Tw1

This is a flaw I've seen in many computer games- where the player takes the initative, and does something themselves, the game does not recognise it, and later instructs the player to do the exact same thing. Squad walked straight into this one, with the way they've used the contract system.

Which seems a bit of a silly thing to do, really. Where the names causing a problem in the was the game functions? If it was for neatness, why is neatness more important than giving players trouble? Sure, maybe some things might have been going to break in 1.0 anyway, but saves and craft files have often turned out more resilient than thought. Seems odd to add extra problems. At least, if we identify the parts that changed, it's relatively simple to fix. Just a bit of a bother.

I too find this annoying. It's far more fun when it feels like you're the one giving the kerbal people their first steps into space. It would be nice if they didn't appear until you'd set up a space station out there, or at least made a few return trips yourself. *Shakes cane made of struts at other agencies* Get of my lawn you damn kids!

Depends what save I'm playing. When I play: My veteran/story maker save, I'm there quite frequently, I've got a lot going on there, but tend to be doing things with my base, and existing ships more than sending new things from Kerbin. My sandbox/muck about saves, I go there less frequently, I'm mostly on kerbin, with the odd foray out to other planets to try something. I used to use it to test fly vacuum landers, but hyperedit's planet editor makes that possible with on kerbin. When I've played career, I did end up going there a fair bit- but I haven't played that for a while now -I haven't played 1.0 much so far.

Then again, out of all the ways to die.... Not that any space program of mine would ever endorse suicide. It does seem odd to me that many space tourists would be satisfied with a view from orbit. Makes sense if you can't actually land, but if I was gonna spend months getting somewhere, I'd want to spend enough time on the ground to make it worth while. Idk, I tend to think of it as more of a free play, do whatever you want with the parts and planets mode, where in career mode you have to be concerned about managing the space program. It still hasn't quite lived up to it though, it's still more about grinding points and unlocking stuff. But the new outside is hideous! The texture is bland, and it looks like someone stuck a bubble on a fuel tank. No idea why that, or the pointed Mk1 cockpit needed a redo, the old models look far better.

I have to agree. I get where you're coming from, RoverDude, but I do think having to timewarp a little more would be something a lot less people would be bothered by. Part of KSP's appeal over other space games is it generally tries to give an impression of realistic, close to current day space exploration, and having insta-scans is another immersion breaker. Plus, as I, and others have talked about, the career mode could be a lot more fun if it moved away from clicking and grinding, and towards planning and managing things over time. I do get that sometimes, you just want to land straight away, but scanning that takes time could be an incentive to send smaller, cheap probes to the outer planets at a time when you can't afford bigger missions. Why not give the long distance scanner a really wide field view? You'd still scan everything pretty quickly, but it would feel like you actually did it. Plus, this would allow extra possibilities, like getting some data on a flyby, and eliminate the oddness of slow rotating planets like Moho being mapped straigh away. Why not have another tier between the long distance and landing scanners, which you could leave in place for a while to slowly map the planet? This would be especially useful if the long distance scan was even less accurate, so using the narrow band scanner to guide landings could still be something useful. Maybe the orbital scanner should have a close up mode. I particularly like the way the narrow, and ground level scanners work btw. That's quite clever. It seems to be a bit of a waste, to just gloss over this orbital stage, when the stock game is lacking in features where we actually get to collect meaningful data on the planets. Plus, isn't the whole point of timewarp so things can take time in a meaningful way, without needing to bore the player? That's a good point, but maybe once/if radiators become a thing we have, using the teir 5 kerbal won't be the only option.

I favour the idea that budget would be based on what you did in the last year. This way, it could be set up to add extra sense of purpose to many space exploration type things that the game doesn't do very well. If done well, it could provide players with reasons to go to places they've already collected all the science points from, other than just doing contracts they've been asked to do. This blog post summarises an approach to time based budget I came up with, with those ideas in mind. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/3444-An-aproach-to-Time-based-funding A set budget that you can't go over per year could work too, though I do think the yearly payment approach would fit in a little better. Either way, what's important is how it's earnt. Budget could simply be tied to reputation, which could be made to decrees if there are long periods of inactivity, but I don't see that working to well with the current reputation and strategies system. Plus, it misses out on the opportunity to reward many more things in a more complex way. I agree, but this is why we have different game modes. It might be possible to play like that in this sort of game mode, if you're careful, and keep missions low cost. However, this mode will support a fairly different playstyle- for those that want a full space program experience, rather than just being designer and pilot. I don't think this will necessary be a bad thing. The fact that missions to outer planets take a long time is something real space program must face. It's also a matter of balance- it should be possible to accrue enough funds in a reasonable amount of time, for a reasonable amount of effort. The funding issue is something a successful space program must address. It's a matter of cost benefit- if the things you're doing are costing more than they are worth, it's time to change something. If a mission to Jool is not financially viable, then other options, like downsizing the mission, or saving up some more first make sense. These are all challenges we'd need to face to become successful space program directors. Plus, it does make sense to do a few other missions while waiting for a Jool mission to arrive- if time is a factor you'll have a lot more reason to pace yourself, and make some use of your time. I definitely agree. Lifesupport should be simple, and balanced so bringing enough is only a real challenge when you need a few years worth. Made this ages ago. Perhaps the amount of time lifesupport would last for should be higher. Air and water can be recycled, so the life support resource should be treated like food, if anything. Add some ability to replenish life support using ISRU, and you could have bases which are self-sufficient, or even serve as supply centres for other missions. Collectors and recyclers should be heavy enough that they only become a the better option for big missions. Collectors should barely work in most places, work at low rates in others, and fastest on planets which are closest to habitable. I think the best way to do automated supply missions would be to abstract them completely. This would avoid a lot of complications that arise the automated flights had to be fully simulated by the game. You'd have to demonstrate it was possible, ( save something like extra planetary launchpads being added, demonstrate that missions that don't start from KSC can be done with a reusable vessel.) But then, every so often, a certain amount of resource (plus fuel) would disappear from a tanks on one vessel, (Or be purchased at KSC) and appear later in the tanks of another. Time taken, fuel needed, amount delivered, (vessel cost for KSC launches), could all be determined by your demonstration run, and the nature of available transfer windows. This could be thought of as contracting out your re-supply missions to another agency, or perhaps you must set aside skilled pilots of your own to do it. Either way, there should be a fair payment needed to have a flight happen without doing it yourself. I also think it would be great to have more things that happen while you are warping- that would make the time you've fast forwarded through seem a lot less wasted. For example, kerbals in bases, stations could get offered contracts to perform research. Scientists left in one place for a very long time could collect small extra bits of science (up until a point) on their own. It wouldn't be worth much, you'd get more leaving them in a science lab, but it would be better than them being idle all that time. But there always should be reasons to go and do things yourself. Lastly, I don't think any of this could really work without something like kerbal alarm clock. Otherwise, there'd be too much to think about. You need to be able to set some warnings for when a you need to pay attention to a ship, if something is finished, or if something is starting to run out of life support.

If you don't need any of the new features, and you're satisfied with the existing footage, I say stick with that. A movie is a big thing to make. And risky- on the net, shorter means more clicks. Perhaps you should work out what's holding you back. Is it fear? Is it available time? Is it the amount of work that it will take. Maybe you could set aside some time to bash out a rough cut, and then refine later? Do a quick, dodgy edit, then come back to add and correct things later, if your editing program will allow it. Don't try and make it perfect, Almost nothing is perfect, and everything starts out pretty rubbish at first. A first edit should be made will little effort, - just enough so you've actually got something you can work on. I also suggest making a trailer, if you haven't already, to gauge interest. Perhaps getting some 'beta views' 'pre readers' - other people, possibly from this forum, who'd be willing to read through your scripts, plans and whatever- feedback can help boost confidence. It can help you make decisions where you're not confident, help you get an idea of how people will respond, correct flaws... even if you disagree with some of the feedback, it can help you be more confident with where you've decided the move should go.

I don't think its value should be inflated above what makes sense, economically. While I am not an expert in this field, an unrefined material is generally worth less than material that has been refined. Sure, it may defy our laws of chemistry, but to the kerbals, it's probably not that amazing. KSP (mostly) does a good job of showing the harsh realities of space, as well giving the player things they need to face them. I think any resource you get from ore needs to be sold at the price you'd buy, or recover it for. You'd be competing with whomever on kerbin supplies these things, and if you're not offering a competitive price, then you won't be getting the buyers. A while ago, I wanted to start a kethane economics challenge, where you would be allowed to fuel up one ship at the start, and all the others after must be fuelled using kethane collected from space. The challenge would be to see how many flights you could manage. The point was to show that at KSP level tech, mining for fuel to bring back to kerbin is not the most luctrative prospect.

Yes. That is the announcement my post was responding to, but as the specific thread for that went down, I decided to post in the general features thread. This is definitelly a positive step. Still doesn't deal with many of the science system's issues, but a positive step. I'm pretty sure it was just that they weren't going to give them any sort of gender. They pretty clearly designed male looking characters though, and that was the issue. Androgynous designs need to be close to the border between masculine and feminine: Computer generated androgynous faces, via MakeHuman, FaceGen, and Blender Kerbals weren't androgenous. Their faces were too blocky, and they show a few male secondary characteristics. We are still at a point in time, where when human-esque character is being designed, they often end up males by default. This plus, the fact that gaming is still to an extent, a "boy thing", and Squad themselves being all guys, ended up in us getting a male looking kerbal. But, soon the prophecy will be fulfilled, and Valentina and friends will bring balance to the force the ksp roster, and all will be well.

I was going to post in the thread about time based mechanics, but apparently that devolved into bickering. Come on, guys, we can be better than that. This was my post: Also, let's not open up the female kerbal debate again. Kerbals are the human analogs in the game. The majority of humans fall into two categories, male, and female. But the existing kerbals all looked male. Adding female looking kerbals will help female humans connect with the game. Plus, it's only fair that both sides get to feel represented in the game.

Oh yeah. He so does. Awesome pic there.

Or a brighter yellow, to make it more like the existing xenon tanks, and more obviously one of them. I do think having that on probes would look extra awesome.

I do think they could be good features, but I don't think adding procedural solar systems and vessel automation is the solution to solving Career's problems. , Randomly generated solar systems could be cool- each game, you'd get unique, never before known planets that you'd really need to investigate before sending anything other than a small probe there. (That is, assuming you aren't given a lot of info, or see much of it before hand.) It would be new challenges, and experiences each time you play. But it wouldn't address many of the underlying problems KSP already has. Without improvements to science, or new ground exploration features, it would just be a lot more of the same. Not knowing what's there will give the player a heightened sense of intrigue, but land on that intriguing new planet, and you've still only got a few minutes worth of stuff to do. I personally, would rather see things that are more core to career mode implemented first. I also think some sort of automation would be useful in the advanced stage of the game. At least, for transporting resources, and maybe crew. But I don't think it's needed to make the game more about management. You can already have many flights on the go at the same time- though that would be easier if they added something like Kerbal Alarm clock. Before career came about, I got the idea that career was meant to turn the game from a spaceship construction set, into a space program game. But really, they just stuck some limits and added collecting points to the spaceship construction set. It was the possibly the simplest, plainest way they could do it, really. KSP offers a chance to experience thing few will get to do in real life. Space travel, designing rockets, exploring space, running a space program... except it falls very short when it comes to delivering on the experience of those last two. To me, it seemed obvious that career should fill the aspects of a space program that fell outside the 'free play' of sandbox- costs, budgets, discoveries, scientific investigation, historic firsts, setting up outpost, exploring. But apparently, all space programs do is put stuff up in space for other people, and collect rocks.

Wait, what? Why? It's an awesome little tank with great potential. And why the unnecessary breaking of craft files? This is silly. I will be holding on to this tank. Oh. But still, it's so clipable, and bouncy, and a spacey looking color.....

Nope. Then I'd start an argument over which way was up. Defs didn't binge watch this show all day after posting that clip... Actually, I'm kidding. IDK what I'd do, depends on my mood.

It seems to me what KSP is trying to be, is a very padded out version of the simple rocket launcher it started out as. Career mode is built around building and flying. The planets basically act as targets your rockets must reach- to collect from a biome, do a survey, deliver something a contract requires etc, I believe this is why KSP's career mode falls flat. Rather than answering "How can we make the player feel like they are running a space program, and exploring space?" Career answered "How can flights earn points and money?" I think KSP ought to be a game where the player gets to run their own space program. And everything that entails. The game should be shaped around things real space programs do, what benefits them, what challenges they must overcome, etc. KSP is the only space game I'm aware of where you're very much involved in every stage of a mission. If you ignore career, and run a space program in sandbox, you take on many different roles: You're the director, choosing the goals of the organisation. You're the mission planner, looking for available launch windows, planning trajectories, and approaches to a mission. You're the engineer who designs the stuff, the pilot who gets it there, the astronaut who makes those first steps., and if you're imaginative enough, the explorer/scientist who travels over alien lands, trying to work out their mysteries. In KSP, only two of these parts are really developed, the flying part, and the building part. We're missing out on the actual exploring and discovering, which surely is the reason they are going to space in the first place. Having funding only come from contracts somewhat undermines our ability to set our own direction, There's still no mission planning tools in game, or budgeting tools. Space stations and bases don't have benifits of their own... It would be a lot more fun if the game was set up with the intention of making it feel like we are running a space program.

It depends on a lot of things. I'd like to think I'd be partying, singing End of the world songs, (I do this most time an apocalypse hoax pops up, I love mockingly adding them to my year planner.) s But in reality, I'd probably will end up weeping for friends and family who've been lost. I doubt I'd have access to the resources needed to get to space, let alone establish a sustainable habitat beyond Earth. If the end was quick, inevitable, and obvious- like a wall of fire consuming the Earth- and it reached me in the right mood, I'd probably leap straight in. Otherwise, I'd attempt to survive in the internetless/computerless horror that the 'end of the world' left behind.

I'd like to see them make a tweakble which allows you to add heat shielding, and the heat shield texture to the bottom of parts. That would save a lot on partcount.

I throw an airlock into the kerbal hitting the hammer. What?

Not yet, but there will be. there will be...[/yoda]

Are those... radial Lv-1s used as treads? That's very cool. Would be nice to see a gif of video at some point.

But it's weird purpleness is awesome! It's purpleness does leave it open to speculation that it could be inhabited by purple bacteria,, but I like to think it's due to the sand. Sand is tends to be basically quartz. Quartz added iron impurities and exposure to radiation can become amethyst. Continued exposure can maintain the purple colour, despite exposure to heat and light. Though if this is the case, we'd expect to see a little more variation in Eve's colour. I like to think of Eve as a carbon-rich planet, a cross between Venus and Titan, with the oceans being a thick mix of water, long chain hydrocarbons, and purple dust.Also mercury and grape juice. Which is something I'd hoped would've been fixed back in 0.22, but instead, we got science as points and grinding... Though, if you play with E.V.E, and give Eve thick clouds, the large range of temperatures isn't too infeasible. Clouds restrict the amount of sunlight that can get to the surface, and oceans mess with how heat is distributed. Though this works better if you imagine Eve working as if it was a full size planet.

Better solution: Take the focus away from the techtree, and make the game more about doing space stuff than unlocking stuff. It needs an aim other than "unlock parts for going to space by uh, going to space." I know we've discussed this previously, but for the purposes of this thread: I would rather see something less superficial than the system proposed in idea one. The distinction does give a little immersion value, but also reduces it a little- where is my space program getting this extra money from? Plus, I'm also not sure about two. Most of our costs, mainly new vessels, are big, up-front costs, which makes getting big lump sum payments practical. I imagine a system like this would end up making you do a lot of otherwise pointless warping to save up funds, which could feel more of a grind. If it was warping until a budget/payday, rather than warping until you've collected enough, then I imagine it would seem a little different, as long as the payment system is balanced so you could earn enough to do a lot on interesting/productive things in between payouts. This is, (As I've posed before,) my thoughts on time based payout gameplay: Ideally, I'd prefer it if the game could do without the explore contracts altogether. I mean, we don't need to be walked through the whole game. Inform the player of when launch windows are, and give them things worth going to the planets for, and they will go.