What kind of game will KSP2 be?

[Pthigrivi]

Im leaving this kind of loose because I think the overall question is important and lot of people probably have different ideas about this. Most of us would probably agree its a "Building and Flying game" and this means solving the engineering puzzle of making working, efficient rockets, navigating space and landing them. Thats all true! But it's also true of sandbox KSP1. I would personally argue that while KSP1 offered a wonderful sandbox experience which I loved for a decade and fulfilled the task of "building and flying" it never really became a good game. Contracts, progression, science, resource prospecting, making bases all kind of fell a bit flat. Im happy that KSP2 will be adding new systems and better graphics and multiplayer but I don't actually even care about any of those things as much as I do that KSP2 can make KSP into a good game. And that means solving all those really hard problems that no mod even has ever been able to solve. 

But without going into a bunch of ad hoc suggestions that have been thrown around over the years (and are probably too late at this point) what do people really actually want KSP2 to be? There will be resources and those resources will need to be processed, but I don't think KSP2 will be like Factorio, which is mainly a pathing puzzle with belts and gates and lots of converters. KSP2 will also have lots of Kerbals, but it wouldn't likely be like Cities Skylines where your main task is managing economics and traffic. You're also harvesting resources and upgrading tech but its not like Starcraft where you're competitively outwitting and outpacing opponent's build. It's also in many ways a vehicle for creative expression, but unlike Townscaper its not JUST about aesthetics, there are inputs and outputs to balance and exploit and rewards for exploring new places and that challenge is what the game is all about.

So what kind of game is it? 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

So what kind of game is it? 

My reply it's probably granted since I've written it a dozen of times in different threads over the months, but since this is the topic dedicated to this discussion I'll write it here too.

All your premises considered I still say: mainly a "building and flying" game, one that is very laser focused on that when considering every other feature and its implementation.

That doesn't mean that other system have to be simple, or basic, just that most problems should have a new rocket to design and fly somewhere as the solution, and most gameplay loops should revolve around being able to design or fly the right craft for the challenge.

Example:

Resource extraction and management? Having more resources spread all over the place forcing the player to build several mining outposts and cargo transport landers is a better idea than having 15 production steps with different ratios, converters, factories and byproducts between extracting a metal and building a rocket tank with it.

Prospecting and mapping? Not a system that requires 15 different antennas on your satellites but one that requires 5 or 6 different satellites on different orbits.

And so on.

[Vl3d]

Kerbal Aero/Space Program:

- a game about realistically simulating and exploring celestial bodies (manned and unmanned) and discovery of the Kerbalverse

- a game of learning about science and engineering through design / testing / integration / doing experiments

- a team based / competitive multiplayer game with a persistent universe in which you build your own stuff and other people can see / learn from / admire it / collaborate on bigger projects / compete in the space race / have fun

- a game about Kerbalkind lore and role-playing kerbals

- a game about near future tech

- building space craft (not only rockets)

- building atmospheric craft

- building land transport craft

- building water and underwater craft

- building space stations

- building land / on water / under water / floating bases (colonies)

- logistics game: exploiting and transporting resources to build everything

- economics game: trading in multiplayer to finance / build / fuel your interstellar missions and projects

- management game: lightweight survival (life support, PVE), aerospace program / mission design

- lightweight programming game for automation and robotics

It's basically a build-explore persistent-universe multiplayer simulation game with RPG elements in my mind.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Vl3d said:

Kerbal Aero/Space Program:

- a game about realistically simulating and exploring celestial bodies (manned and unmanned) and discovery of the Kerbalverse

- a game of learning about science and engineering through design / testing / integration / doing experiments

- a team based / competitive multiplayer game with a persistent universe in which you build your own stuff and other people can see / learn from / admire it / collaborate on bigger projects / compete in the space race / have fun

- a game about Kerbalkind lore and role-playing kerbals

- a game about near future tech

- building space craft (not only rockets)

- building atmospheric craft

- building land transport craft

- building water and underwater craft

- building space stations

- building land / on water / under water / floating bases (colonies)

- logistics game: exploiting and transporting resources to build everything

- economics game: trading in multiplayer to finance / build / fuel your interstellar missions and projects

- management game: lightweight survival (life support, PVE), aerospace program / mission design

- lightweight programming game for automation and robotics

It's basically a build-explore persistent-universe multiplayer simulation game with RPG elements in my mind.

Games like Elite Dangerous, No Man's Sky, etc. already fill this role.

[Zacspace]

The features they've shown off so far suggest to me that the build spaceship -> fly spaceship gameplay loop will return. There will probably be a sandbox mode still, since the longevity of KSP has shown that sandbox is an experience that a decent number of people will pay for. But the base building elements they've shown off, the complex resource management stuff, talk about automated missions; all this suggests to me that KSP2 will have a stronger emphasis on the space program management aspect that OGKSP almost completely ignores. I further suspect KSP2 will have some Factorio DNA, bu that's based on a hunch and no evidence.

All it needs to get my money is to be less janky than the original. Or more janky as long as it's the fun, exploitable kind instead of the "whoops your carefully constructed vehicle is now a pretzel or just doesn't work for no reason" kind

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

That doesn't mean that other system have to be simple, or basic, just that most problems should have a new rocket to design and fly somewhere as the solution, and most gameplay loops should revolve around being able to design or fly the right craft for the challenge.

I think this is exactly right, but...

1 hour ago, Zacspace said:

build spaceship -> fly spaceship

...is a gameplay line, not a gameplay loop, which is exactly whats wrong with KSP1 and what makes it a fun sim but not such a great game. The rewards from exploration in Career mode get all tangled up in grind and lack of structure and don't efficiently loop back into making bigger and better rockets. The other problem is that the kerbals themselves are kind of tangental rather than being an integrated part of that loop. Now it sounds like with colonization and boom events increasing population there's at least some attempt being made to solve those problems, but what will be the advantage of having more kerbals? How does that loop close? Thats part of why Im asking "what kind of game is this?" because if kerbals are needed to increase resource output and/or tech research--in other words if kerbals are in some way workers--it changes the way players would think about building colonies and the goals they pursue as they explore space. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[shdwlrd]

To me, KSP started as a build and fly type of game. Then it kind of evolved to build and explore once I realized that there was so much more to see. (Even KSP's simple graphics had some beautiful vistas here and there.) When I wanted to explore further without using cheats, the stock selection was very lacking. Then I discovered the Kraken, and stopped planning or trying grandiose missions. 

Basically, KSP is whatever you make of it. But the jank and limitations of the game made it difficult to go beyond build and fly.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

But the jank and limitations of the game made it difficult to go beyond build and fly.

One of the reasons I like that KSP 2 is trying to "slay the Kraken", as opposed to being passive about it. Seeing other people summon the Kraken is fun...     until it happens to you while you're actually trying to play the game properly.

[Pthigrivi]

Okay I started to post about this in another thread but I don’t want to hijack it so I’ll link here and expand after:

On 6/29/2022 at 3:38 PM, Pthigrivi said:

I think you do want to hold back the last couple of giant crazy engines until you had explored a couple of other systems, maybe also super efficient reactors and final tier colony modules, but I don’t think its wise to just keep adding arbitrarily more broken tech because that also will take the fun out of the game. There are other potential incentives though. For instance we know boom events will increase your populations, so it might be if you want to keep growing your colonies to crazy sizes you still have to get out there and discover new worlds. 
 

This is a big part of the reason Im hoping there are pretty tight mechanics in terms of colony habitation, population size, and resource output. If its all just aesthetics and nothing does anything the experience will feel a little hollow and you won’t be able to stretch that good gameplay out indefinitely. Thats the beauty of good city builders. You can just keep growing and growing and making cooler and cooler things and thats what the game is about. If the game is just about the tech tree the fun only lasts until you get that last crazy engine. You’ll try it out a few times for funzies and that’ll be it. Thats part of the reason so few players ever even go interplanetary in KSP1. There are no deeper mechanics to the game so most players complete the tech tree and start over, never bothering to explore further. Or they just skip the grind and goof off in sandbox. 

This is part of what has been irking me the last couple of weeks and its the reason Im asking what is this game about? Nate and gang have noted that KSP players have sunk thousands of hours into it (like me!) and want to see new players enjoy thousands more. But to do that you really have to bring something new to the table, and you definitely need colonies to be a part of that. It can be relatively simple, but Kerbals need to have an active function, and some tasks should require a lot of them. Maybe you need your colony to hit 100 before you can build a fusion generator. Maybe each fuel production plant you add requires more kerbals to operate so it scales more linearly. Maybe you need to staff science labs to increase your upgrade rate. These are all pretty straightforward mechanics in any base builder or city builder, and like it or not KSP is dipping a big toe into that world. Survival builders particularly like Banished and Frostpunk, while obviously too management heavy, offer some solid insights for efficiently utilizing lots of workers in the same way Factorio and DSP offer keen insights into resource flows and ratios even if you skipped all the belting.
 

For KSP2 the loop should be: Build rockets > Explore new worlds > Get more kerbals > Build bigger/better rockets. If that loop isn’t complete, if Kerbals and habitation are just there for looks then a big part of the incentive structure for making bigger and cooler colonies and therefore bigger and cooler vessels falls flat. Players who like min-maxing will do the bare minimum and players who like to role play will be robbed of the satisfaction of making things that actually work, that aren’t just empty window dressing. Thats why players sink thousands of hours into KSP, not because its a pretty toy, but because that toy behaves on real physics and real working components. Even when people are goofing off making mechs and Millennium Falcon replicas the bones of critical components working in concert are all there. They still need power and fuel and weight balance to work. Colonies and stations really should work on similar principles, but with their own unique set of requirements and opportunities. 
 

Dont get me wrong. Townscaper was fun. But a purely aesthetic experience will never hold people’s attention longer than one thats grounded in solid game mechanics and well structured relationships between sources and sinks. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Pthigrivi]

On 6/29/2022 at 2:50 PM, Vl3d said:

Also remember that not all players will have the same progression regarding resource exploitation. The tech you unlock is one thing, the tech you can build is another.

No two games will be the same, you will be limited by resources more than tech level - if you unlock two types of engines on the same tier you might only have resources for one.

This is a great point. We don't know a whole lot about how the science system will work but presumably that will be tied into exploration as well (find cool new things to study > *process unknown* > unlock parts). But once you've unlocked a given technology suite--say He3 fusion engines--can you infinitely expand harvesting and processing capacity with drones alone or do you need a certain number of Kerbal workers to oversee the process and expand capacity? If the former then completing the tech tree is the be-all-end-all goal of the game, and players will farm science until its complete and the game will mostly run out of steam wherever they happen to be at that point. If however you need more Kerbals to increase production capacity, then even after the tech tree is complete you still need to discover and explore new worlds in order to increase your population so your colonies can expand and grow, essentially indefinitely until you'd visited every world in the game. This is a much, much more durable and elastic game experience and encourages much deeper exploration and creative expansion of colonies than one relying on a restart, replay, visit one or two new systems, end, repeat dynamic. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

3 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

If however you need more Kerbals to increase production capacity, then even after the tech tree is complete you still need to discover and explore new worlds in order to increase your population so your colonies can expand and grow, essentially indefinitely until you'd visited every world in the game. This is a much, much more elastic game experience and encourages much deeper exploration rather than relying on a restart, replay, visit one or two new systems, end, repeat dynamic. 

1. Colony size determined by number of kerbals you can support.

2. Kerbals multiply when you discover stuff. Get tech from science while adventuring.

3. All tech also needs resources.

4. Resource gathering and automated logistics depends on colony tech buildings.

5. Colony buildings for life support.

Back to 1.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Vl3d

[mcwaffles2003]

20 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Okay I started to post about this in another thread but I don’t want to hijack it so I’ll link here and expand after:

This is part of what has been irking me the last couple of weeks and its the reason Im asking what is this game about? Nate and gang have noted that KSP players have sunk thousands of hours into it (like me!) and want to see new players enjoy thousands more. But to do that you really have to bring something new to the table, and you definitely need colonies to be a part of that. It can be relatively simple, but Kerbals need to have an active function, and some tasks should require a lot of them. Maybe you need your colony to hit 100 before you can build a fusion generator. Maybe each fuel production plant you add requires more kerbals to operate so it scales more linearly. Maybe you need to staff science labs to increase your upgrade rate. These are all pretty straightforward mechanics in any base builder or city builder, and like it or not KSP is dipping a big toe into that world. Survival builders particularly like Banished and Frostpunk, while obviously too management heavy, offer some solid insights for efficiently utilizing lots of workers in the same way Factorio and DSP offer keen insights into resource flows and ratios even if you skipped all the belting.
 

For KSP2 the loop should be: Build rockets > Explore new worlds > Get more kerbals > Build bigger/better rockets. If that loop isn’t complete, if Kerbals and habitation are just there for looks then a big part of the incentive structure for making bigger and cooler colonies and therefore bigger and cooler vessels falls flat. Players who like min-maxing will do the bare minimum and players who like to role play will be robbed of the satisfaction of making things that actually work, that aren’t just empty window dressing. Thats why players sink thousands of hours into KSP, not because its a pretty toy, but because that toy behaves on real physics and real working components. Even when people are goofing off making mechs and Millennium Falcon replicas the bones of critical components working in concert are all there. They still need power and fuel and weight balance to work. Colonies and stations really should work on similar principles, but with their own unique set of requirements and opportunities. 
 

Dont get me wrong. Townscaper was fun. But a purely aesthetic experience will never hold people’s attention longer than one thats grounded in solid game mechanics and well structured relationships between sources and sinks. 

Really like how you put all that together and couldn't agree more whole heartedly. I, too, hope we get a lot of city-building and resource-flow mechanics. I know it would distract from the core "build rockets" gameplay but it would cement them in the core of why we need them. Or maybe not, who am I to stop someone from utterly disregarding most of those mechanics and finding joy in building a giant model kerbal city or factory on Kerbin. I think one of the biggest things that keeps players here isn't just the rockets, it's the fact that the game offers a literal boundless expansion of deeply true physics simulation that you can craft into whatever you like. I feel that so long as the mechanics that are put into the game are solidly built with creativity and expansion in mind while maintaining being a performant game it will succeed by any measure one would attribute to that word.

I've stressed that I would like to see the game dive more into the art of discovery and science than it's predecessor. Adding ground and space telescopes to unveil celestial bodies and other artifacts that would remain hidden until finally discovered, slowly gaining more and more resolution with probing and attention, both visually and understandably. Basically, for instance, as time progresses and more is discovered about a planet that may have peaked a players curiosity it would become more and more crisp in a map view. In regions that are more heavily investigated the model of the planet or region would have greater resolution like a fog of war of understanding while also showing other signs through data or even coloration attributing properties to the whole planet or regions of that planet. Stellaris, for example, begins simply showing a neighbor star that you can send a scout to investigate. Once the investigation is complete it is revealed how many planets are in the system. The scout then investigates each planet and upon completion the planets properties are revealed and from there a player makes the decision of whether or not to focus on extracting resource or utilizing the capacity of that planet for the overall civilization. What a cool mechanic, why not build on that? We've talked a lot on the forums about systems of LoD largely with regard to things like rigid body mechanics of vessels to maintain performance, or of orbits to more accurately represent them, or of terrain to more beautify and believably immerse us in believing the word we're discovering is real. Why not also expand that practice of levels of detail to information as well?

We build rockets to get to other planets and soon we will fly rockets to other planets to enable us to build rockets capable of taking us to even farther planets, a great recursive loop so long as we actually want to go to other planets. And if there's enough motivating factors to get to those other planets, whether the reasons be utilitarian, aesthetic, or simple curiosity I think people would happily explore a plethora of other game mechanics along the way both as entertainment and learning opportunities. So long as the mechanics are well thought out and built with performance and creativity in mind, mechanics that add to one another to enhance the overall experience as opposed to combat with one another for attention at the games detriment, this game will be great. If you want players to play for 1,000s of hours give us something that takes 1,000s of hours to fully enjoy and discover.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Really like how you put all that together and couldn't agree more whole heartedly. I, too, hope we get a lot of city-building and resource-flow mechanics. I know it would distract from the core "build rockets" gameplay but it would cement them in the core of why we need them. Or maybe not, who am I to stop someone from utterly disregarding most of those mechanics and finding joy in building a giant model kerbal city or factory on Kerbin. I think one of the biggest things that keeps players here isn't just the rockets, it's the fact that the game offers a literal boundless expansion of deeply true physics simulation that you can craft into whatever you like. I feel that so long as the mechanics that are put into the game are solidly built with creativity and expansion in mind while maintaining being a performant game it will succeed by any measure one would attribute to that word.

Those mechanics can be part of the core "build rockets" gameplay if the resources are spread enough. The biggest colonies requiring different resources to grow that are never (or almost never) found near to each other if not in the most difficult environments (Nice spot with all resources, in a tiny island in the middle of Eve's ocean, the rocket gameplay comes from the difficult access to the place itself).

That way managing resource flows is a matter of connecting colonies and mining outposts with rockets and landers, crafts that you have to bring from outside if your colony is not advanced enough to build them directly. Immagine this, an electric plane, made to move resources between a mining rig and a colony on Duna, built on Mun's orbit with resources coming from Kerbin and a mining colony on Minmus, transported to Duna with a unique Mun orbit - Duna surface flying path (compared to the Kerbin to X - X to Kerbin that most KSP1 mission end up being).  Plus you need fuel and fuel refineries for all the transfers we spoke of, and maybe the nuclear engines for the interplanetary transfer are too bothersome to build in orbit and are imported from Kerbin or you'll settle with a chemical tug, or a reusable interplanetary nuclear rig you have for such occasions.

That is 100% resource-flow and "city"-building mechanics (more civilization building) but is also 100% "build rockets" gameplay.

The trick isn't over-simplifying everything that isn't building a rocket, the trick is to have rocket as a solution for most problems.

[Pthigrivi]

6 hours ago, Master39 said:

Those mechanics can be part of the core "build rockets" gameplay if the resources are spread enough. The biggest colonies requiring different resources to grow that are never (or almost never) found near to each other if not in the most difficult environments (Nice spot with all resources, in a tiny island in the middle of Eve's ocean, the rocket gameplay comes from the difficult access to the place itself).

Yeah I definitely agree this should be a big part of it, establishing outposts and bringing different raw resources together to make everything you need. But what makes building and flying rockets fun in KSP is the engineering challenge--each component having a clear function and requirements and combining those into something that accomplishes a specific task--and I think the building and engineering of colonies and stations should have that same character. That doesn't mean the game becomes Factorio, just that most of the colony modules themselves should have specific functions, and if you're adding more habitation modules or science labs it should be for a reason. Like if you're building a simple satellite you're adding panels to generate enough power to keep your probe core fed, you're adding batteries as a buffer so you can maneuver on the night side, etc. It's not Factorio because the resources just go into a pool. You're not routing the wires and 10 small batteries are the same is one big one. All that matters is you've managed your inputs and outputs. Engineering colonies and resource processing should work on those same principles. 

One of the big deficiencies in KSP1 was the kerbals themselves. The perks were a little clunky and way grindy to upgrade because you were leveling up each Kerbal individually. Fine if you've got a total roster of 5 or 10, but given the size of the colonies they've shown you'd expect populations of dozens or hundreds. They also just weren't that important. You never actually needed pilots, scientists were only important for running labs and resetting experiments (which was tedious), engineers were occasionally useful if you broke a wheel or something. None of that really needs to be kept, but there should be SOME reason why you're carting all these little green dudes around, some structural reason why growing a colony's population is advantageous. Kerbals themselves also should have some basic needs that must be met to keep them productive at whatever it is they're doing. The rules don't need or want to be complicated--just clear, consistent, and efficient. It could just be meter of workforce vs jobs. Adding a monoprop factory adds 1 job, adding a methalox factory adds 3 jobs, a nuclear reactor adds 5, science lab 3, and so you need a crew of 12 to keep everything running at 100%. Each crew member requires a habitation value of 1 and needs 1 snack per day, so you've got to build a certain number of hab modules and a greenhouse to keep them happy and productive. Those then require more power and add new jobs that must be filled, so you've got to keep exploring to increase population and add new capabilities and keep everything balanced along the way. It could be that simple. You don't need pipes or pathing or AI (though the latter would be cute for aesthetics), just a simple UI table to check that your outputs are all in the black before you move onto the next thing. Its the dynamics between producers and consumers and building a self-sustaining system that matters. Thats the internal puzzle that could make colony design fun in the same way vessel design is fun, that spurs players on to keep building and growing and exploring. 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Pthigrivi]

Small addendum to this... maybe there needs to be a way to quickly and easily transfer many kerbals to from part to part and vessel to vessel in and amongst dozens of modules anyway, but it would be nice if distributing them was more automatic with the option for manual fine tuning. This same system could be used to distribute manpower, maybe, but it doesn't have to be. I stick by the instinct that if there's a choice between making a system more complex or more simple for the player it is almost always best to simplify. You don't really need kerbal classes, nor do you need to manually distribute each kerbal to a specific job. I think that could prove to be a massive management time-sink to be avoided if possible. What players will care about when it comes to balancing inputs and outputs is the production rate. Each module whether its a methalox factory or greenhouse should just have a production slider you can adjust up or down to fine-tune and optimize your resource chain. If you reduce a MH factory that would otherwise employ 10 kerbals to 70% it would only demand 7 jobs. If a colony had 100 open jobs and 97 working kerbals each facility would operate at 97%. This would allow easy standard defaults AND the flexibility to fine tune your production priorities without requiring manually assigning and managing crew. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[J.Random]

Quote

What kind of game will KSP2 be?

Delayed a couple more times, released buggy and unfinished, probably. If we're lucky.

[Superfluous J]

Gacha-vania with roguelike elements.

[J.Random]

...and NFTs.