Jump to content

How to make a game interesting without Voxel Map.


cgw
 Share

Recommended Posts


How to make a game interesting without Voxel Map.

Without this, the game sucks I do not see the desire to play in KSP2:
You need to scatter ore around the planet so that it can be to collect and build rockets from this ore in real time on any planet.
And also ore can be obtained from the soil with a "drill".
We put on ore "extractor" and collect ore in "container distributor".
We throw this ore of  "container distributor" to "purifier".
And we get the entire periodic table of chemical elements in "containers" .
1579031355766.png

On each planet, the proportions of ore are different for the "purifier".
On any planet there is any ore.
We distill these elements in "container" , no matter "gas", "liquid", "solid" state. We delete the unnecessary by the "utilizer".
Then from these "container" we craft what we need for a rocket and our character collects a rocket directly on any planet (or spawn from blueprint in the workshop.).
We craft items from any ore, but soft material less durable.
In order to survive on another planet, us need "food. Which should be obtained from "hydroponics", "hydroponics" requires "water", "soil" and "fertilizers" that we get in an ore "purifier".
From the "purifier" we get "water" and "oxygen" to breathe, as well as "carbon dioxide" so that plants have something to breathe.
"Plants" emit "oxygen" that we can collect in "container".
For "plant" life, you need the right temperature, the sun or "LED lamps".
 Also in the "purifier" we get "fuel" for the "rocket". In the "purifier" we get:
Hydrogen + oxygen, oil + oxygen, another fuel + another oxidizing agent.

 

Edited by cgw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DStaal said:

So you want a Life Support system, as well as off-world manufacturing.  Got it.

Yes, but with a periodic table of elements. And the quality of the parts depended on what material this part was made of.

15 minutes ago, DStaal said:

(I don't see how that has any relation to terrain deformation, either way, BTW.)

The previous topic was similar, but it ended up with the fact that in KSP it is unrealistic to use VoxelMap.

Because high speeds are important. And indeed it is.

Edited by cgw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that roughly one third of the resource items you've suggested have a half-life two short to be chemically useful. Of the 80 that are left roughly one quarter have few uses worth noting. So that leaves us 60, oddly roughly the same as Mendeleev's original periodic table.  So many of the table would be resources for the sake of resources. 

So that I have the bead on what you propose 
<Element> "ore" -> mining -> refining -> storage "Element" -> selection of elements + processor -> item.

You have multiple recipes for each item. Each generates the same item of varying quality.

You seem to be generating a system with a fair bit of spreadsheet work to use, and what ma be a total nightmare to balance.

First question is though, what is quality and how will the same items of different quality be different?

The idea itself is not new. What you are proposing was done back in '91 with the game Millenium by Paragon Software, although with a truncated list of elements. But something closer might be Fragile Allegiance by  Germlin Interactive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna quote the dev blog.

For KSP, the pillars are:

Actual-Image-1.png

KSP2 is a game about building and flying cool rockets, so our colonies serve rocket gameplay. We’ve minimized colony micromanagement to make sure that our players are free to build their next great idea and are not babysitting an interstellar empire’s worth of needy Kerbal colonists. We all know that Kerbals just need cool suits, snacks, and something fun to crash.

what you propose is way too complex for the average player to enjoy in a game about flying rockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from what voxels have to do with the periodic table :confused:

I dig up some ‘Ore’ with a ‘Drill’ and put it in an ‘Ore Storage’ before it goes into a ‘Converter’ and makes ‘Other Stuff’TM. Why does that need to change exactly?

As I said in another thread recently about changing fuel types, KSP uses simple and broad terms like liquid fuel and ore because the details don’t matter. I don’t really care if my rocket is made of carbon fibre, carbon steel or carbon-dysprosium-livermorium alloyed long as it goes where I point it and doesn’t explode, so what’s the use in adding a stupidly overcomplicated “real” manufacturing system requiring industrial resource exploitation across multiple planets to get trace amounts of unobtainium tetrafluoride and requiring hundreds or even thousands of parts to get those resources, not to mention that nobody really knows what materials would be needed to store metallic hydrogen in the quantities needed for an interstellar torchship, when I can just use ‘Ore’ to make ‘Other Stuff’TM with a simple set of parts, using names that are easy to translate into various languages, can be understood by almost anyone and allows wide re-use of the same basic resources like liquid fuel being used for both jets and rockets.

We’re getting metallic hydrogen and fusion rockets as stock parts in KSP2 so some new resources will also be added with parts and production methods to match, expect those to be more ‘fusion fuel’ than ‘tritium-helium3 doped with deuterium’. KSP is a game about flying rockets and NOT about simulating a solar system wide mining company.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's suffering from "Second Year Syndrome". In which whatever "new and cool" technique that was just taught can be used to revolutionize <insert field here>, regardless of appropriateness. I've seen it a number of times, and worse, guiding the incoming crops of "wrench washers" at the office. And I've been a victim of it myself.

But right, "The Pillars" <insert epic fanfare>, is another solid counter argument to the proposed idea. While in this case an ideological one, rather than a technical one.

While I expect there to be an expansion of the resource model from the current stock system of one resource to three products in a two stage process, it won't be anything like what the OP proposed. I figure another raw resource and another stage for the new products being introduced.

The abstracted nature of the KSP resource model is attractive. It adds the necessary level of work without the spreadsheet work. Something like Risk vs some of those heavy board wargames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, cgw said:

Yes, but with a periodic table of elements. And the quality of the parts depended on what material this part was made of.

The challenge is to explain how this would improve game play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2020 at 8:47 AM, The Aziz said:

what you propose is way too complex for the average player to enjoy in a game about flying rockets.

 

 

19 hours ago, Kerbart said:

The challenge is to explain how this would improve game play.

 

23 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

KSP is a game about flying rockets and NOT about simulating a solar system wide mining company.

1. No need to make things complicated. Can be made simple. Simple things are interesting.
When few things it's boring.

2. Each ore has its own properties of overheating, bending, brittleness, and melting temperature.
This will make the game fun.

3. Even if the ore count is 30-60 it will greatly brighten up the game.4. KSP seems unfinished and not interesting (it Sadly). Why?
Now all the top-end (namely, sold games) use the "SURVIVAL" genre.
Yes you are the best simulator more realistic in the field of flights, of all
(The truth of the planet is mythical, which is very sad (it's terrible)). 
Interestingly this real solar system.
Mercury,Venus,Earth,Moon,Mars,Phobos,Deimos,asteroid belt,Jupiter and its moons,Saturn and its moons,Uranus and its moons,Neptune and its moons,Pluto and asteroid belt.
Next already fictional mystical planets.
The game really lacks the elements of "Survival" (to become full). 

5.

It's stupid to explore space without "SCIENCE" (biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, geology.)
It's boring to explore space without "SURVIVAL"

6. To make the game interesting.
You need to take emphasis on “SCIENCE” and “SURVIVAL”.
Maybe not as I wrote, a little differently.
But the genre of "SCIENCE" and "SURVIVAL" in games is very popular and very important.

Edited by cgw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, cgw said:

 

 

 

1. No need to make things complicated. Can be made simple. Simple things are interesting.
When few things it's boring.

2. Each ore has its own properties of overheating, bending, brittleness, and melting temperature.
This will make the game fun.

3. Even if the ore count is 30-60 it will greatly brighten up the game.

4. KSP seems unfinished and not interesting (it bothers). Why?
Now all the top-end (namely, sold games) use the "SURVIVAL" genre.
Yes you are the best simulator more realistic in the field of flights, of all
(The truth of the planet is mythical, which is very sad (it's terrible)). Interestingly this is a real solar system.
The game really lacks the elements of "Survival" (to become full). 

5.

It's stupid to explore space without "SCIENCE" (biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, geology.)
It's boring to explore space without "SURVIVAL"

6. To make the game interesting.
You need to take emphasis on “SCIENCE” and “SURVIVAL”.
Maybe not as I wrote, a little differently.
But the genre of "SCIENCE" and "SURVIVAL" in games is very popular.

 


 

 

 

 

 

You- No need to make things complicated.

Also you- let’s use the entire periodic table of elements to make parts with slightly different properties depending on what we made them out of.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, KSP is NOT a mining simulator. While there are mods that use different resources and more complex production systems, these are not part of the core game and are completely optional; I don’t use anything beyond a handful of additional fuel types (hydrogen, methane, uranium for reactors and argon) and most of those were added to the stock ISRU or have a single specific part to make them. 30-60 different ores with different properties is ludicrous.

Have you actually played KSP in career or science modes? Even the stock game includes plenty of different scientific experiments and there are whole mods dedicated to adding even more- from dust analysers to multispectral imagers to long-term studies to particle collider in space- so I don’t see how there isn’t enough science in the game. As for survival, there are a range of different approaches from the simple (Snacks!) to the more complex (TAC-LS) to fully realistic (RO); adding any one of them will prompt cries of “Too hard!” from some players and “Too easy!” from others depending on which type they prefer or even if they use one at all.

There is no point in the developers trying to add a complex production system when it would scare off new or more casual players and modders will do that anyway. KSP2 is being designed to be easy to modify, so the stock systems will be simple and unobtrusive yet still completely functional on their own. We’re getting space colonies and engines that run on nukes, what’s more science-y and survival-y than that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming KSP is about discovering the periodic table inside a realistic solar system, then yes, it has fallen short tremendously.

But what if it isn’t? How is discovering the third or fourth element still interesting? What about the tenth? Knowing there’s still 30-50 more to be unlocked? To me that sounds like a boring grind-fest.

You’re falling for the “realism=fun” fallacy. If I wanted realism, I would not be playing games, there’s enough realism in my daily life. I want games to be exciting, fun, challenging. Putting exciting contraptions into orbit and flying them elsewhere is exciting. Driving around for 30 minutes to find a moonstone is not. And you’re proposing to make that the focus of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Driving around for 30 minutes to find a moonstone is not. And you’re proposing to make that the focus of the game.

In order to please everyone, I propose to make this possible, but not mandatory.
For example, to turn it off and turn off in the settings.
Or it was like a DLC or mod.

Always. someone for, someone against.
Because everyone has their own style of play.

Edited by cgw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Mods, the problem is that they do not always work correctly.
Sometimes there is one version of modA
And in the other version there is ModB
And you can’t install ModA and ModB on one version of the game.
Sometimes they don’t work properly and conflict with other mods.
And this should somehow be taken into account by the developers.
Developed some standards which will adhere to everything for compatibility.
Somehow unite the mods so that they work correctly on all versions of the game.
Therefore, basic things like chemistry should be developed initially by developers so that those who make mods can use these elements in mods.

Edited by cgw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Driving around for 30 minutes to find a moonstone is not. And you’re proposing to make that the focus of the game.

It’s not about looking for stones
The bottom line is to fly to a distant planet (with minimum weight) to dig up ore and make your own base(Rocket Port) there.
Because you cannot or it is very difficult to deliver (bring) the base to distant planets.

Edited by cgw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us are not arguing about your bottom line, just that your mechanism to get there is excessively large and needless complex. Without the requisite factors of cool and awesome to balance it.

It is about looking for stones, or different coloured patches of surfaces, or that place were the thing-o-meter goes blarb rather than ping. But calling it "stones" works better. Unless you have a better mechanism in mind, or just figured on people going all Ichton on the planet to get what they need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2020 at 10:28 AM, cgw said:

Now all the top-end (namely, sold games) use the "SURVIVAL" genre.
...
The game really lacks the elements of "Survival" (to become full). 

...

It's boring to explore space without "SURVIVAL"

KSP is not a survival game. Just because survival games have had a moment of popularity does not mean KSP2 needs to jump on that bandwagon. Indeed, its probably a very bad idea to do so, because there is a lot of competition in that field.

Sometimes its better to go in a different direction.

Consider the history of life on land... we came from fish... our ancestors didn't compete with the sharks to become the best swimmers with the biggest jaws, they went in an entirely new direction, on land, where they didn't compete with sharks and other large swimming predators.

Anyway, it seems KSP2 will have a more complex resource system. They seem to say that we get metallic hydrogen (*vomits a little*) and water for an atmospheric engine, and cesium doped metallic hydrogen for a vacuum engine (*vomits some more*). Then we have orion nuclear pulse propulsion, some sort of fusion drive and collection of something from gas giants (He3?). The endgame torchship is probably an antimatter drive.

All of these will clearly have different fuel types - so KSP2 almost certainly is going to get more complicated in that regard... 

I'm guessing you'll need to go to gas giants for some of the fusion fuel. They may have a few types of metals for constructing ships (and uranium for LV-Ns and Orion drives)... etc

I don't think they'll go full periodic table, nor will they have the ability to craft items out of low or high quality materials... this is rocket science after all. If you're building a nuclear lightbulb, you can't really skimp on the materials, you need a very specific set of properties.

Since they focus on high/future technology, there should only be one construction method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2020 at 1:32 PM, cgw said:


How to make a game interesting without Voxel Map.

Without this, the game sucks I do not see the desire to play in KSP2:
You need to scatter ore around the planet so that it can be to collect and build rockets from this ore in real time on any planet.
And also ore can be obtained from the soil with a "drill".
We put on ore "extractor" and collect ore in "container distributor".
We throw this ore of  "container distributor" to "purifier".
And we get the entire periodic table of chemical elements in "containers" .
1579031355766.png

On each planet, the proportions of ore are different for the "purifier".
On any planet there is any ore.
We distill these elements in "container" , no matter "gas", "liquid", "solid" state. We delete the unnecessary by the "utilizer".
Then from these "container" we craft what we need for a rocket and our character collects a rocket directly on any planet (or spawn from blueprint in the workshop.).
We craft items from any ore, but soft material less durable.
In order to survive on another planet, us need "food. Which should be obtained from "hydroponics", "hydroponics" requires "water", "soil" and "fertilizers" that we get in an ore "purifier".
From the "purifier" we get "water" and "oxygen" to breathe, as well as "carbon dioxide" so that plants have something to breathe.
"Plants" emit "oxygen" that we can collect in "container".
For "plant" life, you need the right temperature, the sun or "LED lamps".
 Also in the "purifier" we get "fuel" for the "rocket". In the "purifier" we get:
Hydrogen + oxygen, oil + oxygen, another fuel + another oxidizing agent.

 

Looks like someone definately plays angelbob in factorio :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to the OP's points of view (although I do suspect they are posted purely to 'provoke the lion', so struggle to take them too seriously). We each have our preferred games and ways to play them, and rightly so.

(Surely the next incarnation of the FIFA game would be much more fun without all that stupid football.  They should turn it into a pitch maintenance simulator, with multiple different types of grass seed, fertilizers and weedkillers.)

If KSP2 is just not enjoyable to you, or the features you want aren't included then just don't play it.  Either 'mod it' to be what you want or play something  else.  I don't  play the current career mode, although I have tried it several times, because I don't like it personally, though many players do seem to enjoy it a lot, and if the KSP2 version is not to my liking I won't play that either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was somewhat disappointed that we aren't getting voxel-based planets because I wanted to realistically mine for resources to expand. A major production operation should scar the land and leave a mark much larger than a hangar. Maybe they can give us a compromise? Perhaps instead of mining vertically with deformable terrain, we can at least have to set up large areas dedicated to mining (like a quarry), with accompanying conveyors, pipes, resource storage and processing etc. Maybe some resources are in surface dust and must be mined with a harvester like in "moon." I'm just hopeful for some depth here, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fear you're looking for KSP2 to be a different type of game than what KSP2 is aiming to be.

I'd imagine something like you're looking for might be possible with mods, but it won't be the base game.

In the meantime, I'd suggest trying Factorio, possibly with Bob's and Angel's mods, as they would likely be able to feed your complexity addiction.

(Careful though, much like KSP, it's often a good way to end up watching the sunrise before you go to bed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2020 at 9:28 AM, cgw said:
On 5/4/2020 at 10:21 AM, jimmymcgoochie said:

KSP is a game about flying rockets and NOT about simulating a solar system wide mining company.

1. No need to make things complicated. Can be made simple. Simple things are interesting.
When few things it's boring.

2. Each ore has its own properties of overheating, bending, brittleness, and melting temperature.
This will make the game fun.

3. Even if the ore count is 30-60 it will greatly brighten up the game.4. KSP seems unfinished and not interesting (it Sadly). Why?
Now all the top-end (namely, sold games) use the "SURVIVAL" genre.
Yes you are the best simulator more realistic in the field of flights, of all
(The truth of the planet is mythical, which is very sad (it's terrible)). 
Interestingly this real solar system.
Mercury,Venus,Earth,Moon,Mars,Phobos,Deimos,asteroid belt,Jupiter and its moons,Saturn and its moons,Uranus and its moons,Neptune and its moons,Pluto and asteroid belt.
Next already fictional mystical planets.
The game really lacks the elements of "Survival" (to become full). 

5.

It's stupid to explore space without "SCIENCE" (biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, geology.)
It's boring to explore space without "SURVIVAL"

6. To make the game interesting.
You need to take emphasis on “SCIENCE” and “SURVIVAL”.
Maybe not as I wrote, a little differently.
But the genre of "SCIENCE" and "SURVIVAL" in games is very popular and very important.

But KSP is a game about flying rockets and NOT about simulating a solar system wide mining company. The game focuses on ROCKET SCIENCE, not EVERY OTHER SCIENCE IMAGINABLE. Aside from that, KSP isn't a SURVIVAL GAME. GENERAL SCIENCE and SURVIVAL may be important to other games and may be important in other niches, but certainly not to KSP and its followers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2020 at 4:28 AM, cgw said:

Even if the ore count is 30-60

Even that is too much. Even Astroneer, which is a survival game, only has about 10-15 resources, and only about 5 ores. I would agree with @Jimmidii and that KSP and KSP2 by extension is about flying rockets and exploring other worlds, not about driving around in a rover with a <insert ore name> detector until it goes ping.

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...