Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

On 9/1/2019 at 3:23 AM, magnemoe said:

Yes, it might be simply promo video, the LV-N first stage point to this, anybody sane would used something SRB or an high trust chemical engine.

Given the tech level of KSP2, it should have NTRs powerful enough to lift a vehicle off of planets like Kerbin.

I don't know how much the average KSP player knows about the technology, but it might be worth saying thermal rockets are not inherently vacuum-only like ion engines. With a lower expansion ratio or aerospike nozzle, the LV-N would have a sea level Isp of 300-500. The only (non-radiological) problem with atmospheric use is it having a bad TWR from the reactor mass, but this could be cut down a lot in a future tech setting where we also have fusion rockets.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Five main things. Well, kinda six, one thing has two parts. None of these are a deal breaker in itself, but they could add up, and put me off. 

 

1. If they change the stock solar system and KSC too much and I feel alienated. 

I know these planets and these places. I want them improved, but if I turn up and they have drastically different maps, or are missing key features, I might be a little put off. 

 

2. If career is the same mediocre thing as now, or there is no equivalent to science mode. 

Sandbox does feel a bit aimless, and only good for making contraptions. But career is full of immersion breaking stuff like that tech tree, and game mechanics which hurt the verisimilitude of running a space program. I like to play science so I have a record of what I've discovered, but cheat away the tech tree. 

If they do overhaul career so that it feels more like you are playing as a space program, then that would be great. I'll be all for that. 

 

3. I would like all parts that touch each other to have ridgid connections. No more parts passing through each other at launch due to vessel tree structure issues. This is a complex problem to solve with parts that move, but they should attempt to find a solution. 

4. Working wheels. Please. Players shouldn't have to understand unity limitations to make reasonable rovers. Also, I'd like to be able to still drive when the ground isn't flat. 

5. Better implementation of exploration and science. Ksp1 has been a building and flying game. The planets have long been underdeveloped, as have the reasons for actually going to space, like discovering stuff, and doing experiments. 

Make this a science game, not just an engineering one. This could even be a future expansion. In this area Ksp1 never lived up to its full potential. 

Edited by Tw1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m good with almost anything. The only thing that would be a no-go for me is anything that would require constant micromanagement that would prevent me from using time warp whenever/however I want.

However the devs have already stated they don’t want to hamstring the player into a certain play style, so this won’t happen anyway, so I am good. 

8 hours ago, Xd the great said:

Not being to have kerbals breaking their necks in doing this:

  Hide contents

 

 

I laughed so hard at this, thanks for the post lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2019 at 4:11 PM, 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.

 

All things above  I'm hoping for ;)

Station keeping should be automated, you run out of fuel your satellite decays.

N-body orbital mechanics are so much fun.

Life support slightly simplified - look at USI LS by RoverDude

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 11:25 AM, Talavar said:

Considering there is nothing comparable to KSP anywhere on the market,  I'm pretty sure that we're all aware that "I won't buy this" is almost forced into being an empty threat if you're like the rest of us

Why?  If it does not improve my irritations over KSP1, why should I buy into KSP2?  I mean I can mod KSP1 to what I want, I can even go back to 1.31 if I want and install OPM and couple of modded parts to EACH replace 16-48 regular parts, maybe more, so I can keep the parts count down.
Galileo and other modders make my game super-nice.   Etc, etc, etc.

But that said, they want to sell to us, so I'm hopeful.  Improvements look nice, I have no reasons to opt out yet.
But if KSP2 is worse than KSP1... ppl wont buy.  I don't think it will be, but just explaining that "empty threats" might not be so empty afterall.   

Edited by Francois424
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 6:25 PM, Talavar said:

Considering there is nothing comparable to KSP anywhere on the market,  I'm pretty sure that we're all aware that "I won't buy this" is almost forced into being an empty threat if you're like the rest of us, and need to scratch that "simulation itch".

There's KSP1 -- a mature game with a ton of mods, just getting a port to the latest Unity too. It'll be a hard act to beat actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that would actually stop me playing it would be if the publisher undermined the dev statements til now and decided to go EGS exclusive.

There might be certain features that I like less than others, but we already know it has building spaceships, flying spaceships, and orbital mechanics. That's already enough for me to play it :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

53 minutes ago, Jimmidii said:

The only thing that would actually stop me playing it would be if the publisher undermined the dev statements til now and decided to go EGS exclusive.

 

It will forever be a mystery to me that there are gamers who would pass on a game they love... because of the shop that sells it.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

 

It will forever be a mystery to me that there are gamers who would pass on a game they love... because of the shop that sells it.

 

It's not that I wouldn't want to play KSP, I really, really, would.

Waiting until exclusivity ran out would be worth it though, to avoid my personal details being held by a company with a data protection record as bad as EGS has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Brikoleur I really like your list, and luckily it appears you're going to be safe come release day based on the interviews and dev responses we've seen so far.

To be honest I always play with USI-LS and more realistic ISRU modded in, but I don't believe they should be part of the core game in KSP 2.  They frankly limit exploration (significantly - esp. life support) and force a lot of micromanagement that would be a real drag for most players.  Those of us looking for more 'sim-level' realism can always mod that in without being a killjoy to the playerbase at large.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, my main concern isn't that the game would be harder, it's that it would be more tedious and have more busywork. 

N-body physics might work but to avoid the busywork they would need magic -- i.e., automatic orbit maintenance with no resource expenditure. Life support is... difficult. I really do not want late game to turn into a continuous grind of flying (or even setting up) supply missions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I did notice one of the new added features is "continuous thrusting of unfocused vehicles." This is a big game changer itself. Ion powered ships everywhere! :D

On 9/5/2019 at 4:57 AM, Brikoleur said:

There's KSP1 -- a mature game with a ton of mods, just getting a port to the latest Unity too. It'll be a hard act to beat actually.

 This is true, but with all the new features being coded into the rewritten engine, You'd be missing out on a lot of good new stuff.

Edited by Talavar
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 9:59 PM, Brikoleur said:

N-body physics might work but to avoid the busywork they would need magic -- i.e., automatic orbit maintenance with no resource expenditure. Life support is... difficult. I really do not want late game to turn into a continuous grind of flying (or even setting up) supply missions.

Not true. First, most of the useful orbits are stable enough. You wouldn't need stationkeeping at all if all you wanted was to be in an orbit. Many real satellites don't have it, especially older ones. Stationkeeping is needed in GEO, because it's a single, very specific orbit, and in special orbits such as sun-synchronous. Stationkeeping could consume resources, that would only mean you'd have to either replace your GEO relays periodically, or use relays with so much dV they wouldn't run out for a long time (ion RCS could help a lot here). Unless you're trying to keep a specific orbit, all you need to do is to spin up your satellite so that it doesn't tumble. Some very early sats, like Sputnik series, didn't even do that.

People always act like n-body is something that would make the game incredibly difficult. Truth to be told, going from the pre-1.0 atmosphere to the current one was a bigger change than this. The differences would be the most pronounced in unusual situations such as binary systems, Lagrange points and things like the Jool system, where there's a lot of moons, all affecting each other. It wouldn't make the overall game that much harder.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that everything they said would be in the game is in the game, and everything they've said won't happen won't happen - which is something I'm 100% assuming with no concerns - then the only thing that would keep me from buying it was some crazily egregious UI/UX issues that just simply made the game unfun. Like they decided to eliminate the keyboard as an input device and only use mouse input. Or science mini games where you had to solve a little tower of Hanoi or slidey-picture puzzle or sudoku or something every time you wanted to get a temperature reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2019 at 2:59 AM, 5thHorseman said:

Yeah 1 out of 20 people who are SO INTO THE GAME THAT THEY WENT TO A PRESENTATION ABOUT ITS SEQUEL have not left what is basically the tutorial area

To be fair, I don't venture beyond minmus either. Not because I can't, but because there's no real challenge/incentive/discovery for me to go to any other planets (I've been waiting in Kerbin SOI forever for a planet update. Got my hopes up for breaking ground, but alas, same ol boring planets but now with slightly more grindy science clicking). I fully realize I'm a minority here, but please don't assume we're all too incompetent/undevoted to visit other planets.

Which leads me to OP's question:

If planets are as boring as KSP1, I won't buy.

If career and science are as unimmersive/shallow/grindy as KSP1, Ill think twice before I buy

If excrements is too dumbed down, I won't buy

Edited by Yakuzi
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Yakuzi said:

I've been waiting in Kerbin SOI forever for a planet update

You, me, and everyone else. 
Back in 0.23(?)  there where already threads complaining that the next major planet upgrade was long overdue.
To be honest I was 100% sure we'd have gotten a full analogue of our solar system as part of the BASE game long before we got version 1.0

It wouldn't have made any difference on how the actual science game is played, but it would have added tons of content, some with a greater challenge than just going to Jool (Sarnus-7?  Urlum-4? Plock-5 ?  And very poor solar panel efficiency without stock nuclear reactor).
I'm still baffled it wasn't sold as a DLC.  There's stuff for 4 DLCs if done professionally and correctly.  Each DLC adding the next planet and surrounding moons.  And if as much effort is put into these moons (Or the Pluto analogue, the only non-Gas Giant) as went into the Mün then it would be a real treat ! 
Still hoping after all this time.

Edited by Francois424
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Francois424 said:

You, me, and everyone else. 
Back in 0.23(?)  there where already threads complaining that the next major planet upgrade was long overdue.
To be honest I was 100% sure we'd have gotten a full analogue of our solar system as part of the BASE game long before we got version 1.0

It wouldn't have made any difference on how the actual science game is played, but it would have added tons of content, some with a greater challenge than just going to Jool (Sarnus-7?  Urlum-4? Plock-5 ?  And very poor solar panel efficiency without stock nuclear reactor).
I'm still baffled it wasn't sold as a DLC.  There's stuff for 4 DLCs if done professionally and correctly.  Each DLC adding the next planet and surrounding moons.  And if as much effort is put into these moons (Or the Pluto analogue, the only non-Gas Giant) as went into the Mün then it would be a real treat ! 
Still hoping after all this time.

Oh man, I remember the whole Gas Planet 2 (and 3) idea. Still think that should have been in the game. I even tried making a mod of it (well aware that there were a gajillion other mods for it) but without really having any idea what I was doing I never really got anywhere.

Oddly enough, in-game I've only done a couple of interplanetary missions, just because- even without visiting them- the rest of the stock system was just too well-known, I guess.

The devs said they're going to leave the basic layout of the Kerbolar system untouched, and it isn't really clear if adding to it would count as changing it, but I hope they do add to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Major deal breakers for me include microtransactions (which they said aren't going to be in KSP2) and an always-online requirement.

Everything else is basically a case-by-case issue that would be handled at its time. But those two things are hard pass for me.

Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...