monamipierrot
Members-
Posts
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by monamipierrot
-
For that specific reason I wrote about a dynamical in-game Wiki which may update whenever the player comes to know more facts about the Universe and its bodies. Also, the same mechanics may be applied to the Technology tree: only known parts will be detailed, while future tech layers will be "fogged" with limited Wiki info. A dynamic Wiki would be great also as a game log: each launch and mission would be properly registered in the Wiki, each Vessel type would have links to specific launches log, to the Parent Vessel (the previously saved craft), and to all its Sons (all the crafts that have been developed from the same craft save. Each Kerbal would have its own Wiki page with details of his launches and activities, the category "Dead Kerbals" would grow larger and larger... I have no specific example in other games but I have no doubt that this design has been already implemented somewhere.
-
Now this is becoming frustrating for me. At the risk of sounding childish, I really would love an explanation for this kind of reaction to my original proposal, or to this comment on another one: Expecially explain me: 1. how exactly could this new game experience would ruin ksp? till the point of "despise" it? 2. and why don't you think that it shouldn't be just a mode you can select at the beginning of the game (ok, let it not be the default mode)? I mean: if you say that it would be a waste of developer's time, with the risk of undermine some original code or other technical reasons, I could live with it. If you say that it would disrupt the social experience of having the same universe Felipe was talking about, I understand. I don't agree, but I understand. What I can't understand is that one DISPISE it or "stop reading further" as another user commented. Ok, so you don't like that you can't see planets at the beginning of the game, maybe because of a matter of realism bias (one should perfectly know their solar system if they already builded a Space Center, wether he is a human or a little green alien), or for a generic dislike of uncertainty, lack of information, and/or consequent randomness. I can still live with it - althou I must say I am puzzled by this because, by reading forum sections, FB posts and so on, I thought I shared many interests and tastes of most KSP players. Anyway, while I would really appreciate some of these explanations, I'll explain how I see the dialog windows at the beginning of a version of KSP that could embrace most if not all other proposals in this and in the other thread. At the start, you are prompted for a New Game. You then pass throu a series of dialog windows (or parallel windows): FIRST Select game progression mode: Career Science Sandbox [whatever else they could invent] SECOND Select Universe type (all options except 4 will take to THIRD window) Kerbol System [default] Select from library Random System (default parameters) Random System (manual options) 4 - Window dialog for RANDOM SYSTEM MANUAL OPTIONS (both exact values or fuzzy intervals can be selected): Solar system scale and bodies scale (0-10, where 4-6 is the default, 5 generates a Kerbol-like system, and, say, 9 is a Sun system-like size) Number of bodies (0-100, where 12-20 is the default) Body anomalies (0-10 where 5 is like Kerbol system, 0 produce perfectly round Orbit anomalies (0-100, where 50 is like Kerbol, 60 is like Sun, 0 is round orbits with 0º inclination, and 100 can generate extreme orbits) Impossible bodies and orbit on/off (e.g. a body orbiting another one with a smaller SOI), default is off Kerbin may be a moon on/off max nested moons (0-2 where 0 = no moons, 1 [default] = moons have no submoon, 2 means moons can have moons) min/max deltavs to reach orbit and closest/farthest/average body Kerbin is Earth-like on/off (you may want to start on a desolated moon instead!) Body collision checker on/off (if off 2 bodies could collide. In that very remote case, one or both of them could explode and be destroyed, or be merged in a bigger one - expect bugs!). [another cool way to present for generator options could be using (pseudo)astrophisical parameters, such as Star-type, star age, chemical spectrum, etc.: each of these parameters would correspond to one of the above options] THIRD Select fog-of-war type NONE: Everything is known, everywhere. I would call this the "Stranded God Mode". HAZE: All bodies are known, not their details [default. - and similar to current KSP version] MIST: Some bodies are known; some of them are fuzzy; some others are still invisible. FOG:Nothing is known. You don't know why you can see if all lights are turned off. You don't even know Kerbin is flat or round, let alone having a complete map of it! FOG-OF-WAR (experimental): Nothing is known. PLUS, when you reveal some info and images of some body, this could grow old: if something changes on the surface (e.g. weather, volcanic activity, seasons.... and enemy positions! ) your map vision will be NOT updated and will show old inexact informations and images. [This would be REALLY HARD to implement, but it may be key in a fully functional competitive/war future multiplayer version of KSP] Of course, all kind of fogs require at least a few more hardware parts (e.g. lenses, deep scanning sensors....) or buildings, which should be allowed in non-fog type of game. They would have some function even in NON-FOG game type (mainly science function). Tell me your thoughts about this. thanks! Piero
-
Fine for me! Maybe it is not that OT (still you're going to EXPLORE Northern Italy). And no, I' don't live in Italy (I live in Barcelona), but yes I am from Northern Italy. So you asked anything not to be missed? Mmmm I would say nothing at all, with maybe the exception for the secret delights of Verona (the only city where Romeo & Juliet could exist), the classical architecture of Vicenza, the Scrovegni chapel in Padova, Da Vinci's Last Supper in Milano, the museums of Torino, the crazy nightlife in Bologna, the Renaissance cities of Ferrara and Mantova, the beautiful lakes (Como, Garda, Maggiore), the Alps (ranging from the stunning Mont blanc / Monte rosa through the magical South-Tirol to the beautiful Dolomites), the mass seaside disconights of Rimini and the Adriatic sea, or opposite, the flower-filled hidden seaside of Liguria and Cinqueterre, the old cities of Bergamo, Brescia, Parma, Reggio Emilia, and Modena (the World Capital of good food, but if you are the engineer-type of KSP fan, you may also appreciate it as the World Capital of motors and visit Ferrari and Maserati museums), the always imitated classical villas of Treviso countryside, the natural village-with-cypresses filled gentle slopes of any of the Prealps hills, uncountable little old cities or old villages all over the region, as well as a little-known city I bet you never heard of and that some isolated folk out there claims it is the most beautiful in the world: Venice. Apart from the above... I would say nothing! (if you don't have enough with the North, remember that Toscana and Firenze are literally less than 1 hour of car/train from Bologna, and from there, you have the whole Central and Southern Italy waiting for you!) Take my advice: if you live by a city, you may just move by train and public transport. The two most farthest apart cities in the list above are less than 5 hours from each other by train, while the average being 1-2 hours, and sometimes as little as 20'. If you don't, then a car may be also good: in 4 hours you can reach every corner of Northern Italy, and maybe a little more to reach some remote Alps valleys. Also, with car you can visit Tuscany and jump from one city to the next in few minutes. In any case you have to understand that distances are very small compared with other countries so you may take advantage of this, visiting 2 or more cities in one day. Remember to plant a Kerbal flag. I never heard of someone not having a great time in Italy. Have a great time you too!!!!
-
Mmmm. This is curious. After your use of the word "exploration" in this way, I had a terrible doubt and went to check the English dictionary, as well as the Italian dictionary for "esplorazione" (I'm Italian) to see if there were some differences. And there were! ENGLISH (bold mine): the action of exploring an unfamiliar area. -or- the action of searching an area for natural resources. thorough examination of a subject. ITALIAN (translation, bold mine) Perlustrazione di luoghi sconosciuti con finalità scientifiche ("Reconnaissance of unknown places for scientific reasons") Ricognizione per valutare consistenza e dislocazione delle forze nemiche ("Patrol to evaluate location and dimension of enemy forces") Esame a scopo diagnostico di una parte del corpo ("Diagnostical test of a body part") The 1st definitions are interesting, let's stick to them. In English it uses the term "unfamiliar", while in italian it is "unknown". The 1st example in the Italian dictionary is "Geographical explorations", i.e. those expeditions to the poles, to remote places of central Africa or South America, and of course Magellan's expedition (but also Columbus one, althou it was not that "scientific"), and so on. They went to places which were not "unfamiliar". They were completely unknown. Nobody had a map, and nobody knew if wethere there were a volcan on the South Pole or a island on the North Pole, a giant lake at the top of Congo river, or a unknown civilization in South America. Certainly nobody knew that America and Australia did exist, and that were inhabitated. I would like to explore the unknown, and I am little interested in exploring the unfamiliar, to put it rough. Cause that is what I call EXPLORATION. If I misuse the word, sorry, my fault.
-
Discovery / doing actual science
monamipierrot replied to Twreed87's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
I give this for granted, and obvious. Is there really anyone that would love to replay minecraft with the SAME SEED? This would be authentical psychiatry meat, believe me. Me, for instance, I play KSP with NO REVERT (and no quicksave) because I want things to go on and never be the same. Complexity: +100% Emotive experience: +1,000% Depthness: +10,000% Fun: +100,000% I would give a half a toe nail for a official working procedural bodies (or random handmade, ok, for me it's the same) version of KSP. Combined with exploration... I would give a whole nail. Seriously. -
Discovery / doing actual science
monamipierrot replied to Twreed87's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
you kidding? Thanks for your great ideas! I still find the Material bay thing a little bit grinding but your ideas are awesome and still simple. Of course, I still am a fan of having fog of war. I find just perfect these three points. I like the last one too. You put a telescope to orbit. Providing some basic coditions (power, visibility...), you can point it to a body, and then it just starts scanning and have some % chances to discover something in a given time. I don't see the grind or the boredom some other users see in this. -
Discovery / doing actual science
monamipierrot replied to Twreed87's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Yep. That was what I thought at the beginning: You don't know distant or tiny bodies till you don't have enough tech or come closer enough. Then I realized that was just a false dicothomy. If the initial discovery rate is very fast, why bother showing *everything* at the beginning? Let the player find any body or detail by himself. This will be his "tutorial" fase about the Solar System and the planet he lives in. Seasoned player just skip it. There's really no reason not to do keep it all unknown from the beginning - unless you are very impatient and want to know at least how the basics of the Solar System is BEFORE starting. But I bet none of you is that impatient, if he once managed to play more than 1 hour in KSP! Another reason would be: if I don't like this Solar System / planet / whatever, I don't want to waste time playing with it and I'm going to try a new one. Again, this would be a false problem, the real one being that the procedural system didn't give you ENOUGH CONTROL in the creation process standards and variables. In other words: the creation system MUST create beautiful solar systems and bodies, and - also - understand your tastes and needs to create one that YOU like, so you can RELY on it: "Dear Player, you can't even imagine what I prepared for you. I'm thrilled to wait for you to find out a specific body that... but let's stop spoilering, and let's play!". I really bet this would be easily achievable. Instead, why don't give some random/fuzzy information or even better just plain rumor? E.g. In the astronaut lounge, Jimmy Kerman swear he saw some shiny whity thing far South while hiking in the Mountains. However he really like lemon icecream so he may have just dream about it. [a spot or a flag in a locally darkened map is shown] Johnny Kerman, a tracking station analyst, reported he saw a brown body orbiting Jool, but it was too drunk with Kerbonium spirit and accidentally threw the pictures in the toilet [inclination and size of orbit of body given]. A secret new part being tested in the VAB suffered (another) sudden Kraken attack, and was launched at 7.5x speed of light towards Eve. Moments before disappearing in the infinite vastness of the Void, it sent back a picture [picture shown] of what Scientist would swear is some liquid surface, but since this is not consistent with current knowledge of Eve's surface, it has been regarded as just another problem with Kerbonium spirit abuse. A Kayan prophecy believes a new star will appear in the sky at the beginning of Next Year, more or less HERE [coordinates given]. The prophecy fails to tell us when the world will come to an end, so no End of The World Parties are allowed. A debris of Kapollo 10 mission accidentally hit the surface of the Mun. Observing its dust pennacle, scientist were able to determine with better accuracy percentage of Ore in midland biome, but the real thrill was that the pennacle had the exact shape of a "!". Some anonymous Kerbal hacker/physician youngster group managed to manipulate a Kerbonium atom and discovered it simply can't exist. But it does. The silly conclusion is that we are all part of a simulated computer game. According to this bizarre theory, there should be a - sorry, I try not to laugh - dwarf planet made just for fun beyond Duna [coordinates given]. And so on.... -
Discovery / doing actual science
monamipierrot replied to Twreed87's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
I perfectly agree. Only thing: handmade bodies are great, but I bet there could be a way to create entirely random generated ones which guarantee both novelty ("wow! A Earthly-type planet with one giant pangea with a giant inner sea in it with a inner continent in it!") AND compatibility with gameplay (along with minimum realism requirements). I mean the generator must know if he can create - say - satellites with vertical steepness, or planets with atmosphere lower than mountain peaks, or other weird things. I believe it is not hard to do. The reason I want computer-generated bodies are two: 1. we don't rely on human work, so we can have infinite ones - and 2. Sometime randomness may be more interesting than human wildest fantasies. And if the library was web-based, it could also be subject to user feedback: you may award 5 stars to some novel Kerbal system or to just one of its bodies: the system may try to offer it to other users more often, or even "learn" what players like, and try to replicate and improve it in the future. If a system can create procedurally generated bodies and systems of quality, it can also "test" them to assure they meet Veeltch's standards for realism and don't ruin his "flight sim" experience. Again, you shouldn't really worry about that. I don't really like this auto-merging post thing. I'm not used to it. I don't know if you guys get all my answers. Just in case, recheck my old comments. I'm puzzled. -
Discovery / doing actual science
monamipierrot replied to Twreed87's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
I thought we were discussing at least a bit about the scope of KSP. Should I cast a *SIMULATION BIAS ALARM* ? I thought the entire '50-'60 thing of KSP was pure atmosphere. The hairstyle/look, the parts design, the nerdy cool jazz music. All of it perfectly blended and balanced with the silly look, the sillier technical explications of Kerbals, and the Kerbal Way of Life. I have been a huge freak fan of flight simulators. I really respect them. And I am not going to say "this is a GAME not a SIMULATOR" cause this sentences doesn't make sense to me. Any videogame "simulates" something. I would say almost any plain GAME is. The dicothomy (if there's one) is between REALISM and... LESS REALISM. I'll stop philosophying right here and go straight to the point: the only thing I want KSP to simulate is the thrill of discovery thruogh technical skilness and risky mission which characterized those decades. They DID discover lot of things. And it must have been really rewarding for them: I wonder how rewarding would have been if they discovered - say - that there were a twin body tidally locked and hiding just behind the Moon. But there was nothing. Instead they found that the Moon had a very thin atmosphere. I wonder how rewarding would have been to stumble upon Pluto with New Horizon without really expecting there were something there. But they already knew. Since decades. No reward for that, sorry. "Boredom"? When you perform the 27th rescue in Kerbin orbit to cheaply enlarge your kerbonauts team may be boring. You do stuff to achieve something. Tired of clicking? Make it automatical. Reward is the key word in ALL games. But I would say it is even more key in discover games. Kerbin is not Earth. It is much smaller. There's a purpose for that: Earth / Solar System would have been too difficoult to explore for standard "physics" models. Ouch, we lost a tiny bit of simulation (or better said realism). Also Kerbals are tough to die. Reason? Things are simpler (and maybe more fun). Another little realism gone. Uh, and pieces magically attack one to the other one. Fuel flows for some magik. [Realism slowly fading away]. And the best: there's a magic eye outside of your spacecraft so you can see yourself and take a selfie. Poor old realism! What did we do to her? Let me tell you this: realism had to be sacrificed for both technical reasons AND gameplay reasons. Very good ones. Still, this (and many other game) HEAVILY rely on reality (or even history, in this case) for inspiration and to model both content and gameplay. Physics is present. A solar system is present. Spacecraft are present. '50s and '60s charm is present. The only thing I miss is DISCOVER (or exploration, to me is the same word). So if we can tweak reality and history for better gameplay purpose, please tell me why shouldn't us radically introduce discovery in the game and say we have to discover it all, and start giving rewards from the very beginning? If you ever played in freakishly manner some XXXX game such as Civilization you would know exactly what I want to say: I want a fog-of-war map instead of an entire-known-map for the same reason I prefer to slowly come to know the beauty of woman instead of see her completely naked at the 1st glance. Or for the same reason I want to slowly discover who is the killer of a misterious murder in a good thriller movie, instead of just only pursuing him on the streets like just another action movie... Oh but you want "simulation". And you think it is just "about spacecraft". But you get bored so you want "discovery" and then you think it better and want only a very tiny little bit of it (i.e. details about atmosphere) when you could have it all. I really don't understand. Expecifically I don't understand why this should harm your KSP experience instead of 10-fold enrichen it. Oh, this is a reason, yeah. The only one. -
Discovery / doing actual science
monamipierrot replied to Twreed87's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Well Veeltch, the idea of "discovering Kerbol" is just based on dozens of different videogames I played with, wether easy or hard, on PC or on smartpohones, similar or not to KSP type of game. I'll explain: often games, instead of giving stand-alone tutorials (or boring manuals), just take your hands at the beginning of the game. They teach you how to turn left or right, going forward or back, use a inventory, aiming at a target, spot objects, make actions, talk to character, start building something... They often do it in a "task"/"mission" environment where of course the 1st task/mission is obvious and with difficulty=zero. The purpouse of these tasks/missions is to have the noob player being familiarized with basic controls/actions/options in gameplay. This could be done with just a control/option list, but that is tedious and unsexy. So they almost always give those 1st missions a 2nd parallel purpouse of starting the "story" (or the conflict, or the discovery, or the race, or whatever it is the game about). Sometimes it looks very silly, because the game is about something serious (e.g. some deadly special op corp trying to save the world from some nuclear terrorists) but the 1st "mission" looks like a joke (e.g. shoot some isolated rookie enemy). Still, developers choose to put it there anyway. Thanks to the magical mix of sillyness and seriousness in KSP, developers could present the game to noobs and teach them how to "do science" with the excuse of doing something both obvious but also mandatory. In Facebook KSP groups I often see people who started careers and are desperetely grinding on science. Chatting a few minutes with them reveals they DIDN'T KNOW one can do proper science directly (with reports, science instruments etc.), while they thought there was only the tiny science reward from contracts. Why? Because nobody told them! Nobody told them they could right click, "crew report" or right click "start experiment" and so on... I don't think they were idiots. After all they almost got to the moon without science! It's just that there's literally NOTHING that shows this options to noob players. I thought the Kerbol thing could be both functional for noobs and silly in a perfect Kerbal-style (Kerbals were too much focused in building their KSC and dreaming about flying so they didn't notice there was a Sun just on their head). The concept (guide noobs to "obvious" milestones in order to learn some gameplay control/mechanics/whatever) could be extended to many other aspects, but here I wanted to focus on the EXPLORATION/DISCOVERY (and "science") thing. The discovery of other "secrets" of Kerbal universe (e.g. that Kerbin is round, or that the Mun orbits Kerbin and that the latter itself orbits Kerbol!) will be discovered few minutes later, almost mechanically, and thanks to "improved" science techniques (crew reports, instruments, unlocking a new building), to which the game will deliberately guide the player. And yes you are right, when we start climbing the tech/science ladder we need telescopes, sensors, probe missions etc. and the thing starts to grow serious: the hand-by-hand mode will not be required any more. But a silly start would be good both for the funny nature of the game and both for training noobs. If you think this makes things more complex for developers, well, IMHO it is not true: implementing a real "discovery" aspect of the game already needs to completely redesign the game UI: not only the map mode (you can't see some bodies, or you can see them blurry, and/or you are still not sure about their orbits...) but also they may want to tweak the normal view mode (to prevent it being too much "spoilerish") If they managed to do this, then to implement the "discovery of Kerbol" or the "discovery of the roundness of Kerbin" would be a joke in terms of coding. And all of this would be CONSISTENT. Also, it would not affect in any way the seasoned player: he would perform those routine "science" actions anyway, at the very beginning of his career, and in the meantime he could still have a laughter at the sillyness of our little green friends. If you liked this one, please read the rest of my original comment, as well as the linked old post of mine. P.S. I am glad this thread have been revitalized. We should redirect here other threads which are related to this one. P.S. 2 If Veeltch or somebody else doesn't like that Kerbals don't know Kerbol (or roundness of Kerbin) while already able to build a Space Center, here's (my) explanation: Kerbals always have lived in underground tunnels where they has been exposed to high levels of Kerbonium (which gives them both their characteristic green color, and their absolute sillyness), and developed a tiny but advanced underground civilization under the region which we now know as the KSC plains. When they accidentally one of them dig a tunnel to the surface after drinking too much Kerbonium spirit, they decided to go further up, but they couldn't because after many efforts they didn't manage to dig air. Thus the idea of flying. Here's when it all started. The Discovery overhaul permits this and a thousand more intriguing details. Anyway, I firmly believe it is mandatory not to show something till you "accidentally" discover it. You will not look for some new planet if you don't know it exists. You'll just put a telescope in orbit and it will do the job for you. You'll just spend money investigating some fluctuations of a body orbit. You'll just build a new tracking building. You'll just send a probe out there... Discoveries will come, somtimes randomly, and sometimes desperately pursued. In any case, very rewarding, at least if you didn't know ANYTHING at the beginning! -
Discovery / doing actual science
monamipierrot replied to Twreed87's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Then this is a zombiethread because my comment revitalized it -
Discovery / doing actual science
monamipierrot replied to Twreed87's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Thanks to a comment of Tater in a relatively newer thread of mine: , I found this one. Couldn't read everything it was written here, however I still want to leave an opinion of mine on the reason why Squad SHOULD definitely do this, I mean the DISCOVERY/EXPLORATION overhaul. I read Felipe's interview (http://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-dev-on-random-solar-systems-the-joy-of-failure-and-the-cult-of-steam/) on why there are no procedural bodies. I understand the point (creating a community of same-experience players), but this point is inmensely weaker than the point of building a game of actual DISCOVERY (actual science, fog-of-war, procedural bodies). Some of you said average players are not interested about science. So what? We are not talking about science. We are talking about the discovery experience. Science is just the trick to make it happen. It is just an excuse. And just one of them. And yes, humans knew many of Jupiter's moons 4 hundreds years before the Voyager missions. May I have you notice that we are not green-skinned. And that Kerbol is smaller than the Moon. Come on, we want to pick inspiration from history and reality, not copying it! I can't stand when we debate about "simulation" or "not simulation"... who cares? What we want to "simulate" is just the thrill of discovery. The hard work behind tiny bits of information. Explosions, tragedy, funds, research... all of this is part of it. And I'm going to tell you another thing. Half of the videogames out there are about discovery. Even first-person-shooters are. Platforms are. "XXXX" wargames are. All RPGs are. Graphical and text adventure are (were). There's something intimately discoverish in many games, and something intimately gamish in many discoveries. Now tell me why should KSP be the only spacefare videogame (regardless of its genre) which has NO discovery in it. Because when I say "today I went to Duna" you will like my FB post? Come on! This doesn't make sense at all, IMHO. We want KSP to be about discovery because we want it to be fun, and hook us. Not harder or easier, not more or less "simulational". Jus more fun. Also, a "discovery overhaul" would be a great chance to redesign some not-minor issue of KSP, expecially the introduction of the game to noobs (KSP is the #4 hardest game in this list: http://www.goliath.com/gaming/12-video-games-that-only-super-smart-people-should-play/?cus_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.es%2F). In actual version you just CRASH land in the game and nobody explain you the basics except for some really really basic concept (e.g. Werner von Kerman). Imagine instead that you HAVE to discover Kerbol. Literally. Gene Kerman could guide you (well, Jeb) outside of the astronaut Complex and tell you how to take a EVA report, as a routine training. And it starts it all: you report a big, round and hot fireball in the Sky. "Hey, I didn't noticed it. It looks like a star, a big one! Let's call it Kerbol". A system message informs you that some basics about Kerbol are now known, and that we have a map of Kerbol. It sounds silly? Yes it is! Also Kerbals' face is silly. And fun. The magic of Kerbal is the blend of silliness and seriousness. It is really Magik. After we are don with Kerbol, we'll want to do the same with Mun. And the same with Kerbin! when you travel a few miles from the Space center and take a Crew report, you realize Kerbin is round (or whatever it is, I think procedural bodies could be VERY intriguing). Still you don't have a complete map of it, but after each flight some of the map will be disclosed. And so on and so on, till the telescopes, the probes, the pictures, the landings and in situ EVA reports. Reason to do this: THOUSANDS. Reason not to do this: I bet it is difficoult. Very difficoult. A complete overhaul of the game interface is needed. But it would be great, no doubt!!! PLEASE SQUAD hire more guys, BELIEVE in this great chance this game has to be one of the best EVER! -
Hello, I just found this thread, so I'll put a link to one of my threads about this topic:
-
There's only ONE RULE: DO NOT REVERT. I use career mode and I never revert. However reverting IS enabled cause sometimes there may be some crashes with corrupted savegame, so I need a backup just in case. This make this game like 1000% more thrilling. Other than that: Stock parts (just for a matter of compatibility with future versions, and to maintain a reasonable number of base option to force me to find a new solution, rather than use a new part) Do not use MechJeb if not for reference purpose No part clipping. Don't care your plane will be less "natural". Find a solution, kid! No attaching in some unnatural way such tiny attach surface, attach 2 different sizes without adapter, ans so on No "open" designs in atmosphere. Always use fairings to cover it all, except for very little parts such as RCS thrusters. Do not abuse of reaction wheels (well, sometimes I do it!) Do not take advantage of any bug, and, on the other side, remember that... ...Kraken's attacks - exactly as excrements - happen. Live with it! Use evocative names for missions, designs, and single vessels Every now and then, go learning something about space, rocketry and so on in the Wikipedia Treat a Kerbal like you treat yourself. Got it: Mun or boost anyway! If there's an easy way, and a hard way, chose the 2nd one!!! (JFK docet) HAVE FUN!!!!! share your achievements and your disasters with friends, family, and KSP fans! Learn a lesson from every mission. For your life, I mean. And remember the 1st lesson: you have a (busy) real life.
-
[quote name='juanml82'] And critically, the game needs something to do once you finally land somewhere. Survey contracts work a bit, but they also get tiresome fast and, let's face it, by the time you land in Tylo, you don't need any of the contract rewards. Maybe it needs a colonization stage, or some other gameplay activity.[/QUOTE] Thanks for your reply. As you put it, random procedural solar system would add much more sense to the astronomical pack, and I would say also viceversa. Your point is good (we do know enough to be interested in the subject but too little to actually know what to do exactly before some more exploration and science). However, the quoted statement has its answer in my post. What you have to do is TO EXPLORE. That's the reason I would without doubt start with some minimal knowledge of the Universe, and let the most obvious "discoveries" were something like a how-to tutorial for basic interface usage. (To discover Kerbol you just have to have a EVA report in Kerbin), to find out Kerbin is round you need to go far away from KSC, and so on...) I saw literally dozens of good (and even not so good) games that rely on this very simple "storytelling" structure: know just the bits at the beginning, and then discover more and more as you advance and refine your skills. The colonization thing is accessory and needed if you want to further discover more and more about outer planets. Or saying in othe way: you would love to colonize the Mun so you can build there a better shielded telescope to sound the very deeps of space. You'll need to put your ass to Duna to harvest lot of precious fuel for interplanetary missions. And you just need a base on many bodies to have it easier to move around them and science the f**k out of them. But the key is that the player should actively desire more and more knowledge of the Universe (and Kerbin also is part of this mistery: some early exploration will be on Kerbin remote biomes and regions), and achieving this desire is very simple: just show a little bit of it (a phantom planet a drunk astronomer swear was there last night, glimpse of some liquid thing on Eve's surface, something that shields Kerbol light with annoying regularity, scientific debate on if this body is actually twin planets, and so on...). Mystery will be the real reason to wake up every day and climb on a rocket (or build better crafts, or accept "boring" contracts, or aim to some specific technology, or hiring more scientists...) As I see it: the general 1.0.x game balance and gameplay is already almost perfect for the task of implementing my suggestions of Astronomical and Procedural overhauls, and don't need any real improvement other than performance ones because the kind of games that these new features would enable would be really gigantic. Also I read TODAY about the KSPedia. Sorry I really didn't know it existed. Much better then: I hope the developers will put on it the right adjustments to grant future compatibility with procedural generated knowledge.
-
Hello, this is a open letter to KSP developers and to KSP core fans and modders about some general overhauls and improvings of KSP which may included in a future new major release (2.0?). I am perfectly aware that this in part violates some of the "what not to suggest" list proposed some time ago by KasperVid, but I still think it is worth the pain. Also, I perfectly know that some of the proposed improves will require unprecedent overhaul efforts to game designers, meaning tons more of man-hours of programming and testing, as well as a lot of money and time. If I propose it is because I strongly think it is worth this effort, and it could bring this game from being one of the best of the decade, to one of the best EVER. I gave a brief look at the "suggestions" in this forum thread. Most of them are about parts or other game features improvent, or just about some aesthetical thing, which I am afraid I am not that interested with. Very few suggestions are about a complete overhaul in the Game design and few take in consideration its details. A very few of them anyway contained something you will find here as well and I tried to elaborate them my way. Main improvements and overhauls for future KSP I think KSP in the current state is a raw diamond. I'm not criticizing developers in other way than using the 1.0.x number for the last 6 months versions. KSP is still far from being "completed" and this is great news for everybody. The overhauls or improvements I propose for the new 2.0 version of KSP are these (I will see only some of them in detail): Noob/kids/scenarios/tutorial mode Let's face reality: KSP is a very HARD game, and recent updates (0.90 and 1.0.x) made it even harder. We definitely need some deep if not radical improvement in the way KSP is presented to both noob "serious" and to casual/young players. When I started playing back in 0.23 it was very hard to find out even the basics of ignite or manouvering your 1st rocket. It was really frustrating: I literally spent hours in understand it, and I am the patient/"smart" of player. Things didn't improve in latest releases. When I recently had to explain basic KSP to some 8-11 years old kids, they understood all of it in few minutes, only because they had a teacher behind them. One of them even hooked on the game (her mother still somehow hates me). If those kids had been alone with the game they couldn't do NOTHING in literally days of playing and there would have been NO HOPE they wouldn't quit the game in maybe just a few minutes. This is a big goof IMHO. However I have many fantasies but no serious concrete idea on how to solve this. I bet there's plenty of ways anyway and KSP developers should redirect lot of efforts in this direction. Also, KSP has... NO MANUAL??? Or a simple "How to get started" guide. This is hard to believe. There are people out there who don't go to the toilet without a manual! We almost completely rely on the user generated wiki or on video tutorials! this has to be solved. Localization No me puedo creer que un juego inventado en México por una mayoría de programadores mexicanos aún no tenga una versión en español! An opening to some of the most important languages (Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Japanese...) is a must in order to widen to the potential young and casual public which KSP lacks mostly. Kids may love Kerbals if they could understand what they say! Multiplayer Sorry for coming again on the subject. I will not treat this with any depth. I only want to stress out that developers should keep the multiplayer option open, which means that they should include in the code basic function to manage many players connecting to the same universe, and a time-management system, as well as examining some online service to helping multiplayer and massive multiplayer beeing a reality. AI and automation Automation of vehicles and very basic decision making should be included as soon as possible to help the player in otherwise repetitive manouevers and missions. E.g. some Mechjeb-like modes could be unlocked after a pilot has succesfully gained experience in some manouevres, and some automated hardware (such as the Mechjeb modeuls) will be available as soon as the player correctly manage to perform them once or a few number of times. AI should be developed also to improve the "multiplayer" concept (the AI is the other player, or the AI replace players which can't play in some realtime running game) The XXXX connection I'm a huge fan of XXXX (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate) games such the Civilization / Alpha centauri / Master of Orion sagas. The "eXpand" feature is already built in the current game core concept, and it could hardly be better. The "eXploit" one is also beginning to be included with the career concept and with the mining thing (more of it would do no harm, anyway). The "eXterminate" one refers to the warfare nature of such XXXX games, which is not really that needed in KSP type of game. Anyway, the cooperative/competitive mode with humans/AIs should be integrate sooner or later in KSP, linking to the multiplayer thing already being discussed. What I REALLY REALLY care of and miss is the "eXploration" thing, which I'll discuss in the next point. The eXplore overhaul How can the "eXplore" thing have been left almost completely out of a spacefare game? The reason is that KSP started as a pure sandbox game without any restriction (unlike frequently compared game Minecraft). Career mode had been criticized by old players because it violated this "free" style game. However this was a perspective issue: it has been career mode that started out an actual game out of a great but experimental toy which was KSP before 0.24 That was a great move, the greatest of all, and introduced the "eXploit" concept in the game. Still, the game almost completely lack a serious "eXplore" feature and this is the biggest of all KSP issues, by far. It is like building a fantastic game about car racing, creating a great graphical and physical engine with a lot of depth and great gameplay interface, in which you can drive in a detailed world with your great F1/rally/custombuilt car, and then failing to include actual car races in it. Look at the 2 of the most known and praised XXXX games listed above: they are about spacefaring and spaceexploring. That's not a coincidence: exploration of space is something that inspired generations of humans in many many decades now. eXploration is also a key feature in most game genres with more depthness, including RPG games such as Fallout. Where did KSP failed in exploiting the "eXplore" thing? By not including two major features,each of which could be considered an entire overhaul on its own, but which in my opinion are strongly connected and almost part of the same whole: the "astronomy" overhaul, and the "random procedural generated bodies" overhaul. Astronomy overhaul [EDIT: some comments refer at this as "fog-of-war" feature] In a current KSP game you are given from the beginning full knowledge of the entire Kerbol System, i.e. of the entire known universe. We already know where each planet and body is, with the exception of asteroids. We also can have a complete knowledge of distant bodies' surfaces and many scientific details, and actually see and read them in map mode, without even having built our 1st rocket. While some of these aspects are somewhat consistent with real life actual conditions (astronomy and solar system knowledge were already very advanced when the 1st space missions lift off our asses from the Earth surface), this still is a huge spoiler to a game which is "scaled down" from actual reality to be more FUN. An actual "ASTRONOMY" and "PLANETARY SCIENCE" system should been implement in a way that the game gradually discover bodies as well as scientific details and images about them, beginning from a starting point in which we know of the existence of very few or no bodies, or we have only fuzzy info about them (fuzzy images, fuzzy orbital and physics details, inaccurate scientific datas...). Advances in Astronomy, Planetary Science, KSC buildings, space telescopes and - even more important - actual Exploration Missions gradually improve our understanding of such objects (including Kerbin), gradually filling and improving our actual Map of the Universe, facts about bodies, and also bodies/aircraft orbit understanding and visualization. [A silly and fun way to start this in an actual game would be to send a Kerbal out of the KSC buildings and "EVA report" looking up, discovering a very big fireball in the sky and call it "Kerbol" or whichever name we give to it. Practically speaking, this of course will not be as easy to implement as the "fog-of-war"-like features in XXXX games (undiscovered part of the planet/universe is blacked and unkwnown to the player) and it maybe requires a whole rethinking of the actual displaying mode of the universe both in Map mode and in actual normal view mode, in a way that the player can't have spoliers in any way. E.g. an actual Map of Kerbin (that is: the Map view mode) can be unlocked only after having "understand" that it is round (e.g. as soon as a Kerbal reaches some height, or a probe reaches some distance from the KSC). A partially darkened map should then be displayed, till all parts of the planet are discovered through actual missions and observations. It would also be great to have different layers of knowledge about map (from fuzzy to more detailed). However I have dozens more ideas about what this whole thing should actually look like. too many to list them here. Procedural random generated bodies Overhaul The stock KSP bodies are great, really. However, if we implement the Astronomy Overhaul, and we keep the KSP stock bodies, we lose 50% of its purpose, and 99% of it beginning from the second career we play. That is the reason we should give the option (well, it should be the actual default option) to start a Non-Kerbol universe. At the start of a new (career) game, the program generates a new procedural random Solar System, either based on fixed default balanced parameters (to make sure we keep the pace and difficoult level of the game as close as possible to stock KSP) or on manually tweaked parameters (to have very different solar systems, maybe harder or easier to explore than stock one). Kerbin also should be somewhat random, both on physical properties (but only very slightly differing from stock ones) and in its map and biome configuration. Some have pointed out that random generation could last hours. Well, if this is a real issue for some CPU, then a workaround could be building a whole online library of already built "balanced default" - and maybe manually selected - downloadable solar systems. I bet it would be easy ot host literally dozens of them to make sure each player will not to come back to an old one. Procedural Wiki If we implement the Astronomy overhaul and/or the Procedural Random bodies overhaul, we must put our hands on a procedural custum Wiki, i.e. one that slowly unfold and rectify as more details are known about the Universe, and which is able to display procedural generated data from each random generated universe. The concept can be expanded to include the technological improvement (articles about parts anc technical concepts will be revealed when needed) The wiki will definitely already include fixed articles about gameplay, ksp, kerbals, and general physics. The wiki could be available offline, "in game", and/or online (each article is automatically generated and updated from the current game status and from the savegame and planetary seed, which may be stored in the server in case one wants to read some article when not playing). I used the term Wiki however I fully understand that only part of it can be generated by users. Conclusion I hope this huge amount of ideas and suggestions will not scare developers. I hope some modder could try to develop some proof-of-concept to convince developers to take this seriously. I would love to know your opinions, even the most criticizing ones.
-
KerWal - the Kerbal walker competition This competition is for designing crafts able to walk. GOAL The goal of this competition is to find the best solutions for manned and unmanned vehicles which rely on legs for movement and stability in increasingly difficoult terrains and situations. We're expecting interesting solution in the areas of automation and even AI. You may want to refer to the experiments that are going on in the real world. Just as an example: There are different categories, but some common rules. Here they are: RULEZ The craft should be able to walk with its legs (or jump, or run, or gallop... please be free to find your legged solution), without any other help and without flipping in flat Kerbal/Earth terrain. Rocket motors or other kind of motors are allowed to help the craft fly. They should be disabled during walk. (However motors or RCS thrusters can be used to artificially keep the craft to the ground in low gravity scenarios) Tires: as above, they are allowed with brakes on (e.g. to use them as leg ends) No Klaws to attach to the ground, except for VERY low gravity scenarios, or for very steep grounds IMPORTANT: No reaction wheels, or have them turned off! Same for other built-in reaction systems. RCS thrusters are tolerated but are considered a far less elegant solution (and we doubt it is a good long-term solution to the problem of stability). Other non-stock reaction system are also forbidden unless they rely in very realistic technology part (the current stock reaction wheels system is completely unrealistic if not cheaty at all!). Other non-built-in reaction systems ARE ALLOWED, e.g. "arms" to counterbalance a running biped, "tail" for quadrupedes... Flapping wings are also allowed for counterbalance means. The craft should be manually controllable, and have AT LEAST these controls: forward (or accelerate), stop (or decelearate/brake), turn (or steer) left and right. It may have more fine controls as long as it is not too hard for the pilot. E.g. manual controls for stability arms or tails should be avoided. No plain rolling or creeping surface (I mean: if you design something that has legs BUT rolls for some reason - i.e. a ball with legs all around it - it may qualify) Different craft setups can be submitted as a whole for radically different scenarios (example: other planet gravity) as long as it is clear that the craft design is the same. A full list of used/required Mods is mandatory. A simple explanation text along with specifications (mass, size, part count, price, performance, etc.) is also required. Any (legal) reaction systems must be declared in details. Automation (or AI) for stability purpose are allowed and encouraged. However, a brief description of how do it works is required, along with a brief explanation of which and how "senses" (e.g. "gyroscope", or "touch", or "GPS positioning" - or even "sight" if that's possible) are involved. A video of the craft in action should be submitted, showing its full key capabilities. The craft should be theoretically testable with the right mods and/or a reasonably simple tweak. This doesn't mean we guarantee we will test it (actually I think I will personally test only a few of them) but if the design is really good, someone will want to check and test it!) Please understand that no tests at all will be run in case of heavily modded setups. In this latter case, videos are required to be very detailed. CATEGORIES Biped (or monoped). [Arms or additional legs to balance or recover/stop are not to be counted.] Tripede and quadrupede Multipede (5 or more legs) Special Category: Your design of choices but with FULL STOCK PARTS (non-part mods allowed)[i have a couple of ideas for this... what about you?] And out of the contest (great to test balance systems): BIKES (Or MONOCYCLES!) Of course they don't need LEGS! Share yours! RATING (may be changed if most participants prefer a points system) A overall rating in terms of hudredths (e.g. 85/100) will be awarded after individually check some criteria (each criterium will be awarded a rating in terms of tenths). The final rating is NOT a sum or an average of the criteria ratings. CRITERIA LIST (not in any particular order) Part count (the least, the better) Stability and reliability (will be safe and comfortable for equipment/humans which is carrying? Can it recover after flipping?) Agility and manouverability (will it stop in few meters? Can it steer tight? Can it steer while walking AND also turn while standing? Etc....) Payload (including human payload) Maximum steepness (in Kerbin) Please note that it includes climbing up, down, going laterally, and basic manouvre (start/stop, turn or steer). Non-plain-Kerbin performances (what about low gravity? Stronger gravity? No atmosphere? Very steep biomes? And swimming?) Movement style: jumpers, trouters and gallopers achieve MUCH higher rate than - say - a quadrupede moving one leg at a time, even with same maximum speed. Also: 2 or more movement styles achieve VERY high rate. Elegance in movement and still design Adaptability (e.g. can this thing lower its center of mass to climb steeper when needed?) Performances (highest speed in different conditions) AI capabilities (e.g. what if you just tell the thing "go there and come back"? What if it can actually "see" obstacles and the terrain?) VERY IMPORTANT management of unexpected situation (what if it finds a sudden change in steepness, or a step, or a obstacle such a small debris? Or if something hits it left side?)[to test the latter situtation, just attach a radial decoupler with enough force and see what happens when activated] Power/fuel management Capability of fly (along with take off and land), swim, and space traveling. Autonomy (in time and distance) AWARD A badge will be awarded to the best designs in each catgories or to anybody who reaches 90/100. Problem is... I also am awful in designing a badge so I don't have one! If some of you want to create one, it would be great!
-
After a sudden system crash I had a problem with a corrupted persistent.sfs save file (the file still had the right size, but it looked empty when opened with a editor), and the program didn't let me recover the entire career savegame. It was not the 1st time it happened but this time I used the Recuva (Windows) to search for the file in its folder and then simply "recover" it. Worked like a charm! I hope it can help you!
-
What is KSP trying to be?
monamipierrot replied to Robotengineer's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
+1 Adding exploration would be a turning point in the developing of KSP. The most boring thing of KSP is that we already know what's out there. Think about astronomy achievements in science tech that leads to discovers of new planets and moons... I'm a huge fun of XXXX games, but the most important X is definitely "eXplore". Also eXpand and eXploit could be worked on in KSP. I doubt eXterminate would add something good, thou -
A fun idea I had.
monamipierrot replied to Whirligig Girl's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
I think this is a stupendousingly fantastific idea. In fact, I registered in the forum just to reply! It would help a lot introduce newbies in this very barebone-looking game. Some more here: - In authentical Kerbal style, games should look like an absurd mix between cheap coinops and huge military simulators. A paper sign "Simulator room" should show loosely attached to a previous "Videogames lounge" one. - Maybe old or silly graphics / playstyle from old KSP versions could be used. If I can't remember KSP started 2D, am I wrong? - As you said they could be an alternative/complement to "official" tutorials. Asteroid (which I would put in the lowest tier) is excellent to teach how to move (in 2D) a spacecraft. - They could improve (more difficoult, more realistic, more levels, etc.) with next tiers - They will cost actual funds (say 1 fund for 10 coins) but you can win some jackpot after beating the final big bad kraken. The jackpot is always visible and is raising constantly with time, because pilots, engineers and scientists are playing in their spare time. Nobody will win the jackpot except the Player. Once the jackpot is won, the coinop is removed and a new (harder) one takes its place. - You can choose to play them with one selected pilot (or engineer os scientist) to improve his experience (be careful, thou: as we all know, videogames improve stupidity too!). Stats with "videogame - pardon - simulation hours" would be included in the crew report. - Hi scores - The first one should teach you very basic tips to start the simplest rockets (how to thorottle, how to start engine, the most important keys...) or to build them - yes, phisically semplified "simulations" of Real KSP life but also... - phisically respectful version of silly famous games: a low gravity Mario Bros clone, or a docking version of Pipemania, a VAB-based Tetris, or a Pong/Breakout with real ballistic and atmospheric drag, or a no gravity jet-assisted Doom/Wolfenstein3D... Well, thanks for your awesome idea!