Jump to content

KSP2 should have no optional features


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dale Christopher said:

Guaranteed the game will be options. Better start preparing yourself now :P

[citation needed]

They did already say they're dumping Science mode, and they've said that their intent is not to dumb things down but to provide better on-ramps. That's encouraging and fully compatible with getting rid of most of the options plagueing KSP1. 

(FWIW I won't be disappointed by options qua options. But if it ends up a flaky mess with half-baked systems, half-realised potential, and options that invalidate entire gameplay systems or significant swathes of the tech tree, then yeah I will be disappointed.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I'm hoping that multiplayer will have a mod check making sure everyone has the same mod pack to attend (similar to factorio) and it would probably be on the modders to tell people if their mods are MP appropriate. Though I will say, that craft I showed was 100% stock (Outside KJR). 

That would assume that the MP is going to be a system where small groups of 2-5 can queue themselves for a matchmaker universe.  The problem is two-fold.  First, it requires Take-2 or PD would actually be willing to acknowledge the work(s) of some modders and put checkboxes and such out there for a compatible match-making type MP system.

Based on what I've seen and heard however... that's just not the Take 2 business model.  I suspect, if they have public servers, the format will be more of an MMO universe where folks can come and go.  Along with some recurring payment options... most likely in the form of:  paid content/mission updates 2 or 3x a year, possibly offer a "Season Pass" option.  I wouldn't rule out some form of virtual currency either.  This would all fall inline with the Take2 playbook.  (I listen to their earnings calls.)

So, your craft may be denied entry into the MMO universe (if that's the route they go) based on the modifications that KJR makes to the underlying structure of your craft file to "weld" the parts together.

I think mods are going to be allowed, but very possibly limited to solo career play. 

Edited by XLjedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Hmm, I wonder what the problem could be?

Stock Autostruts are basically dumb, and are only placed based on a couple adjacent parts. The strength of any joints is also entirely based on the diameter of them, so this makes any connections to adapters or non-tankage much weaker. KJR looks at the entire vehicle, and uses additional struts to bulk up joints so they act the way they should.

1 minute ago, XLjedi said:

That would assume that the MP is going to be a system where small groups of 2-5 can queue themselves for a matchmaker universe.  The problem is two-fold.  First, it requires Take-2 or PD would actually be willing to acknowledge the work(s) of some modders and put checkboxes and such out there for a compatible match-making type MP system.

Based on what I've seen and heard however... that's just not the Take 2 business model.  I suspect, if they have public servers, the format will be more of an MMO universe where folks can come and go.  Along with some recurring payment options... most likely in the form of:  paid content/mission updates 2 or 3x a year, possibly offer a "Season Pass" option.  I wouldn't rule out some form of virtual currency either.  This would all fall inline with the Take2 playbook.  (I listen to their earnings calls.)

So, your craft may be denied entry into the MMO universe (if that's the route they go) based on the modifications that KJR makes to the underlying structure of your craft file to "weld" the parts together.

Even C&C had a punkbuster that allowed players to join if they had the exact same mods, and that was over 10 years ago. Also even if they had a "MMO-verse" that wouldn't prevent a LAN or Custom Server client from existing, so really we can't call it on modded Multiplayer just yet.

Also i don't really care about MP myself, so bring the mods on!!!

And any system that is looking for mods would prevent anyone with even the slightest deviation from joining; my C&C analogy for instance? Me and my friend kept getting mismatch errors even though we had the EXACT same mods loaded (Destructive Forces 1.4), and after about 30 minutes of troubleshooting it turned out it was a SINGLE LINE modification in my ini. files that the game was seeing and deciding to terminate the game. So if they implement a MMO-verse, and it's as strict as you think it'll be; then anything besides stock would be a no-go.

All of this was over LAN btw, as Gamespy had shut down years prior to this. Hell of a game though once we got it working though xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 @Brikoleur made an interesting point in that many options could be bad, and the rationale made some sense, especially from the testing and bugginess angle...

But, from a users perspective, could the issue be as much to with designing and documenting the options menu system properly?  If the options/settings menus are sensibly arranged and well documented, the 'Oh, I never knew about that' type issues could be eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Incarnation of Chaos  I'm speculating a bit...  but from the investor chats, on the business side... 

Strauss would have a lot of splainin' to do if this franchise launched a public MP server without a profit motive.  I'm betting on unmodded MMO, but they are about to open the floor at PAX East...  so maybe we learn something new today?

Edited by XLjedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be extremely surprised if the multiplayer component is anything like a MMO. That would be a huge undertaking.

I expect it'll mean co-op missions. Maybe you can have your career or sandbox, invite someone to join, and give them a craft to fly, then do stuff. Or perhaps even simpler than that, just pre-baked missions. 

A mod check would be absolutely necessary for that -- multiplayer is either pure stock only, or with some way of guaranteeing all participants have the exact same mods. Otherwise it will break a lot.

[snip]

Eh, being pre-emptively disappointed is like paying interest on a loan you might not even have to take. I prefer to be optimistic, and to push for characteristics I would like the game to have. If it sucks, it sucks, then I'll just stick to KSP1 and move on.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brikoleur said:

I would be extremely surprised if the multiplayer component is anything like a MMO. That would be a huge undertaking.

Ummm… no...  it would be piggybacking on every other title that T2 currently has online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pandaman said:

But, from a users perspective, could the issue be as much to with designing and documenting the options menu system properly?

Layout and documentation is never as good as a clean design. It also only addresses one of the negative consequences, the bad kind of complexity for the user -- it still leaves the difficulties with testing/debugging and designing gameplay as constrained by siloed-off, self-contained, optional systems that have to work together in any combination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

@Incarnation of Chaos  I'm speculating a bit...  but from the investor chats, on the business side... 

Strauss would have a lot of splainin' to do if this franchise launched a public MP server without a profit motive.  I'm betting on unmodded MMO, but they are about to open the floor at PAX East...  so maybe we learn something new today?

The primary issue is that KSP gameplay doesn't lend itself to a massive persistant world; COOP makes far more sense from a gameplay standpoint. And it would take far less work, as you can simply use the same "Galaxy" for COOP as you would singleplayer. While a MMO would require something much larger both for players not to bump into each other too soon, and for people to actually want to play MP.

It wouldn't be the first time T2 Games ignored the best for a franchise and shoehorned in mechanics that didn't fit, but KSP isn't one of their money makers. And they don't seem to be trying to make it a mainline franchise, but like you said we'll know more at PAX.

Let the Snack betting commense!

7 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Layout and documentation is never as good as a clean design. It also only addresses one of the negative consequences, the bad kind of complexity for the user -- it still leaves the difficulties with testing/debugging and designing gameplay as constrained by siloed-off, self-contained, optional systems that have to work together in any combination.

Completely agreed here; as an example Linux has wonderful documentation and community help. But anything beyond the extremely basic stuff you're completely on your own, and even an experienced troubleshooter can end up spending weeks debugging something on Linux that would "Just work" on windows.

On the flip side there's plenty that the low-level access and documentation allows on Linux that you couldn't even think about doing on Windows, so it's a tradeoff just like everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But anything beyond the extremely basic stuff you're completely on your own, and even an experienced troubleshooter can end up spending weeks debugging something on Linux that would "Just work" on windows.

LOL my experience is exactly the opposite, when Windows doesn't work it doesn't work in some really baroque, esoteric, and poorly documented way, when Linux doesn't work there's always a rational reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

LOL my experience is exactly the opposite, when Windows doesn't work it doesn't work in some really baroque, esoteric, and poorly documented way, when Linux doesn't work there's always a rational reason.

Well in my experience it comes down to "At least on Linux it's fixable in the first place", but yeah Windows has some really interesting ways of doing things.....

Registry, AppData, LocalRoaming......

Linux just has a text file somewhere.....

Also don't even get me started about Windows and Drivers....

I guess i was thinking from more of an "Average user standpoint", but forgot that's really not who i'm talking to. Oh well; i shouldn't ramble anymore about this because it's getting OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

Based on what I've seen and heard however... that's just not the Take 2 business model.  I suspect, if they have public servers, the format will be more of an MMO universe where folks can come and go. 

Of all the speculations about multiplayer this is the most unrealistic one, and that for 3 reasons:

1) it doesn't suit KSP, management-simularion came are more suited to small, private, 5-10 friends servers, not giant systems with matchmaking and MMO-like instancing.

2) after all the pushback with forced multiplayer and monetisation systems making big titles flop all the big publishers are in damage control mode, trying to rebuild some of their lost face.

3) they didn't choose not to dumb down the game because they love us, they did it because you can't remove orbital mechanics from KSP and people needing that dumbing down will never understand orbital mechanics anyway. This game will have a bigger audience thanks to being better developed and marketed and thanks to the increasing interest in space and in hard sci-fi, but it will never be mainstream enough to fuel a MMO or a matchmaking system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Layout and documentation is never as good as a clean design. It also only addresses one of the negative consequences, the bad kind of complexity for the user -- it still leaves the difficulties with testing/debugging and designing gameplay as constrained by siloed-off, self-contained, optional systems that have to work together in any combination.

I definitely agree with you there. 

It's just that I have seen many cases of poor (or non existent) documentation for software options...  like an option to toggle or set a level for a given feature or setting with no explanation of what said feature is, or does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Master39 said:

This game will have a bigger audience thanks to being better developed and marketed and thanks to the increasing interest in space and in hard sci-fi

I hope so!

Better tutorials and on-ramps would also help a lot. They will have to work hard to shed the EXTREMELY HARDCORE FOR TURBONERDS ONLY stigma that KSP carries among the general gaming public. 

I'm quite convinced that KSP2 could appeal to a lot more people just by being friendlier and easier to get into, without being dumbed down at all -- in fact once you learn it, KSP is no harder than, say, Civilization or SimCity or any of a number of other highly popular, moderately to highly complex games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brikoleur said:

I hope so!

Better tutorials and on-ramps would also help a lot. They will have to work hard to shed the EXTREMELY HARDCORE FOR TURBONERDS ONLY stigma that KSP carries among the general gaming public. 

I'm quite convinced that KSP2 could appeal to a lot more people just by being friendlier and easier to get into, without being dumbed down at all -- in fact once you learn it, KSP is no harder than, say, Civilization or SimCity or any of a number of other highly popular, moderately to highly complex games.

Considering i came from the 4X and RTS spheres myself i would agree again; all KSP is really missing is more layers. And if they build the Colonization and Resource systems correctly then that could provide 2 additional layers with sufficient depth to hook more of that community for good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brikoleur said:

in fact once you learn it, KSP is no harder than, say, Civilization or SimCity or any of a number of other highly popular, moderately to highly complex games.

Add this to the complete lack of games portraying space travel in a believable way (Space Engineers, No man's sky, the upcoming Starbase, most of them seems to be set into the planet-building pocket universe of Magrathea) to the increasing popularity of movies like "The Martian" and shows like "The Expanse".

Hard sci-fi is basically missing from videogames if not for KSP itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if I don't wanna have to deal with G-limits, plasma blackout, atmospheric heating or comm networks? What if I just wanna have some fun in my own way i.e. sit back and create something ridiculous?

To be honest, it sounds to me like you're trying to dictate how others should be playing the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Of all the speculations about multiplayer this is the most unrealistic one, and that for 3 reasons:

1) it doesn't suit KSP, management-simularion came are more suited to small, private, 5-10 friends servers, not giant systems with matchmaking and MMO-like instancing.

2) after all the pushback with forced multiplayer and monetisation systems making big titles flop all the big publishers are in damage control mode, trying to rebuild some of their lost face.

3) they didn't choose not to dumb down the game because they love us, they did it because you can't remove orbital mechanics from KSP and people needing that dumbing down will never understand orbital mechanics anyway. This game will have a bigger audience thanks to being better developed and marketed and thanks to the increasing interest in space and in hard sci-fi, but it will never be mainstream enough to fuel a MMO or a matchmaking system.

I believe you didn't think they would have engines anywhere near the speed of light either, correct?

My guess is based purely on what I see T2 do as a business.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XLjedi said:

I believe you didn't think they would have engines anywhere near the speed of light either, correct?

My guess is based purely on what I see T2 do as a business.  

They wont?

We have Orion, Dadelous and a Kerbstein drive confirmed; none of these are breaking 20% C without extreme effort on the player end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XLjedi said:

I believe you didn't think they would have engines anywhere near the speed of light either, correct?

Assuming you're talking about all the near/mid-future engine types we're gonna get, they've very obviously been added to address the time issues with launching otherwise multi-decade missions while trying to develop a space agency back at home.

It's a very different situation than multiplayer. I agree with OP, MP is likely gonna be small local servers. MMO just wouldn't work for KSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Incarnation of Chaos said:

They wont?

We have Orion, Dadelous and a Kerbstein drive confirmed; none of these are breaking 20% C without extreme effort on the player end.

Which of those is the "Late Game Holy Grail Cat 4 Screaming White Death Engine" ?   

(as if I'm the only one who will install like 24 of these on my star destroyer)

From what I saw, and the types of orbits contemplated...  speed is simply a function of distance.  The further away a planet is, the faster you go.  How (if) they adjust the curve as it approaches C will be interesting to see.

Edited by XLjedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

What if I just wanna have some fun in my own way i.e. sit back and create something ridiculous?

Then I believe I have found a kindred spirit.

29 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

What if I don't wanna have to deal with G-limits, plasma blackout, atmospheric heating or comm networks?

I think you will find that none of those limit your ability to create something ridiculous the least bit. 

29 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

To be honest, it sounds to me like you're trying to dictate how others should be playing the game.

duly noted

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bartybum said:

Assuming you're talking about all the near/mid-future engine types we're gonna get, they've very obviously been added to address the time issues with launching otherwise multi-decade missions while trying to develop a space agency back at home.

It's a very different situation than multiplayer. I agree with OP, MP is likely gonna be small local servers. MMO just wouldn't work for KSP.

I don't see literal MMO working either... can't have 1000's in orbit around Kerbin at the same time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XLjedi said:

Which of those is the "Late Game Holy Grail Cat 4 Screaming White Death Engine" ?

From what I saw, and the types of orbits contemplated...  speed is simply a function of distance.  The further away a planet is, the faster you go.

That would likely be the "Kerbstein" drive since it's based on the Expanse

As for the latter; it's more about three factors.

Distance,Time and Turn-Around Time

Distance & Time are linked at the hip, as the only way to cover more distance in less time is to go faster, but you can trade time to go a further distance if you can't accelerate or don't want to accelerate well past relativistic speeds. "Turn-Around Time" is basically when you decide to halt acceleration and begin decelerating, this effectively halves your transit speed since you're eliminating most of it before getting to the destination.

So essentially you can go further by either not stopping at the destination at all (Or using alternative deceleration methods), Taking more time, Or using raw energy to get there faster.

All of these are plausable wihout needing to go well into signifigant fractions of C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

I believe you didn't think they would have engines anywhere near the speed of light either, correct?

Uh, no?

I quoted Nate Simpson itself when he said "no warp drives, no magic tech", we know about Daedalus, Orion and "Krepstein" since the first week after the reveal, as we knew about brachisticrhone trajectories and background acceleration.

The new video hasn't added anything new in that regard that wasn't already stated in the original interviews.

 

Anyway I don't see what this has to do with the points I made about the multiplayer not being an MMO 

 

6 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

Which of those is the "Late Game Holy Grail Cat 4 Screaming White Death Engine" ?   

They were describing torch ships so I would say that's the "Krepstein" and if you read The Expanse the books reminds you of the very deadly plume behind the ships quite often.

(Fun fact I finished book 7 yesterday, when KSP2 was released I didn't even know the franchise)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...