Remove parts count as a limit to progression

[Vl3d]

This one is very straight to the point: in science and adventure mode allow for upgrades to runway / launch pad to improve maximum supported vessel weight and height (keep using weight / height as a progression limit), but please remove the VAB / SPH limitations regarding the maximum number of parts. It is an outdated KSP1 idea for slowing progression and mostly applies to fuel tanks and wings. It does not make sense to artificially limit craft complexity even at lower tech levels and also consider that with the introduction of procedural wings and hopefully length-step-wise procedural tanks, most part duplicates are removed from design anyway. Also, vessel weight overlaps with the parts count if we consider number of boosters.

Progression is also slowed down by the tech tree, by the wobbly rocket mechanic (lack of struts), by the craft diameter, by the need to discover celestial bodies, by the lack of a comms relay network and by the amount of resources available etc. The parts count limitation is no longer needed and could be replaced with a system of progression regarding number of assemblies in a workspace or number of stages (or whatever else, it's not my aim to propose an alternative).

PS: And I don't like the fact that we have to modify our first stage / booster subassemblies when we unlock longer fuel tanks just to get the part count down because previously we used 12 short tanks instead of just 3. Fuel tanks should really be procedural length-step-wise and all lengths for a certain diameter should unlock on the same tech tree node. Please streamline this, we have enough to worry about in the game!

Edited December 20, 2022 by Vl3d

[jastrone]

i do think we need something like that in ksp 2. it would be weird if the vab you built on another planet with minimal resources would be able to build the exact same rocket as your main ksc.

[intelliCom]

To @jastrone's point, part limits can be fun but are too arbitrary in KSP1. Beyond Kerbin, limitations on part counts (maybe even part types) should be restricted by what the player has available.

You shouldn't be building xenon probes without a xenon fuel factory on your colony.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, jastrone said:

i do think we need something like that in ksp 2. it would be weird if the vab you built on another planet with minimal resources would be able to build the exact same rocket as your main ksc.

That is not Vl3d's point. They're saying that the limiting factor with a colony should be weight and resources - there's no reason this should be part count instead. Why should NASA only be allowed to use at most 56,000 screws in their rockets? Wouldn't a mass or resource limit make more sense? Of course it would.

[GigFiz]

Definitely. and I don't recall seeing about it one way or the other, but this seems like the kind thing that they would get rid of, anyway.

But yes, saying " you can't add another booster because you don't have enough resources/production capacity to fabricate/fuel one" = good. Saying "you can't add another booster because you have hit an arbitrary max number of parts, but you could if you removed that backup antenna" = bad.

Also, forcing players to keep part counts low and ships more streamlined could kinda make sense in ksp1 when those are major vectors for kraken and performance issues. If those issues are fixed, then those limits stop making any sense they may have made

[Drakenred65]

I can see why they had a limit in carrer mode, as that was a stand in for  a space agency building up its teputation and budget, and to me it was just a minor thing. Just look for contracts you could do with existing ships or from the space hanger ( building a rover from 2  sci jr and a mk 1 pod to collect science around ksp was amusing, the mental image of Jen hamster balling around ksp for science ). Or buff starting funds when you launch a game. 

[zeekzeek22]

I most was annoyed by part count limits early in a playthrough when I wanted to slap a ton of science experiments on, but couldn't sacrifice fins or batteries or whathaveyou. I could see them making a science module limit based on the probe core or number of kerbals...need the fancy expensive core to fly a full suite of experiments...or a trunkload of kerbals!

But besides that, I agree part count seems arbitrary...I feel like it only serves

A. to prevent new players from frustrating themselves with krakeny crafts before they understand the beast (unnecessary...tutorials would suffice)

B. to like...hamper speedruns? To prevent experienced players from building monster rockets out of base parts? idk why the devs would want this

C. to curtail framerate issues...guiding players to make less-laggy crafts until they're an addicted pro who will break their poor computer flying a 2000 part rocket.

[Pthigrivi]

Totally agree. I feel like Nate might have even said something about that a long time ago? The something about removing part count but tightening up mass and size limits in early-tier VABs (though the late-stage VAB's would be bigger than what we have now.) Feel free to correct if Im misremembering. I suppose off-world VABs might be upgradable as well. As to the restrictions it should just come down to what you have unlocked and whether you have the resources onsite to build it. I don't think you should need a Xenon plant if you can transport Xenon to the colony from somewhere else. 

[Vl3d]

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

The something about removing part count but tightening up mass and size limits in early-tier VABs (though the late-stage VAB's would be bigger than what we have now.) Feel free to correct if I'm misremembering. I suppose off-world VABs might be upgradable as well.

I'm not sure but it sounds good!

[Drakenred65]

I suspect part of the  problem is all the science parts added by mods

 

one of rover dudes mods added 4 at tier 1, and my modded install level 1 also has 6 at start, and 10 total in in the first three, so yep. I need to weed out some old mods from that version

Edited December 20, 2022 by [email protected]

[whatsEJstandfor]

For weight limits on the runways and pads, it'd be cute if there wasn't a hard limit prior to upgrading, but rather that a vehicle heavier than the rated weight capacity has a chance to totally wreck the launch surface. Like, you try to take off from the pad, and the whole structure collapses and knocks your rocket off-axis, and you need to try to recover from it. idk im just spitballing

[Drakenred65]

I’m not interested in playin Kerbal building disaster simulator though.

[BowlerHatGuy3]

I agree on this for sandbox, but not the career modes. If you could build a rocket however big you want on the ground, there would be no reason to build shipyards or colonies.

The only reason this wasn’t a problem in Kerbal 1 is because most parts were relatively small and anything bigger than a Saturn V would cause your game to crash. Forcing rockets made on Kerbin to have a lower Delta V would encourage you to build new bases on other planets, which for career is a good thing.

[Skorj]

21 hours ago, BowlerHatGuy3 said:

I agree on this for sandbox, but not the career modes. If you could build a rocket however big you want on the ground, there would be no reason to build shipyards or colonies.

The only reason this wasn’t a problem in Kerbal 1 is because most parts were relatively small and anything bigger than a Saturn V would cause your game to crash. Forcing rockets made on Kerbin to have a lower Delta V would encourage you to build new bases on other planets, which for career is a good thing.

Mass and size limits do that.  Part count is just a bad way to do that in a game with a real game engine.

[BowlerHatGuy3]

2 hours ago, Skorj said:

Mass and size limits do that.  Part count is just a bad way to do that in a game with a real game engine.

True