Jump to content

KSP2 and the need for speed


Recommended Posts

This is another massive speculation thread going off of not much. One thing that interested me about ksp2 is the focus on higher technology engines being focused on speed. Its been stated that torch ships (the end game engines) are sometimes less efficient then your previous engines and are focused on speeds. The thing is, why? Why the need for speed. With timewarp, going faster is roughly the same speed as going at a slower speed for the player. For cargo transportation, cargo does not care about the speed that it goes*, and focusing on efficiency and throughput seems much more practical here. These engines are clearly going to be attractive, but there seems to be no internal factors attractive about them, so what if there was something external?

The obvious thing here is life support, the faster you go the less life support you need, this however feels weak. The requirements of life support have to be balanced around being easy enough for early game missions to nearby planets, so it cant be that much of a burden. Considering torch ships are for maneuvers in the solar systems, its not like the maneuvers would take relatively long anyways. Late game life support seems like a solved issue, and while torch ships would definitely help with it, I doubt they'd be a significant difference in terms of gameplay. So what if there was cargo that cared about speed. Certain resources decaying with time seems like it would offer good justification for torch ships, the obvious one here is antimatter, however I can see something like maybe a manufactured element that's in the island of stability that while it passively decays, it makes a great structural component for rocket parts. Even this raises more questions though, if it's antimatter or some other unstable fuel what's the point of going fast just to be able to transport your own rocket fuel.

In order for us to get some grasp at this, we need to go back to square one. Rockets are from moving one thing to another. Torch ships are generally for transportation in the same solar system very quickly (and presumably very far). This means that torch ships are  for moving things long distances quickly, therefore there's something that needs to be moved long distances quickly. Assuming this is some sort of intermediate unstable resource that needs processing to be stable, this implies that for some reason, you cant process/stablize/apply it nearby where you're harvesting it. Maybe the planet you get it from cant support colonies (this raises a whole other can of worms), maybe the processing needs very high gravity to accomplish and most planets/bodies don't have enough gravity, maybe the resource you're harvesting isn't even from a planet but instead is from a gas giant/star. I don't know what this intermediate would be, but either way it introduces a very interesting element and I have a feeling its going to be something very exotic.

Edited by Strawberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, first of all, torch ship engines are insanely efficient compared to standard interplanetary engines, which is why you can do baristochrone trajectories with them without seeing 99% of the mass taken up by fuel. I suppose some efficient ion engines could top it, but torch ship engines are also generally considered to be more powerful too, allowing for that higher speed. 

Gameplay wise, I think it shows how rockets move around in space, except this time it shows how future rockets can just point and burn anywhere they want to go. If you want incentives to use this engine, being able to completely ignore transfer windows is one. 

It's been confirmed that some resources will "involve the conquering of a new physics challenge" such as keeping life support materials in the right temperature range (so that the proteins don't denature) or keeping antimatter from touching container walls by keeping it stable. The one resource I see having a time limit is Uranium, as antimatter turns into normal matter about as often as normal matter turns into antimatter, given that the two aren't touching. Seeing as how Uranium is an early-midgame resource, we probably wouldn't be needing torch ships to transport it. 

Essentially, I think that torch ships are just there to show players a new way of traveling between planets, and won't necessarily be there to facilitate a new resource collection. They are at the very end of the tech tree after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Strawberry said:

This is another massive speculation thread going off of not much. One thing that interested me about ksp2 is the focus on higher technology engines being focused on speed. Its been stated that torch ships (the end game engines) are sometimes less efficient then your previous engines and are focused on speeds... [please divide your post into paragraphs, jeez]

This is a very good point to bring up. What reason should the player have to go faster than they need to if timewarp is a thing?
It has to be defined by something time-sensitive, which could be a contract, life support, or a decaying resource. Maybe all three. Will be interested to see what the reason is when and if KSP 2 comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why does in game time matter?

That's a very good question.  I don't know why it does matter, but in a game like KSP2 it will have to.  Given that colonies have various production machines, there has to be something to stop the player from making one small mine on the Mun and then timewarping until they have enough for a Duna mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of that, some routes are only possible through the capabilities that torch ships provide. If you are trying to import something to Duna from Kerbin, you will have to deliver enough supplies to last for the entire span of time between transfer windows, which I think is 150 days. That is a huge amount of resources compared to only bringing enough for 10 days, and then launching a torch ship every 10 days to get to Duna. That it a pretty silly example, but being able to deliver things quickly and ignore transfer windows can make moving resources much easier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But cargo transport is going to be automated, and chances are you've already explored most planets anyways by the time you get torch ships, and for the ones you haven't you're used to waiting for transfer windows and using them anyways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, intelliCom said:


It has to be defined by something time-sensitive, which could be a contract, life support, or a decaying resource. Maybe all three. Will be interested to see what the reason is when and if KSP 2 comes out.

Along with these, and even there are no contracts some boom events could come with bonus rewards if they were accomplished by a certain calendar date. That would create the incentive to keep your eye on in-game time without punishing players who prefer a more leisurely pace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the most fitting usage for a temporary resource that needs transport is some sort of "power booster" for all your colonies. Some resource that can only be studied in large colonies for example, however at this point you're going to have most research unlocked. My personal bet is some exotic highly efficient form of long range energy/communication transfer that takes a unique and expensive resource to transmit but is cheap to receive. This would heavily simplify colony building because now you can have one colony (probably per system) doing all the power production. My personal bet is a resource that one way or another enables you to pump loads of energy into neutrinos (with ships being able to pick up these neutrinos for communication purposes and colonies being able to convert these neutrinos into communication and power).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be using 5m based monsters to launch small cubesats to LKO. I'm not because 1.25m rockets do the job. But I could.

At the same time I could be using conventional means of transport to carry things around, or... I could use torchships to get to the Mun within minutes or to Jool within days because it's cool. If I can afford it, why not? This whole game is about why not.

Edited by The Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2022 at 8:44 PM, Strawberry said:

One thing that interested me about ksp2 is the focus on higher technology engines being focused on speed. Its been stated that torch ships (the end game engines) are sometimes less efficient then your previous engines and are focused on speeds. The thing is, why? Why the need for speed. With timewarp, going faster is roughly the same speed as going at a slower speed for the player.

Because time warp can only take you so far, also going a ludicrous speeds on 1x timewarp is fun.

Edited by Ryaja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Because it takes less in-game time.

Yes, obviously, but what advantage is there to reducing the in-game time spent going from place to place? That's what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, intelliCom said:

Yes, obviously, but what advantage is there to reducing the in-game time spent going from place to place? That's what I mean.

Most likely something time sensitive, I also would prefer sending kerbals on faster missions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, intelliCom said:
22 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Because it takes less in-game time.

Yes, obviously, but what advantage is there to reducing the in-game time spent going from place to place? That's what I mean.

Never thought of an answer because I never seen the point in actively thinking about how the time in-game does not really matter in the real world. I just play along with the in-game clock, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, intelliCom said:
On 7/30/2022 at 6:03 PM, Bej Kerman said:

Because it takes less in-game time.

Yes, obviously, but what advantage is there to reducing the in-game time spent going from place to place? That's what I mean.

Anyone who has ever played a colony simulation or a (grand) strategy game knows the benefits of having faster logistics, especially in a multiplayer context.

We're talking about multiple interconnected systems that need to be synced by in-game time, not by your player time. KSP2 will not be KSP1 with add-ons, because in KSP1 time does not matter.

Meaning: you have faster logistics, then you gather more resources. You are first to a destination. You have more efficient life support design. You win the space race. You wait less. You do more trips in an in-game year. You automate more and you sync more transports. It's a ripple effect.

The only thing that's simulated in KSP1 are the on-rails orbits, passive science gathering and some resource gathering.

Now think about what's simulated in KSP2 and you'll have your answer. It's not just PvE anymore.

 

Edited by Vl3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vl3d said:

Anyone who has ever played a colony simulation or a (grand) strategy game knows the benefits of having faster logistics, especially in a multiplayer context.

We're talking about multiple interconnected systems that need to be synced by in-game time, not by your player time. KSP2 will not be KSP1 with add-ons, because in KSP1 time does not matter.

Meaning: you have faster logistics, then you gather more resources. You are first to a destination. You have more efficient life support design. You win the space race. You wait less. You do more trips in an in-game year. You automate more and you sync more transports. It's a ripple effect.

The only thing that's simulated in KSP1 are the on-rails orbits, passive science gathering and some resource gathering.

Now think about what's simulated in KSP2 and you'll have your answer. It's not just PvE anymore.

 

I'm confident in saying KSP 2 multiplayer is 99% likely to be co-op.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Anyone who has ever played a colony simulation or a (grand) strategy game knows the benefits of having faster logistics, especially in a multiplayer context.

We're talking about multiple interconnected systems that need to be synced by in-game time, not by your player time. KSP2 will not be KSP1 with add-ons, because in KSP1 time does not matter.

Meaning: you have faster logistics, then you gather more resources. You are first to a destination. You have more efficient life support design. You win the space race. You wait less. You do more trips in an in-game year. You automate more and you sync more transports. It's a ripple effect.

The only thing that's simulated in KSP1 are the on-rails orbits, passive science gathering and some resource gathering.

Now think about what's simulated in KSP2 and you'll have your answer. It's not just PvE anymore.

 

You've just argued that in game time matters because when things move faster in game they are done quicker in game...

As what was posed earlier:

On 7/30/2022 at 12:06 PM, Ember12 said:

That's a very good question.  I don't know why it does matter, but in a game like KSP2 it will have to.  Given that colonies have various production machines, there has to be something to stop the player from making one small mine on the Mun and then timewarping until they have enough for a Duna mission.

So whats stopping anyone from timewarping until they have enough instead of building fast and efficient resource gathering methods? You still haven't presented a negative consequence to timewarping through things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So whats stopping anyone from timewarping until they have enough instead of building fast and efficient resource gathering methods? You still haven't presented a negative consequence to timewarping through things

Single player AI teams that are competing against you. Which means you would get a bigger prize if you do world firsts. And there's also inventive to speed up resource harvesting and logistics.

Edited by Vl3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You still haven't presented a negative consequence to timewarping through things

I'm not sure where the ambiguity is, so I will answer both possibilities that I can see.

If you meant "Why is timewarping through manufacturing bad?" my answer is that no one will want to build up big colonies if one tiny factory+timewarp will get stuff made.  I think that there should be incentives for building up large-scale infrastructure.  If there isn't, the colony system will be shallow.

If you meant, "I agree that timewarping a lot through manufacturing is bad, but you haven't given any good ideas for how to set up an incentive system" then one idea is for milestones to be in-game time sensitive, so you have to build things that make stuff fast.

If you meant neither of these, please clarify.

Edited by Ember12
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So whats stopping anyone from timewarping until they have enough instead of building fast and efficient resource gathering methods? You still haven't presented a negative consequence to timewarping through things

Basically anything that depletes over time. This could be LS, reactor fuel, or fuels that tend to boil off. But each of these are potentially gameable, which is why Ive suggested an overarching set of time based bonuses for exploring faster in game. 

 

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Single player AI teams that are competing against you. Which means you would get a bigger prize if you do world firsts. And there's also inventive to speed up resource harvesting and logistics.

The thing is you don't need the fuss of AI players, in fact for many that would prove to be an annoyance. You just need the dates. If you land a kerbal on Duna by day 600 you receive  a 20% world first bonus from that boom event in addition to the base reward; if you land a probe on Laythe by Year 5 you get a bonus free tech unlock, and so forth. The space race is merely implied and players can choose to interpret it as their imagination desires. Its also a time pressure you can scale specifically to the task and the rate of progression. It doesn’t actively punish players for playing slowly, and you can even cinch up the dates to make it harder on higher difficulties. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Single player AI teams that are competing against you. Which means you would get a bigger prize if you do world firsts. And there's also inventive to speed up resource harvesting and logistics.

are we inventing things or talking about the state of the game?

3 hours ago, Ember12 said:

I'm not sure where the ambiguity is, so I will answer both possibilities that I can see.

If you meant "Why is timewarping through manufacturing bad?" my answer is that no one will want to build up big colonies if one tiny factory+timewarp will get stuff made.  I think that there should be incentives for building up large-scale infrastructure.  If there isn't, the colony system will be shallow.

If you meant, "I agree that timewarping a lot through manufacturing is bad, but you haven't given any good ideas for how to set up an incentive system" then one idea is for milestones to be in-game time sensitive, so you have to build thing that make stuff fast.

If you meant neither of these, please clarify.

I liked you're post and was using it in my recent comment to illustrate why I wasn't satisfied with @Vl3d's response.

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Basically anything that depletes over time. This could be LS, reactor fuel, or fuels that tend to boil off. But each of these are potentially gameable, which is why Ive suggested an overarching set of time based bonuses for exploring faster in game. 

 

The thing is you don't need the fuss of AI players, in fact for many that would prove to be an annoyance. You just need the dates. If you land a kerbal on Duna by day 600 you receive  a 20% world first bonus from that boom event in addition to the base reward; if you land a probe on Laythe by Year 5 you get a bonus free tech unlock, and so forth. The space race is merely implied and players can choose to interpret it as their imagination desires. Its also a time pressure you can scale specifically to the task and the rate of progression. It doesn’t actively punish players for playing slowly, and you can even cinch up the dates to make it harder on higher difficulties. 

Reactor fuel is the only  thing that's confirmed. I'd like life support but that hasn't even been eluded to yet and boil off is a realism overhaul feature that I do not expect even slightly to exist in stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Reactor fuel is the only  thing that's confirmed. I'd like life support but that hasn't even been eluded to yet and boil off is a realism overhaul feature that I do not expect even slightly to exist in stock.

I wouldn’t even want boil off for most fuels, but it could be a factor for late game fuels like MH or Antimatter. And reactor fuel and LS only matter if there’s some gameplay advantage to keeping the lights on and Kerbals fed and happy. Obviously not enough is confirmed for us to know for sure what will be in the game. We’re throwing out ideas for what could work in theory. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
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...