Bej Kerman

That is not Vl3d's point. They're saying that the limiting factor with a colony should be weight and resources - there's no reason this should be part count instead. Why should NASA only be allowed to use at most 56,000 screws in their rockets? Wouldn't a mass or resource limit make more sense? Of course it would.

Just a few comments A. It appears warp sustainers can't be given action groups in the VAB; I've got hundreds (Kax A* is a long way away!) and have to bind them in flight. I don't believe needing to manually enable these should be required as I can't think of a scenario where the player needs them off or where having some off and some on would be needed. B. It seems warp drives passively consume graviolium even when shut off, so I have to disable the consumption of graviolium from each tank when I don't need them using. C. Graviolium cheat doesn't obey symmetry, but the amount of graviolium does. Have two tanks in symmetry and enable the cheat in both, and fill them with graviolium. They'll fill in symmetry, but they don't sync when you toggle the cheat. D. The ability to timewarp while in supercruise is well appreciated! I remember the old USI standalone Alcubierre drive didn't have this and it was tedious to use for very long trips. It's tampermental and sometimes my ships freeze in place while still consuming graviolium as if I were busy adjusting my throttle even though I'm not touching it at all, and other times it stops timewarp altogether if I jump to 100,000x too quickly (but I suspect that's vanilla resource consumption + persistent thrust being daft - this happens with other engines under the flippant pretense of "no more resources"; there is still resources, just KSP can't make its mind up on how quickly these resources should be depleting). Still, I'm glad someone recognises that some people have a use for going to 100,000x warp while already going 10x faster than light.

The devs said they want you to feel the size of a light year, and it's not like it matters if some backwater Betelgeuse colony doesn't immediately get a technology you unlocked at Alpha Centauri and will primarily use there anyway.

88 - Reach >1c without cheats Winning A Bet - Land on Minmus using only EVA fuel, starting at and returning to aa >10km orbit Budget Cuts - Land on the Mun and return using only command chairs or ladders for Kerbal occupation

That probably won't happen.

Generating 20 decisions does not help with my indecision. They just figured that generating 20 decisions would help with you deciding what decisions you need in the first place. Narrowing down a stream of thoughts into 20 simple choices, reducing the possible outcomes by a factor of a million, they just figured it'd help. I like the Elite Dangerous convention of picking a random snake. Acrochord for example. Dendrolycus.

Would you mind posting your mods list Bej? I'm curios. Mostly things to make the game feel less dull and barebones, and dependencies. I suspect my mod list will be in the single digits for KSP 2 as the new dev team will be focused on adding features to an already much more complete game instead of wasting most of their time revamping part textures to be worse (both the pre-0.17 and post-0.18 textures were fine and not nearly as samey and generic as the Take Two era textures) and implementing mods but tackier (seriously, it's not much easier to fine tune maneuvers than it was before - mods did this much better and didn't close themselves if you dare mouse over anything but the maneuver node). That's enough whining from me. I just look forward to having a game that's held together by struts instead of glue

I can't think of anything else KSP 2 needs. KSP 2 is only how I mod KSP 1, without the lag and miles-long list of bugs. I can think of a grand total of one mod (out of 90) I have on KSP 1 that probably won't make it into KSP 2, the Netherdyne Mass Driver mod. On that topic though, KSP 2 will have some official form of CKAN and creating multiple instances using any version, if it's as modding friendly as it claims to be. If I have to muck around in order to downgrade or create multiple instances, or if I really have to mess around downloading mods manually after fans, in their free time, created such a good solution for managing mods for KSP 1, then it's not modding friendly.

I don't particularly see how it'd make the game any more difficult - it's just a change of label to work with everything else. A resource called "Liquid Fuel" or "Oxidizer" won't look good next to "Metallic Hydrogen" and "Fusion Pellets"; it would make the game look a tad unfinished. Well, it would be a hangover from a game that had very little polish and only needed the one resource for all of its parts. The last thing KSP 2 should do is take pointers from KSP 1 beyond the core gameplay. "Methalox" does work with "Metallic Hydrogen" etc though, and for reasons stated by the devs, also makes the most sense compared to kerosene for example. Why not explore and discuss important naming conventions?

This is an over-reaction. If you really think labelling engines by their function is going too far, you could say the same thing about telling the player their thrust and efficiency and argue that players should only be allowed to know how powerful an engine is by testing it for themselves. Care to elaborate?

Something obvious that KSP 1 never had was the ability to sort engines by thrust and isp. If you need to find an efficient one, you have to dig through each one to find the best atmo or vac efficiency. This just gets worse the more mods you add.

Would you mind telling us how many versions you've got archived?

Dyson swarms, probably not considered for the stock game but it's low tech enough that a mod could do it stockalike. Really all you need is a resource-heavy planet near the central star, a launch system on the surface to lighten payloads, and a lot of mining equipment. However, Dyson spheres are just too advanced for the game, and would fit into the game just as well as planet creation and intergalactic travel. That's besides the challenge of simulating the physics of a megastructure bigger than a space elevator.

An excellent suggestion, with just two minor drawbacks. One, this doesn't obey the laws of thermodynamics, and two, this doesn't obey the laws of thermodynamics.

If there was a good time to be paranoid about something the devs said wouldn't happen, it was when colonies were still on the drawing board.

I'm going to ask you, once again, to read the OP to understand where I'm coming from. You've ignored the first part of the post every time you've replied. Said "new KSC" is a colony itself. You've made it clear you don't want colonies to be a requirement but I really don't see how an interstellar vehicle carrying only a lander is going to help progress your save, or how one KSC on its own is going to be much use in settling in within a new star system.

Define requirement, because if you don't bring a colony starter pack with you on your interstellar voyage, ultimately all you've done is fly a flag to that star system; colonies / offworld space centers are required to make interstellar ships useful.

It would be super helpful if you could re-read the OP to understand where I'm coming from. I'm still having trouble figuring out what you don't like about the idea of being able to set up launchpads and space centers anywhere

If you have a better idea on how to assemble a ship that's half as long as the runway and runs on an engine that is too big to fit in the VAB, well, we're all ears Personally, launching a skyscraper from an orbital colony sounds completely in the spirit of building and flying cool ships.

The exploration genre in games never interested me Well KSP's 4 pillars according to Intercept are engineering, exploration, realism and goals. KSP 2 is only going to be extending those 4 pillars and not getting into such human things as finance and warfare. If you like warfare and finance and not engineering and exploration, then it's no surprise you don't like the idea of KSP 2. But you don't need to waste your time trying to explain why you think focusing solely on exploration is bad when you can just look at other games to play. That's my advice. You're not going to sway people that enjoy exploration and colonization into thinking interstellar travel and colonies are bad.

Warfare, as it is in real life, is a pointless endeavor supported by only the most primitive life forms that are still categorized as Homo Sapiens, ones that somehow find themselves in positions of leadership against all logic. What does KSP have to gain with warfare? If you want warfare, Children of a Dead Earth exists and has far more realistic radiation and weapon physics than KSP 2 will see in mods. I don't want KSP's proverbial bucket of apples ruined by a drop of sewage such as warfare. Interstellar builds on the game, anyway. As GoldForest said, people've been enjoying Interstellar for the better part of KSP 1's life span now; a lot more people will enjoy having torch drives and interstellar megaships than throwing missiles at each other in an attempt to emulate the human race's brutality and short-sightedness. We've wanted to place launch pads down for years now. The several mods we have right now that exist specifically for this are a testament to that. Humans... Why does everything need to be done with a competitive mindset? Does the idea of Pol being easier to launch from than Kerbin not give you enough reason to place a colony there? If you need capitalism in order to bother exploring, then I'm truly lost for words.

You believe PC Gamer journalists get all their information from my forum posts? There are obviously leads and sources that point to that possibility for multiplayer. A. There aren't any "leads and sources", unless you'd care to point to any B. They didn't have any citations for "forum member Vl3d—who wrote a post in April that envisioned KSP 2 multiplayer as "a competitive space-race team-based persistent-world MMO with inter-agency contracts and trade"—may be getting their dream for "the greatest game ever made."", which is understandable because the idea of KSP being used as the basis for an MMO is silly, especially with timewarp moving different groups of players to different subspace bubbles. Bit of a tangent but somewhat relevant, the only things from PCGamer you should ever trust are the bits of articles that quote the devs - everything else is filler or rotten speculation from the journalist.

Can say that about anything. What's the gameplay value of floating in space? All you do is a bunch of maneuvers to land on some rock. What's the gameplay value of aircraft? All you do is fly around, rockets can do that and much quicker. If you don't understand what makes underground oceans and caves exciting, that isn't necessarily going to apply to everyone.

It's easy to recognize as KSP 1 because the parts have less polygons than a Super Mario 64 model. It just goes to show that you should put thought and logic before hype before you end up mistaking KSP 1 footage for KSP 2 and having PC Gamer articles claiming KSP 2 will have MMO elements. What am I saying. To Kraken with hype!

6 minutes would be tedious - half that time is already enough tedium for a trip to Jool without BetterTimeWarp. Make it 30 seconds (42,075,901x time acceleration)