Jump to content

Blocker features in KSP2 -- what would stop you from playing it?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 3/7/2020 at 10:42 AM, kerbiloid said:

It gives a purpose to regular flights and refuelling process. Otherwise you just have an Immortan Jeb in a barrel orbiting around Kerbin.

This makes sense when you have orbital stations across all the planetary system. And several mods do this. And anyway you have to refuel them from time to time, and most of them orbit around airless bodies.
But how could it be boring to supply 1-2 orbital stations.

it would get annoying after the 23rd did do.

14 hours ago, Leopard said:

personally for LS and orbital decay/station keeping stuff there are two easy solutions, the obvious one is a toggle in an options menu, personally the better option is roughly thus:

as the player you are meant to be at the cutting edge, doing things for the first time, exploring the boundaries, you are not micro managing everything though. so lob a satellite up, baby sit it for a while - some sort of alarm when its orbit changes more than say 1km at Ap or Pe, you go back, correct it, once you have done that a few times successfully its now "routine" and can be managed automatically - as long as the thing has fuel - so you can either re-supply or replace over time.

for a space station say you design a fuel launcher, you fly it a few times, once its reliability is above 'x'% again it can be automated - pay the cost and you can have a launch every few months or whatever.

provides a point to developing reliable re-supply craft, without the need to actually fly each and every one of them yourself - also means you could arrive at your space station to find a tanker craft on final approach and just sit back to watch, or find the one docking port is occupied at present, your call is important, please hold..

I would like the sort of difficulty thing the console version used to have but no longer does. you have 'easy', 'medium', hard' and custom, can click one of the first then change it, use it as a basic template - the ability to then save those settings to use again would be nice

yes

Spoiler
On 3/7/2020 at 10:42 AM, kerbiloid said:

Keep away! Keep away!

FAT BOI, did you even see the secret text?

 

Edited by Dirkidirk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the developer story video, the devs said, "KSP 1 is the exploration of our nascent space program up to modern day, and KSP 2 explores the nearish future of what this could be."  This is dangerous territory, speculating about the future.  I like the current challenge of designing and testing lifters and rockets to develop something powerful and useful.  If all you have to do to create a powerful craft is to is slap an Orion drive or some other overpowered engine on, it will kill the game.  Also, if we are able to launch from other planets and moons, it will be a real blocker.  Kerbin is the second hardest planet to get to orbit from.  It makes no sense to launch anything from there if you can build a microlifter to put a large payload interplanetary from Gilly.  I hope the devs don't get too carried away in their addition of near future technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, RoninFrog said:

In the developer story video, the devs said, "KSP 1 is the exploration of our nascent space program up to modern day, and KSP 2 explores the nearish future of what this could be."  This is dangerous territory, speculating about the future.  I like the current challenge of designing and testing lifters and rockets to develop something powerful and useful.  If all you have to do to create a powerful craft is to is slap an Orion drive or some other overpowered engine on, it will kill the game.

This really comes down to how well-balanced science progression will be. If, like in the current game, you can reach end-game tech without even leaving Kerbin's SOI, I agree it will be a problem. Getting obscenely-powerful engines as a reward for conquering the majority of the Kerbolar system, however, I don't have a problem with, as the real challenge will then be in getting to other systems and landing on the new exoplanets, and it doesn't matter so much that it trivialises reaching, say, Eeloo.

Edited by Ashandalar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ashandalar said:

This really comes down to how well-balanced science progression will be. If, like in the current game, you can reach end-game tech without even leaving Kerbin's SOI, I agree it will be a problem. Getting obscenely-powerful engines as a reward for conquering the majority of the Kerbolar system, however, I don't have a problem with, as the real challenge will then be in getting to other systems and landing on the new exoplanets, and it doesn't matter so much that it trivialises reaching, say, Eeloo.

True for career (especially if said engines cost gobs of kerbucks), but for people who spend most of the time in sandbox, it would really limit spacecraft designs and flights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ashandalar said:

This really comes down to how well-balanced science progression will be. If, like in the current game, you can reach end-game tech without even leaving Kerbin's SOI, I agree it will be a problem. Getting obscenely-powerful engines as a reward for conquering the majority of the Kerbolar system, however, I don't have a problem with, as the real challenge will then be in getting to other systems and landing on the new exoplanets, and it doesn't matter so much that it trivialises reaching, say, Eeloo.

I agree. I think the best case for this game would be to be KSP 1 (although a proper career mode), as well as 2. It really needs to explore the same stuff the first did, as well as all the new stuff too.

Edited by Bartybum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Nah. Better pay them with a trip to the sandy shores of lathye

Except since it’s a company vacation, they must research and do science. Little time for swimming. Rip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I want in KSP2:

  • Better, voxel-based aerodynamics
  • Restock-like art
  • Better physics in general
  • More things to do on planets
  • Not super-realistic, with tons of logistics and micromanagement and life support
  • Qol stuff, like stock DPAI, Astrogator, KAC

I don't exactly want advanced future stuff. In my opinion, they should just focus more on the gameplay. For me, stuff like Nertea's Near Future Mods are good enough, not fancy stuff like metallic hydrogen and antimatter. Also,

CJD3RjX.jpg

gjfZLd4.jpg

What is up with the KSP 2 Kerbals!? Clearly the KSP 1 Kerbals look much better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Misguided_Kerbal said:

This is what I want in KSP2:

  • Better, voxel-based aerodynamics
  • Restock-like art
  • Better physics in general
  • More things to do on planets
  • Not super-realistic, with tons of logistics and micromanagement and life support
  • Qol stuff, like stock DPAI, Astrogator, KAC

I don't exactly want advanced future stuff. In my opinion, they should just focus more on the gameplay. For me, stuff like Nertea's Near Future Mods are good enough, not fancy stuff like metallic hydrogen and antimatter. Also,

CJD3RjX.jpg

gjfZLd4.jpg

What is up with the KSP 2 Kerbals!? Clearly the KSP 1 Kerbals look much better.

 

two answers to your problems 

1 dont play ksp2

2 mods

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 8/31/2019 at 11:11 AM, Brikoleur said:

There are a lot of threads about wishlists for KSP2, so I thought it's time for a little negativity: what features or characteristics in KSP2 do you absolutely not want to see? I.e., what is over or near the line of "if this is in, then I'm out?"

I have a bunch of them, most of which fall under the realism/hardcore/simulation feature set:

  • Realistic life support. Screw it up and your kerbals die deep in space; regular resupply missions needed for crewed stations and bases. 
  • Realistic (n-body) orbital mechanics with no magic fudges. I do not want to deal with unstable orbits, orbital adjustments, or resupplying satellites so they can maintain their orbits. If n-body physics are in, then I expect satellites will have magic automation that allows them to maintain orbits with no resource expenditure, as easily as they do with patched conics.
  • Realistic low orbit decay through atmospheric drag (see above).
  • Realistic fuels, meaning ISRU can only resupply a small subset of engines using suitable fuels. I.e. if your engine requires kerolox, you're SOL.

I do not want KSP2 to be a hardcore space simulation. I want it to continue to be a lighthearted space program game with constraints that are loose enough to get creative, with spectacular explosions when things go wrong. Put another way, if it's no longer possible to make orbit in something like this, then I'm out:

 

Respectfully, I don't think I could possibly disagree more. For a sequel about building outposts in space, what's the point if you strip away all the engineering challenge? Without life support, flying to Jool is only marginally harder than flying to the Mun. What's the point of colonizing different planets and moons if you can get "ore" from any of them and turn it into whatever you want? I get it you want something simple and casual, but there's still KSP1 and quite a few of us would rather something new and challenging rather than the same with prettier graphics and a handful of new engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Yep That's a Cat said:

I think that the main problem for me would be my computer performance, so I hope the game doesn't require a beefy computer.

They've mentioned in the past that KSP2 will be better optimised than the original game, and that there will be ways to reduce the graphics and whatnot if your computer can't handle it. So hopefully no worries there.

Edited by RealKerbal3x
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2020 at 2:59 PM, Misguided_Kerbal said:

This is what I want in KSP2:

  • Better, voxel-based aerodynamics

Are you talking about a feature that breaks the air into small tetrahedrons to create a genuine simulation of computational fluid dynamics in real time?

If so... that doesn't exist and is impossible by current standards

On 5/8/2020 at 2:59 PM, Misguided_Kerbal said:

This is what I want in KSP2:

  • Not super-realistic, with tons of logistics and micromanagement and life support

Now I'm even more confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Are you talking about a feature that breaks the air into small tetrahedrons to create a genuine simulation of computational fluid dynamics in real time?

If so... that doesn't exist and is impossible by current standards

Now I'm even more confused

Well, more or less. It's already been done:

What I mean is, I don't want it to be this hyper realistic simulation, with stuff like engine igniter fuel and advanced life support and whatnot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Misguided_Kerbal said:

Well, more or less. It's already been done:

What I mean is, I don't want it to be this hyper realistic simulation, with stuff like engine igniter fuel and advanced life support and whatnot.

Wow, I never realized FAR was based on voxel simulations. wish I knew how it was implemented

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if I posted in this thread before or not, but there are two big things that would absolutely kill KSP2 Stone Dead for me.

1. "Milk run simulator, IN SPACE!" You have to run every single re-supply mission manually. I should be able to run a resupply mission once, and then the computer should be able to repeat it as many times as it needs to to get the supplies from point A to point B. This would make me out-and-out not buy the game, or only ever play it with mods that remove that limitation.

2. "Sure, you CAN go anywhere, but you don't HAVE to". This is a problem with KSP1, you can unlock all the parts without leaving Kerbin's SOI (so Kerbin, Mun, Minmus is enough). I have all these neat places to go, but no REASON to go there. There's nothing pushing me to explore further than that, so I never really do. Also, the engines that really allow you to do big things out at the other planets (LV-N, Vector, ion engine) are so far deep in the tech tree that by the time I have them and can actually start putting together a proper interplanetary mission to explore a whole planetary system in one mission it's just one or two more mun/minmus missions until I can unlock the rest of the tech tree, and once that's complete I lose all motivation to play the game any further.
And that's without even setting up science labs, those just make the problem even worse.
EDIT: As far as what this means for KSP2, I want to be forced to send some form of interstellar mission (even if it's just a fly-by of a distant star) BEFORE I have enough "stuff" to unlock every last part in the game, however they end up handling that.

 

BONUS THING:

I want to have a reason to build research outposts with a science lab in distant locations.

Edited by SciMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it would be the accuracy of storing a vessel location. In KSP the double precision storage was enough when the KSP Solar system was 1/10 the size the real solar system , but if you scale up to real size, it became obvious that the 64 bit accuracy becomes severaly limmiting. The problem becomes even worse if you attemp to travel vast distances between star system. What is needed is either a triple float (92 bit) of true (128 bit) location accuracy.

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly If KSP2 is too much like KSP1 in terms of having big gaps in the partslist and/or a lack of some kind of "scalable" parts I'd feel more inclined to wait on buying it.

If KSP2 has a lot of DLC-locked features I'd be even more inclined to wait on it.

If KSP2 has no mod support I'd basically ignore it.

I'm not terribly fond of late-game stuff generally speaking, but having all the effort just go into stuff like "space colonies" or Nuclear propulsion while not having dedicated rover-testing facilities, some kind of "part-editor", ect.-wouldn't win it many favors in my book.

Edited by betaking
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If KSP2 has too many fuel types to manage and I can't even start an engine, I'm out. This is what I'm talking about:

Spoiler

4wVrs7Q.png

(I don't not like KSPIE, but I can't even get anywhere without failing to start the engine or generator)

I HATE trying to manage many small modules and fuel types. It's probably just me though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...