KSP 1.0 General Thread + All the new features

[TheGamingNoobster]

This.

All my friends, who play KSP find it hard enough, and they aren't casual gamers.

My first docking took like one hour RL. It's no way easy.

(Just kidding. It was the second one. The first attempt ended in collision at twice of orbital speed, since I was orbiting the wrong way)

There's no need in making KSP harder, really.

I must agree! Recently I have taken up the task (If I would call it that. It is quite fun) of helping some of my friends understand KSP. Getting into orbit was hard for them. They haven't been to the mun. Not that I would expect them to!

I had to learn to play by myself and I played off an on. It took me over a year from first playing to docking a craft (although I first played before docking was added).

KSP doesn't have a learning curve, it has a learning wall! Sure I would like larger planets, life support and so on but if I want that there is TAC LS and Realism Overhaul.

Let us keep KSP playable for the majority of us.

[Motokid600]

But new players soon become old players and after a year or so land and returns can be done with your hands tied behind your back.

[Engineer of Stuff]

But new players soon become old players and after a year or so land and returns can be done with your hands tied behind your back.

It's good to be skilled at moving the mouse with your mouth.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Engineer Of Stuff
dat grammar

[Motokid600]

I dont even know what that means. Was that a counter argument of sorts? Ill add to what im saying. What im getting at is that after a player becomes fluent with the game the concept of "Once your in LKO your halfway to anywhere" is very apparent. And for instance a science package land and return can be done with relative ease without the need to refuel.

So now if if my lander can refuel a relatively easy task becomes even easier. WAY easier.

Actually now that i think about all ive said so far is with the assumption of having the Delta V information. Without a dV readout yea the games hard because its now a guessing game. So have the devs mentioned anything about having a dV readout for 1.0? Because if not then all ive said is null and void. The stock game is indeed difficult because its a shot in the dark on how much tonnage you need to put in orbit.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Motokid600

[Superfluous J]

I dont even know what that means. Was that a counter argument of sorts? Ill add to what im saying. What im getting at is that after a player becomes fluent with the game the concept of "Once your in LKO your halfway to anywhere" is very apparent. And for instance a science package land and return can be done with relative ease without the need to refuel.

So now if if my lander can refuel a relatively easy task becomes even easier. WAY easier.

Actually now that i think about all ive said so far is with the assumption of having the Delta V information. Without a dV readout yea the games hard because its now a guessing game. So have the devs mentioned anything about having a dV readout for 1.0? Because if not then all ive said is null and void.

I think he was just making a joke about playing with your hands behind your back.

Refueling bases do 2 things. They make your ships smaller, and therefore make the day-to-day mission building and planning of ships easier, as you pointed out.

They also give you something to do. And anybody who is so fluent in the game as to find refuelling stations too easy, has had to bump up against the very blatantly obvious wall that is the fact that there is NOTHING TO DO once you know how the game works. Some people can build bases just because they look cool. I can't. That to me is worse than any redundant contract. I need my bases to sever a PURPOSE and ISRU gives a purpose.

And for all that "making ships smaller and launches easier" ISRU gives, it also makes you think about, plan, build, and maintain an infrastructure to make use of the fuel you're getting. I for one enjoy that far more than I ever enjoyed launching ever-yet-larger ships.

[Motokid600]

I think he was just making a joke about playing with your hands behind your back.

..Right over my head! Wow... my apologies Engineer Of Stuff.

Refueling bases do 2 things. They make your ships smaller, and therefore make the day-to-day mission building and planning of ships easier, as you pointed out.

They also give you something to do. And anybody who is so fluent in the game as to find refuelling stations too easy, has had to bump up against the very blatantly obvious wall that is the fact that there is NOTHING TO DO once you know how the game works. Some people can build bases just because they look cool. I can't. That to me is worse than any redundant contract. I need my bases to sever a PURPOSE and ISRU gives a purpose.

And for all that "making ships smaller and launches easier" ISRU gives, it also makes you think about, plan, build, and maintain an infrastructure to make use of the fuel you're getting. I for one enjoy that far more than I ever enjoyed launching ever-yet-larger ships.

Agreed. But imagine if the planets were atleast two times the scale with the ISRU. Its not a matter of larger rockets, but more complex missions and more launches needed per mission. For instance sending the miner out and storing fuel long before the crew/return probe gets there, having to dock to transfer stages in orbit, etc... granted that can all be done in the stock game, but it can just as easily be done with one launch on that very massive rocket because of the small dV requirements.

However like i said earlier the scaling of the planets issue has been talked about in great depth in the past. Maybe in the future Squad will do such a thing. Maybe not.. but until then I suppose mods will have to fill that difficultly gap. Fair enough..

Edited April 6, 2015 by Motokid600

[Findthepin1]

what about new planets

we need new planets

and an end goal for the game

[hellion13]

A lot of new stuffs to be added to the game with this release. I see a flurry of patches after release. Though they might surprise me and put out the most stable release ever, who knows. Won't know till I load it up the first time.

Looking forward to loading up steam and having to wait for an update to download.

[Robotengineer]

what about new planets

we need new planets

and an end goal for the game

That's one of the main selling points of the game, the fact that it does not have an end goal.

[Endersmens]

About planets....

I think it would be amazing if after 1.0, we had planet packs. We have them now, but it would be cool to have official planet packs, that aren't part of a mod, just more stock planets. (I think i remember squad saying something about having DLCs)

[tater]

That's one of the main selling points of the game, the fact that it does not have an end goal.

I disagree, entirely.

KSP has 3 games within. Sandbox, Science, and career. Career requires that at the very least the devs have an end-goal in mind. They do, in fact by default, which is the end of the tech tree, and the entirely arbitrary order it is arranged.

The FIRST step in game design (I'm talking broadly here, even board games (geek I am that means a hex map to me)), is the goal, the POINT. If they want to sell us an add-on, say (which I would prepay for now, I've gotten way more enjoyment than I paid for), it would be nice to know that KSP is set from 1955 to the 1980s (an alternate reality where we actually did stuff) with "pre-colonizartion" as the end goal (habitats, but not permanent societies). Some sense of the point of career, or even multiple points the player can choose from. Career games need goals/rewards.

Sandbox, etc is a different story. Heck science mode needs an entire revamp---the solar system needs to be what is know by telescope from Kerbin, and the player should have to learn via the space program anything unknown by telescopic observation (but that's another thread).

[TimePeriod]

This game only ends when your imagination stops.

840 hours on steam and I can't seem to stop.

"The End" is never neigh.

[lucretius]

Would an update to the Unity 5 engine allow the game to grow visually?

if so do people reckon squad will allow the game to take advantage of decent hardware ?

KSP has so much potential, imagine how the game would look and feel with high res detailed textures and effects,

im sure a large portion of the users own a computer with more then 4 gigs of ram and a integrated gpu.

Edited April 7, 2015 by lucretius

[Robotengineer]

I disagree, entirely.

KSP has 3 games within. Sandbox, Science, and career. Career requires that at the very least the devs have an end-goal in mind. They do, in fact by default, which is the end of the tech tree, and the entirely arbitrary order it is arranged.

The FIRST step in game design (I'm talking broadly here, even board games (geek I am that means a hex map to me)), is the goal, the POINT. If they want to sell us an add-on, say (which I would prepay for now, I've gotten way more enjoyment than I paid for), it would be nice to know that KSP is set from 1955 to the 1980s (an alternate reality where we actually did stuff) with "pre-colonizartion" as the end goal (habitats, but not permanent societies). Some sense of the point of career, or even multiple points the player can choose from. Career games need goals/rewards.

Sandbox, etc is a different story. Heck science mode needs an entire revamp---the solar system needs to be what is know by telescope from Kerbin, and the player should have to learn via the space program anything unknown by telescopic observation (but that's another thread).

I don't see where we are disagreeing? I meant that there is no 'you win!' end screen. It's impossible to win, or lose for that matter, at KSP.

[r4pt0r]

I disagree, entirely.

KSP has 3 games within. Sandbox, Science, and career. Career requires that at the very least the devs have an end-goal in mind. They do, in fact by default, which is the end of the tech tree, and the entirely arbitrary order it is arranged.

The FIRST step in game design (I'm talking broadly here, even board games (geek I am that means a hex map to me)), is the goal, the POINT. If they want to sell us an add-on, say (which I would prepay for now, I've gotten way more enjoyment than I paid for), it would be nice to know that KSP is set from 1955 to the 1980s (an alternate reality where we actually did stuff) with "pre-colonizartion" as the end goal (habitats, but not permanent societies). Some sense of the point of career, or even multiple points the player can choose from. Career games need goals/rewards.

Sandbox, etc is a different story. Heck science mode needs an entire revamp---the solar system needs to be what is know by telescope from Kerbin, and the player should have to learn via the space program anything unknown by telescopic observation (but that's another thread).

Actually, the end of the techtree is the end of the tutorial, not an 'end goal' itself. Thats why there is a tech tree, to introduce players to parts slowly. The have stated that this is the intention.

[EtherDragon]

I don't see where we are disagreeing? I meant that there is no 'you win!' end screen. It's impossible to win, or lose for that matter, at KSP.

According to the dev notes, it will be possible (but really hard, from what I gather) to lose! If you have low rep, no funds, and no science, and go bankrupt - or something.

A few rare games do a really good job of having a difinitive game-winning goal, but then let you continue to play the same game in a much more sandbox sort of way; Spore is a great example - you can clearly win the game, there is an inherent goal to the whole thing. But once you win, the game doesn't end - you can keep playing much like you are. In Spore, there are plenty of really cool side-goals along the way that aren't directly related to the central goal, but do help over time.

We'll have to see what 1.0 offers as the end-game goal for Career Mode. Is it to unlock the whole science tree?

[tater]

I don't see where we are disagreeing? I meant that there is no 'you win!' end screen. It's impossible to win, or lose for that matter, at KSP.

You said and end goal, not an "end game" (like, "Congratulations, you won the solar system!").

A goal would be the idea of what the end game should look like in career, IMHO.

Actually, the end of the techtree is the end of the tutorial, not an 'end goal' itself. Thats why there is a tech tree, to introduce players to parts slowly. The have stated that this is the intention.

The tech tree is absolutely the de facto end game in career. Most of us play on for other reasons, but game design comes with some psychological baggage that the designers and players need to be aware of. Players will play to the reward system unconsciously. It's well established, and it's why some cheap little app games are in fact so addicting. The notion that the tech tree introduces parts in some meaningful, instructive way is clearly false, one only need look at the tech tree arrangement. Where are aircraft parts relative to the landing gear? The fact is that most of the tech tree in RL is concurrent, and the arrangement currently makes the game EASIER later in the game, not harder. It would be possible to arrange it so that the first nodes would force the player to learn stuff, but I just don't think this is the case.

A goal is what all the gameplay design decisions should drive. If the goal is "tycoon," then they should add features that make management, not piloting, more of a thing, instead of a tacked-on afterthought. If the goal is "Science!" then make the game push/incentivize that behavior, and make science useful in actual gameplay. I don't expect a "game over, you won!" moment, I just want the design goals to actually be coherent.

The basic question is still up in the air, IMO: What is the point of KSP career mode?

Apparently Squad once said "like Tycoon, but with a space program." (my paraphrase, not a real quote)

If that is the goal, it fails---badly, IMHO. Does anyone want to play that game? Some might, particularly if Science mode was like career, but with science play rather than business play as the design goal.

Seriously, if it was a management game, the kerbals should be capable of acting autonomously. Not "mechjeb," but functionally similar, except the actual astronauts doing missions you design without your input. Develop a resupply craft, and task part of your program (and astronauts) to keep your space facilities in supply. Could the player do it themselves? Sure, but the game should allow you to play as designer/manager if "Tycoon" is really the goal. I never played any, frankly. If there was a railroad tycoon game, would people here expect the player to manually hook up every piece of rolling stock, then act as engineer for EVERY trip made by every train in their entire, national rail system? I think not. Imagine if in some "RTS" (which are neither real time, nor strategy, but I digress) required that you have to swing a hammer for XX minutes to upgrade each facility---that is entirely analogous to KSP right now. So Tycoon is not even a remote model to look at minus AI kerbals. Or of course TIME mattering… at all.

The player as the sole pilot is a fundamental problem of KSP as a management game. Personally, I play for the spaceflight and design elements, but I'd love having kerbals that could do, well, anything, by themselves, but particularly routine missions later in the game (LS resupply, etc). Heck, even just having the astronauts or probes execute planned maneuver nodes would make "management" more of a real thing.

Is the design goal of end game pre-colonization? That sounds closer with ISRU coming.

Edited April 7, 2015 by tater

[Robotengineer]

You said and end goal, not an "end game" (like, "Congratulations, you won the solar system!").

A goal would be the idea of what the end game should look like in career, IMHO.

--snip--

Sorry for my bad usage of game terminology. I agree that their needs to be a point to career mode, something defined, an end game that makes sense. KSP makes a terrible tycoon game, it either needs to stick to being a first person space sim where you 'build, fly, dream', or become a proper tycoon, which would be a real loss for the gaming community.

[falloutaddict]

I really like career mode, it is the only mode I even play... The one thing that do think is really poorly implemented is the strategies, they make little sense to me on how they are setup. The rewards don't really seem that useful even when I have my commitment all the way up. Filling out the tech tree is by no means the "de facto" end game. What about upgrading all of your facilities? What about completing all of the 'explore' missions. Certainly don't think it makes a terrible tycoon game at all even though I don't think that's what it was originally designed for. Say you want to launch a base to duna, well that's going to cost quite a bit of money, better launch a couple satellites to build up some funds. Better take some contracts that focus on Duna and see what missions I can incorporate into my original mission. Some people may like just building rockets and launching them into space. Career forces me to think more about how to make my missions cost effective and how to complete contracts more efficiently, and then rewards me for it. And I enjoy that. Some may not, but that's why there is multiple game settings. I don't think career is perfect, but it also doesn't need some huge overhaul. Just a couple tweeks here and there.

[delder92663]

I must agree! Recently I have taken up the task (If I would call it that. It is quite fun) of helping some of my friends understand KSP. Getting into orbit was hard for them. They haven't been to the mun. Not that I would expect them to!

I had to learn to play by myself and I played off an on. It took me over a year from first playing to docking a craft (although I first played before docking was added).

KSP doesn't have a learning curve, it has a learning wall! Sure I would like larger planets, life support and so on but if I want that there is TAC LS and Realism Overhaul.

Let us keep KSP playable for the majority of us.

I've been playing for 3 months and keep starting over every couple of weeks. First it was because I was going through all the mods trying to decide which ones would provide a rich yet challenging experience.

Since I got the mods I want all working I've only restarted my game once because I wasn't very systematic when gathering science. Now I'm taking a strategic approach to gathering science so I don't have to lopk back to figure out which experiments haven't been completed in each biome.

Now that I'm three months into playing I feel I am now ready to wrap up the show on Kerbin and hit up Mun.

No other game has ever been this much of a challenge for me (which I do enjoy). On the other hand I'm not sure how the average gamer would respond to taking that much time to get familiar with a game.

It may make sense to have a few more adjustments in the difficulty setting. If LS and deadly re-entry is included in 1.0 it would probably make sense to have the ability to choose whether or not you want these components to be active.

[falloutaddict]

I've been playing for 3 months and keep starting over every couple of weeks. First it was because I was going through all the mods trying to decide which ones would provide a rich yet challenging experience.

Since I got the mods I want all working I've only restarted my game once because I wasn't very systematic when gathering science. Now I'm taking a strategic approach to gathering science so I don't have to lopk back to figure out which experiments haven't been completed in each biome.

There is a section the in R&D building (I believe) that shows you what experiments you have done in which environments.

[smjjames]

The physics bubble is no longer constrained to 2.5km!

The Physics Bubble for vessels is no longer always set to 2.5km. Those values are now defined separately for each possible situation, so we now keep vessels in the atmosphere (or in sub-orbital trajectories) loaded up to 22.5km away. That means falling debris can now easily hit the ground (or KSC facilities) during launch, other vessels can reenter with you and actually hit the surface, quite a few interesting things.

[Mischief]

That means you can put recovery chutes on your boosters and recover them without needing a mod!

Happy happy happy, joy Joy JOY!

[Cirocco]

That means you can put recovery chutes on your boosters and recover them without needing a mod!

Happy happy happy, joy Joy JOY!

erm... I share your hope, I really do, but I'm not *entirely* sure about this one. It really depends on how far up they separate and more importantly: what speed and angle you're going/accellerating at. When I was experimenting with RATO (Rocket Assisted Take-Off) on my spaceplanes, I was already able to recover the boosters from under the wings with the current physics bubble by setting the chutes to open at 50m above ground, but it's a different matter entirely when using rockets.

If you use the larges SRB's currently available in stock, you're likely to ditch them somewhere around the 10km mark (assuming a regular ascent profile) and you'll be going pretty fast when you do, probably over 200m/s. The booster will fall to the ground, but you'll probably be accelarating away from it faster than it is falling. Add to that the fact that its travel time to the gorund is amplified by the thicker atmoshpere and the chutes, and you'll find that they'll likely leave physics bubble before they hit the ground.

That being said, there's a LOT of balance changes in the works. Maybe it will work in 1.0 (God I hope it does, I REALLY would like downrange SRB recovery). But as with everything in life: hope for the bet, prepare for the worst. But still hope for the best of course.

[delder92663]

- - - Updated - - -

erm... I share your hope, I really do, but I'm not *entirely* sure about this one. It really depends on how far up they separate and more importantly: what speed and angle you're going/accellerating at. When I was experimenting with RATO (Rocket Assisted Take-Off) on my spaceplanes, I was already able to recover the boosters from under the wings with the current physics bubble by setting the chutes to open at 50m above ground, but it's a different matter entirely when using rockets.

If you use the larges SRB's currently available in stock, you're likely to ditch them somewhere around the 10km mark (assuming a regular ascent profile) and you'll be going pretty fast when you do, probably over 200m/s. The booster will fall to the ground, but you'll probably be accelarating away from it faster than it is falling. Add to that the fact that its travel time to the gorund is amplified by the thicker atmoshpere and the chutes, and you'll find that they'll likely leave physics bubble before they hit the ground.

That being said, there's a LOT of balance changes in the works. Maybe it will work in 1.0 (God I hope it does, I REALLY would like downrange SRB recovery). But as with everything in life: hope for the bet, prepare for the worst. But still hope for the best of course.

I'll probably just make sure my first stages are short enough.

Will be interesting to see the game function beyond the2.5km bubble. I foresee renewed talk of space elevators. Obviously not on Kerbin though.

Edited April 8, 2015 by delder92663