Jump to content

Should the ksp 2 devs change the Kerbol system?


Should they?  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Should they?

    • Yes
      25
    • No, only visual improvements.
      22
  2. 2. If they do, how much? (stuff in parenthesis is a planet pack that does what I'm describing.

    • Same system layout but improved topography.
      23
    • Same system layout but with new planets. (Stock + opm)
      14
    • Same system, but with slightly changed planets and new planets (JNSQ minus the 2.7x part)
      9
    • Radically different system with familiar names and/or planets inspired by ksp1 planets (Alternis Kerbol)
      0
    • New system (GPP, Beyond home.)
      0
    • Real solar system (RSS)
      1


Recommended Posts

Why put a poll up for something that Nate has said that they aren't going to do.

Kerbin is the starting system. The devs want the players to start somewhere familiar and well known. There are benefits for that. One is the older players can jump right in and feel right at home in it. Another is the community can easily help the new players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Why put a poll up for something that Nate has said that they aren't going to do.

Kerbin is the starting system. The devs want the players to start somewhere familiar and well known. There are benefits for that. One is the older players can jump right in and feel right at home in it. Another is the community can easily help the new players.

I just want to know what the community would decide if given the option. I do agree with Nate Simpson though, although another planet is something I personally want. Well ok, I sorta lied, I really think that by preserving the stock system, a lot of good features that they could have added are just not practical with this self imposed limitation (n-body*, small Jool moons, Dres moons, Lindor/Sarnus/GP2.) So I definitely have mixed fealings, but am also definitely on the keep it the same but change it a little and add new stuff mindset. Plus, it seems like squad had plans to improve the system but those never can to be. So maybe they should consider adding more planets in a future update.

*It seems like there adding a hybrid n-body/patched comics system to make Rask and Risk work properly, but I think that a full n-body system will add better gameplay and be less complex to code.

Edited by catloaf
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be okay to add new features to existing worlds.

Axial tilt, for example. Maybe not to Kerbin or Mun, but would it be so bad if Minmus' tilt matched its inclination? Or if Eve was upside down so it rotated backwards?

I don't think any new planets should be added, except maybe one out past Eeloo that they "discovered" between game versions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think they should improve the visual quality of the system itself and maybe adjust the topography of the planets and moons that you can land on. I would like to see the mythical gas planet 2 get added, but, thats an optional addition in my book. What visual enhancements would I like to see? Clouds, weather, city lights, better atmospheric effects, realistic plasma trails on entry <which, the code for it is in KSP, but was never enabled...> so, for that, I feel its beyond time to see it be a thing, but, thats my 2 cents ofc.

 

225907302020

Link to post
Share on other sites

No; keep it as is. They want the Kerbol system to remain the same for commonality between KSP and KSP2, and much of what you're describing can be handled by just making other systems.

But i wouldn't object to free DLC or official "Mods" that were completely optional and implement a version of OPM, or change around the Kerbol system in other ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had they said from the outset that the Kerbol system was different, maybe with new planets, or perhaps essentially the same, but scaled up to say 2x KSP1 size, then I expect most of us would be happy with that, as it is a 'new' game, nit justvan update

But the decision to keep it the same, but with improved planet detail does make sense.  Familiar enough, but with the changed planetary surfaces themselves adding different challenges and experiences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure modders will have figured out how to set a different system as the home system within a few days of release. I'll be happy as long as it looks like it was released in the current decade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO leave the system as is with graphical/topographical improvements. I wouldn't be opposed to new easter egg locations on planets that already exists and some environmental changes, but any large changes I would be opposed to. In short, leave it how it is, just touch it up.

We have new systems to explore, if you want new stuff then go out there and find it... I'll race ya

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to post
Share on other sites

I put yes... with typography.  Have different layout on the Mün as an example, but Kerbin maybe different as the KSC looks to be in a swamp?

It doesn't change difficulty, but some visual interest with variation. And rethought anomalies... wait what will the monoliths have etched into them?

But the moons in each system shold be able to work with a principa mod.  That means the Jool moons need some adjustment in distance.

Peace.

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...