Vl3d

Also remember some people are "competitive" with their stock vessels on the forums or on YouTube - I'm not talking about exploits, but really cool work-of-art space ships that make your say: that player is a KSP artist. You need sandbox mode for that.

For colonies yes non-lethal works because of efficiency penalties. But I'm not sure what penalty kerbals on a vehicle should suffer if they get irradiated or run out of air or nourishment? I think they should die - like it normally happens when the ship crashes or when they're in space with no helmet. You clearly get the message that the kerbal died. So I'm not sure where this new PG "everyone should live" train of thought comes from.

I just hate that it's August 2022 and we're still talking about "what-ifs". Yeah we going to find out what features this game has 2 months before release, until then we're just arguing like the poor crooks the Joker threw the broken pool cue down to. We still don't know anything more about the game than we knew in 2020. It's just not the right way to treat a loyal community.

I've been playing out a potential abstract version of the game in my mind, taking into account some possible tech progression and exploration inventive elements that have been hinted. Let's assume there's no boring abstract system of farmable science points. Every tech "unlocks" automatically for you depending on three things: - if you did the science experiments for the tech - if you found / harvested the resources necessary - if your level of knowledge and discoveries is sufficiently advanced (every part could have hidden milestone triggers that unlock it) Let's also assume that we obtain useful information about the universe only through practical science (ground and space telescope, sending probes, doing experiments etc.). This information then allows us to design more complex successful missions. Let's also assume that the progression also favors unmanned before manned missions, as it should. And that kerbals need life support because manned missions are damn hard. And that there are good incentives to build space stations (science, mining asteroid resources, and orbital construction etc.) and colonies (science, discovery of planetary points of interest, transportation infrastructure, resource mining etc.). Let's assume that we need to build and upgrade the communications network. Let's assume we have to explore and exploit the Kerbolar system first, then investigate other stars, exoplanets, build the necessary knowledge and material infrastructure that allows us to design interstellar ships and send them hurling into space. Then we get there and start over. Let's also assume we take into account the long and slow process of prototyping, testing and iterative design. And the accidents. And the story / lore / mysteries / Easter eggs. Well, my worry is this: it's a damn huge amount of work even without any grinding! It makes me afraid for my adult and family life! Who is going to be able to do everything in this game, in a gratifying slow and methodical way, with all the difficulty settings and optional systems turned on? This game is going to take us years to go through. How is there going to be time to explore multiplayer features if we start with single player only? I really think multiplayer has to be baked in or directly linked with the single player adventure. I see no other way to put everything in this game and still allow players to try it all.

Force the player to finish the tutorials and a part of the game before unlocking sandbox mode. That's how other games do it.

You can make powered gliders already, they're called aeroplanes. What does ground effect add that regular lift does not?

In real life a SGL telescope would allow for a ~25 km scale resolution to detect surface features of exoplanets 100 light years away from a distance of "only" ~600 AU from the Sun. There's no other way to achieve this excerpt for actually sending a probe light years away.. which is of course incommensurably more difficult (1 light year is 63240 AU). 1 AU is ~150 mil. KM, roughly the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

Please implement (virtual) gravitational lensing and allow us to build a solar gravitational lens telescope for imaging exoplanets! So we know what we're getting into before sending any interstellar missions. https://www.space.com/sun-gravity-could-help-observe-exoplanets-in-detail

Oh yes, I've heard of the notorious 5 active KSP2 forum users that create Cyberpunk levels of hype for the game. Good thing the other 25 active users always calm things. Otherwise who knows how much wild speculation based expectations could skyrocket. We might even expect team based gameplay.. or even worse.. KSP2 being a persistent world MMO!

Personally I would simplify by merging temperature with electricity, food with water, gas management, medical with gravity and psychological (includes living space and personality compatibility).. and creating storage and recycling parts for each category. But I feel we need to think about: - radiation - electricity - nourishment - atmosphere - medical - repairs Lethal on vehicles, non-lethal on colonies. And doctors would be amazing to treat accidents, illness, psychological issues. I think this system could be simple enough to work in stock.

The hard limits of space exploration are related to the balance between mass to orbit vs how long life support lasts. There's no way around this in real life. One thing that has always frustrated me in KSP1 is how easy it is to just send kerbals in space. It takes out a big part of the engineering incentives and messes up game balance. The lack of life support means arbitrary thoughtless usage of time warp. It means distances and time lose their gameplay value. Example, not taking Delta-V requirements into account: it's as easy to make a base on Eeloo as it is to make it on the Mun. Come on.. we all know the Moon is hard.. Mars is WAY harder.. Venus is basically float-city or no-no. I'm personally all for lethal life support requirements and limitations if they're implemented in a way that's not frustrating. Not all missions should succeed, not all crews should survive.

That's sandbox mode. Also sandbox means you take things out (rules, buildings, gameplay mechanics), you don't put things in the game. Why would you want to worry about anything else but the construction aspects if you play sandbox? It's literally in the name.

Nate also liked this post: In which I say: "... There are "team colors" which clearly indicate multiplayer. This I think it's the most interesting point, because it defines "the team" as a primary abstraction into which "the player" is integrated. Meaning that multiplayer is a primary feature of all gameplay." So I'm hopeful.

Yes sir. "Because our team color application ..." - Nate

Speculation: Single player will also have team-based gameplay, not only multiplayer. And we will probably be able to join single player sessions of friends. The lines between single and multi player will be blurred.

Let it be known that I have come to the logical conclusion that there will be a KSP2 single player mode in which AI-controlled teams will compete against you.

Single player AI teams that are competing against you. Which means you would get a bigger prize if you do world firsts. And there's also inventive to speed up resource harvesting and logistics.

Yes, obviously, but what advantage is there to reducing the in-game time spent going from place to place? That's what I mean. Anyone who has ever played a colony simulation or a (grand) strategy game knows the benefits of having faster logistics, especially in a multiplayer context. We're talking about multiple interconnected systems that need to be synced by in-game time, not by your player time. KSP2 will not be KSP1 with add-ons, because in KSP1 time does not matter. Meaning: you have faster logistics, then you gather more resources. You are first to a destination. You have more efficient life support design. You win the space race. You wait less. You do more trips in an in-game year. You automate more and you sync more transports. It's a ripple effect. The only thing that's simulated in KSP1 are the on-rails orbits, passive science gathering and some resource gathering. Now think about what's simulated in KSP2 and you'll have your answer. It's not just PvE anymore.

Cargo also means parts and supplies, not just raw resources.

Looks very clean! It's it still made by Kerbodyne? Terrain looks good from above and from a distance, but ground texture is flat when seen at an angle.

You hit the nail on the head. Unlocking tech only after resource discovery is a very interesting way to do things and it overhauls the whole tech tree idea. No more science points.. just practical rewards for discovery and doing experiments to allow said discovery. It's a very organic way of doing things compared to having a boring tech tree and picking A or B to invest grinded points.

I think I found something in an old interview that we might have missed. We take for granted that we need science to unlock nodes / parts in the tech tree. There's a lot of evidence which indicates that we will also need the specific construction resources to unlock a part. "As far as adding a new engine type to the game, adding the Orion drive style nuclear pulse propulsion... As far as when it unlocks the progression, I wouldn't get too detailed about that right now, because we're playing a lot with the balance of the game. And if I tell you when it comes in the progression, it will actually give away a little bit about the resources that are needed to unlock that technology. So, I realize now I can tell you nothing on that count, and I apologize. I just don't want to give away anything. If I tell you where you're going to dig up uranium, then that's gonna ruin things entirely. (...) So, there are many more resources in KSP 2 than there were in KSP 1, and some of them are very far flung or involve the conquering of a new physics challenge or a new kind of mission in order to access that resource. We think it really enriches the gameplay, and once you've achieved that mission, you're rewarded with a new capability. You're rewarded with a new kind of part that you can build or a new kind of vehicle architecture. In my mind, it's a pretty compelling player goal. You get new capabilities when you find these things." So it's logical to be able to build a party only after you research it and have the resources for it. Or maybe you don't even need the science points, you just have to explore and do the experiments to get "new capabilities". It is not clear. But the more interesting thing is getting "rewarded with a new kind of vehicle architecture". Why would Nate use that term? What exactly is an unlockable vehicle architecture? Will there be an actual template difference between vehicle types, alongside parts? Will we be able to select what kind of vehicle we want to build? Is this like the difference between the SPH and VAB? It makes sense to not be able to build interstellar vehicles in the Kerbin VAB. Will having a OAB or a low gravity colony VAB unlock new vehicle architectures (like ones that allow using nuclear pulse engines)? But what if I want to make an Orion drive in the regular VAB? Will we be able to unlock rover vehicle templates or have sea based vehicles?

We need to be able to change the crew composition and cargo for already automated supply route missions. I'm sure other community members can critique or develop this idea further. Thank you! PS: maybe this is what that icon was for in the VAB

"A notice: The games in brackets are for orientation only. There is no guarantee that these will also be shown or played at gamescom 2022."

Artemis 1 launch would come right after that (29 August hopefully). There would be epic amounts of space hype. Really good time to promote KSP2.