Jump to content

Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

Elthy

By Elthy
in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

worir4

worir4

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yeah some thing like from Stormworks would be great. it would allow sequencing and sensor based systems. So long as it is easy to do and to learn it would be a good addition.

Edited by worir4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerbolExplorer

KerbolExplorer

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

Another +10 for Stormworks logic...  That is very nearly the perfect sandbox game. 

100% agreed imagine if they add something like LUA(a programing lenguage in the game that allows you to besacly program whatever you want in the game)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CreepyD

CreepyD

Posted
Posted

Modding!
At least the game we already have gameplay-wise (not missing half of it like The Sims does each iteration).
But yeah, the same plus what they're promising (interstellar.. not fussed there), base building, we'll see.
Just modding so we can fix or improve anything wrong with it :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
XLjedi

XLjedi

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, KerbolExplorer said:

100% agreed imagine if they add something like LUA(a programing lenguage in the game that allows you to besacly program whatever you want in the game)

Someone had a LUA script for the game Asteroids and assigned it to some bricks in stormworks to make a functional Asteroids arcade machine that you can put in the crew quarters of your ship.  Others have used it to create their own navigation radar terminals... it's pretty amazing what can be done in that game.

I've created logic for automatic transmissions, strobe lights, fuel gauges, RPM readouts, ignition modules, vector-based relative movement controls, auto-pilot navigation, auto-hover controllers...  It's awesome to have that level of control.

Edited by XLjedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerrit

Gerrit

Posted
Posted

I'd love to see:

  • Live support (Of course you can also do this with mods, but directly implemented in the game it works better. Also for example muscle reduction in space can be simulated.)
  • Simulated rockets in the background. E.g. for ion engines or automated shuttles (programmed with kOS or similar). In addition, it would no longer be necessary to slow down old rockets so far that they crash onto a planet, but it would be enough to slow them down until they enter the atmosphere.
  • Great physics and heat problems. On the one hand at re-entry (who is too fast is punished by the atmosphere), on the other hand in space by the sun (radiators and heat management).
  • Remote controlled units with time delay.
  • Stage recovery or even the possibility to refuel directly at Kerbin.
  • And of course: science!!! And all the other great things you can find in KSP. ;)

I believe in you, that you make the best game even better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BananaBread

BananaBread

Posted
Posted

i hope the multiplayer includes a mode similar to elite dangerous where a lot of people are active in the same instance so factions etc can be created, but also having the option to have a private server so you can play with your mates with nobody else.

I wonder if this happens will we get a knock off Fuel Rats? The Gas Rats maybe :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheFrizz

TheFrizz

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am excited. It looks like they are advertising some improvements (better visuals, multiplayer) that are strictly improvements. Especially if they can improve terrain fidelity at higher draw distances. However beyond that, I think the developers have a distinct challenge ahead of them. Some of the obvious goals for KSP are in conflict with each other:

  • scientific realism
  • fun gaming
  • an endgame experience with infinite options to explore
  • ease of learning

One of the hardest parts of delivering great software is figuring out what to take away and how to simplify. I think this is especially relevant for KSP because the end-game experience is so great, the biggest challenge is the early learning curve. Here's what I'd suggest:

Players start with one "New game" option followed by a difficulty selection which adjusts things like re-entry heating comm-net, etc. From this new "career mode" game, players can switch to "creative mode" at any time, which unlocks all technology and gives unlimited funds, but the assumption is that new players get funneled down the career mode path. Eliminate separate tutorials. Instead offer them as paid contract missions that Gene Kerman offers guidance during the missions. Structure the first contract missions in a way that introduce the game slowly. Missions to reach certain altitudes at certain velocities force players to learn how to throttle engines, or add aerodynamic control surfaces. Other missions can cleverly introduce subsequent knowledge in bits and pieces.

New technology should be purchased for $$$ and not with Science. As the player becomes more confident at solving the intro missions, they should be able to build a Scientific Research building that allows them to view academic requests for Science. Various scientific results can be sold in this marketplace. Like any marketplace, selling too much of one thing brings the price down. Sometimes, there are external events that cause some aspect of research to be more valuable, for example a hot movie about Duna has been released and the public is starving for great Duna Science. This causes players to plan their own missions (instead of just accepting pre-baked contract missions). Additionally, instead of scientific apparatus all being the same with different names. Each instrument needs to be carefully designed to force the player to achieve different challenges as opposed to just wacking on a thermometer, goo, whatever. For example the atmospheric sampler should only get a result if it remains non-landed, within the atmosphere, within a stable altitude range, and continuously powered for X seconds, forcing players to deliver space planes to remote bodies. Or seismometers that need to be deployed in pairs with a set distance between them with certain elevation requirements in order to record the deltas between them. But the real reason is to force the player to successfully rove (or perhaps twin lander with precise landing). However the mission to X planet that captures all science in one go should be an epic accomplishment as opposed to an obvious no-brainer by just adding all the sensors.

The UI needs to be simplified for new players and be made more gamey without losing its scientific education. I think the philosophy should be that UI elements get added to the HUD as relevant technology parts are added to the vehicle. Altitude requires a radar altimeter, docking alignment needs a docking sensor. Fuel transfer between tanks needs a fuel pump. A new player won't see these UI elements and get overwhelmed because they haven't unlocked or added those parts to their craft yet and advanced players get the complexity and level of control that they want.

I love the idea of space colonies. I think the new team is on the right track with these. Needing to deliver supplies and nurture these colonies and then eventually getting construction and launch facilities on them is a great way to transition into an end-game state for advanced players. But I think part of the challenge here is introducing some kind of thing that requires the player to do too many repetitive launches. I think the game can learn from MechJeb and others by eventually giving players access to a black box flight recorder that can record control and replay those controls on future launches to reduce tedium. I think this would work best with an improved atmospheric model that adds turbulence and other unpredictable elements to launches that reward well designed craft. I think some kind of simplified KOS scripting could be added later in the game to further enhance advanced player experience. I think the philosophy here should be, the player is expected to do it by hand and fail a lot. Eventually figure things out and start to succeed and prove they can do it reliably, then the game should naturally reward them with some convenience that takes the tedium out of the task. Perhaps some new technology nodes in the tree can only be initiated with $$$, but to complete them require some number of achievements. So for suicide burn altimeter computer, the player needs to "collect data" on three successful landings before the R&D completes.

Anyways, I'm really excited. I wish the new team well. And even if it doesn't live up to expectations, I'll buy it anyways as my way of thanking everyone for taking the risks on a niche franchise.

Edited by TheFrizz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Klapaucius

Klapaucius

Posted
Posted

Very excited. I'm cool with it just being a bigger and better version of what went before.  The trailer is brilliant (and really funny)

 

I have many wishes, but mostly I just want them to keep the physics as real as possible. Despite the little green people, it is a simulator game, not a space opera.  Like @Elthy in the original post, I hope that with interstellar exploration we don't venture into science fiction.  If we are able to send small probes to a Proxima Centauri equivalent over 20 years, okay. If we are using warp drive and zooming through wormholes to visit star systems thousands of light years away, not so okay. 

That stuff is for mods if people want it, but not for the base game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AngelLestat

AngelLestat

Posted
Posted (edited)

I only hope a good builder method without the need to deal with several hundreds of parts.  That should be the main concern in a building game.

Why we need like 30 tank shapes and not even that is enough because it limits a lot our creativity and possibilities? 
Why we need different wing parts?  or decouplers, or aerodynamic cones, etc.

Without a procedural part approach means:
1-wasting time searching a part between hundreds and would not be the right thing we need. 
2-extra memory requirement (performing issues) to deal with all possible parts, one texture and object file for each one instead scaling or changing texture. 
3-It limits our creativity and possibilities
4-Our creations look uglier, like frankenstein. 

So I wish they try for KSP2 an approach more similar to simplerockets 2.

Procedural tanks and shapes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhLlrS4-1wU

Procedural Engines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71jG9LLmObg

Procedural landing gears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wct2x00pBeI

Some examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVm8J03PpYc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQcvZVmtnug

Without at least scale, texture and shape selection for parts, I would not bother to waste a minute of my time in the next KSP2. 

 

Edited by AngelLestat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Klapaucius

Klapaucius

Posted
Posted
Just now, AngelLestat said:

I only hope a good builder method without the need to deal with several hundreds of parts.  That should be the main concern in a building game.

Why we need like 30 tank shapes and not even that is enough because it limits a lot our creativity and possibilities? 
Why we need different wind parts?  or decouplers, or aerodynamic cones, etc.

Without a procedural part approach means:
1-wasting time searching a part between hundreds and would not be the right thing you need. 
2-extra memory requirement (performing issues) to deal with all possible parts, one texture and object file for each one instead scaling or changing texture. 
3-It limits your creativity and possibilities
4-Your creations look uglier, like a rocket frankenstein. 

So I wish they try for KSP2 an approach more similar to simplerockets 2.

Procedural tanks and shapes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhLlrS4-1wU

Procedural Engines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71jG9LLmObg

Procedural landing gears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wct2x00pBeI

 

 

Some examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVm8J03PpYc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQcvZVmtnug

Without at least scale, texture and shape selection for parts, I would not bother to waste a minute of my time in the next KSP2. 

 

I see your point, but I am going to disagree. I like the Lego aspect of KSP.  Simple Rockets and Simple Planes are great and do what they do well, but for me the challenge of coming up with viable designs based on a set part list is part of (if not THE main) appeal for me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AngelLestat

AngelLestat

Posted
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

I see your point, but I am going to disagree. I like the Lego aspect of KSP.  Simple Rockets and Simple Planes are great and do what they do well, but for me the challenge of coming up with viable designs based on a set part list is part of (if not THE main) appeal for me.  

Yeah, is hard for me to understand the point of those who like the lego approach in comparison  to the liberty and performance of simplerockets.
What if you want to include a new fuel type?  you need 30 more tank parts?  This also mean more development work for each new thing developers wants to include or parameters they want to change, in a procedural approach you just change an equation, in a lego approach you need to change the parameters of each individual part. 
I know that many people agree with you, but personally, I can't stand it.  I like to design and test things with full liberty, it makes me feel good to design something that "maybe" it could have work in the real world, at least in concept.  
it was the main reason why stop playing KSP years ago, even with mods trying to approach the procedural method.
Relax, something tells me that they would keep the Lego approach :( 

Edited by AngelLestat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pschlik

pschlik

Posted
Posted

As cool as ground bases and space docks are, I sure don't think I could handle all the micromanaging that would go into a huge undertaking like building a Project Daedalus. To be honest, manually managing 20 launches (while simultaneously doing things on other bases and messing with rovers and creating new designs....etc) to send up the required bits and bobs to build one of these absolute units is not my definition of fun...but if there were automation features to handle such deliveries for me in the background, I might get one built before the end of my PC's life. Not to mention, the actual thrusting cycle for the Daedalus would be so impractically long that it would just dominate gameplay if there was no way to have it do its job in the background. So either automation or thrusting during timewarp sounds like a must have.

My pipe dream of this would be that having a highly upgraded mission control would allow you to take a craft with advanced enough probes/high enough level pilots (basically making this a late-game feature only) and give it orders to go somewhere (eg: rendezvous with something/land somewhere/get to a certain orbit). Then the automation would figure out a set of maneuvers to do whatever's requested with moderate efficiency, and activate if the craft has the delta V (and TWR, if takeoff/landing is a consideration) to do the job. As you go along doing other things, this craft would be accurately simulating the set of burns, use of fuel, and acceleration all at appropriate moments, even in time warp. To keep motivation for manual flight, I would not expect use of advanced maneuvering like gravity assists, leaving such fuel-saving maneuvers to the player. But that is just the pipe dream. I'd be plenty happy to see even manually defined maneuver nodes being automatically completed as I'm doing something more interesting like flying some fancy SSTO.

After all, the space program is a team, why do I have to tell everyone what to do? (I'm looking at you, Gene.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwable

kwable

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

I only hope a good builder method without the need to deal with several hundreds of parts.  That should be the main concern in a building game.

Why we need like 30 tank shapes and not even that is enough because it limits a lot our creativity and possibilities? 
Why we need different wing parts?  or decouplers, or aerodynamic cones, etc.

Without a procedural part approach means:
1-wasting time searching a part between hundreds and would not be the right thing we need. 
2-extra memory requirement (performing issues) to deal with all possible parts, one texture and object file for each one instead scaling or changing texture. 
3-It limits our creativity and possibilities
4-Our creations look uglier, like frankenstein. 

So I wish they try for KSP2 an approach more similar to simplerockets 2.

Procedural tanks and shapes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhLlrS4-1wU

Procedural Engines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71jG9LLmObg

Procedural landing gears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wct2x00pBeI

Some examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVm8J03PpYc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQcvZVmtnug

Without at least scale, texture and shape selection for parts, I would not bother to waste a minute of my time in the next KSP2. 

 

I also disagree with this I LOVE the lego aspect of KSP the mods for procedural stuff is nice when you need it but the lego aspect makes a complex game faster passed and just more fun for me. I think procedural parts should be optional

 

Edited by kwable
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...