Jump to content

What do you NOT want in KSP 2


MKI
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Jack Mcslay said:

I don't think that rules out contracts, only that their scope would need to be reworked. You'll definitely start off landing an Mün and Minmus, and eventually reach contracts where you are tasked with launching a massive ship from Bop or populating a base on Rusk with 1000 Kerbals

Contract are there to mimic systems that in KSP1 don't work. 

  • Why building a base? Because a contract gave me money to do so.
  • Why mine a resource? Because a contract.
  • Why bring 12 Kerbals to Mun? Contract!

In KSP2 those bases, resources and Kerbals are going to be useful for your program, the base may be a mining base or a fuel refining plant, those resources the fuel and the Kerbals the workers needed or the seed of a new Mun city, all to build toward bigger goal like having a launch center filled with fuel and resources on Mun to continue your journey from outside Kerbin's Well.

There's going to be a lot of missions to build your infrastructure outside Kerbin, if they just put random contracts like in KSP1 to grind the money to do the actually useful missions it would just double the number of missions and launches you have to do to reach your objective. 

If they're going to stay without feeling like soulless grind they need an overhaul so radical that at the end of the day the only thing remaining will be the name "Contracts" if they decide to reuse it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Contract are there to mimic systems that in KSP1 don't work. 

  • Why building a base? Because a contract gave me money to do so.
  • Why mine a resource? Because a contract.
  • Why bring 12 Kerbals to Mun? Contract!

In KSP2 those bases, resources and Kerbals are going to be useful for your program, the base may be a mining base or a fuel refining plant, those resources the fuel and the Kerbals the workers needed or the seed of a new Mun city, all to build toward bigger goal like having a launch center filled with fuel and resources on Mun to continue your journey from outside Kerbin's Well.

There's going to be a lot of missions to build your infrastructure outside Kerbin, if they just put random contracts like in KSP1 to grind the money to do the actually useful missions it would just double the number of missions and launches you have to do to reach your objective. 

If they're going to stay without feeling like soulless grind they need an overhaul so radical that at the end of the day the only thing remaining will be the name "Contracts" if they decide to reuse it.

And why would it have to be that it only gives money? In KSP1 they're also good to get extra kerbonauts on the cheap; currently you can also get rovers and satellites although they're not particularly useful.

They could just as easily make contracts as a means to gain access to entire space stations and bases

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jack Mcslay said:

And why would it have to be that it only gives money? In KSP1 they're also good to get extra kerbonauts on the cheap; currently you can also get rovers and satellites although they're not particularly useful.

They could just as easily make contracts as a means to gain access to entire space stations and bases

Contracts in KSP1 are a mean to interact with a system that doesn't exist. To help you pretend there are other companies with other goals out there, that bases and station have an actual use, and so on. That's the core behind that system.

Yes, you can change that, but they you'd have something completely different and at that point any guess is a valid one. 

 

The whole career system in KSP1 is very crude and simple, I don't think there's anything worth salvaging from it, if they start from scratch maybe then they'll discover contracts were actually a good idea or, maybe, they find out that a "project" system works better or that we're better off with a tree of curated and fixed missions.

There are plenty of interesting options but all of them start from acknowledging that KSP1 progression systems, science and career, have to be scrapped to make space for something better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Roostergod said:
14 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Rushing the game would only mean more bugs on launch. Do realise that people behind the scenes are actually taking time to develop the game and that being forced to hit a deadline would only get KSP 2 to approach just how broken KSP 1 is. I believe preventing further delays is the opposite of what everyone else wants. We just want a game that's had time to be developed.

versus it releasing in 2025 with just as many bugs

Versus releasing it in 2025 with virtually no bugs and a few other features and optimisations that a 2022 release would not have allowed for. Fixed it for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2021 at 1:38 AM, Master39 said:

Contract are there to mimic systems that in KSP1 don't work. 

  • Why building a base? Because a contract gave me money to do so.
  • Why mine a resource? Because a contract.
  • Why bring 12 Kerbals to Mun? Contract!

I'd like to toss my opinion out here. Remember, I said opinion, so all those who disagree with me, that's fine. Anyhow, in the early days of KSP (think version 0.18), there was a lot of buzz by newcomers into the game who were upset about the lack of goals KSP had. I, for one, never had to have prompts on how to play the game; I could easily make up my own missions and my own goals. But for some, they needed something other than "here's a bunch of rocket parts, go build!" Remember, the early versions of the game were a free-build sandbox games.

Goodies and Easter eggs were added in .18 (maybe earlier, but I wasn't playing before then). We had a desert temple, crashed UFOs, a dead Kraken, Mün arches, and monoliths, etc. to go find. And again, for many, these were enough incentives to fling Kerbals out in all kinds of directions and in all kinds of contraptions of death. But for many, that still was not enough incentive to spark the imagination, so career and science modes would be added with a wonky tech-tree (that made no sense to me) to help folks manage their way through the game. Sure, it has always seemed like an afterthought, because it was! And sure, it probably could have been implemented a lot better, but considering that by that point the game had already begun to evolve beyond the original programmer's vision, so this development was beyond the vision, too. The way I see it, no harm, no foul.

The way I see it, the contracts were added for those who get stumped and can't figure out what to do next some way to think themselves into creativity. :)

With KSP2, I do hope they keep the classic sandbox mode. I don't need other's objectives to complete because I can think of hundreds of ways to torture myself, ahem, set my own goals, design my own missions, and then execute them. (I have a thread where I have begun to share some of my mission challenges). But I also am fairly sure we will see a tech tree and a career mode which will not only make a lot more sense, but will add to the complexity of the game. It's not an afterthought this time and many of the development team are hard-core and dedicated Kerbalnauts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

With KSP2, I do hope they keep the classic sandbox mode. I don't need other's objectives to complete because I can think of hundreds of ways to torture myself, ahem, set my own goals, design my own missions, and then execute them. (I have a thread where I have begun to share some of my mission challenges). But I also am fairly sure we will see a tech tree and a career mode which will not only make a lot more sense, but will add to the complexity of the game. It's not an afterthought this time and many of the development team are hard-core and dedicated Kerbalnauts.

After over 1000 hours, I am playing my first career. It has been a good experience because it is forcing me to try a few different things with limited resources, and it is upping my game.  But I imagine this will be the one and only time I play it in KSP1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'sandbox' mode that arbitrarily excludes big chunks of the game experience and doesn't let me test/design/fly under self-imposed limited progression conditions.

If I start a sandbox game, I actually want the full experience at my fingertips, to ignore/start/pause/stop/include/exclude at my whim.

So:

  • Don't force-start me into missions, but do leave the triggers in there for me to walk up to and start whenever I choose to (ie. why is Mission Control locked in 'sandbox' mode?).
  • Don't force me to upgrade buildings to get all the functionality, but do leave me the option to choose starting levels so I can self-impose limitations if and when I feel like it (ie. why are all facilities forcibly fully upgraded in 'sandbox' mode??).
  • Don't force me to grind XP and funds just to get certain equipment, but do leave me the option to choose my R&D level so I can build and test with limited set of parts (ie. why is R&D locked in 'sandbox' mode???).
  • SAS modes, kerbal experience levels, etc etc.

No limits or disabled functionality on sandbox mode this time, please. A real sandbox mode.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

No limits or disabled functionality on sandbox mode this time, please. A real sandbox mode.

There is a real sandbox mode.

Start A Career Save and use the Alt+F12 debug/cheat menu to give yourself whatever and whenever you want.

You can quicksave/quickload to do diffferent R&D levels and set of parts and etc.

Edited by Serenity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said this before, as have others even in this thread, but I really hope not to see microtransactions or DRM in the game. Nate Simpson has said there won't be, so we can likely rule it out, but it bears repeating.

I also don't want to see framerate exponentially decrease with the number of fuel tanks feeding an engine, that seems like a good thing to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

A 'sandbox' mode that arbitrarily excludes big chunks of the game experience and doesn't let me test/design/fly under self-imposed limited progression conditions.

If I start a sandbox game, I actually want the full experience at my fingertips, to ignore/start/pause/stop/include/exclude at my whim.

So:

  • Don't force-start me into missions, but do leave the triggers in there for me to walk up to and start whenever I choose to (ie. why is Mission Control locked in 'sandbox' mode?).
  • Don't force me to upgrade buildings to get all the functionality, but do leave me the option to choose starting levels so I can self-impose limitations if and when I feel like it (ie. why are all facilities forcibly fully upgraded in 'sandbox' mode??).
  • Don't force me to grind XP and funds just to get certain equipment, but do leave me the option to choose my R&D level so I can build and test with limited set of parts (ie. why is R&D locked in 'sandbox' mode???).
  • SAS modes, kerbal experience levels, etc etc.

No limits or disabled functionality on sandbox mode this time, please. A real sandbox mode.

 

Good ideas. I'd like to add that I would appreciate some mechanism to record science even in Sandbox mode.   I can come up with my own goals and reasons, but I would like the science to be assessed as it is in Science and Career mode. Ie. I get X amount of science the first time I land on the Mun and safely return etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the people who are wanting no barriers or limitations in sandbox box should prepare themselves for a genies version of your wish.

Nate has specifically said that they don't want people in sandbox spoiling the discovery of new star systems and planets for other players. So on initial release you shouldn't expect to see or or pull up any information on the new star systems and planets. (That doesn't mean you can't discover and travel to them. You just won't have info on them initially.)

Hopefully some time after the release and players have started discovering the new star systems and planets, they will patch out the block and you can have the free reign to look at everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Serenity said:

There is a real sandbox mode.

Start A Career Save and use the Alt+F12 debug/cheat menu to give yourself whatever and whenever you want.

You can quicksave/quickload to do diffferent R&D levels and set of parts and etc.

I know (*). Point is, it shouldn't be necessary to 'manufacture' it from a career save - it's how sandbox mode should've been by default. KSP2 gets the chance to correct this.

 

(*): I've been using and recommending this workaround for a while now. :wink:

On 4/20/2016 at 2:21 AM, swjr-swis said:

Almost all you mention can already be done with a custom career: the only part missing in the settings is a higher starting science maximum to allow unlocking the entire tree from the start.

You can do this yourself by editing the savefile (or from within the game, by using the cheats menu) and giving yourself the science points needed.

On 1/26/2020 at 3:18 PM, swjr-swis said:

I pretty much stopped using the sandbox game mode because of this. It's not a real sandbox if you can't tweak ALL settings at will.

So I got used to creating my own 'sandbox+' mode:

  • Start a career game, with all settings as I want them.
  • Immediately create a 'clean' save at the start of time, so I can always return to a pristine start by loading it.
  • Call up the cheat menu, add the required funds/science/rep, and cheat or manually add in the things for the particular sandbox I need at that moment. Make a new save with those settings, so I can revert back to this at will.
  • Optional: load the pristine save to return to a clean start situation.
  • Rinse and repeat to create however many different 'sandboxes' I foresee using. This 'career' game is now my sandbox, in which I can call up whichever specific constraints I wish by loading the corresponding named save.

Those saves also retain many of the difficulty settings you change through the esc menu, so even that can be customized at will. All within a single 'save', through the magic of multiple savefiles.

 

But yes, I agree, it would be very welcome if the sandbox mode directly allowed us to pick and choose tech tree and facility level limitations, among many other settings.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a bit disappointed with most of the KSP2 related posts.

KSP has many flaws, no one denies that.

But there is no need for this overhype crusade that makes KSP look like an empty shell and a broken game.

KSP2 will do this, KSP2 will do that, KSP2 will be the game that we so desperately need.

Hopefully it will be a great game but why all this effort to diminish KSP just to build up more unhealthy hype.

Wait, be patient, don't succumb to this need to have the next great thing.

I truly hope everything goes well and KSP2 is great, just...ugh...this tendency lately everyone saying KSP is so bad, KSP2 will fix it.

Overhyping never ends well and bashing the original game its just not fair.

Edited by Serenity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Serenity said:

I am a bit disappointed with most of the KSP2 related posts.

KSP has many flaws, no one denies that.

But there is no need for this overhype crusade that makes KSP look like an empty shell and a broken game.

KSP2 will do this, KSP2 will do that, KSP2 will be the game that we so desperately need.

Hopefully it will be a great game but why all this effort to diminish KSP just to build up more unhealthy hype.

Wait, be patient, don't succumb to this need to have the next great thing.

I truly hope everything goes well and KSP2 is great, just...ugh...this tendency lately everyone saying KSP is so bad, KSP2 will fix it.

Overhyping never ends well and bashing the original game its just not fair.

I don't see KSP being bashed, just people who are discussing it's well documented flaws/limitations/issues etc.

And tbh, in many ways KSP is a broken game. I've poured hundreds of hours into it, enjoyed it every second of that time elapsed. 

But there's still plenty I don't do or actively avoid in KSP1 just because I know it's broken. Landing on a planet is a nerve-wracking experience not because of the challenge involved, fuel consumption or environment.

But because it comes down to straight rng if my legs actually gracefully absorb the blow, or ksp decided to send me from a dead stop to suborbital for no reason.

Forget landing a plane, legs are barely usable but wheels take the cake. 

Craft spontaneously disassembling themselves on load is a all too common occurance as well, random parts exploding even after in game years being fine as well.

Is there any guarantee KSP2 would fix any of these? No, but longtime ksp players get fed up with these issues and I don't see it as a surprise for them to get excited about KSP2 maybe fixing them.

Hype train has been absolutely off the rails since day one, that I cannot argue against. But that would be the case regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Nate has specifically said that they don't want people in sandbox spoiling the discovery of new star systems and planets for other players. So on initial release you shouldn't expect to see or or pull up any information on the new star systems and planets. (That doesn't mean you can't discover and travel to them. You just won't have info on them initially.)

Happiness noise :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointy mountains.
I'm okay with varied terrain or even boring hills and stuff, but I always found it pretty egregious how the terrain system worked that the slope might change radically with harsh sharp angles on mountains, and driving around them was like trying to drive a shopping cart on the side of a building designed by Frank Gehry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, starcaptain said:

Pointy mountains.
I'm okay with varied terrain or even boring hills and stuff, but I always found it pretty egregious how the terrain system worked that the slope might change radically with harsh sharp angles on mountains, and driving around them was like trying to drive a shopping cart on the side of a building designed by Frank Gehry.

I have no idea what they did for the terrain system in the new game, but planet surfaces look amazing hop they don't look so amazing it melts my computer. 

 

So I think there wont be any more pointy mountain issues ;D

 

6 hours ago, Serenity said:

But there is no need for this overhype crusade that makes KSP look like an empty shell and a broken game.

KSP2 will do this, KSP2 will do that, KSP2 will be the game that we so desperately need.

Hopefully it will be a great game but why all this effort to diminish KSP just to build up more unhealthy hype.

Wait, be patient, don't succumb to this need to have the next great thing.

I truly hope everything goes well and KSP2 is great, just...ugh...this tendency lately everyone saying KSP is so bad, KSP2 will fix it.

Overhyping never ends well and bashing the original game its just not fair.

Posts about KSP 2 are in a discussion thread for suggestions of what players would want in the game. Not sure if I'd call it a crusade. Seemed always more like a survey/feedback area.

I also don't know what suggesting improvements for KSP2 has to do with denigrating KSP1. Its not a zero sum game (pun unintended).

 

I'm not sure if I've ever gotten the feeling that there are those that are bashing the original game just to hype up the next game... in a KSP forum where everyone here likes the game that's out enough to go to the forum and talk about stuff. 

I think the idea of this thread is misleading. In that there are some aspects of KSP 1 that shouldn't' stay the same for one reason or another. KSP 1, like any game isn't perfect. Throw in the fact KSP 2 is changing a number of things, like adding multiplayer, interstellar travel and colonies, the game will be very different. Because of this all aspects of KSP 1 shouldn't stay the same because the 2 game will be different in many ways. Thats ok, if everything was the same why buy it?

 

Edited by MKI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Serenity said:

But there is no need for this overhype crusade that makes KSP look like an empty shell and a broken game.

Bugs and performance made me drop out ages ago. Maybe I didn't bring rose tined glasses but I just can't have fun with KSP 1 when it's, for the most part, broken. RAM usage, bugs that break ships but stay on board with the game because they've been introduced in-universe as the Kraken, a charming artstyle that got replaced with much more generic 60s textures, basic features like alarms and craft searching that took until KSP's final breath to be introduced, inaccurate physics warp with countless accuracy related bugs with no way to disable inaccuracy without BetterTimeWarp, a low time warp cap that results in Jool transfers being a massive bore, all these things just pushed me off and so far I've been waiting a phenomenal amount of time for KSP 2 to drop so I can get back in without having to put up with all these issues. I expect KSP 2 to bring new players to the table thanks to the fact that it isn't just extreme fanatics that can put up with all this. I don't understand how others can't see KSP as a broken game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Hopefully some time after the release and players have started discovering the new star systems and planets, they will patch out the block and you can have the free reign to look at everything.

I really hope they don't put any real effort into doing anything like that. It's utterly wasted time and resources. The sheer dedication and number of people intent on being the first to find/unlock stuff prove every such measure completely ineffective every single time.

Put that time in making stuff good, please, and stop clogging the game with 'solutions' people are going to find 749 ways to circumvent anyway. You've already lost that game before you even started, proven repeatedly so many times by now that it nears statistical certainty.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...