliths and really wish to have some kind of story in KSP2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things:

1: What would be the purpose of releasing an entirely new game? You can just make more and more updates to heighten the graphics and quality greater and grater, unless there's an actual plot involved... are you bringing back the Duna plot that was scrapped before alpha, and let to structures like the the Duna code and the magic asteroid?

2: Please don't hurt the Kraken... :wink:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Q-ver KSP said:

I hope KSP 2 meets our expectations.

It'd be a shame for it to flop. I also believe that parts should become procedural, instead of having 500 parts.

Seriously, I actually stopped playing for a while, and now that I came back, I have  trouble finding the right fuel tanks and engines. Too many parts!

Getting comfortable using the text filter at the top of the part list is a massive help when working with modded games.  I found it much easier to find what I was looking for once I got int he habit of searching via text rather than scrolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will it have a seperate forum or just use a subforum?

Also do we have any word about how much more graphics intensive it will be? the pic that ive seen look harder to render

edit: nvm saw earlier post estimating specs

Edited by lapis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very hyped for KSP 2, I mean who isn't? I want this game to succeed, but I have reservations about Star Theory, formely Uber Entertainment, they developed Planetary Annihilation, and made some very bad choices doing so. My main concern is microtransactions, Planetary Annihilation was full of skin. I don't mind paying full price for KSP 2, I just want the full game. I don't mind good dlc's, I just don't wanna pay for parts or weird colored command pod.

I'm sick of the way game are going with in-game purchases, sadly first thing everyone ask when a game is announced nowadays is about microtransactions. Cosmetic or not, I won't give my money for KSP 2 untill I'm sure there no microtransactions.

As for interstellar travel, we should wait for gameplay, it may not be as bad as it seems and I hope Star Theory really think before making KSP 2. Let's hope they did...

 

Edited by Matth_laBallade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Radar said:

As most new games (of significance) you can almost guarantee it will NOT be Windows 8.1 or below.

Nooo.... 

I am using Windows 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Does anyone know if craft files will be cross compatible?

Very unlikely, but possible can be converted by 3:rd party tool. (knowing our beloved modders).

 

40 minutes ago, Nigel J. Cardozo said:

Nooo.... 

I am using Windows 7

Then you have like 4 months to upgrade before January 2020 when MS stops providing security updates for Win7.

Which is well before KSP2 is released...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s been 8 years of playing this game and this announcement just brought me to actual tears. I’ve dreamed about a sequel to ksp for so long and the idea it’s finally happening is just... unreal. This game and community shaped such a big part of my childhood, I can’t wait to see that happen to even more people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasn't for KSP I would still know nothing about astrodynamics. I owe my entire knowledge of orbital mechanics to Squad and KSP 1 (Time to get used to adding a number to the end!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

If they plan to release next year, they have a completed design, are fully in the execution phase, and are probably not too far from first outside of team QA. They thought about all of this and made all of the relevant design decisions quite some time ago.

Very true. The one plausible exception I can imagine would be if there was a broad consensus on the thread asking for an easy thing (which almost no one is :)). "Taking the temperature" of fans and adjusting course slightly is possible, but they're not going to go through and check off anyone's detailed bullet points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Life support, please. 
  2. Lagrange points, please.
  3. New, better and more stable modding tools, please.
  4. Better, more logical Tech Tree with UNMANNED start, please
  5. Make kerbals more useful, please, able to influence the flight process with their skills and autonomously work offscreen.
Edited by Dr. Jet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having parts akin to SpaceX’s landing systems would be great along with a way to fly the lower stage back to base and the upper stage to orbit- without vessels getting deleted as they go out of physics range. Something like FRMS..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PunkRockZoologist said:

Why would it be always-online?

If it requires online to launch at all, I'll be pretty POed, frankly. I get POed when Audible on my phone spins a while checking something online before I can hit play on something I already fully downloaded.

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.