Will KSP2 Have More Than One Extra Star System?

[Dientus]

On 4/24/2021 at 9:31 PM, Linky said:

Personally guessing there will be at least 10 star systems at launch, could see upwards of 15. We probably haven't even seen 20% of the planets that weren't in the original, and we know of 8-ish new planets and moons (that is without going back over everything they have released, though). My hope is that they will add a new star system each year.

That could be a thing, ATS adds a new state to the game available as DLC and as new states come out, older ones drop in price. I could get behind that if the pricing were similar.

[Guest The Doodling Astronaut2]

The golden amount of systems for this game IMO is like 6-7. Because quality is important. And remember how many planets 7 systems could be. That's like 35 planets +moons!

while it took me 6 months to visit all of kerbol, most of those where small bodies. Imagine all the planets and how long those will take to visit!

[wpetula]

16 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut2 said:

Because quality is important.

Quality over quantity. Always.

Unfortunately, making 10+ quality solar systems with 6+ planets each (some with moons) would extend the release date into the next decade.

[mcwaffles2003]

On 4/26/2021 at 6:38 AM, Master39 said:

I just think that a lot of games like Elite or NMS spoiled us with seemingly huge maps that are functionally useless, ruining our perception of how really valuable and grand a single handcrafted solar system can be.

Only the Kerbol system but made with the same planetary tech of the Pol show and tell is already an order of magnitude more places to see than what we have in KSP1, in that video I've already seen a lot of places that I want to visit and build bases on, for a moon that I've never even visited once in KSP1.

I can barely immagine that level of detail not for "just" one solar system but for multiple ones, and it will probably take years for me to explore even just one new full system that isn't the starting one, let alone 2 or 3.

I just don't think that investing in more than that would give any meaningful return, on the contrary, I think it would be counterproductive.

I understand what you are saying but having so few systems limits the range of system types that can be presented and appreciating the macro features of a system to me matters as much as the micro features body to body in a system. Personally, I'm hoping to see things like binary star systems, young ring world systems, systems with a red giant or blue hypergiant, etc...

Not to mention not all systems have to have a large swath of planets. Some could lack any planets or have only gas giants/ice worlds that cant be landed on.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I understand what you are saying but having so few systems limits the range of system types that can be presented and appreciating the macro features of a system to me matters as much as the micro features body to body in a system. Personally, I'm hoping to see things like binary star systems, young ring world systems, systems with a red giant or blue hypergiant, etc...

Not to mention not all systems have to have a large swath of planets. Some could lack any planets or have only gas giants/ice worlds that cant be landed on.

I'm not looking forward exotic stars at all, it's all about where I can land, a system with a bunch of procedurally generated featurless icy balls it's completley useless for me, even if it something exotic like a black hole as its star.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I understand what you are saying but having so few systems limits the range of system types that can be presented and appreciating the macro features of a system to me matters as much as the micro features body to body in a system. Personally, I'm hoping to see things like binary star systems, young ring world systems, systems with a red giant or blue hypergiant, etc...

Not to mention not all systems have to have a large swath of planets. Some could lack any planets or have only gas giants/ice worlds that cant be landed on.

M O D Z

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

I'm not looking forward exotic stars at all, it's all about where I can land, a system with a bunch of procedurally generated featurless icy balls it's completley useless for me, even if it something exotic like a black hole as its star.

A case of to each their own then I suppose. I would love the chance to orbit  a red giant having its atmosphere being sucked to an accretion disk around a neutron star or white dwarf

5 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

M O D Z

Surely there will be modded systems but I hope for some dev flavor.

 

Also, once again, it might not take that long to create a world once the development environment for world creation is in place, so why not make many?

[Incarnation of Chaos]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

A case of to each their own then I suppose. I would love the chance to orbit  a red giant having its atmosphere being sucked to an accretion disk around a neutron star or white dwarf

Surely there will be modded systems but I hope for some dev flavor.

 

Also, once again, it might not take that long to create a world once the development environment for world creation is in place, so why not make many?

Because developer time costs money, and once the initial milestones are completed for a task there's likely very little time between that and them moving to the next job down the tracker/list/flowchart. If they just sat around cranking out systems, KSP2 would never be complete.

Giving the community the tools to do so allows the best of both worlds, without endless procrastination sinking the project. Plus just from what KSP2 has shown so far, i honestly can't see what more you'd want?

KSP1 had one stock system, with a few bodies that even had atmospheres. KSP2 has binary systems, ocean worlds, the original Kerbol system....

And I'm surprised they even had that much tbh

[Lewie]

On 4/25/2021 at 12:29 PM, PlutoISaPlanet said:

I still think the game will lauch with 5-10 systems. Why have interstellar and have no where to go?

But realy, considering we already know of 8 celestial bodies, I won't br shocked if their are more then 5 systems.

Honestly, 10 systems seems like a bit much. We don’t even know how many celestial bodies each system will hold. All we can do is speculate at this point, but I will repeat what Doodles said-there will most likely be a larger focus on quality>quantity. We’ve seen some of the terrain work! It’s incredible. I think it is safe to say that most of us would rather have expansive landscapes to traverse with an array of monstrous creations and build massive colonies then to repeat the flag planting and ‘been there seen that’ style of ksp. The graphical overhauls have been wonderful, absolutely beautiful...but there is very little to do once you get there. The journey, not the destination is the experience. Cheers!

[Guest]

I will be a bit disappointed if all we get are boring main sequence single star systems with a bunch of orbiting rocks and gas balls. Keeping my fingers crossed for pulsars, black holes, white dwarfs, close-orbiting binaries... or at least one of the above.

[Guest]

On 4/30/2021 at 5:27 PM, Brikoleur said:

I will be a bit disappointed if all we get are boring main sequence single star systems with a bunch of orbiting rocks and gas balls. Keeping my fingers crossed for pulsars, black holes, white dwarfs, close-orbiting binaries... or at least one of the above.

I simultaneously agree and disagree, as I said we'll interact mostly with planetary bodies and that's were I want all the focus to be and at the end of the day any exotic star will result in either a fancy skybox when landed with all the side effect ignored or a gameplay mechanic so localized and convoluted that it just keep away most players. 

But I also want to see at least something unique in some system, just not a local circus of exotic stars neither a bunch of hastily developed and/or procedural boring systems just to make a bunch of strange systems look more realistic.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I simultaneously agree and disagree, as I said we'll interact mostly with planetary bodies and that's were I want all the focus to be and at the end of the day any exotic star will result in either a fancy skybox when landed with all the side effect ignored or a gameplay mechanic so localized and convoluted that it just keep away most players. 

I’m a sucker for scenery so I’ll be pretty happy if it’s just little more than a fancy skybox, although I should hope the bodies are actual bodies rather than just pixels on it. I wouldn’t expect any fancy mechanics with any of them, apart from a horizon on pulsars or black holes that kills you if you get too close. If radiation effects are in, that could lead to some interesting complications.

For me at least, feeling and imagination are a big part of the appeal of KSP, and if I go interstellar, I am really hoping for a place that looks and feels alien. The Sun and the Moon are comforting constants in our lives; the reason I like Jool so much is that these things are already different and unfamiliar, with the gas giant dominating the sky and the Sun visibly smaller. So another type G star would be a bit of a letdown.

[Nirgal]

Really curious to see how many star systems we get to explore!

Will we be able to travel within a certain range of say 10 light years? How many stars would that be? And if we can travel 10, why not 20? And so on. 

Or will there be only a single 'cluster' of stars around Kerbol, with anything beyond functionally impossible to reach. I think this is the more likely scenario given the arbitrary limit imposed above, even more so considering a smaller number of systems would require top notch celestial bodies - which we have seen in the past 2 show and tells.

I would prefer a mix of highly crafted, beautiful and fascinating worlds like we've already seen, and 'filler' worlds / systems with more generic but plentiful systems. This would give us a grand sense of scale as well as highly polished environments.

[Wubslin]

On 4/26/2021 at 5:40 PM, The Doodling Astronaut said:

The golden amount of systems for this game IMO is like 6-7. Because quality is important. And remember how many planets 7 systems could be. That's like 35 planets +moons!

while it took me 6 months to visit all of kerbol, most of those where small bodies. Imagine all the planets and how long those will take to visit!

What's gonna happen when they're the same old lumpy rocks every time? It's been said before by the devs that having simply "larger and larger delta-v requirements" doesn't make for diverse or engaging gameplay.
I think it would be better to launch with two or three systems, and then Intercept can actively recruit the efforts of modders to create planet building tools, and even canonize their efforts as the game updates periodically.

[Minmus Taster]

They could just release the game with a few systems and then slowly add more with new updates, remember KSP 2 will probably be like KSP 1 in that regard, every few months/a year of two there will probably be new update with different planets.

This is what happened with KSP 1 btw.

It could be very possible KSP 2 will be released early and move into beta only after a couple years after it becomes available but there is already a thread about that

[Ultimate Steve]

On 4/24/2021 at 7:19 PM, Dr. Kerbal said:

Wow. Imagine a grand tour in KSP2.  And there will probably be a lot of names to remember. 

This is my new goal. I don't care how difficult is lol, or how much it makes my computer cry, I will do my best to do this!