What about interstellar communication?

[SciMan]

I can agree with that, I guess it's even better if it doesn't need a reason to explain it away, especially if that reason violates the known laws of physics.

"Because it's a game, dangit" is a fine reason. Not all things need to have an in-universe "immersive" explanation.

If you provide an in-universe explanation for everything, you do make a very immersive universe. But you also have to very carefully skirt around falling into the pit of making your "different" universe just be "Real life but almost not".

[t_v]

59 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

No, that's a false analogy. Really, it feels a lot like having to drop the landing gear in a flight simulator that's designed secondarily to teach people how planes work. There's bound to be people who think having to use the landing gear is grindy in a simulator where the most critical part of landing is the landing gear, but it is necessary. And yes, experienced pilots know that this is inaccurate, but a new player wouldn't know better.

Good thing KSP simulates landing gear then. 

43 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

46 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Analogies don't need to be one to one like that...

Well then it isn't an analogy.

You’re right, so let’s do away with the landing gear scenario, because in that one, it is actually relevant to aviation. The thing is, communication between colonies isn’t a space flight problem, it is a government one. Your ships won’t experience different gravity just because your colony is self-governing. It is akin to the anti-radiation paint that goes on airplanes: an actual, serious problem, that excluding would misinform people about (I bet 99% of people think airplanes just have regular, durable paint), and most importantly is not really relevant to the subject.
 

I mean, you could make a huge gameplay system on the outer layer of your plane in a flight sim, but it would just add grind. Not because some people deem it that way (nice straw man btw) but because it is (1) mandatory, as you have to deal with it or your plane breaks down and your passengers get cancer much faster, and (2) not really relevant to the main gameplay. 

I am strongly in support of features like SoL delay, as long as they are not mandatory. I’ll say this every time that some wacky idea gets introduced: as long as you can ignore it and be fine, there is no harm in implementing it (which isn’t saying that it should be implemented). SoL delays, if they are put into the core experience, are not ignorable. They create a choice between putting in more work and “cheating” by time warping, and they will harm a lot of players’ experiences. Yes it is “misinformation,” test it is unrealistic, but at the end of the day, I want to fly my probes without worrying about my RTGs decaying and whether I should fly yet another mission to unlock that crucial reactor technology yet again. 

[Pthigrivi]

…Unless of course there was already a fundamental reason why you’d want separate tech trees at each colony anyway. Like for instance if your tech options were driven by local conditions and local resource collection/stockpiles. It’s probably still wrong  though. I think you want the parts available no matter what. Its up to you as the player to get the resources on site to actually build them. 

[kerbiloid]

A multiplayer mode on dial-up modems should emulate the interstellar communication delay quite well.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

…Unless of course there was already a fundamental reason why you’d want separate tech trees at each colony anyway. Like for instance if your tech options were driven by local conditions and local resource collection/stockpiles. It’s probably still wrong  though. I think you want the parts available no matter what. Its up to you as the player to get the resources on site to actually build them. 

They could also have the tech tree being independed from the crafting capacity for parts in colonies.

One thing is having the blueprint to build a nuclear reactor a different one is being able to build it.

 

@Bej Kerman KSP is a game that happens to feature orbital mechanics.

That happens to be educational, absolutely, but it doesn't come with any implicit "responsibility".

Gameplay should be king. It's a game, not a teaching tool, not a realistic simulation.

 

Otherwise they should just put a big fat "NOPE" instead of any colonization or interstellar travel system.

Edited September 23, 2022 by Master39

[MechBFP]

Time to post this again. lol

 

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

Time to post this again. lol

 

Thanks for posting, I hadn't read this in a while. Certainly sounds like they've got the right focus on all this stuff.

Funny detail here: "Kerbals just need cool suits, snacks, and something fun to crash." Maybe spacesuit factory modules that turn colonists into Kerbalnauts? Hmmm

Edited September 23, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[SciMan]

I usually try to explain things with an "in-universe" explanation first. But at the end of the day, "it's a game, let it be a game, games are supposed to be fun, XYZ new weird mechanic that nobody asked for isn't fun and shouldn't be in the game" is my fallback line of reasoning.

And this time, "lightspeed communications delay for science transmission only and not probe control" is... very much not fun. Nobody likes having to wait to play with the new toys that the game told you "you unlocked this new thing" but you "can't actually play with them" because "the message hasn't gotten here yet" or something.

I'm not playing KSP 2 to "wait for something in the mail", which is what lightspeed communications delay for science transmission and tech tree unlock synchronization does.

I only put up with 2-day delivery on Amazon because it costs an absurd amount of money to get even faster shipping.

It costs 0 dollars to not play KSP 2 because it has a mechanic that introduces too much grind or "I could be doing so many other things right now that would probably be more fun" type incentives.

I don't do no hit runs. I don't do speed runs. If a game is too grindy, I'll cheat or just not play it. I generally don't play rogue-likes for a long time, even if I was really interested in them to start off.

KSP 1 as it is is already too grindy, which is why instead of playing it continuously I play it in short bursts of like 2-3 months at a time. After a while I forget how grindy it is, and I start thinking it's a fun game again, so I come back, find out it's very grindy, and get turned off of it. And that cycle repeats.

I don't want that happening with KSP 2. I don't even play KSP 1 career because locking things behind money just gets in the way of building and flying rockets. Same with the research requirements in Science mode, now that I think of it. All it does is get in the way. The tech tree isn't even organized in such a way that you get the truly useful and "really you should have these from the start" structural parts like beams and girders (the kinds of things that should be able to be taken directly from mundane architecture instead of having to unlock a "space rated" version), because parts of literal ground buildings shouldn't be locked behind needing to get research from the Mun. Same with the aerodynamics parts, there's no reason going to the Mun should unlock research about how to go faster thru the atmosphere with air-breathing propulsion.

[Bej Kerman]

8 minutes ago, SciMan said:

...that nobody asked for...

I know you're probably just trying to be hyperbolic here, but all that does is invalidate what we think.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, SciMan said:

I usually try to explain things with an "in-universe" explanation first. But at the end of the day, "it's a game, let it be a game, games are supposed to be fun, XYZ new weird mechanic that nobody asked for isn't fun and shouldn't be in the game" is my fallback line of reasoning.

And this time, "lightspeed communications delay for science transmission only and not probe control" is... very much not fun. Nobody likes having to wait to play with the new toys that the game told you "you unlocked this new thing" but you "can't actually play with them" because "the message hasn't gotten here yet" or something.

I'm not playing KSP 2 to "wait for something in the mail", which is what lightspeed communications delay for science transmission and tech tree unlock synchronization does.

I only put up with 2-day delivery on Amazon because it costs an absurd amount of money to get even faster shipping.

It costs 0 dollars to not play KSP 2 because it has a mechanic that introduces too much grind or "I could be doing so many other things right now that would probably be more fun" type incentives.

I don't do no hit runs. I don't do speed runs. If a game is too grindy, I'll cheat or just not play it. I generally don't play rogue-likes for a long time, even if I was really interested in them to start off.

KSP 1 as it is is already too grindy, which is why instead of playing it continuously I play it in short bursts of like 2-3 months at a time. After a while I forget how grindy it is, and I start thinking it's a fun game again, so I come back, find out it's very grindy, and get turned off of it. And that cycle repeats.

I don't want that happening with KSP 2. I don't even play KSP 1 career because locking things behind money just gets in the way of building and flying rockets. Same with the research requirements in Science mode, now that I think of it. All it does is get in the way. The tech tree isn't even organized in such a way that you get the truly useful and "really you should have these from the start" structural parts like beams and girders (the kinds of things that should be able to be taken directly from mundane architecture instead of having to unlock a "space rated" version), because parts of literal ground buildings shouldn't be locked behind needing to get research from the Mun. Same with the aerodynamics parts, there's no reason going to the Mun should unlock research about how to go faster thru the atmosphere with air-breathing propulsion.

 

Just because KSP1 management gameplay loops were badly designed and ended up being mindless grind it doesn't mean that that's the only way to implement gameplay of that kind.

The fact that there's a whole industry dedicated to management and strategy games should give you the hint that, probably there's a way to make that kind of mechanics fun and not just an obstacle in the way of the player.

 

I don't specifically want communication delay (Not for control), life support, habitats requirements or anything specific. But if in KSP2 is still possible (outside of sandbox) to have 60 external seats strapped on a fuel tank and call that a interplanetary-capable colonization ship it would be disappointing. Even more if that's the same for interstellar travel.

The game needs something to make the player understand and play with the enormity of the endeavor that interstellar travel is, having the player strapping a 2 seat capsule on a chemical rocket and timewarp for 200 years to reach another star system it wouldn't make the game feel much more different than games with hyperspace jumping.

[Bej Kerman]

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

The game needs something to make the player understand and play with the enormity of the endeavor that interstellar travel is, having the player strapping a 2 seat capsule on a chemical rocket and timewarp for 200 years to reach another star system it wouldn't make the game feel much more different than games with hyperspace jumping.

Couldn't agree more.

I think players being told that it'll take x decades for their discoveries to synchronise across systems, at lightspeed, would hammer in the distances involved way better than just the voyage out there alone or having to zoom out a bit in the map.

19 hours ago, SciMan said:

Nobody likes having to wait to play with the new toys

You're not waiting for your new toys in the first place; you can play with them inside the system where you unlocked them and use them to help expand your colonies there.

[MechBFP]

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Couldn't agree more.

I think players being told that it'll take x decades for their discoveries to synchronise across systems, at lightspeed, would hammer in the distances involved way better than just the voyage out there alone or having to zoom out a bit in the map.

You're not wrong, but its still terrible game design.

[Bej Kerman]

6 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

its still terrible game design.

Honestly, at worst this is a minor convenience. And besides, whether it's a necessary inconvenience or a fun strategic feature depends on its implementation.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[MechBFP]

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Honestly, at worst this is a minor convenience. And besides, whether it's a necessary inconvenience or a fun strategic feature depends on its implementation.

With time warp being available it is an unnecessary inconvenience. 

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Honestly, at worst this is a minor convenience. And besides, whether it's a necessary inconvenience or a fun strategic feature depends on its implementation.

With time warp being available it is an unnecessary inconvenience. 

It's completely necessary. You just can't have instantaneous colony communications in a game meant to teach its players how truly difficult interstellar travel is. Waiting for the results of a flyby probe 4 light years away is just as important as getting the probe out there.

[MechBFP]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

It's completely necessary. You just can't have instantaneous colony communications in a game meant to teach its players how truly difficult interstellar travel is. Waiting for the results of a flyby probe 4 light years away is just as important as getting the probe out there.

Well you both can, and will... so... lol.

[darthgently]

At the end of the day, players who don't want comm/tech delay won't have it and those who do want it will, with every possible wrinkly hybrid between.

The idea that everyone "should"play the same game seems to get people fired up beyond the actual the issues.  I wonder if there isn't some deeper societal issue being played out here.  Some deep need for everyone to do things the same way or something

[Bej Kerman]

33 minutes ago, darthgently said:

At the end of the day, players who don't want comm/tech delay won't have it and those who do want it will, with every possible wrinkly hybrid between.

The idea that everyone "should"play the same game seems to get people fired up beyond the actual the issues.  I wonder if there isn't some deeper societal issue being played out here.  Some deep need for everyone to do things the same way or something

I'm not concerned about how others play the game, I'm concerned about how KSP 2 is disregarding very real issues with interstellar travel.

[t_v]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

It's completely necessary. You just can't have instantaneous colony communications in a game meant to teach its players how truly difficult interstellar travel is.

The thing is, you absolutely can. SoL delay is a great tool to teach players how difficult interstellar organization (technically travel is unaffected) is, but it isn’t the only tool to do that, and it isn’t necessary. The actual difficulty of accelerating a craft to escape a star system towards another, intercepting it and slowing down is plenty enough. 
 

9 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'm not concerned about how others play the game, I'm concerned about how KSP 2 is disregarding very real issues with interstellar travel.

and KSP 2 is disregarding very real issues with orbital mechanics by excluding n-body instability, and is disregarding very real issues with life support by excluding Van Allen belts, and is disregarding very real issues with running a space program by excluding the Kerbal judicial process and public opinion, with all of the political games and misinformation that surround space flight. Your point is? Should all of those be included?

They certainly teach the player a lesson about the real issues with space travel, so surely they must be in, right? It isn’t enough to manage funding to show that running an agency is hard, you also need fully fledged politics. It isn’t enough to actually travel interstellar to show that it is hard, you also need communication delays. 
 

40 minutes ago, darthgently said:

At the end of the day, players who don't want comm/tech delay won't have it and those who do want it will, with every possible wrinkly hybrid between.

The idea that everyone "should"play the same game seems to get people fired up beyond the actual the issues.  I wonder if there isn't some deeper societal issue being played out here.  Some deep need for everyone to do things the same way or something

I completely agree with this. I’m personally going to play with SoL delay whether it is stock or not, because I like the decisions I have to make with it. But unless it is an option (and off by default), I will say that the default experience shouldn’t have SoL delays because for the average player it does very little to show the difficulties of interstellar travel (the difficulty has already been shown), and does a lot to making the experience less seamless and more filled with little annoyances like KSP 1. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by t_v

[Guest]

17 hours ago, MechBFP said:

but its still terrible game design.

It's not game design, not yet, not by far.

 

It's an idea of an idea that could be used to design several different gameplay loops or just explained away in a corner of the in-game wiki.

 

Saying "the game should have wings" is not gameplay design just in the same way you can't call a pile of rocks that happen to have the right elements in them "a car".

We start talking about actual gameplay design when discussing procedural Vs Lego wings, but even then it's still not much without the full context and balance.

 

Thinking like that limits your vision, it's easy to see what this way of thinking has done to every life support discussion on this whole forum, we're all deeply convinced that the only possible gameplay loop representing life support is "kerbal fuel" and its production and recycling, completely ignoring or disregarding every possible direction it could take as a mere addition to the Minecraft-esque idea of just having a hunger bar and a chest of snacks.

(Random idea of a LS that isn't kerbal fuel? Every bit of LS equipment is a EVA replaceable part, rated to last X time. Let's take an atmospheric scrubber as an example, an early game one is rated for 2 week of use can keep alive 3 kerbals for that time, it can be replaced during an EVA by an engineer and kept in storage for 2 years. No fuel, no spreadsheets, no resources to manage, no random failure, a system that integrates with EVA activities making them useful and ship design.*)

 

 

Managing time related gameplay in a game with time warp is nothing new, Transporter Tycoon had that kind of gameplay in '94.

Having delays, waits or time constraints doesn't automatically become null when you can accelerate time, otherwise every city builder, 4X, factory sim and tycoon / management game would be completely devoid of any kind of gameplay.

 

 

*: That's not a proposal, just an idea of an alternative way to implement the same "thing" but not in the most obvious gameplay loop everyone is fixated with.

[magnemoe]

On 9/22/2022 at 7:03 PM, Bej Kerman said:

No, that's a false analogy. Really, it feels a lot like having to drop the landing gear in a flight simulator that's designed secondarily to teach people how planes work. There's bound to be people who think having to use the landing gear is grindy in a simulator where the most critical part of landing is the landing gear, but it is necessary. And yes, experienced pilots know that this is inaccurate, but a new player wouldn't know better.

Or why can I not pass the sound barrier in KSP and realize the landing gear is still down. 
And people still lands without lowering the gear in real life. Think it was the DC3 who was designed with landing gear who could not be fully retracted, likely as it was not room but it was sold as an feature it the pilot forgot to lower it it would only ruin the propellers but to minor damage to rest of plane. 

As for raising the gear, it was an video of an Russian fighter jet pilot who raised the gear before the plane was in the air. 
That likely happen is that he held a raise landing gear button pressed during takeoff. Its an switch who prevent the gear to raise if the rear wheels has pressure on them. 
Now if you are close to takeoff speed and its an bump in the runway you might do an jump but this allows the gear to raise. 
I say he was lucky he did not carry drop tanks tanks or large missiles.