Periple
-
Posts
1,157 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Periple
-
-
32 minutes ago, The Aziz said:
Early game constraint is available tech. Depending on how soon first inflatable colony parts are available, I'm assuming early tier 3/late 2, the additional constraint of resources will appear.
I know it is now, but I would like an additional constraint that incentivizes efficiency even in the early game.
-
35 minutes ago, The Aziz said:
So instead of space exploration simulator (setting up mining outposts for different resources, trade routes, orbital shipyards so that your desired colony extracts or receives exactly the resources it needs) there should be a money sim, where the resources get pulled out of Jeb's bottom...?
And if someone, ever, mentions human economy in on of these posts...
At least I’m very much looking forward to the resource extraction and distribution game, and at that stage an additional currency cost would be actively bad.
I still think currency might have a function as an early-game constraint. Resources are currently unlimited at KSC, which removes an incentive for efficiency. Constraining them with a currency cost would be simple and straightforward. There are other possibilities too but I’m not sure they’re necessarily better — if they replenish over time it incentivizes you to warp around it which is dull, and if they replenish through missions you risk soft-locking yourself in the worst case and grinding missions you don’t otherwise enjoy in the best case.
I don’t feel particularly strongly about this though, and I certainly don’t want a money sim for its own sake.
-
Hey, is there a way to disable DMs from users I’m not following?
-
50 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
Yes, in the scenario you imagined where you only earn steel.
I see, I do need to break it down for you in more detail. I will try.
Suppose you have three resources, steel, uranium, and propellant.
Suppose you need these in various proportions to build your craft.
Scenario one: your missions reward you in these resources, in various proportions.
Scenario two: your missions reward you in currency which allows you to buy these resources when you need them: fuel for $1 a ton, steel for $10 a ton, and uranium for $100 a ton.
Suppose you’re part way through a campaign and have just unlocked an engine that needs 100 kg of uranium, 10 tons of steel, and 100 tons of fuel to build.
Suppose in scenario one, you’ve built up a stockpile of 1 ton of uranium, 400 tons of fuel, but only 5 tons of steel because you’ve been using a lot of it.
Suppose in scenario two, you’ve stocked the equivalent in currency, that’s $550 worth.
Under scenario one, you’re missing 5 tons of steel but sitting on 300 extra tons of fuel and 900 extra kg of uranium.
Under scenario two, you can buy the resources you need when you need them for $230, and have $320 left for another mission.
Question: which of these scenarios gives you more flexibility?
a) Scenario one
b) Scenario two
Important note: If you answer with anything other than “a” or “b,” I will be forced to conclude that you are not engaging in a good-faith discussion and will stop engaging with you further.
-
2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:
Like just earning resources instead of earning tokens that let you get the same resources? It's an unnecessary step.
No, it’s not. If you earn resources directly, you’re locked into the specific resources you’ve stockpiled. If you’ve saved currency, you can use it to buy the exact resources you need when you need them. A mountain of steel might be of no use to you if you’re missing 100 kg of uranium.
Are you able to figure out the difference from here on out on your own or do you need me to spell it out for you in more detail?
-
1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:
One of the things I never understood (nor tested) is how they are supposed to behave. Minimum altitude vs pressure. Which one wins? Or both must be satisfied?
Both.
-
Joints occasionally going out of joint when coming out of warp.
-
15 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
What does this add that a resource allowance wouldn't?
Flexibility, you could obtain the resources you want when you want them.
-
14 hours ago, kdaviper said:
Do terriers have gimble?
Yes.
-
I think currency could work once resources are online, but only in the early game. Resources could have a currency cost on Kerbin. There would have to be a way to earn it, perhaps with the mission system, but it would have to be somehow less grindy than in KSP1 and its silly random contract generator.
I would not want to have currency involved once I’ve got my own resource production going.
-
15 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:
Well, the game is unplayable if parachutes don't open. Like, literally unplayable; you cannot land on Duna, or Laythe, or even back on Kerbin, if the chutes don't open. Guess this stays on my shelf for another couple of months whilst you sort out the chutes issue. Sigh. I was really looking forward to playing this again and getting on with the missions.
I wonder what triggers it though? It only happened to me once and I was able to make it down in one order by quitting and reloading and hammering the deploy button until one of them deployed.
-
I would like of the tech tree had genuinely different branches you could pursue instead of one gateway tech per tier. Like if you wanted to go all-in on spaceplanes, you could do that.
-
Nice, most of my most wanted bugs are fixed!
-
2 hours ago, Jeq said:
Reliant and poodle seems to be most useless engines currently, i haven't found any use for them. Flea and hammer too doesn't need to exists. Kickback does most of jobs, clydesdale saves you when your rocket would be too big otherwise.
I use Reliant and Poodle a lot! Hammer too sometimes. Flea is kind of niche though!
In any case I don’t think the methalox engines are broken at all, I find uses for just about all of them!
-
This would completely change the way parts are designed. I think it’s safe to say that this will never be stock.
I expect a procedural engine mod would be possible though!
-
I use the Reliant a lot in the early game. Small rockets don’t need the gimbal and it’s brilliant for LF boosters.
-
I started to write a reply but it started to get really long and boiled down to “I disagree with everything you’re suggesting” so I’ll just leave it at that.
In short: leave Reliant alone (or at most, give it a slight buff), it’s OK for later-game engines to be big improvements over earlier-game ones, and the fuels are just fine. Also the tiny engines work great for their intended missions, and I like the design flexibility of the radial ones.
-
5 hours ago, byaafacehead said:
Its funny seeing this thread and other threads which say the exact opposite, that science should be far more interactive. Devs probably will be a in a good spot when both sides are mad
I’m in the “more busywork please” camp!
-
4 hours ago, Snips said:
So I read this posting by Nate, and there is just "...it's definitly a thing we want to revisit, but as always we're have to balance multiple prorities." No statement that it will be coming after 1.0. And just a short but clear statement was all I wish for.
If it’s not on their roadmap, they should absolutely not make any statements other than “it’s under consideration.”
4 hours ago, Snips said:Here - not on discord.
That doesn’t make any sense, there are a few dozen active users here and thousands on Discord, why would they make their statements here? You’ve got to go where your audience is.
-
Single-stage Tylo landers were super difficult in KSP1. I did manage a fully reusable lander but it used an orbital booster that took about 1000 m/s off fast, then undocked and burned back to orbit; what was left on the lander was enough to get it down and back up for redocking and refueling. They're kind of trivial now with the SWERV and I'm not quite sure how I feel about that!
-
I ran into some frustrating bugs today!
I'm building a mission to Jool, with a relay that will drop a probe into Jool, and a rover that will go to Tylo. The problem is that after launch, the parts go crooked! I didn't notice until I was descending to Tylo when thrust was way off-axis and three parts were visibly misaligned, then some fuel tanks blew up because the misalignment had caused a rocket to become partly occluded; I even managed to correct that by adjust thrust, but then all of a sudden one pair of wheels and a few other parts just flew off my rover.
I reloaded an earlier save and saw that the parts were already misaligned right after the launch. When I rolled back further and re-launched, I saw that those parts were now straight, but another part was way out of alignment!
The weirdest thing is, the parts that go out of alignment are just completely normal decoupler-tank connections connected with nodes! All my weird surface attachment stuff stays put!
-
I just spent a couple of hours vibing, slowly cruising around Duna and putting together some craft. The scenery is much nicer than in KSP1 and I was really enjoying it. Chill gaming kerbal style!
-
Why did your burns use so much dV?
I usually use a bit over 2k to get to Jool, then I gravity capture so that’s maneuvering fuel only, getting into low orbit around Tylo will cost something.
Tylo landings can be expensive but 4k is a lot there too, about 3k should be enough with some safety margin.
Was the game bugging out or was it something you did?
-
19 minutes ago, FlickAndSnorty said:
Suppose I just need to use a heatshield on the front while we wait on a few tweaks to the thermal mechanics....
I just stick a nose cone there, I think it’s lighter and it does the job!
Currency: sorely missed at this stage of development
in KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
Posted
I wasn’t talking to you.