nikokespprfan

That would be a sensible method of aging, when it is radiation-induced. Given the engines we're getting, I think it's likely that radiation will affect the kerbals in some way. This is just the stretched out consequence of such a system.

yea, but to everyone who has learned to understand version numbers, there is a system to the abritrary choice that you don't really are to have an opinion about (I don't mean this nearly as harsh as it sounds BTW). 1.9 -> 1.9.1 implies a relatively small change within the current framework 1.9 -> 1.10 implies an iterative change of the current framework, like any old boring update of KSP1 1.9 -> 2.0 implies a radically redesigned framework, such as making KSP 2. Therefore I would not be surprised if any boring old updates of KSP 2 will start with KSP 2.1, and that KSP 2 is KSP v2.0 under the hood. THere is a logic here that people have come to read into version numbers. There are expectations there, and that is what I meant with "you aren't to have an opinion about." Now it might very well be that despite this, you point to an extreme example and use your dissapproval to criticise (this specific use of) this logic. In that case, point taken.

so physics breaks without a speed limit, nothing unrealistic there (he says as he realises how much work it is to put that into practice)

lets go a step deeper. What does it mean for me to be right about this? We observe this aging behaviour in KSP 1. The kerbals do not die of natural causes. We might very well observe this in KSP 2. My earlier logic implies that this might well be the case, but does that actually mean that kerbals don't die naturally? Am I right for the right reasons. (yes I'm having fun with this.) Let me ask another question to explain: does the kerbal universe have more than one star. It does, but it doesn't, but it does. It does (KSP2 shows more than one), but it doesn't (KSP1 only stars 1 star; kerbol), but it does (the kerbal universe has multiple stars, but they were approximated away in the first game). I bet you'll find many other examples of things in the KSP universe that game 1 approximated away, and is this yet another thing that is there, but just not visible for gameplay reasons. Surely KSP2 will not contain the entire kerbal universe. Now some people might argue that there is actually no such thing as a kerbal universe, and that instead we have a multiverse of kerbal universes, one for each game, some of which have phenomena that others do not. That this is the real answer to the paradox of differnece in observation we can see between the games. But those people would obviously be foolish in their presumptions.

Even though we humans on earth know concepts such as the space race (a very political phenomenon). Ever heard of the overview effect. weapons and space competition fly in the face of it. I'd say no to violence.

yea, thanks constant thrust during timewarp axial tilt way higher part count higher time warp bigger core sizes

Not so fast. It depends on whether they are goin to do weird things with their physics. Simulating 3-body physics for exampleis more heavy than rolling a vessel along exactly known on-rails paths like how it does in the original KSP. Then there is your assumption that the part limit grows linearly with performance, maning big improvement in performance = big improment in part limit. If it grows in a quadratic, exponential or, heaven forbid, factorial style, well, ther will be no real improvements in part limit. I don't pretend to know how it works exactly, but there is the potential for a real bummer there. Not to invalidate you point, but just wanted to put this forward.

yes I do. Most people who don't like the science system don't like it because it is a point based system. You explore the flagpole about the KSC to invent the nuclear engine. Real science doesn't work like that. So what I mean with this thread is how would a differnt science system look like.

Mandatory disclaimer on imagining new game systems for KSP2 The game will release in a year's time. We still haven't heard of it before last week, so it is probably safe to say that none of our suggestions will be heeded for the final game. At least, not in a way where we can ask the devs to significantly change direction. That said, there are plenty of reasons to work our collective hivemind into imagining what alternative game systems would look like, to detail them, to find what the problems would be, and how useful the idea's are when implemented. The goal of this thread is to go into detail about game systems that could have been different in KSP 2. As for the plenty of reasons of why this execrise could be useful; any future development of any ksp game in any capacity could have the benefit of having the players already figured out how the game could/needs to be improved in a detailed way. It becomes easier to implement something if it has a vision, it becomes easier to implement something that has its kinks worked out, and it becomes easier to implement something that has community support behind it. And maybe, just maybe, good ideas can move the current devs to make changes before the release..... (who knows) The science system is one many player like to see change, mainly because it doesn't reflect actual science. How would a hypothetical "good" science system look like. That is what this thread is for.

The article mentioned in the OP says explicitly that kerbals mutiply not in a time based system, but based on the status of their colony. This was done to remove time from the equation. In my opinion, this means that this stuff is entirely irrelevant. You don't need kerbals constantly replenishing a dying population over time. Kerbals that don't die naturally fits with kerbals only multiplying by colony growth. Still fun to speculate though.

Mandatory disclaimer on imagining new game systems for KSP2 The game will release in a year's time. We still haven't heard of it before last week, so it is probably safe to say that none of our suggestions will be heeded for the final game. At least, not in a way where we can ask the devs to significantly change direction. That said, there are plenty of reasons to work our collective hivemind into imagining what alternative game systems would look like, to detail them, to find what the problems would be, and how useful the idea's are when implemented. The goal of this thread is to go into detail about game systems that could have been different in KSP 2. As for the plenty of reasons of why this execrise could be useful; any future development of any ksp game in any capacity could have the benefit of having the players already figured out how the game could/needs to be improved in a detailed way. It becomes easier to implement something if it has a vision, it becomes easier to implement something that has its kinks worked out, and it becomes easier to implement something that has community support behind it. And maybe, just maybe, good ideas can move the current devs to make changes before the release..... (who knows) _______ After having read the KSP masterpost, I'm convinced that player focus gameplay systems will be essential in KSP2. Why is difficult to explain, and multiple aspects of of the announced game come into play here. So let me summarise the thoughts I've seen on those aspects, and how they tie into player focus. This is to explain my opinion, and aviod starting this discussion from scratch. Interstellar travel The problem with interstellar travel is that it takes a long time without FTL, but no-one wants FTL because it is scientifically unrealistic. Three nuances: 1) bases become stepping stones that reduce travel time. 2) the speed of light can be different in the KSP universe, as can the scale of the interstellar distances and 3) sci-fy engines can be more powerful, and get up to higher speeds than might be theoretically possible in real life. Currently many KSP-missions go like this: launch, spend time executing the mission, start over. The result is spending lots of ingame time on interstellar travel. Some in the masterthread noticed this already in interplanetary travel, and I think this will be worse when you go amongst the stars. A logical way to go around this is to be able to set a craft on an interstellar trajectory, put up a manouvre node, and let it be while you operate the rest of your space program. At some point, it will be time to switch back to your interstellar craft and finish the mission. However to do this practically, you need ways to keep track of all of it, in a way that doesn't make your head scream. Life support and Bases Another aspect comes with bases. Basically it comes down to the question of "how much do I need to do in order to sustain it". I personally think it's easy to both go overboard and go underboard with this. A game that simulates the difficulties of space flight cannot neglect something like life support, but many players would correctly moan about micromanagement if you need to keep babysitting every colony constantly. So ideally, you'd like to be able to bring a colony in a stable state, at which point you can divert your attention. In connection to this, certain bases might require getting materials from other places. Supply ships from home, or resource gathering missions from base. But then again, you don't want to keep flying these missions. again, attention. Maybe the solution is to fly the mission once, and set up that the game does this automatically for the future, but that is just an initial idea. So this are the main reasons why I think KSP needs systems to, well, actually manage your space program. But then again, most of us probably wouldn't want it to become a space program tycoon game. So tere are questions to be answered: what is the proper simplicty of the system? of it's UI? does this need to be worked into certain game modes, and do we have progression into the tools we have at our disposal. Are there other systems needed in this regard, and how would they work. Discuss....

I've read through the entire 39 pages of it so far, and I have stuff to say, mainly stuff everyone keeps arguing about. or rather I was, the thread suddenly got grown up in the last two pages. Glad. You don't have to read all of this above. Then I still have my opinion on n-body physics. On wanting N-body physics: or anything more than 2-body physics really. This limitation with the old game is not a problem of design, of implementation or of anything game-related. It is a problem of mathematics. If you want to riff your physics off of the real world, you will have to content with the fact that F=ma is a second order differential equation of the position that the game requires to keep track of. Simply stated: it contains the change of the change of the position over time. And those equations don't tend to be easily solvable, and they also don't tend to have simple solutions, such as "your orbit is an ellipse". KSP 1 relied on that simplicty to use what is called "on-rails" mechanics. Once you were in space, you could know your orbit exactly far into the future. It was always an ellipse of some kind, and it was very easy on the administrative part for your computer. Simply stated: Your orbit never changed; it was fixed, and exactly known. This is simply not possible with 3-body physics and beyond, because the mathematics becomes fundamentally chaotic. There is an astrophysical argument that these paths cannot be know analythically, because there is literally not enough information available to work with. Maybe for 3body physics, using hacks, ghost SOI's, approximations, assumptions etc, you can sort of make it work, but this is the work of a scientist or mathematician to figure that out. Beyond 3-body physics, you will have to content with approximated timestep simulations, which is much harder to implement than on-rails mechanics. Aerodynamics works this way I believe, and it puts strain on your pc and on the time-warps you are allowed to do. If you want anything other than 2-body physics, be prepared for all physics to be like the atmosphere. Not that this is bad per se. It could allow for lagrange points, for relativistic effects near black holes and in between travels to the stars. it could, as expressed wonderfully by someone earlier in this thread, "kick it up a notch" when it comes up to our understanding of orbital mechanics. But it will strain anyones computer, and it has an opportunity cost in higher part counts. So, what do you want?

Something like kerbal alarm clock or some other ways to deal with complex missions. Maybe the game can allow negative time-warp, where cannonically you are a different kerbal of mission control doing something in tandem with the first guy. If a space program has enough funds to build a deadalus, surely it has enough funds to hire more staff at mission control. ------ I'd personally like things to do with the more astronomical side of things. Sure KSP is about conquering the physics with rocket technology, especially in connection to the current/past rocket tech of KSP 1. However I'd like some aspects that focus on exploring the world the kerbals live in, and their place in it. Having the ability to see some astronomical phenomena up close, have kerbals(' societies) be impacted by the laws of physics and being involved in consequential astronomical (as opposed to technological) research. Ideas for this include; Axial tilt Activities surrounding the building space (and land)-telescopes, and other surveying sensors (climate, on-body weather, space weather, particles, debris-items, gravitational waves, light of various wavelegnths etc) this can be done with space engineering in mind, and is something that space programs do deal with. A sky-box that diplays the rest of the galaxy and further universe (both the reach-able part, but also the unreachable part of their universe. I'd imagine it be able to be photographed by sufficient telecopes, and studied.) Activities surrounding the monitoring of space weather Being impacted by the astronomical science possibilities set up by the player; these events could maybe serve as ideas to do to keep playing, for those players who find it difficult to keep thinking of things to do. learning about bodies as a player from having done research, not having all the data there at once. learning about the bigger galaxy by studying other galaxies (as is done in real life) using the previously mentioned telescopes, having the map view change drastically as the view on the galaxy becomes more clear. having to evacuate colonies/ships because of space weather or small debris learning about new places to go and explore in the reachable part of the galaxy, as you build more infrastructure Simulating Relativity around bodies like black holes and the likes. It sounds far-fetched, but maybe it works when done in a similar way to aerodynamics in KSP 1, a timestep simulation instead of on-rails mechanics. I say that knowing that "timestep simulation of Relativistic Physics" is a warped concept because of the weirdness of time. However, we know that children can do orbital manouvres nowadays that actual space pilots used to struggle with, because of KSP. Maybe "getting a feeling for relativity" can sort of be achieved as well if you are allowed to experience it. Being influenced by the conequences of debris (altough it needs to be balanced.)

The amount of segments per length of hose could maybe be a performance option, to curb the lag a little bit.

What about having part gain entirely new abilities as you develop them. Not unrealistic ones, or things like "lamps do not need electricity anymore" or anything, but things that make the part more complex but also more useful. A few examples: -At the beginning of the game the cockpit is unppressurized, you need to develop them to be able to safely go out of atmo. -The ability to hold fuel in the big wings is absent at first, and also has to be developed. -The thrust limiter in an SRB will be split up into a beginning and end thrust limiter, and will move linearly between the two as fuel is burnt. Also, maybe the stats of fairing-shape can be incorporated.

I really liked this, particularly the part of not knowing certain things, because the attitude that it would create [you want to have knowledge, try to get it.] fits in with the current attitude of the game [you want to go places, try to get to it]. By going to bodies you learn about bodies, just like by flying ships form orbit to orbit you learn how ships fly from orbit to orbit. I guess I'm more on the "stuff to find" side than the "stuff to do" side, as I would be doing exploring. You have a point here, most of the visual stuff might take a long time. While I wouldn't mind being patient, I do think however that there are some options that do not take years: -procedural scientific discoveries (small (maybe easter-egg small) biomes, preferably procedurally generated the position, that is, that, when you perform a certain science experiment, will yield a important scientific discovery discovery itself not procedurally generated, while the rest of the sensors work like if the biome wasn't there. This is to encourage roving and exploring) -small geology improvements (different ground properties in different biomes, extra science situations, clouds and biomes for Jool, difficulty option for collision mesh in scatter objects etc.) -Telescope, camera and mapping science for bodies and the skybox (no visuals needed, they only have to appear in the picture taken (picture manipulation may be a harder thing said than done)) -Not knowing (things) about bodies, and learning them as you go. I like this idea. Another way of getting fancy is to take aditional cicumstances into account (altitude, attitude, longitude and day/night) into the bonusses, as they follow the same rationale.

Although maybe new functionalities could be added to existing parts, as the research progresses, for example. Pressurized cockpits in early game (you can now safely go out of atmo) Separation of an SRB's thrust limiter into an start and end thrust limiter. Ability to hold fuel in the fueled wings. etc. This way you never actually change the stats, but make parts more useful.

That would add alot to the game, but players will start saying it is fake or a hoax and that it doesn't actually exist. Hash, maybe there already is a body in that place, who knows .

There is no world generation, it is a hight map that is the same in every game ever. You would need to change the height map. I thought I heard somewhere that gas giants do not become much larger when they become heavier, it is all gas, so the higher mass just compresses everything more, until fusion starts happening.

...too implement: Already been done. ...too get used to: The entire orbits mechanic is hard if you are new to it. As long as binary systems are not the first thing you need to master in KSP, everything will be fine, I think. I think the science system would benefit a more explorationative feel as well. Now every bit of landed planetary science can be compressed down to biome hopping. Sometimes you have to seek scientific data, go out there, to find it, and not just visit, load everything in, and go away. And most of the reasons for bringing probes to a body, getting detailed information (maps for example), or science to the origin of the kerbol system, are already been taken away by what kerbalkind already knows.

On the exploration part, maybe we could have very small area's where certain science experiments give different readings compared to the rest of the biome. This would simulate scientific discoveries done by, for instance rovers. There would at least be more to science than biome hopping would give you. Well, there are more things than just elliptical orbits, having binary systems or horseshoe orbits would give players extra orbital mechanics to learn and experiment with, but I think adding new bodies will be necessary for that.

"I think we should have more things to do on the bodies we visit." "The planets are not very interesting IMHO" Many players (me included) have these opinions, but what can SQUAD actually do to make bodies more interesting places? So what do you think? "What game mechanics (can be small, can be big) could be implemented to make bodies more interesting places?" As a start I'd suggest an idea based on one of my earlier threads, which involves camera and telescope experiments that show you pictures of the bodies in different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. You run your experiment -> the expeiment dialoge shows up -> instead of the experiment message, you see the picture taken in the wavelength of the camera/telescope -> You see things normally invisible (insides of atmospheres, aurora's, coronal ejections, easter eggs, name it.) show up. -> get science (and rep if in career)

Want to trow this in the conversation: A while back they had a vision of having expansion packs. I don't know their current plans on it, but if they still think it is a good idea, then this could be a way of adding scope to the game. I think I would prefer the extra scope to be added by means of expansion packs (and having the core direction towards depth). The ideas to expand the scope (as far as the opinions of the forums go) devided into different subjects (the Outer Kerbol Planet System, or the Science Overhaul, for instance), which I think fit in better in expansion packs than in just the core game.

No, do let them spawn underwater, it would be a cool challenge to go dive to them with an ore drill. For the bigger asteroids, you could consider this.

I had the opinion that implementing the spawning two-part craft instead of one-part craft was easier than designing new models. In that case, it would be an easier way to implement these odd shapes. I have some blender experience, and making the model and the mesh seems to me to be more work than spawning it in. (Not that I can't be wrong in that.)