TheTennesseeFireman

Seems that the idea here is that the real problem with KSP1’s tech tree came down to balance and QOL, which… can’t really argue too much with that. I maintain an unlockable science encyclopedia would be a great intangible way to add to the experience, but as far as an actual progression mechanic goes, this all seems sound so far.

1. To see all the things that were promised during development to actually come to fruition. 2. Improved terrain. Game is very inconsistent on this front- big flat areas (Eve, Mun, Tylo) in particular need more texture and/or scatter. I would also like for scatter to have collision. 3. Asteroids, Comets, and other non-planetary bodies to visit. 4. A planet encyclopedia, featuring all the science you have learned so far. I strongly believe science should have some sort of learning component to it, even if the tech tree remains points-based. 5. Proper IVA. 6. Weather systems- these can be mostly cosmetic, but they’d do a lot for worldbuilding, especially as we get into the exoplanets. 7. Cosmetic customization of colonies- with the sheer amount of colonies we’ll be trying to build around the galaxy, it would be nice to be able to give them unique aesthetics. 8. Robotics- essential that this becomes stock sooner rather than later. 9. Exotic objects- Rogue planets, brown dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, and more should all be on the table for interstellar travel. I know some are quite rare, but I just think they’re too exciting and interesting to pass up. 10. For the KSC to gradually evolve into a proper Kerbal city to fly around. And while Kerbin shouldn’t be hyper-developed, it would be nice to see more signs of habitation scattered around the planet.

Appreciate the long list and overall transparency. This is just generally a very tough period of waiting, when the bug list is long, the updates less frequent than hoped for, important systems incomplete or undergoing an overhaul, and the features still far behind KSP1. It’s hard for us on the other side of the screen to see the vision for the final release that you do, so just knowing that you’re working on the same problems that we see, even if you can’t promise an immediate fix, is a good way to keep us on the same page. Lots of games have fallen at this hurdle, so I’m hoping these next couple updates are a strong enough foundation to start layering in more new features and rebuild some of the community excitement.

Truth be told, for a large chunk of the game’s development, I thought this whole thing was total vaporware. The fact that so much of the foundation seems looks pretty creaky right now is a little sad, but given the rocky development path I understand why it is that way. We’re in a pretty critical period right now, and I hope once the release hype/controversy settles down, I hope the devs circle the wagons and open up about about what our realistic expectations for this game should be. Are the high-end specs here to stay? Should we curb our expectations of better graphics for the near future? What kind of timeframe are we looking at for the roadmap? I get that they need to build up hype for this release to hit the numbers they’re looking for, but with all that’s been promised I think it’s time to start managing expectations and keep the community’s good will intact.

For all the stress that’s been aired on this forum and elsewhere over performance, graphics, future expectations, etc, the gameplay loop of actually designing and building rockets seems to be a massive leap forward from KSP1.

On the topic of HYPE, which planet/moon are you most excited to see revamped? Pol’s textures look incredible, and Eve looks like a worthy place to explore now, but there’s always something to be said for the Mun experience in HD.

I voted ice giant (feels odd to not have one of these represented in the Kerbin system) and rogue planet, but I’d be happy with any of these. I don’t personally care too much about keeping to the canon of this “this planet was undiscovered in KSP”, just that it’s a fun place to visit if indeed it is real.

I’m bumping this thread due to new speculative evidence from today’s Mun Arch Easter Egg that there is, in fact, an 8th planet in the Kerbolar System. If the theory holds, what would we like from this planet? It’s going to be pretty far out there. Presumably Glummo is our Saturn analogue, so I’d be surprised if it’s anything too similar. Should it be a Uranus/Neptune analogue? A small terrestrial body like Titan or Pluto? A comet, asteroid, or KBO? Something already revealed in the trailers? A massive rogue planet? Or something even weirder?

Too much talk about a funky little teaser, not enough talk about how incredible this all sounds! Honestly it fixes a problem I didn’t realize I had with KSP1 in that rocket launches sometimes didn’t feel impactful enough for how powerful they were. Absolutely love the time and investment you’ve put into this. Have to wonder what the fancy futuristic engines are going to sound like…

The “footprints won’t be there on day 1” quote I take to be acknowledgement that the graphics aren’t going to necessarily be the final version we see. Just because it’s not in the roadmap doesn’t mean they won’t be looking for optimizations and listening to feedback on what can be improved. Maybe my expectations are too low? I’m basically just hyped to see the game at all. Also it’s possible that they’ve deliberately made the clouds simple on Kerbin itself, given that it is the starter planet and no one wants to do their first launch in a storm.

Right. As fascinating and informative as the history of spaceflight is, this isn’t a game about that. This is a game about the present and future of spaceflight and the possibilities it unlocks. We’re not going to the Moon, we’re going to the the Mun. And that’s just the very tip of the iceberg of the journey this game wants us to take. For experienced players especially, the part of the game that exists before we reach today’s technology level (with our brand new Methalox engines) will be over in the blink of an eye. So if we’re going to standardize (and the thought process there has been well laid out), it makes vastly more sense to go with the fuel source that gives you simpler rocket designs, practical ISRU, and the most balanced stats.

Eve isn’t a direct 1-1 Venus comparison, and it may well have a heavy hydrocarbon concentration in its atmosphere, as methane is after all a powerful GHG. Regardless, how many places do you really need methalox ISRU in the Kerbin system? Kerbin presumably has an unlimited amount, and the availability of resources is meant to be a different challenge from planet to planet. By the time you’ve reached the Jool system, you’ll probably have unlocked liquid hydrogen ISRU on the tech tree and be able to take advantage of that instead.

I’m guessing this is being done with an eye towards the resource system. Methalox makes a lot more sense when it comes to harvesting in situ resources, since you’re far more likely to find methane than kerosene on any given body. And for an average player, the functional difference between Kerolox and Metholox would be so minimal that it’s not worth having a whole extra set of engines for minor performance tuning.

This seems like a really sensible layout. As a layman who was starting out (and is still a relative scrub who hasn’t played in a while), sensible rocket construction was just as big of a hurdle for me as orbital mechanics. Starting with archetypes designed around a basic, balanced fuel type that can get you to space will really help newcomers make sense of what a basic rocket should actually look like.

So this brings up an interesting point that I’m guessing may have been addressed elsewhere, but exactly what aspects of colony gameplay will require Kerbals? I’m too lazy to look up exactly what has been confirmed, but it would appear that autonomous resource gathering missions can be done fully unmanned. Will refineries operate the same way? Presumably you’ll need Kerbals for rocket construction/launches, but orbital construction might be a more efficient choice. And if they’re just there to improve efficiency, that’s not an real incentive in a game with time warp. So what’s the reason we should set up a planetary colony instead of a bunch of drone missions feeding orbital hubs?

Thrawd- Formerly a Europa-like body with a subsurface ocean, this planet is warming as its star has started to expand into a red giant. It now hosts a temporary oxygen-rich atmosphere encompassing much of the planet that is constantly being evaporated by the intense stellar winds. At lower latitudes, a large ocean of liquid water wraps around the planet, shrouded by a gray mist. Temporary rivers of meltwater are carried down to the ocean. At higher latitudes, the elevations are much higher, and ice sublimates directly into space. This planet is one of the richest in volatiles available in the game. Additionally, as material from the solar wind is deposited on the surface, unequal heating occurs, forming sinkholes on the icy “continents” with a wealth of metals and carbon at the bottom. It also shows possible traces of microbial life in the liquid ocean, although any more complex organisms exist further in the depths.

This could be an interesting idea, depending on how big colonies can get. If we’re building colonies that can house more than 50 Kerbals, it gets hard simulating every one of them, and you could just treat population as a matter of overall colony performance this way. I do think the class system needs to be streamlined in general, because as mentioned before, caring about XP is a struggle on this scale. But once you remove that tracking element, I think you can expand the number of classes without necessarily introducing complexity. 18 classes is probably too many, but 7-10 could work just fine. I like the idea of being able to tailor a crew for a particular mission and have a real reason to have a big, 7+ person expedition to a new planet. You could even make it part of the tech tree, where you start with the three main classes but are able to unlock new types of Kerbals with different bonuses.

You make a compelling argument, and I think I agree that the specialization system would work better without XP. Micromanaging an individual Kerbal’s growth doesn’t really make sense at an interstellar scale. Instead, just let a class have all the abilities from the start. Done this way, you could expand the classes without overly adding to complexity, since you’re mostly just interested in your colony having a good mix than focusing on an individual Kerbal. In a sense you can treat them more like a part that you can easily move around and create more of.

I think it could make for some interesting decisions. For example, imagine you’re looking to start a new colony. Your hero (let’s say, Valentina) could consolidate a lot of roles, but if you have her stationed elsewhere, do you run a setup mission to bring her to your launch site? Or maybe try to rendezvous with her along the way? If she gets lost in space, do you organize a rescue mission you otherwise wouldn’t? I think there’s gameplay value to be had in making Kerbals less disposable and interchangeable at times.

Perhaps that’s a better system, but I do think getting one like this should be restricted to the late game (which colony booms would theoretically be a part of) and even then rarely available. Once you start cross-training Kerbals on everything, you lose part of the incentive to do expeditions with larger crews, which is part of why this system exists in the first place and why I think it should be expanded. That being said, I like the idea of a “protagonist” Kerbal that isn’t interchangeable and that you have incentive to get attached to and use on many missions.

Thanks, didn’t catch this suggestion thread.

I’ve seen some discussion around the KSP2 specialization system, including whether it should be present at all and if it should be expanded. While I understand a fear of micromanagement, I do think expanding Kerbal classes are a good way to make colonies feel more personalized and important to the overall gameplay. With all the new mechanics and gameplay elements being introduced, I thought it would be good to have a thread to compile potential ideas for what new classes could do or what could be given to existing classes. Doctor- Allows your Kerbals to function longer without life support, improves G force tolerance of other Kerbals, and improves reproduction rate. Salvager- Improves resource recovery from landed crafts and can passively mine certain materials without equipment. Teacher- Increases rate of experience gain for other Kerbals and upgrades some of their abilities. Hero- Has the highest survivability of any Kerbal and the abilities of all other classes. Creating one is a rare outcome of a colony boom event. Only one can exist at a time per space program.

If I had to guess, money was in the career mode in the beginning but got removed when it was discovered how little sense it made with the colony system. If we’re constructing vessels and facilities in deep space, it doesn’t make sense to use money… there’s nobody out there to buy stuff from! It would be a Kerbin-only resource, and if you’re really only using it for resource exchange on Kerbin itself, you may as well cut out the middleman.

Practically speaking, this whole conversation is probably a moot point, isn’t it? They’ve done a ton of work on new procedural wings, tires, and other parts that depend on whatever aerodynamics system they have in place. They’ve got weather effects they’ve built on top of it. And with a long roadmap ahead, I don’t imagine they’re going to go back and uproot whatever system they already have in place, provided it’s stable and functions properly.

I’m guessing that Life Support is mostly going to be small potatoes when it comes to resources and colonies. It’ll be a constraint when you’re getting your colony off the ground and expanding your population, but once you have a few basic modules up and running, it stops being an existential problem and most of your attention is devoted to finding construction materials. Some outposts might require more external aid than others, but past a certain point on the tech tree you should be able to grow your own food and recycle oxygen almost anywhere.