shdwlrd

I second this. The devs know the flaws in KSP1 because they are fans. Intercept won't repeat the mistakes that Squad made. (I really hope my assumption doesn't make me a donkey.)

Not a bad idea. For some reason I think cryo pods will either be stock or will be added as a mod quickly after release.

best reply ever

I like that. It's probably the only way for me to see the worlds as the devs intended for awhile. (At least until the gpu market isn't ruled by the scalpers.)

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with opinions, as long as it remains civil. I can see both sides of this, but the problem is we have no idea how Intercept intends on implementing their Adventure mode. It's unknown in what time period they want to start at? Does Intercept want to start where the Kerbal know nothing about space travel. (How KSP1 starts.) Or are they starting the game after the Kerbals finished exploring their star system. (The current end/sandbox of KSP1.) We just don't know. But that only affects what parts you start with. The Kerbals themselves, there are a few ways players see them. Some people see the Kerbals as dumb olfs that miraculously can build working rockets but are ignorant to the world around them. (Only good for blowing up.) Some people see Kerbals as intelligent but a little too enthusiastic/reckless with their exploration of space. (This is how the devs describe the Kerbals by the way.) Some people see Kerbals as little green representations of humans with all our virtues and flaws. Only one of these descriptions make the Kerbals idiots that don't know anything. The others would have a excellent knowledge of Kerbin and a decent enough knowledge of their star system. (At least enough to know what planets are in the Kerbol system and approximate properties of each planet.) So this type of start, in part, doesn't fit what the devs think of the Kerbals nor does it fit in line to how, in my opinion, the devs see the current state of the Kerbals technological development.

I don't know how anyone would like a boring grind without getting paid for it, but to each their own I guess. It's an option, not a good one for everyone. Maybe a mod, but not an option for stock.

The science and career modes will be replaced with what the devs are calling adventure mode. There is no info that has been released so far. Now with that out of the way. (A common disclaimer I will add with any mention of a career or science modes.) That type of start will drive away new players and any veteran players who disliked science and/or career modes. I mean, the Kerbals live on the planet, they have observed the planets in their solar system, they should have an idea about what planets and moons are in their star system, and their general properties. If KSP2 is an continuation of KSP1, then you are stripping out everything the Kerbals have done in KSP1 for no good reason. You are also making the game way too grindy and complicated just for the sake of grind and complexity. Adding to the fact that you'll have to discover new technologies, fuels, solar systems and exoplanets. It doesn't sound like a fun game to me.

Why is it so important to have stock weapons in KSP? The game is centered around peaceful exploration and discovery. Not blowing everything up that you see. Not claiming and defending territories. (There are much better games for that anyway.) Yes, disagreements between players can happen. And yes, players will mess around to see who is the better pilot or who has the better design. But we don't need specific weapons added to the game. There are creative ways to make weapons, or you can add a weapons specific mod if you want. Basically, weapons are out of scope for stock KSP. Weapons don't fit into the grand idea for KSP.

How? You will be limited by the size of the ground VAB. By the time you have the orbital VAB, you should be beyond the Mun anyway.

I love threads like this. You end up learning a lot of information you didn't think you would be interested in but, you're learning something new and interesting. I guess it's the KSP way, accidentally learning something new.

But where the cut off going to be? GTX20 series? Low end GTX30 series? The thing is no matter how good the optimizations are, on PC, there is always an issue when it comes to graphics. There's always a compromise that will have to be made if you don't have the bleeding edge hardware. Now don't get me wrong, KSP2 will be a beautiful game. The real question is how many normal gamers will be able to play at those standards?

@Pthigrivi it's easy to setup a sphere of influence for adjacency to work in a 3d environment. But I digress, thinking about other games I've played in the past. The more blatant complexity added to the game, the less likely I'm going to play it for long. KSP is a very complex and challenging game. But once you learn the complex parts, it gets easier. No less challenging, but easier. Now, adding anything beyond simple resource connections is adding needless complexity to an already complex game. At some point it will become too much. Would you rather spend your time designing your next mission or troubleshooting why the ore isn't making it through your colony to the isru? Too complex doesn't make for fun gameplay, nor does too easy appease the average player. A good balance is where you have people saying it fine but could be a little easier/harder. Now, location, location, location. Outside of the obvious plopping a base near resources. It would be interesting to see if geological features will have an impact on colonies.

I can care less about consoles. I'm concerned about the PC side. I'm concerned about the fact you can barely find and afford any good current hardware. I'm concerned that I won't be able to even think about using any of the stock visuals.

Really pretty landscape, but I'm really beginning to worry about the system requirements. Since video cards are still really hard to come by. I would wonder how many players will be able to run the game with that type of graphics fidelity.

Since I'm envisioning that type of connections for early bases, and the need for any connections decreases except for any extra greebling you may want to do. It seems to be the most reasonable without making it an annoying pain in the cheeks like in KSP1 and wandering too far into the construction sim games where you have to route everything. I do see what your intentions were. In my opinion anything more complex should be in the realm of mods. And yes, interspace is a good little game to scratch the city and factory builder itch at the same time. And it simple enough not to drown in an ever increasing complexity of the next step. Basically yes. It's a simple system but your right, the bonuses can't be too great. It could be used to help colonies that are specialized in a resource achieve better yields with also looking the part. With establishing a new colony in a new star system, the player can construct their initial colony to prioritize what resources they have an immediate need for and change it later if they want. (If I remember right, there will be a way to update your colony through the BAE.) If a player doesn't want any losses in production, that's pure fantasy. But if they are that loss adverse, the system is flexible enough where they can build the way they want with little sacrifices that shouldn't ruin the game play. (Frankly, I think KSP2 will add limitations to the game that will even throw the veteran players at times and force you to make sacrifices we wouldn't have in KSP1.)

Not really, if you played Infraspace, all that adjacency does is give you a percentage boost to production, nothing more. You can have storage and converters anywhere you want and it doesn't effect the base conversion rates. But if you have them within a certain radius of each other, you receive an output boost. (Basically like adding engineers to a drill or isru.) @Pthigrivi you're starting to over think the connection idea. In the case of basic utility/resource distribution from the source to destination, you would be better off having no physical connection and just assume that there is a buried cable/pipe/conveyor running from the source to the destination. When connecting to multiple habitable modules or buildings, then something like a utility corridor is all that is needed. That way resources and Kerbals can move between them. There's no need to get anymore complicated than that. All you need is one flexible part to put in between the modules.

Radiation protection and heat transference should be taken care of at the LS level so I can't see that being a concern. (Basically an unnecessary worry when building a colony.) Interconnectivity starts becoming less of a concern the more advanced your colony gets. Starting bases and small colonies (assuming they are on the ground) connected modules would be seen as a luxury where as a fully advanced colony it would be seen as a common thing. (If you remember the fuel factory and power generation show n tells, all the buildings are on foundations with built-in connections.) Now if you want to separate different areas of your colony, I can see the need for connections between the areas. A simple resource connection is all that is needed. One thing I can see as a boon is adjacency. It's something that can really help with the resource conversions and game speed. It can also spur reasonably setup colonies where your storages are connected to or near your converters.

Lol, I never said it should be done that way. All I'm saying is it could done that way. I think it would be funny to see someone's craft with half the parts missing because you don't have that mod installed.

Is it? How long does it take an experienced UI developer to create a new UI? It can't be that long or they wouldn't have a job. We don't know when that screen was captured. It could have been months prior to the actual release of the dev diary. Much like all the other screenshots and videos, you can't say when it was taken or if an element has been finalized or not. All the previews we have seen have been taken on different builds of the game. Sometimes one dev diary or spotlight will include previews from multiple builds at once. So it's very unwise it think anything shown in a preview picture is what will be shown in the final version.

Nope, that is one of many different UI's that has been shown. All the UI's shown are for testing purposes. So you can't really infer the final look or style for them.

I wouldn't know, I don't use visual mods. In games I prefer performance over looks.

Nope, in Space Engineers the client doesn't need the same mods as the server. It's helpful to do so, but it's not necessary.

It's a better looking version of real plume.

The parts are larger and longer than what is available in KSP1. If you're familiar the USI constellation of mods, all the rings, spherical tanks, cargo containers, trusses bear a striking resemblance to older versions of the FFT mod. The parts in the FFT are at least 2x longer than the largest stock parts.

Guessing you just noticed the random Kerbals that are used for scale.