shdwlrd

Just to add my 2 cents into the conversation. Depending on the mission type, you may or may not need a Kerbal present. You should have the same control whether or not a Kerbal is present. The argument is about a rather trivial point. As I have said before, KSP is a game, not a true simulator. So annoyances like signal delay can be ignored and you still have the same game play. If you want harder game play, use either self imposed restrictions or a mod that makes things harder. Basically at a certain point, Intercept has to have a cutoff on options. Signal delay is a no brainer, there's a massive change in gameplay with no easy ways around it. There's no positives that can be added to the gameplay by adding signal delay, only negatives. So why include it at all, optional or not. Signal delay is mod territory and shouldn't be stock.

Yes, LS shouldn't be punishing nor a hassle to plan. Basically it should only apply to colonies beyond a basic level. Most craft designed for space, everything related to LS should be built in and accounted for. No additional parts required. Just add the amount of supplies you need, and that's it. Habitation is as simple as adding extra space to a craft or colony. Basically some place to get away during the long trips to Jool or the many years stuck in orbit somewhere.

Why do you think KSP2 will keep any of the science systems of KSP1? The way you keep referring to KSP1 science system it seems like you're expecting Intercept to keep the same system. I'm not going to quote the rest of your post since I mostly agree with it. Science should be set and forget. You could require an active communication constellation before you can start science collection off Kerbin. But the big thing is you shouldn't be getting much collectable science from Kerbin. Kerbin is your homeworld, you should know it already. Most activities on Kerbin should be testing and researching. You shouldn't be directly involved unless you actually want to do it. Off Kerbin, yes, you will have to visit the different biomes, but all you have to do is drop a science package and be done with it. Another way to hide the grind is keep the player busy so they don't realize that the grind is happening. Contracts or assigned missions in the early game can help mask the grind. They can be used to teach and provide an example to how you should undertake the next steps. The big thing with contracts and missions are that they can't be too long or too short. After a certain point, they fall into the background and behave more like trackers for different boom events. (Probably after you get the automatic resource transfers working or you have your 1st interplanetary base.) Ps. Contracts and missions don't fund your early game. They have costs involved, but the funding come from the people and industries of Kerbin. Off world its primarily the resources you collect and transfer that fund the construction of crafts and bases/colonies.

There's one I can actually see being an achievement.

I remember Nate saying something about the KSP Easter eggs won't be in KSP2, but new ones will be added. I don't know if he is talking about the monoliths and other strangeness or everything including the landmarks. To better answer your question, I doubt it will be in KSP2. It's an Easter egg, so no one outside of Intercept will know until someone finds it.

Make a colony on a large asteroid?

But KSP is a game where you simulate realistic space flight, not a space flight simulator. So some real life headaches like signal delays can be ignored because it's a game, not a simulator. Much like how MS Flight simulator is good enough for real pilots to retain their flight skills, but isn't good enough to count to their flight or training time. Only a true certified flight simulator can do that.

Ok. The throttle for crazy mode is related to the amount of power that is fed into the engine. Higher the throttle, the less time you can spend zooming around in crazy mode. You can't directly control crazy mode with the throttle. (It really isn't necessary anyway, the gravitic engine will provide enough acceleration to easily escape Eve's gravity well.) Also crazy mode has an altitude and collision restrictions. If you're too low or will collide into the terrain, crazy mode won't work, or won't get the range you're expected.

Isn't that most businesses?

@Pthigrivi my point is this; KSP is a sandbox style of gameplay. Squad introduced a career and science modes that was ok and a tech tree that was poorly laid out. That severely limited the play style of the individual and created the horrible pacing that KSP1 had. Intercept hasn't said anything about had their adventure mode would work. But in the beginning stages of the game where you're puttering around Kerbin's SOI is a perfect opportunity for both beginner and veteran players to learn the systems required for colony building, the resource collection and transfer systems, how the science and tech unlocks work, among the basic orbital maneuvering required to do anything in KSP. (Please notice that I'm not referring anything to KSP1 science and tech tree. They were garbage and shouldn't be assumed anything like them will be used in KSP2.) So the early pacing will be busy with smaller, less grandiose designs than the latter missions. That way you can spend time doing something productive until the first transfer windows appear, and you don't feel like you're wasting time. You also have to remember, the size of the rocket you build will be limited to the physical size of the VAB, which in turn, limits the launch mass. So, why limit the amount of science, resources you can get in the early game? It seems you don't want the player to have the necessary resources available to immediately take advantage of the first available transfer window. Most veteran KSP players do understand you will have to wait sometimes. The impatient players know when and how to brute force the natural timing of the Kerbol system. So why force these players to wait longer than they have to? Why remove the sandbox design and play style from KSP? I get any type of progression system will limit the design options. But the progression system shouldn't get in the way of the play style in a sandbox game. If the player wants to play fast and loose; so be it, let them play fast and loose. The same goes with the player that wants to play a slow and conservative approach. Both play styles are equally valid ways to play a sandbox style of game.

That wouldn't happen anyway. There's no way to time warp from outpost to full-fledged colony without player intervention. Nate specify said that would be the case. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And you're right, collection and conversion rate will dictate the pace of the game. But leave it to the player to decide on how to leverage the mechanics of the game without unnecessary limitations. Multiple low-tech solutions or one high-tech solution, it doesn't matter, they are both doing the same thing. I'm expecting to see this too. One thing I will have to say is, if a player is getting what they need in a timely manner, they won't care how sloppy a setup is. Unless the whole point of the game is to create an efficient process as possible, "it's good enough" will always win. That's a nice vision on how to progress, but that is YOUR vision on how to progress. You're forgetting that once a player can brute force a transfer, they just might. Or a player doesn't know what the proper transfer windows are, and just go for it ignoring efficiency. (Probably leaving some Kerbals stranded, but hey, it happens.) You have to remember that there are players that know how to create vacuum rated craft that can have a DV in the thousands even if they are using size 1 parts and engines. (And not using the NERV either.) That's the reason for time warping through resource collection and science. Some people are more than happy to run multiple missions at once. Some don't want that hassle. Some are willing to have it take multiple game sessions to reach a milestone, some don't want that. You may have several hours a week to play, I may have 2-3 hours a week to play. The player is the one to dictate the pace, and if time warping is the thing that allows the player to play at the pace they want, why nerf it? Yes, there are down times between the proper transfer windows. But as I said earlier, if you get a craft with 10000 DV into orbit in the early game, you can go just about anywhere in the Kerbol system at any time. They may not be the most efficient or the quickest transfers, but they will get you there. Or you can spend a couple minutes and time warp to the next transfer window without losing the resources and science that is do to you. Your right, the number of staff should play into the efficiency of an outpost, base or colony. But as discussed, there are other parameters you have to take into account too. Or you're just building up supplies for the future.

That's the wrong take on that. The max collection and conversion rates should be based the perfect situation. Then take the rate down based on what situation you have at the moment. If you using a basic drill, in a low resource concentration area, with intermittent power losses. I would expect your yields to be quite poor. I would expect the opposite if you had the proper drills, constant power, and good resource concentrations. That shouldn't change whether or not you time warp or not. You need to leave up to the player make a better situation, if they want to. You can't force a good resource collection situation down because it's deemed too fast. You have to let the players play at their pace. Just because it may take you 2 years game time before you have a surface base on the Mun, it shouldn't stop someone doing it in 30 days game time.

Time warping will be abused for resource collection and science no matter what you do. There will be players that are impatient and will skip ahead whether it's practical to do so or not. You won't be able to force the player to wait until they have the proper equipment unlocked. Basically, the adventure mode has to be flexible enough for the people who won't wait and will start brute forcing everything, but will advance the tech when appropriate. I personally, don't want Intercept to dictate the pace I have to play. That would be akin to an open world RPG, and I wouldn't play it. I hate unnecessary grind in games. If I feel the grind is unnecessary, I will stop playing. If I have to wait for too long for the next step, I'll stop playing. If the grind starts feeling like a chore, I'll stop playing. If the adventure mode feels too grindy, I'm will immediately hop into sandbox and forget the grind and do what I want. I will play by most rules, but I won't wait unnecessarily for some arbitrarily point scale to say I'm ready for the next level.

no...

You shouldn't need any other engines with the gravitic engine. How are you controlling it? Are you using the UI? Are you using direct throttle? Are you using the PAW?

Color selection will be in KSP2. I'm sure they can add selectable textures to create that effect. (SE is a good example of this.)

LOL... what is the definition of kraken tech these days? Because the abuse of colliders and joint strength to make contraptions that wasn't intended or expected to be in KSP but didn't break the physics engine wasn't considered kraken tech last I looked into it. (The last time I cared about anything like this, someone make a stock monorail.) Kraken tech was creating a contraption for controlling a physics bug/exploit last I heard.

Kraken tech is using the strange physics reactions to game the system. An example would be using the docking port drives. The elevator you made is what would be considered cleaver use of the parts that don't break the physics systems. An example of that is using thermometers as bearings for pure stock propellers or rotors. You should check out some of Azimech's contraptions to see what I mean. None of that I would consider kraken tech.

I can't see why you wouldn't be able to build complicated crafts. Outside of the big question if robotics will be stock or not. Even a moderately useful station can start getting complicated. Thinking about the interstellar ships, those will be complicated because you will need to bring everything to start a colony once you reach your destination. Kraken tech is questionable at this point. I'm sure you can find weird physics reactions if you look long enough, but no one knows how useful it would be until we get the game. From my understanding, the big aim for part interactions is to totally remove kraken inducing behaviors between the parts.

Depends on how Intercept does the parts. Semi-procedural with fuel switching, we can end up with the near the same number as KSP1. The same style as KSP1, I can guess 5 to 6 times more. There will always be some gaps.

Minmus and Duna. Minmus because it's easy to get to and land on. Duna because it's usually the first planet for interplanetary travel. That was my first thought.

At least someone is thinking about not making KSP2 so difficult that the challenge isn't fun anymore. Clouds, dust storms, dust devils would be cool to see. But having tangible effects could be too much.

This should be for setting up an colony on Eve before you have the MH engines.

Figured you were, but had to say something anyway. Bloom when used appropriately doesn't bother me. No to lens flare unless you are looking through something that can produce it. (Looking through a window, visor, glasses, etc.) Heat refraction where and when you would expect to see it.

Some people think camera shake and motion blur are cool and necessary. Then there are people who think it's disgusting and unnecessary. No to both.