XLjedi

Which video game convention(s) would seem most logical to attend and tease more stuff pre-release?

It serves a purpose later... but my overall point is as long as you have (or don't have) things churning while years are ticking off on accel time, it feels disconnected. They may have a clever approach to the problem, so we'll see how it goes.

@mcwaffles2003 We'll see how it goes... As I've said, I'm cautiously optimistic but very curious to see how they overcome certain challenges in the gameplay mechanics regarding long lapses in time. And it's not that I necessarily think a mission to a star would yield something very small. It's just the time involved. Would I be able to get as much (or as in KSP1) a lot more if rather than accel time, I just farmed science locally? I'm sure they're smart folks and will figure something out. The previous devs didn't figure it out on KSP1 though; but different crowd and starting point I s'pose.

It breaks the underlying game... I mean, I guess sandbox alone is OK. If I pickup a mission in the current game and it's not due for 24 years and pays a whopping 16 science research points, it's pretty much useless to me. I can get 10 science per day from a science lab twirling around Kerbin at 100km... and my reward for 10yrs of travel to Eve is 16 science? It just doesn't make any sense. No point in trying to explore Eve as a means to further the science/research of my space program. Extended timeframe missions become absolutely pointless. Not to mention the base game doesn't have launch windows or the alarm clock tools you actually need to plan and time the launches correctly. Hopefully KSP 2 will at least ship with the gadgets we need to plan these extended missions.

I saw a couple of em… tried it once, it didn't work on my PC install at the time. It felt hackey anyway... like clipping engines... so I never bothered with it again.

Yeah, but it's still 15 years... eventually I'm gonna want to time accel to that objective. There are similar issues in KSP 1.0 that kinda take me outta the game in the same sense.

Use robotics to build loading and cargo transfer systems for your craft.

@Master39 fair enuff… I'll just be very curious to see how they solve (what I perceive to be) some gameplay issues regarding time acceleration and distances. If not some sort of FTL travel.

Did they say in the interview there would be no FTL travel? ...or did they say no FTL drives?

@Incarnation of Chaos It's still a SWAG on what happens to that first disposable probe. @Master39 OK, so FTL travel (based on what I've seen in Take-Two press releases) is not off the table for KSP 2. ...and the devs mentioning of no FTL drives (at least to start) does not rule out FTL travel. Somehow they have to make the gameplay fun and I suspect it is going to be with some form of FTL travel, whether it be through wormholes or an FTL drive, or some sort of drive that creates a wormhole.

I consider a wormhole a form of FTL travel, which fits the context of my original statement. "FTL travel may be so engaging as to render things like rotorcraft pointless" ...and honestly, do we think the discovery of a wormhole (and successfully traveling through it!) is any less far-fetched than an Alcubierre drive? I do think wormhole travel would solve the gameplay problems I mentioned and make the gameplay more enjoyable.

@Incarnation of Chaos @Master39 well... pointing back to the press release it didn't just say "explore the next closest star" it said "Explore new galaxies". In fact, it's literally the first thing they say in the press release. https://ir.take2games.com/node/26301/pdf "Explore new galaxies, build larger contraptions, and discover more celestial bodies with the sequel to the critically acclaimed space simulator" So I dunno, maybe Take-Two doesn't actually know what a "galaxy" is or how far apart they are? 1/10 scale or otherwise if we are expected to traverse galaxies in KSP 2 there is going to need to be some sort of FTL engine.

So they couldn't scale up the rockets? Somehow we meager humans manage the DV to put things into orbit on a regular basis. Basically, they have to fudge the science on one end of the scale or the other... most likely in the interest of gameplay. A near FTL drive in 1/10 scale is a warp 9 drive in 1:1 scale.

Alright, so they fudge on the scale of the Kerbal galaxy to make near-FTL travel function just like FTL travel in a Milky-Way sized galaxy.

I wasn't referring to literally watching the accel time happen. Time is time, I would still have contracts expiring regardless of whether or not the warp occurs out of focus? I don't like the gameplay idea of, "OK, lets finish all contracts so we can accel time. Now 15 years has passed and we have all done nothing in the meantime waiting for this ship to arrive at closest star." That kinda feels like a hard disconnect in the gameplay timeline for me. The stars will have to be pretty close together, or the speeds are gonna need to be FTL. I suppose they could fudge on distance and have the kerbal-verse exist near the center of a galaxy where maybe the stars are closer together?

I took it directly from the Take-Two KSP 2 Press Release: Kerbal Space Program 2 offers a multitude of ways for players to further their space adventures with a robust offering of new planets to explore, new technologies to traverse the stars, and the ability to establish colonies, all rooted in real-world science. Players will be able to build without the constraints of planetary gravitation for the first time, which allows for larger constructions and more complex creations than ever before – including interstellar vessels. In addition, players will be able to share these experiences collectively in multiplayer for the first time in franchise history. I took "new technologies to traverse the stars" to mean some form of FTL travel. It says "rooted in real-world science". To me, that says Alcubierre's FTL warp drive is on the table. I suspect in the game, the Kebals will discover the negative energy source needed to power it. ...and if I were to venture a guess, Mystery Goo will somehow be the key. LOL I s'pose the stars in the Kerbal-verse don't have to be several light years apart, but I don't particularly like the idea of having to clear all contracts before going into a 4 or 5 year accel-time phase in the game play either.

Silent Hunter III and Silent Hunter IV are both still very popular and equally active...

What? Even if I accepted the idea that timing of the DLC should influence what makes it into a yet-to-be-released game... Take-Two bought KSP before any of the DLC was released. Even if Take-Two hadn't bought the franchise nearly 3 years ago; I'd still say if they are targeting late this year, maybe even early 2021? They have had plenty of time to accommodate robotic parts. https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/take-two-interactive-software-inc-acquires-kerbal-space-program-2017-05-31 You don't think the KSP 2.0 the new devs had full knowledge and access to the MH and BG expansions? According to Squad at the time, they were excited to work on their new DLC and updates with the added support. Although, if I were Take-Two, I think I would've balked pretty hard on that MH Mission Editor... That was a DOA flop. "You're gonna add what to my franchise? Did someone playtest this?" Perhaps an argument can be made that certain items have been obsoleted by new features or gameplay focus; we'll see. FTL travel may be so engaging as to render things like rotorcraft pointless. Robotic parts with articulating joints/pivots/pistons seems like it will continue to be relevant or noticeably missing at launch. I could be wrong though, they may have new parts that do all the things we want without having to manually build so much; we'll see. Now, if they have some economic incentives for releasing the parts in DLC format then fine... sure, let folks buy what they want.

Well, we can hope for that... To me, if it were fully fledged, it would start with the parts from KSP, BG, and MH as its starting point. However, the logistics of base building and multiplayer has me intrigued.

Given what I've seen happen in the past, I would not make such assumptions... The specific game example would be Silent Hunter III and it's mods/expansions that are played to this day. Silent Hunter IV was OK, and with mods and expansions became just as good as SH III. Silent Hunter V, by sharp contrast, was a complete debacle that no one plays today. So, it's not an automatic slam dunk.

I'm cautiously optimistic regarding 2.0. Some news good, some disappointing. Seems to be weighted more toward good at the moment.

Don't need to turn the discussion in that direction... OK, noted...

Who am I kidding? We all paid to be perpetual beta test volunteers. Ah well; let the next round begin I s'pose...

I recommend they opt for the 1.9.001 upgrade numbering system on their next release then.

In the recent 1.9.0 release I found 2 or 3 bugs within 15 minutes just cycling through my craft hangar and updating them to 1.9.0. If @Squad at least had some craft to test to make sure things functioned before they release broken updates, it would be most appreciated! At this point, I don't even care who does it! I just want someone with a decent range of craft to test these things before they get released so GLARINGLY OBVIOUS BUGS are squashed pre-release. For instance, in 1.9.0 robotic hinges are broken. I found that in my first 15 minutes of playtime. It's sloppy, and there's really no excuse for this. It was a bug in a prior version, then fixed in 1.8.1, and now it's back again in 1.9.0. https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/24866 ...and self-docked ports still cant be controlled via Action Key assignment. So any large doors/ramps you want to create with robotics remain cumbersome at best. https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/24435 I'm not talking wildly complicated craft either... these are low-part count, mission oriented craft that I use in career games. @SQUAD puts out this stuff and breaks half my hangar on every other update! It's enough to turn your player base against you.