Jump to content

what gamemodes would you like in ksp2?


what gamemodes would you like to see in ksp2  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. career mode

    • yes similar to ksp1
    • no
    • yes but completely different from ksp1
  2. 2. science mode

    • yes similar to ksp1
    • no
    • yes but completely different from ksp1
  3. 3. war mode(multiplayer)



Recommended Posts

 science mode.....Thanks to all the science bits you get nowadays with mods and legacy mods you can get ridiculously far down the tech tree without launching a thing. So yah that needs a rethink.

 

but then only a kerbal can haul a old fashioned Mercury thermomiter to Joel on a state of the art fusion drive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we of course need a battle royale mode

but seriously I would like a space race like competitive mode with objectives you have to reach faster than for example the krussians or kamericans (lol KUSA)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

we of course need a battle royale mode

:joy:

2 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

but seriously I would like a space race like competitive mode with objectives you have to reach faster than for example the krussians or kamericans (lol KUSA)

That's what I was thinking as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Master39 said:

A progression mode made from scratch with no legacy from either KSP1 career or science.

So much this. Plus a dedicated sandbox mode, even if it's limited to the Kerbol system. I would want play with the new rockets and systems before getting in a progression type of play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would honestly prefer something like the mission editor in Making History to work with multiplayer, so if we want to create multiplayer races, CTF, etc kind of games, it'd be easy enough to set up. I don't think that's something that Intercept should be trying to hard-code into the game, as we really have no idea what will and will not be fun. With a mission editor, community will figure it out incrementally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of money in career mode, just use resources. Economic cost of a part has no meaning when building said part on a colony on another planet. Using resources would also make players explore kerbin for resource locations using planes, ships, and rovers. That would help fill out the early game and ensure Kerbals invent the wheel before landing on the moon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TLTay said:

Economic cost of a part has no meaning when building said part on a colony on another planet.

Are you suggesting using slave labor? :0.0:

On a serious note, though, adding currency as one of the resources creates more opportunities to balance gameplay and progression. You can always come up with a story justification to it, and you're just handicapping your design by throwing it away as one of your tuning knobs. I think currency costs should stay. But the way you generate income should be more related to progression than mindless grind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t realy have a problem with the science and career mode but more of its a got a lot of weirdness.

Space tourism.... um yah in reality a lot of its been subsidized by the ultra Rich, and the rest bluntly being a handful of individuals who basicaly make a living out of selling people dreams and Jpegs who have FAR less to show for there  collective efforts than a certain ex developer from Digital anvil, ( note for the record I’m still supporting Star citizen, and unlike some of the guys I’m referring to at least they not sitting on a  series of trusts and escrows that let him skim the interest in case they have to pay there investors back while  doing little more than selling there JPEG dreams while claiming there not a scam because look the money is still there and if you wish I can have it wired back to you as soon as I contact the bank(and they can. When you have a account that draws interest on no risk national treasury bonds they have in the bank, a pool of “investment trust” of money over 100 million for example that works out to over million dollar annual income.) 

 

ok let’s be honest I’m venting about a lot of “ mega dream “ developers. I’ve dealt with too many people who fell for there pipedreams not realizing what they were doing was subsidizing a R&F lifestyle on a dream project to nowhere.

science missions, most of them yield almost no science, due to previous science missions.

Too many contracts are basicaly Launch random crap to orbit , occasionally orbits are not easy to to do economically, and that’s not counting random contracts  like a satelight contract to Eeloo that required a 72,000,000 x 56,000,000m orbit that it tree to give me.

Edited by [email protected]
Added missing text
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TLTay said:

Instead of money in career mode, just use resources. Economic cost of a part has no meaning when building said part on a colony on another planet. Using resources would also make players explore kerbin for resource locations using planes, ships, and rovers. That would help fill out the early game and ensure Kerbals invent the wheel before landing on the moon.

I don't like the Idea of having to mine resources on Kerbin during the early game, but you got the point, money in KSP2 are redundant if implemented just like in KSP1, replaced by better gameplay. Grinding satellites to upgrade the VAB? What about mining resources to build a new one, with a launchpad on the roof, on the Mun?

 

5 hours ago, K^2 said:

On a serious note, though, adding currency as one of the resources creates more opportunities to balance gameplay and progression. You can always come up with a story justification to it, and you're just handicapping your design by throwing it away as one of your tuning knobs. I think currency costs should stay.

Asolutely this, no longer a central point of the gameplay but a supporting currency on the sideline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Currency huh

How much, and who actually gets the money, costs the surface base constructed on site in another solar system? I get the resources, they're being used but money is a replacement for goods trade.

Also I may not be aware of space economy (I get how it works in real life, the mission costs include research, development, human resources, maintenance, and for ISS, resupplying, and Kraken knows what else) but out there where everything is being built off homeworld? Kerbonauts don't get paid, nor I have to pay the mission control for controlling the rover/resupply ship. Where the money goes? Currency no longer matters once you're controlling an independent colony. Putting a "placing this building will cost 59205593 funds, do you wish to proceed?" window in BAE makes no sense. Why would it extract money from main budget?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Aziz said:

How much, and who actually gets the money, costs the surface base constructed on site in another solar system?

Presumably, you have Kerbals actually overseeing construction, and presumably, they are still getting paid. It's no different to how you still want to be paid on a ship that's at sea for months at a time. Sure, you're not going to spend that money on the ship, but it doesn't mean that you signed up to do the work for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, K^2 said:

But the way you generate income should be more related to progression than mindless grind.

one way to do it would be having a budget that you get [every amount of time] depending on your reputation. one other alternative would be renewable money. we know we will have trade routes so that could be a thing. in early game it wouldnt be traderoutes but maybe launching sattelites with gps antennas that earn you money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jastrone said:

depending on your reputation

That can be a part of it. But it'd be good to have some of it achievement-based. We know that we will have supply routes. These can work in reverse as well, bringing materials back to Kerbin and generating income. It would be yet another reason to build colonies. Something like this can work for contracts-like system as well. If you needed to do the "position satellite" type contract once, and then you could set it up as a "route", it'd be far less annoying, but also gives you reward based on your performance. The cheaper you manage to make the launch, the more profit it will be generating for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, K^2 said:

 

On a serious note, though, adding currency as one of the resources creates more opportunities to balance gameplay and progression. You can always come up with a story justification to it, and you're just handicapping your design by throwing it away as one of your tuning knobs. I think currency costs should stay. But the way you generate income should be more related to progression than mindless grind.

Yes.  I think 'funds', especially in the early game stages, can play a valuable role. 

For example, funds can be a relatively easy way to convert one resource to another by selling an excess stock of commodity A  and use the proceeds to buy some B and C.   Or you can speed up development and construction times by hiring more staff, for which you need funds to pay wages.

I'm not saying I think KSP 2 will, or should, be a detailed economics centric game.  Ultimately it comes down to the implementation, but I do think funds can have a useful role to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think multiplayer should be headed off till release. If the game is almost done physics and parts wise and all these delays are just so you can play with your friends then I'll be pretty mad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I concede that money can play a valuable role early game to exchange one resource for another. 

My concern first focuses on gameplay: How can we extract the most fun and enjoyment out of every ounce of the game for as many players as possible? It was noted by Squad that many players never leave the home planet SOI. One focus to fix that was tutorials, but perhaps that is also something that doesn't necessarily need "fixing" if the player enjoys Kerbin-bound operations. I think resource location and extraction can add a large incentive to explore and enjoy the home planet, as long as it's not grindy. Nobody wants a grind-fest here. Locate resources > Place survey stake > Add extraction facilities that you can choose to build yourself if you want > Resources automatically (or using supply route missions) delivered to KSC for use > Can expand resource area into launching base. I don't see any reason to treat Kerbin differently than any other planet. Make it about exploration and engineering challenges, not about grinding through it. Have a monthly resource/money income and have the player look around for more. I'm sure that will be a key point of gameplay on other worlds. Once you find and set up extraction, you are free to forget about it. Each planet can have its own "wallet," and in order to transfer resouces from one to another, you set up a supply route. Maybe for extremely rare resources you could have players scrounge around a bit for scatter in hard to reach locations or something.

Edited by TLTay
edit
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Don’t be so sure about that..... And no the sale of electronics is not unusual.

While I stand corrected - thanks, by the way - this only reinforces my point that salary to workers on far-away projects should be an important part of operational budgets for colonies and orbital shipyards. So it makes complete sense that building stuff not on Kerbin should still involve funds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, K^2 said:

While I stand corrected - thanks, by the way - this only reinforces my point that salary to workers on far-away projects should be an important part of operational budgets for colonies and orbital shipyards. So it makes complete sense that building stuff not on Kerbin should still involve funds.

No problem. Not sure how extensive ship stores are on other Navy’s.

 

the ones in the us navy evolved in part from the navy wanting to eliminate Bumboats ( small harbor boats that would show up that  were basicaly floating  “independent”, “convenience”stores on a small boat selling overpriced items to crewmen, not the Singapore tourist boats of the same name, although those appear  to have originated from bumboats durring and or shortly after WW2. The US. Navy started selling items like Tobaco and eventually small items and personal grooming items onboard ship. The Gedunk and snack bar more or less became part of it due to prohibition, and the shops expanded when they realized that things like spare battery’s  for personal cassette players and replacement cassette players were better off in the ships store than cramed in the sailors trunk or locker given increasing time on station.

oh and before anyone asks. Yes I know the star bucks on the Regan is next to the bowling  ally.

It’s kind of a joke. It’s a space that looks like you can fit a bowling lane in it. If you just took out the pipes, conduits, and that big block of what I assume is hydraulic equipment at one end of it, it is just the right size for one. Bascaly it’s a Jeffries  tube I can walk upright in. And at the time you could get a Starbucks coffe on the other side of the bulkhead.

 

but you can get Starbucks just next door to it. Unless the moved it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...