Jump to content

What do you NOT want in KSP 2


MKI
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

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.

I mean they're giving us apis to play with, so I expect day one if they have hidden any systems that'll be one of the first mods made for KSP2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I mean they're giving us apis to play with, so I expect day one if they have hidden any systems that'll be one of the first mods made for KSP2

That wouldn't surprise me. But stopping the lazy "I must be first to report that I found this" user is what I think is intended here. (The same premise that locks only stop the lazy or inexperienced thieves.) There are the more code savy players in this forum will have the info in short order. But most of these users (in my opinion) wouldn't publish it for a reasonable amount of time so they don't ruin the other players joy of the discovery these star systems themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

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.

I think if this "block" feature is done well, it shouldn't need to be "patched" later so you see everything. If sandbox allows you to go to other star systems and planets to get more information about then, then so be it. You can build and design whatever you want in sandbox mode, so getting there shouldn't be a problem.

 

There can be an element of exploration in Sandbox mode, without just giving everything to the player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't  want KSP 1's  non-existant QA  (useless to say the least).

I don' want KSP 1's perpetual Early Acces developing mind that leaded to add more bugs than features every update post 1.0, producing a large pile of bugs that resembles  (only if you keep the distance) a game that many of us loved before.

I don't want continuos developing. I want a FINISHED game. I don't want a buggy pile of crap. It took me  only 1 hour of normal playing in KSP 1.12 to notice three new bugs.  I have more than 1000 hours in factorio (purchased it before it was launched on Steam) and NEVER experienced just ONE bug.

I wan't to play a game. I  don't want to be the unpaid QA of a eternal early access project.

I don't want to have to recommend  friends not to buy it because it's so buggy that I'll have to explain them 5 or 10 workarounds that we shouldn't need to know, even if I have more than 3000 hours (less than 500 are post 1.3.1)

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DoToH said:

I don't  want KSP 1's  non-existant QA  (useless to say the least).

I don' want KSP 1's perpetual Early Acces developing mind that leaded to add more bugs than features every update post 1.0, producing a large pile of bugs that resembles  (only if you keep the distance) a game that many of us loved before.

I don't want continuos developing. I want a FINISHED game. I don't want a buggy pile of crap. It took me  only 1 hour of normal playing in KSP 1.12 to notice three new bugs.  I have more than 1000 hours in factorio (purchased it before it was launched on Steam) and NEVER experienced just ONE bug.

I wan't to play a game. I  don't want to be the unpaid QA of a eternal early access project.

I don't want to have to recommend  friends not to buy it because it's so buggy that I'll have to explain them 5 or 10 workarounds that we shouldn't need to know, even if I have more than 3000 hours (less than 500 are post 1.3.1)

 There won't be an EA period. (They don't need it.) The game will be released as a 1.0.

I'm expecting bugs, but I don't see them being long lived like in KSP1. (Especially the more egregious ones.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the problems associated with loading vessels in the world.  Say, have a fuel depot landed on a certain spot on Kerbin or Laythe.  If I'm flying a plane towards it, I get a rather annoying period where the vessel loads.  Yes, you can prepare for the 2.4km mark.  Yes, I know why it happens.  But it is still very annoying to deal with, especially with large vessels which may clip terrain and high part count vessels which spontaneously explode.   Whether on my potato laptop or beast pc, there is never a way around it.

With the scale of bases and colonies KSP 2 seems to be introducing, I would love to be able to see the colony approach from miles away in a passenger seat of a plane, and not have to a) rely on rather buggy mods such as PhysicsRangeExtender or b) switch to the vessel before it self destructs or sinks into the ground.  These types of terrain/vessel interaction glitches on load are the reason for many a repair mission.  Perhaps a pre-load with rails of some sort could help?

A little off topic, but I think this ties in with a sort of interstellar ambience I would like to see.  I've made light ships with no purpose but to travel between a station in Kerbin and Munar orbit, modular rovers that I will never see a practical use for besides the test drive, and shuttles which sit on Minmus for years before I need them again.  Setting automated resupply/transport/tourist routes in some sort would be a wonder.  Imagine going to your Munbase and seeing a VIP transport fueling up before a regularly scheduled (and automated) launch.  It would make the game feel alive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely don't want weapons, at least in the stock version, and I most definitely don't want DLC that lets you pay money to avoid having to solve problems yourself.  Beyond that, I don't want the same dumb organization that the KSP1 tech tree has. You have to upgrade the tracking station before you can get out of your capsule, even if you're sitting on the ground?  You need fourth-tier tech before you can even have a bleepin' battery on your vessel? They really need to rethink all that nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 11:38 PM, Master39 said:

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.

I'm not sure the overhaul needs to be quite that radical in practical terms, but in philosophical terms the whole idea of calling them "contracts" speaks to something that has little to do with how the real-life early space program worked. What we should be working to get should be more accurately defined as "appropriations", which are money that is  granted with certain objectives in mind, but can also be used for side projects if the core aim has been satisfied.  Notable accomplishments beyond the objectives of the specific appropriations should give you reputation currency that betters your position for future rounds of appropriations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, herbal space program said:

I'm not sure the overhaul needs to be quite that radical in practical terms,

The gameplay part of it it's the only part that matters to me, in the management gameplay loop realism is good only if used to name things, the actual inner mechanism has to be 100% gameplay focused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, planeticegaming said:

i dont want rockets in ksp2

Agreed, I also don't want Kerbals or Space in KSP2 it ruins the point of it being a space game with rockets and kerbals smh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

The gameplay part of it it's the only part that matters to me, in the management gameplay loop realism is good only if used to name things, the actual inner mechanism has to be 100% gameplay focused.

I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean by this, but certainly (especially earlier) versions of the contracts system had you doing the same stupid stuff over and over again ad nauseam, and that really must be avoided going forward.  I do think they've already improved it significantly however, based on my current career game, where my objective was basically to do everything exploration-wise as quickly as I could and not let the available contracts dictate my agenda any more than necessary.  I still ended up having to do some fairly tedious stuff though, so there is obviously still plenty of room for improvement. IMO, like websites and search engines these days, the game needs to sense what you are most interested in doing and try to serve you contracts that are in line with that. It seems like maybe it's doing that a little bit now, but it could definitely be doing it a whole lot more. There also seem to be big holes relative to what people frequently like do in the game, like for example why are there no SSTO or K Prize or other aviation-based contracts?  And I spent almost a whole year with a full Jool 5 mission in-system before I got a single Jool-related contract.  And perhaps all this would all indeed be better if there was just some sort of mission tree, where you have to accomplish certain things to unlock its different branches, but then that runs the risk of becoming too repetitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 9:43 PM, Superfluous J said:

I would not be sad if they found a way to eliminate right clicking parts and clicking one of a dozen randomly sorted buttons to perform a critical task.

I'm talking .no.part.action.windows.at.all.

This does not bother me. It is how a lot of video and graphic design software works;  I guess I'm just so used to it, I don't even think about it.  However, it would be nice if we had a system like Photoshop or Premiere Pro where we have extensive keyboard shortcuts for nearly every action, and those shortcuts can be easily modified via a pop up window. See link:

https://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/using/keyboard-shortcuts.html

KSP has several, but I think a lot more actions could have the option.

Edited by Klapaucius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micro- or macrotransactions of any sort.

Exclusivity.

Denuvo or any other always-online or virtualization-based DRM. Especially if Linux version isn't in the plans for day 1. Windows-specific hacks and quirks in the code - for the same reason.

Stupid Unity wheel implementation: torque drop should be replaced with constant torque (and consumption) and increasing resistance.

Icarus crap - it's idiotic in principle and has no place in Kerbal universe thematically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 5:13 AM, Klapaucius said:

Procedural parts.  Or at least, very many of them.  I am probably in the minority on this.   I can understand a few limited items, but I do not want it to feel like Simple Planes (which is not to diss on Simple Planes, I just like KSP as it is in that department).   The forced choices require me to be creative. It is more of a puzzle that way.

I'm sure someone will create a KSP2 Tweakscale mod for those that wish it.

I on the other hand, would prefer only procedural parts. After playing RO/RP1 I realized there are much more interesting ways of "forcing choices and for you to get creative". Having to deal with more complex engines with limited ignitions, burn time, failure rates, avionics, fuel loss over time, life support, etc is far more interesting than just lego tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sesshaku said:

I on the other hand, would prefer only procedural parts. After playing RO/RP1 I realized there are much more interesting ways of "forcing choices and for you to get creative". Having to deal with more complex engines with limited ignitions, burn time, failure rates, avionics, fuel loss over time, life support, etc is far more interesting than just lego tanks.

I'm not really so keen on having everything be scalable, as that's not particularly realistic  wrt real world rocket engines/pods,  and it would also be a huge headache (i.e bugs, delays) for the devs to implement. Procedural wings and control surfaces OTOH are something I would consider a must-have.  I am tired of all my planes looking like they were slapped together out of stuff found lying by the side of the road! I think also that letting the user change just the length of the tanks of different cross sections,  perhaps as well as being able to freely distribute their available capacity between LF and Ox, would neither be very hard to implement nor unrealistic. Similarly, allowing the lengths of different adapters and girders to be user-adjustable seems reasonable to me.

Edited by herbal space program
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, herbal space program said:

I'm not really so keen on having everything be scalable, as that's not particularly realistic  wrt real world rocket engines/pods,  and it would also be a huge headache (i.e bugs, delays) for the devs to implement. Procedural wings and control surfaces OTOH are something I would consider a must-have.  I am tired of all my planes looking like they were slapped together out of stuff found lying by the side of the road! I think also that letting the user change just the length of the tanks of different cross sections,  perhaps as well as being able to freely distribute their available capacity between LF and Ox, would neither be very hard to implement nor unrealistic. Similarly, allowing the lengths of different adapters and girders to be user-adjustable seems reasonable to me.

Have you ever played RO?  Because, I was talking exactly about the type of stuff you mention. Carefully designed procedural parts makes it to never again have "planes looking like they were slapped together out of stuff found lying by the side of the road".

In RO when you design a rocket you have more creative control, you have interstage fairings (which is far cooler and essential than it seems at first light), you can make the rocket be as sharp or rounded as you like. And there's no conflict with realism, the tanks might be procedural, but they're limited to real life sizes, fuel content and efficiency. Heck, you don't even have "LF/OX" you have Liquid Hydrogen, Kerosene, Aerozine50, etc

You're limited instead not by the shape of the rocket, but by aerdynamics, TWR, atmospheric pressure, engine configuration, engine burn time limit, engine limited number of ignitions, fuel energy density, ullage (!!), avionics support, RCS support, electrical sustainability, life support capabilities, antenna's band and power, etc.

The mod is a bit annoying to install, but I cannot reccommend it enough. If there's one complain I have about it is that real life scale makes it for really lengthy burns for a videogame, but when it comes to rocket design, there's nothing as immersive and interesting as RO/RP1. So I say yea to procedural parts if the game is well designed around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sesshaku said:

In RO when you design a rocket you have more creative control, you have interstage fairings (which is far cooler and essential than it seems at first light), you can make the rocket be as sharp or rounded as you like. And there's no conflict with realism, the tanks might be procedural, but they're limited to real life sizes, fuel content and efficiency. Heck, you don't even have "LF/OX" you have Liquid Hydrogen, Kerosene, Aerozine50, etc

You're limited instead not by the shape of the rocket, but by aerdynamics, TWR, atmospheric pressure, engine configuration, engine burn time limit, engine limited number of ignitions, fuel energy density, ullage (!!), avionics support, RCS support, electrical sustainability, life support capabilities, antenna's band and power, etc.

None of this sounds like fun to me. It sounds like a massive headache and multiple launch and reverts scenario just because you forgot something small and stupid to the regular player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, J.Random said:

Ah, my mistake. Icarus and Daedalus were descendants of what I meant. I was talking about this idiocy.

1. Orion isn't majorly flawed as long as it's not being used near planets with important colonies.

2. It makes perfect sense in the Kerbal Universe. I'm not sure what idiotic nonsense you're seeing in Project Orion but it just seems to be you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

1. Orion isn't majorly flawed as long as it's not being used near planets with important colonies.

2. It makes perfect sense in the Kerbal Universe. I'm not sure what idiotic nonsense you're seeing in Project Orion but it just seems to be you.

I don't think it's about it being majorly flawed, I think he's complaining about using nuclear bombs as a propulsion method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2021 at 1:52 PM, shdwlrd said:

None of this sounds like fun to me. It sounds like a massive headache and multiple launch and reverts scenario just because you forgot something small and stupid to the regular player.

To be fair, you just described the first dozen hours of every KSP player. And just like regular KSP, one you understand the mechanics, it's actually neither as bad as it sounds, and definetely not boring. And it allows you a creative freedom unparalled with stock KSP.

 

Also you need to keep in mind, I am not talking about making stock KSP full realism overhaul. I am just using that mods as an example of how more procedural stuff can make a more fluid creative process. Simple things like fully controlling the shape, the diameter, the width, the colour, etc, really adds more fluff to the creation process.

Edited by Sesshaku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing we need is ridiculous missions:  Must land on Minmus with capacity for 15 kerbals and 12000 fuel and 2000 monopropellant and the capability to rove.

What a stupid mission... I know you're autogenerating missions and adding complexity to make it difficult but fun.... But why would you EVER do such a mission.  That's like NASA sending out a mission to the moon and wanting a complex for 50 people, and an administration building and can land the now defunct space shuttles at will ..... and provides food and light and power but doesn't use solar power and cannot mine H3.

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...