Elthy

Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

Recommended Posts

On 11/6/2019 at 5:42 AM, evandisoft said:

PROCEDURAL PLANETS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

You're not exploring if you've been there 50 times already.

With voxel terrain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it uses Havok acceleration via Unity's DOTS framework

Havok stateful simulation presentation from Copenhagen is just over 40 minutes if you'd like to see why

Otherwise the TL;DR is performance at least 2x plus it's stateful (w/caching) instead of stateless

Edited by NoMrBond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please model Centrifugal force (or the lack thereof) so your kerbals can walk, or float around in IVA. I'm thinking in particular of spinning wheel space stations.

    Thanks,

    Clif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope there is a career mode where financials are as important as science.

 

Sandbox doesn't do it for me, neither does science mode!

 

GIMME THEM FUNDS!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, there are so many things I want I can't even think what to start with! I guess in terms of what could make me into a regular player again, the number one thing would be some kind of career narrative that goes well beyond just unlocking parts by earning generic science and money, and actually involves exploration of the Kerbalverse to find things that advance the game.  The end goal should be something like setting up a base in another star system, using tech that can only be acquired both through completing the regular tree and satisfying some kind of exploration-based in-game quest, preferably one that either comes in multiple random versions or has multiple paths to fulfillment.

Alongside that, the dreary, boring, endlessly repetitive existing system of contracts needs to be strapped into the dustbin of history, mounted on a stack of boosters, and launched into the Sun.  I'm not exactly sure what I would want to replace it with, but for me that's the part of the game that has just never worked.

....(after thinking about it a while) I guess one currency scheme that would work better for me would be to have all the money come from some kind of simulated Kerbin government appropriations process, that awards a base discretionary budget every game year, based on prestige +/- some random factor.  Milestones up to some maximum number at once can be selected a la carte from a comprehensive mission tree, and must be executed successfully before they can be cleared from the slate. Rather than money per se, completion will provide prestige to boost base appropriations and also science that is in one of several categories (e.g. comms, exploration, navigation, EVA, booster tech, etc.) based on what was done, each of which can be applied to only one of several separate tech trees. Developing a specific part within each tech tree will require a specific amount of the right type of science, as well as a development contract that the player awards to one of Kerbin's colorfully named aerospace companies, each of which houses one specific tech tree of related parts. This would allow a far greater degree of flexibility in terms of how a player might choose to develop their program. To make it more interesting, in addition to the base funding, players can request special appropriations, which are awarded at some probability based on cost/difficulty vs. player prestige, prior related achievements, and perhaps even patronage points due to investments in specific companies. Failure to win the appropriation would incur a penalty in both prestige and base budget, limiting the number of times the dice can be rolled. Lastly, on top of all this there will be Easter eggs all over the planets, randomly redistributed at game launch, each of which provides some kind of reward if scanned in the right way or even recovered. Some of these Easter eggs will not only do that, but will unlock a tree of clues that ultimately leads to the quest-restricted alien/future tech, which will be required to build an interstellar ship. As I said at the top, there should either be multiple quest or multiple paths to quest fulfillment, each of which requires leveraging a different type of program development.

Or something like that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, herbal space program said:

 I guess in terms of what could make me into a regular player again, the number one thing would be some kind of career narrative that goes well beyond just unlocking parts by earning generic science and money, and actually involves exploration of the Kerbalverse to find things that advance the game. 

If you mean that when you land on the Mun, you have Gene screaming in a popup window about how this was supposed to fail, then I am totally for it. If you mean that we have legacy missions like Apollo 11 that pops up once you have reached a certain tear, and only the legacy missions receive some sort of narration, then I am ok with it to. I just want to see Jeb fall off a chair during his celebratory parade.

If you mean the Game guides/forces you to land on the Mun with a narrative, then I am against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Xd the great said:

If you mean that when you land on the Mun, you have Gene screaming in a popup window about how this was supposed to fail, then I am totally for it. If you mean that we have legacy missions like Apollo 11 that pops up once you have reached a certain tear, and only the legacy missions receive some sort of narration, then I am ok with it to. I just want to see Jeb fall off a chair during his celebratory parade.

If you mean the Game guides/forces you to land on the Mun with a narrative, then I am against it.

As to the former, I think it would be awesome to have some kind of a cut scene for the first time you achieve each important milestone, but that's not really what I was talking about. As to the latter, I guess that depends on what you interpret as being forced to land on the Mun. I was certainly not suggesting that a moment should come in the game where Gene pops up and tells you that's what you have to do right now. What I was suggesting is that to complete the overarching goal of career mode, there are going to be places you have to visit and things you have to find on many of the bodies in the Kerbolar system, although perhaps not the same ones in every iteration of the game.  These discoveries will unlock things you'll need to progress to key future techs for interstellar travel, but they won't stand in the way of getting any standard techs or getting new standard missions. As far as constraining people to do things in some kind of order, I think the way the current mission tree does it, i.e. not offering you the harder missions until you have completed some of the easier ones and have  the required techs, is not so bad. I would just take the randomness out of it by letting you see the whole tree and select any available  mission from it that is associated with an unlocked node. Unlocking a particular node however will require that you complete certain missions first, like putting a Kerbal into orbit before you can access an orbital rendezvous mission, or landing one on the Mun/Minmus before you get offered any  Kerballed landing missions on other bodies. I guess that's somewhat constraining, but it also stands to reason. Anyway, the main thing I was getting at is the I want to have a reason for going all these different places, preferably one that involves finding something cool/rewarding.

Edited by herbal space program

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, herbal space program said:

What I was suggesting is that to complete the overarching goal of career mode, there are going to be places you have to visit and things you have to find on many of the bodies in the Kerbolar system, although perhaps not the same ones in every iteration of the game.  These discoveries will unlock things you'll need to progress to key future techs for interstellar travel, but they won't stand in the way of getting any standard techs or getting new standard missions. 

So, current science system with legacy missions that gives you MOAR SCIRNCE, or only legacy mission? Not many players want to go interstellar/to Jool just to unlock a orion engine, or unlock new habitats.

Edited by Xd the great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

So, current science system with legacy missions that gives you MOAR SCIRNCE, or only legacy mission? Not many players want to go interstellar/to Jool just to unlock a orion engine, or unlock new habitats.

No, I actually envisaged a revamped science system that involves different kinds of science , applicable to different technology trees like electrical power, guidance, boosters, etc. As far as "legacy", i.e. fixed missions like a Munar landing, in my ideal game those would have cut scenes on success, particularly large rewards in prestige and science, and would unlock a lot of new missions, some of which might be required to fulfill the ultimate game quest. As to going to Jool to unlock an Orion engine or interstellar-worthy habitat, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Making somebody reach the Jool system and land on a body there does not seem like too much to ask to give somebody one of a handful of parts that ultimately enable the main goal. The point of having mini-quests, i.e. contracts should be to get the player to do all the interesting things, not force them to do the same thing over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, herbal space program said:

No, I actually envisaged a revamped science system that involves different kinds of science , applicable to different technology trees like electrical power, guidance, boosters, etc. As far as "legacy", i.e. fixed missions like a Munar landing, in my ideal game those would have cut scenes on success, particularly large rewards in prestige and science, and would unlock a lot of new missions, some of which might be required to fulfill the ultimate game quest. As to going to Jool to unlock an Orion engine or interstellar-worthy habitat, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Making somebody reach the Jool system and land on a body there does not seem like too much to ask to give somebody one of a handful of parts that ultimately enable the main goal. The point of having mini-quests, i.e. contracts should be to get the player to do all the interesting things, not force them to do the same thing over and over.

I doubt if there should be a main goal, after all. This is an exploration game.

However, I do agree that tech points should be divided into various categories, and legacy missions will give much more tech points of all categories. But, daily contracts and using said parts should also give these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 10:42 PM, evandisoft said:

PROCEDURAL PLANETS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

You're not exploring if you've been there 50 times already.

Pun Intended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, herbal space program said:

As to the former, I think it would be awesome to have some kind of a cut scene for the first time you achieve each important milestone, but that's not really what I was talking about. As to the latter, I guess that depends on what you interpret as being forced to land on the Mun. I was certainly not suggesting that a moment should come in the game where Gene pops up and tells you that's what you have to do right now. What I was suggesting is that to complete the overarching goal of career mode, there are going to be places you have to visit and things you have to find on many of the bodies in the Kerbolar system, although perhaps not the same ones in every iteration of the game.  These discoveries will unlock things you'll need to progress to key future techs for interstellar travel, but they won't stand in the way of getting any standard techs or getting new standard missions. As far as constraining people to do things in some kind of order, I think the way the current mission tree does it, i.e. not offering you the harder missions until you have completed some of the easier ones and have  the required techs, is not so bad. I would just take the randomness out of it by letting you see the whole tree and select any available  mission from it that is associated with an unlocked node. Unlocking a particular node however will require that you complete certain missions first, like putting a Kerbal into orbit before you can access an orbital rendezvous mission, or landing one on the Mun/Minmus before you get offered any  Kerballed landing missions on other bodies. I guess that's somewhat constraining, but it also stands to reason. Anyway, the main thing I was getting at is the I want to have a reason for going all these different places, preferably one that involves finding something cool/rewarding.

I've been saying put certain resources on planets that are hard to get to essentially acting as gatekeepers to tech. Make it so you have to harvest metallic hydrogen from jool before you can use it as a fuel for the new engine you've unlocked or something. Then no place is off bounds technically (you can go interstellar on SRBs if you want) but for convenience you must check off certain intuitive reqs. Giving a logical incentive structure to the game compelling you to continue making progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I've been saying put certain resources on planets that are hard to get to essentially acting as gatekeepers to tech. Make it so you have to harvest metallic hydrogen from jool before you can use it as a fuel for the new engine you've unlocked or something. Then no place is off bounds technically (you can go interstellar on SRBs if you want) but for convenience you must check off certain intuitive reqs. Giving a logical incentive structure to the game compelling you to continue making progress

I would prefer one where you can buy said resource for inflated prices, such as 1 quadrillion for an interstellar ship, in addition to your idea.

Give crazy people like me a reason to use cheats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

I would prefer one where you can buy said resource for inflated prices, such as 1 quadrillion for an interstellar ship, in addition to your idea.

Give crazy people like me a reason to use cheats.

Theres already infinite fuel cheats and I suggested you can still get the engine, just need the hydrogen to fill it :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I'm not the first person to suggest it, but I'd like some 'Hard Sci-fi' unlockables.

In particular, I'd love to see a Space Elevator for Late-Game work. Or better yet, have it be a progression. Unlock the basic version, and use it on the Mun; since the low gravity allows for a more breakable cable. Then you unlock some science and get a stronger one for Duma. Then unlock a 'high level' Space Elevator cable for Kerbal.

The one constant obstacle to KSP Missions, and for that matter, to the actual IRL Space Program, is getting off Earth. Once you're out of the Gravity Well, it is literally, all downhill. I can't think of a single thing that would be worth more to Spaceflight than a way to make the Liftoff cheap and fuel-free.

 

Edited by stephensmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, stephensmat said:

The one constant obstacle to KSP Missions, and for that matter, to the actual IRL Space Program, is getting off Earth. Once you're out of the Gravity Well, it is literally, all downhill. I can't think of a single thing that would be worth more to Spaceflight than a way to make the Liftoff cheap and fuel-free.

I can see two reasonable objections to trying to implement a space elevator:

1) If you allow a tech that makes the process of getting to/from orbit on all bodies trivial, it has the potential of gutting out some of the most rewarding learning curves of the game. That would obviously be offset by only offering it very late in the game, but at that point I would expect that doing an orbital rendezvous should not be that hard for players. If it still is, then I feel like something important has been lost along the way. Having said that, if you could somehow plausibly model the physics of such a thing, I'd sure love to play with it! However that leads me to my second objection, which is:

2) Plausibly modeling the physics of such a thing in the game is impossible given the current computational realities.  There is just not enough computational bandwidth to keep track of the behavior of something so big in any reasonable way. It would have to be a fixed entity that is immune to all the physics that makes the game fun. That seems like a pitfall to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, herbal space program said:

I can see two reasonable objections to trying to implement a space elevator:

1) If you allow a tech that makes the process of getting to/from orbit on all bodies trivial, it has the potential of gutting out some of the most rewarding learning curves of the game. That would obviously be offset by only offering it very late in the game, but at that point I would expect that doing an orbital rendezvous should not be that hard for players. If it still is, then I feel like something important has been lost along the way. Having said that, if you could somehow plausibly model the physics of such a thing, I'd sure love to play with it! However that leads me to my second objection, which is:

2) Plausibly modeling the physics of such a thing in the game is impossible given the current computational realities.  There is just not enough computational bandwidth to keep track of the behavior of something so big in any reasonable way. It would have to be a fixed entity that is immune to all the physics that makes the game fun. That seems like a pitfall to me.

#1 I don't think is particularly important - by the time you're ready for a space elevator, launching to orbit is routine busywork.  Especially if it's a choice to get it built, giving players a way to avoid tedium as the game progresses is probably a good idea.  (And there would be new challenges with having it in orbit - particularly since in KSP equatorial orbits are easy and the default orbits you launch into.  If you've got a couple of space stations and decide to build a space elevator, well, first you'll want to make sure those stations don't hit the elevator...)

#2 is probably fatal to it however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Things I would like to be in KSP2:

  1. Sensors(ie. light sensors, touch sensors)
  2. Kerbal customization
  3. Farmer Kerbals
  4. Medic Kerbals
  5. Parts for boats and other aquatic vehicles
  6. Both Making History and Breaking Ground DLCs come with KSP2
  7. 3.75 and 5 meter docking ports
  8. Fission reactors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply need in game this near future engines  (my wishlist):

1. SCRAMJETs (3M22 Zircon, Boeing X-51 Waverider)

2. PULSE-JETS (ok its everywere even at some diy garage projects https://youtu.be/_h6D47Lkfcw

3.  Pulse detonation rocket engine https://youtu.be/2C4Oj9JTCCI

4. Megawatt class nuclear engine (HE Xn coolant, UCNO isotop propellant)   https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ядерная_энергодвигательная_установка_мегаваттного_класса

5. solar/laser sail

--------------------

Objects:

1. comets

2. gas clouds

3.soil/viscous surfaces

4. real solar system in galaxy far far away :)

------------------

Game physics:

1. Life support  (food/water/o2)

2. damage system/ repair system

3. underwater/atm pressure 

4. ground lift effect/ voxel atm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 3:51 AM, Vigoroushydro said:

I really do hope space elevators and space tethers will be a thing? Especially the focus on interstellar.

Tethers are fine for tying kerbals to ships. Space elevator is a bit unnecessary for KSP2, which have rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we can do "railgun," "magnet acceleration," or "Gauss" launches.

 

Super advanced tech to put into orbit/create a space elevator would be cool.

 

I hope it has a satisfying resource requirements, like the Kerbal Snacks mod. Or perhaps an 'advanced resources' option that requires managing food, water, oxygen, etc.  However, I feel for standard gameplay the 'snacks' idea/mod is great. Although, I might have the kerbals actually die without their snacks (unlike the mod, which just lowers rep)... at least, as another option.

 

I hope there will be reasons for the bases we're seeing aside from purely our own thing, though sandbox mode is awesome!

 

I hope that the mile-stone missions will not eat up space in our missions, and will be both automatically taken/queued, and awarded, while other missions are treated separately.

 

I think playing where you have to manage supply chains would be fun (for me)... but perhaps setup the ability for mission control & AI to handle some of the supply runs, after they become routine for certain vessels and stations. The money gets spent for them, the launches happen, and every now and then a problem arises and I as the player have to deal with that problem.

 

For that matter, I hope they do parts failures... and, part of research would be to reduce failure rates and come up with redundancies.

 I know in real life that Aerospikes are not practical because of the level of complexity they have, and the higher the level of complexity the more likely something will break (or sooner something will break). While in Kerbal Aeorspikes are fricken awesome because we don't have to worry about complexity and parts failure.  There are mods that add in random failures, but I'd like to see parts failure as part of stock KSP2. (And, of course, the every present, menu option to broadly adjust failure rates or turn them off.)

However, with enough research, we could (I hope) reach sci-fi levels of failure rates, where things that are impractical in reality and maybe to start out in Kerbal, given enough research points and time, the failure rate on an Aerospike or any engine can be reduced to nearly zero. (However, never actually zero on 'standard difficulty' IMO). So, that an aerospike can become awesome with a 0.001% chance of failure or happening.

Wear and tear. Anther thing about real life SSTO is wear and tear. Rockets, Airplanes, Jets, Automobiles, everything in real life requires maintenance. Maintenance takes time and money, takes resources and man power.  I love making SSTOs in Kerbal and watching YouTube videos of other people's SSTO AND BEYOND! Massive cruise liner ships taking tons of kerbals to Duna and such SSTO. I think its great that we can do that... however, I think it should be difficult to create such things in standard play, especially early on, as they'd require maintenance.  And, then why maintain something when a newer model might be better?

I'm not saying make it so SSTOs are horrible and never used. I'm saying, I hope they become a late-game thing, as opposed to an early-mid-game that they seem to be now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sasuga said:

For that matter, I hope they do parts failures... and, part of research would be to reduce failure rates and come up with redundancies.

 I know in real life that Aerospikes are not practical because of the level of complexity they have, and the higher the level of complexity the more likely something will break (or sooner something will break). While in Kerbal Aeorspikes are fricken awesome because we don't have to worry about complexity and parts failure.  There are mods that add in random failures, but I'd like to see parts failure as part of stock KSP2. (And, of course, the every present, menu option to broadly adjust failure rates or turn them off.)

However, with enough research, we could (I hope) reach sci-fi levels of failure rates, where things that are impractical in reality and maybe to start out in Kerbal, given enough research points and time, the failure rate on an Aerospike or any engine can be reduced to nearly zero. (However, never actually zero on 'standard difficulty' IMO). So, that an aerospike can become awesome with a 0.001% chance of failure or happening.

I like the idea of part failure but I think their should be a set amount of failures/part/game

For example you start with simple SRBs and each should hold a failure rate of something like 1%, after the first failure the fail rate on that part should fall to .5%, after another .25% and after another the part could be considered "perfected" and no longer fails as all the kinks have been worked out. The max failures or fail rates could be tailored to each part dependent on the complexity of said part. 

That said, I dont see star theory implementing part failures into the stock game though but seeing a similar mod would be nice.

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.