Kegereneku

Don't be so hasty Canopus... ever is such a loooong time. All it would take is for a company more competent than Microsoft to add real synergy with other existing systems for AR to become an new common interface. Plus, Augmented Reality result from a particular use of (now common) sensors, if my memory is right the ability for a Virtual-Reality environment to move along 3D position from the real world make VR drift all the way to AR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality%E2%80%93virtuality_continuum

That's basically Augmented Reality, you might as well use an Occulus Rift / other-VR-google and profit from the 3D and the blackness of space in a 3D scene. A sort of Augmented Virtuality

"+1" While we are at it, parts that are multiple smaller engine cobbled together but act as one engine could be interesting (knowing that you can make them using cubic-strut and fairing). Once KSP turn 64bits and isn't bothered by RAM limit of course.

The thing is that some variations don't require an entire planet or make a fundamental difference other than visual. - Retrograd orbit is acceptable, mostly a slingshot challende - Oblate moon by itself is just like landing on a gigantic mountain slop, if with crazy rotation you'll need a small moon and a high speed for it to be noticeable. - Spikey mountains can be added to any other planet, along with all sort of geological features, so you can have plateau with more gravitational & atmospheric parameters than "plateau planet". That's why we need more unique landmark for survey on planet. Also note that some variation would also likely be criticized for being unrealistic. Last, there's criticism against "more RANDOM planets". But I agree, Ring are pretty yes. Jool could get some.

Not now, not after Unity 5, not until they finish what they started : - Contract need to be intelligent, filter absurd contract and not be stupid. - Administration need to have a point, maybe even a Periodic Budget-Lookalike. - R&D need to stop insulting players by making their choices as inconsequential as possible. And all of them need to work in synergy. After that... technically they could afford to stop. But I'll still waiting for the STOCK DELTA-V READER THE MANEUVER-NODE SYSTEM REQUIRE (see signature).

If there was no limits... since the speed of light in the Kerbal Universe is apparently instantaneous, my Kerbal scientist would build rocket to explain why the sky isn't entirely full of star from all period of the universe, and whether or not it have a beginning, a end and entropy. Many mission would be sent to explain how the planet were created and why an infinite universe have asteroid with finite resources. Eventually we would develop FTL-drive that work by hacking the code source of the Kerbal Universe.

To be sincere Regex, I'm not very interested either in answering someone who don't want to be convinced. Still, condensed answers, because a quote wars lead nowhere. Any solutions don't have to support both Sandbox and Science mode, you don't play Sandbox expecting objectives/progression/limit that the very point of it. Be creative/artistic. You seek to create more content, we got it. But if the content is only a small-variation of what you already have, then more game-mechanic can be more productive. New mechanic can be obtained with new parts, just like ISRU gave refueling base. I shouldn't need to tell you that if you really wanted to understand. We have opposing point of view on what is "fun". Apparently your idea of fun is launching constantly bigger stuff, getting to destination and can be measured in DeltaV. To the point I wonder if you would care if a game randomly generated 10 boring planets as long as it take more dV and aren't called the same way. My idea of fun have limits on "how big" and "how many" a planet/rocket to include "why", "what for" and "how". stacking-up bigger rocket is less interesting than crafting a supreme space-only nuclear-tug. And since flying it is more important than the distance to cross there's no point getting a new planets if it give me better access to zone of interest we already have. Random Solar system would be mindless grind : randomly generating the similar relief, similar parameters except, on average only as crazy as you allow them to be, but with different color and generated name. Whereas a carefully crafted solar system is to make sure all combinations appear. Part and contract appear little by little to expand what you can do there, and lessen the difficulty of getting there. ...and the current planet / game-mechanic can be improved a LOT MORE with greater return than a new planet. If you still disagree, let's disagree, I have nothing more to say on this subject.

Like what you would find if you weren't being overly dismissive. Several examples have been given or hinted at, making existing planet ground more active (geyser, requiring thermal radiator on Moho, wind), making game mechanic that encourage local exploration, like say a science part that require several data-point in the same biome (with some minimal distance shown simply by leaving a landed-debris behind), having contract correctly balanced/tailored to give a reasons to bring/replace scientist/engineer at place deliberately around your base. Have an Administration strategy focusing on a planet. CLOUD of FOG to make surveyor and probes more important. KAS tools to simplify refueling base... not to say about making new part which would result in new stuff to do everywhere. Those are no incredible change, some are even mods, implying that you would need to change the entire game structure to achieve better than a GP2 is moving the goal post and a double standard. Plus Contract, Administration and the tech-tree have to be corrected anyway for known reasons. If you call surface infrastructure "useless art project", what would be a new planet ? a "new space rock" ? You can only do so much with credible planets before you have to go crazy surface just to get new experience (like a massive fast rotating airless black moon, a planet with one gigantic mountain, a hyper-Eve or a low gravity flyable planet) and they don't need to be made further away or as a new planet (which would simply make harder challenge you already faced). tl;dr if the effort were the same, you would gain more with more game mechanic than new planet/moons, even made crazy.

Yet the way people envisage a new Gas Planet is precisely "MAKE STUFF BIGGER" because higher dV mean bigger tank, no matter if you refuel in-between you are still reusing the same mechanic (a refuel on a Jool moon is simply more exotic than on Minmus) and you'll only be timewarping a lot more to get the truly efficient launch window between Jool and GP2. The case of Eve is precisely "MORE STUFF TO DO ON THE SURFACE", how much did you explored on Eve, built a manned-rover ? Probably not because it isn't worth the trouble. Aside, I gave hint that the fusion engine could be Space-only (because of -say- radiator). Since I've seen many Eve-manned-return rely on specially built one/multi ship design and no reusable design, I consider such engine would do more to encourage said insane motherships than a new planet (as efficiency go by multiple specialized & agile ship rather than one mothership) Still you were right on one thing : I don't mind for a new planet but I don't consider it more interesting than new parts, I'll take a 2-seats 1.25 capsules over a GP2 and all its moon. The problem I see IMO with your logic is that going to a further away planet is no harder than planning to do more stuff on arrival, you just have bigger weight constraint and a need to refuel. If you really wanted difficulty, you should seek for more complex stuff to do on available planet. It would ask as much -probably more- infrastructure to require more manned station, manned rover and Air-to orbit shuttle. What you consider to take skill, I consider to take more grinding.

As said numerous time now, it would be pointless to add new planets if there isn't more meaningful difference than requiring more dV or a barely tricky orbit change. We need more stuff to do down on the planet we have. Science is already giving reason to go in different biome, now it would be great if there was a sort of synergy between biome. I have no suggestion on this, but being given reasons to build long range rover/ship to "link" base in carefully though out place would make a great dynamic. Just more reason to take <UNIQUE Kerbal/stuff> at point A, THEN B would be interesting. Lastly, ultimately I don't mind a new Gas planet further away, but only if one give us a OP orbit-only fusion engine/radiator to go with it. I have no interest in doing the same sort of missions with even worse mass margin. Constant optimization is a one trick pony, but giving new toy to play with you could reconsider doing bigger thing elsewhere, like that giant ISRU base on Laythe you were too lazy to carry.

The contract is an awesome tool, it allow to recognize almost everything the player is doing, which for a game, is awesome. But SQUAD still haven't crossed the step between "implementation" and "balanced feature", which wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't supposed to be a released 1.0. game. The problem isn't in a lack of storytelliing, ideally the system could work without just out of his normal way of functioning. The problem lies in the lack of coherent filters and the abuse of every single fine prints line available. I don't think I need to point out how ridiculous it is to test some impossible part following some pointless criteria. Only that for now it feel like : "Test an external seat with a tourist on it, between 2000m and 2500m of altitude, at a speed of 500m/s, on Jool, in a polar orbit. The tourist must take sample of the surface and get back home. The spaceship must possess two Mobile Processing Lab and a Stability Enhancer at all time. Reward : 14,356 funds & 0,1 reputation" IMHO, concept like "Space Race" and "story millstone" have little to do with the problem and are more alternative mods than direct improvement. A Space Race as was discussed looong before is pointless unless the 'Opponent' follow rule similar to ours and would require extensive "rubber band mechanic" to pretend the 'race' is tight. This is one of those ideas that looked better on paper. As for Millstone-mission, it is simply soooo compatible with Contract that you could consider them correctly filtered contract. Lastly, obviously Administration strategy and R&D will have to be balanced along Contract and surely available science. So far I don't think we need a big change, some fundamental one yes, but nothing quite different from what we have. This is not because the system is lacking component that we should replace it entirely by another system.

Indeed

My opinion : Ever since Kerbal got roles, we are lacking a 1.25 two-seat pods. Preferably the mk1-lander-can so you can have a scientist along a pilot without staking a command pot on top (it's ugly). In fact, since the landing-can-mk1 is quiiiiite heavy and large, you could still afford a 2 seat more streamlined pods so it can be protected by a 1.25 shield. To compensate you could make the mk2-Lander a 3 seats pods. Nothing to say on the stats of every pods here and there, it obviously need to change the day they'll make a real Tech-tree (for now I'll surely use Opentree v2), rework contract and make the administration building not pointless.

Myself I don't have a problem with them, aside that I find them a little ugly. I mostly use them to make aerodynamic probes before getting the fairing, and store experiment of course. So only room of improvement for me would be to make them not-ugly and have another part as a spaceplane-like 1.25 cargo-bay.

Major change indeed. I can't say I agree with your solution. Still, to work on what we have now, does the following axis of improvement seem right to you ? - Less interdependency to allow easier prioritization. - still a minimum technology level. - compatibility with a possible fund/time/science synergy between Administration/contract/R&D, assuming SQUAD finally balance what they started. From this I can imagine possible combination of administration-strategy/contract which could result in the same functionally speaking to what you want, while keeping the science-currency dynamic. For all the bad thing we/I say on Squad's unfinished feature, I am actually quite impressed by the sheer potential in customized game-experience. A rigid system like the one you suggested Tater might have worked easily, but I see less room for different gamestyle IMHO. ps : I'm starting to wonder if we didn't have exactly the same discussion before... quite possible.

Stuck, stuck... Without judging it, I would just like to point out that your time/budget idea seem more easily moddable than the biome-based science currency if one had to start it from zero. Your idea certainly sound it could interest people (including me), but it is a very different dynamic, a Time/Fund-based research gameplay have less emphasis on rewarding Players for reaching & exploring hard-biome through rocket-science and more emphasis on making an economic model. ...economic model which could be achieved with science-currency through Administration-contract if not from the near absolute lack of balance and synergy we have now between Contract-R&D-Administration. It is true that realistically we do develop stuff by throwing Time&Money at it, but it is also a fact that better technology doesn't develop until we learn from experience with older technology. Not to sound like I dislike Rocketpunk but NERVA was definitely not ready for a Moon-Landing or mature for a Mars mission in the 90s. In result, it is really any different if to have a NERVA "as soon as possible" if you need 'other/earlier' technology to grind the money efficiently ? [Edit] (rethinking about it, don't you think reducing interdependency in the science-currency is a way to achieve a LV-N soon, with the R&D building counting as a the fund aspect and grind as the time ?)[/Edit] note : I know I'm putting completely aside the TIME factor here, as I think we can use different time-based mechanic than development-time to achieve similar result. I'll stop here before getting too far away from the topic. ps : Maybe someone could make a discussion thread about having 'reward of sort' beyond/beside the tech-tree, I'm wondering if having the NERVA late is only a problem because it feel like we finished everything.

Tater, are you suggesting of being given the technology to accomplish a mission by the mission and receiving science-point in return to keep access to the technology or buy new one ? Or an entirely mission driven technological evolution ? Your idea is confusing to me. I think we can agree that the contract system is also severely unbalanced as well. with absurdly precise mission that have no sense ...etc The paradigm that you need to unlock some technology for the express purpose of achieving some further goal, is sound when it concern world first. But it is only a matter of rebalance/filter to have some mission appear only after you have the shown (through players action) the ability to try. Let's remember that for example you can technically achieve a moon landing without having landing-gear.

I think 'openness', intuitiveness and game balance are the main axis, with the ideal being a balance of each. - Absolute 'openness' is basically having each part buy-able in no order - total intuitiveness would be better but can allow combination which, although intuitive(~realistic), isn't balanced to the game. - And game balance can make lead to an obtuse result by making bad choice impossible. I would say it is were is the current tech-tree.

We wouldn't have a problem with guidance if they weren't so damn specific. Impossible test contract or absurd tourist contract are the nightmare that keep me awake at night. "Test an external seat with a tourist on it, between 2000m and 2500m of altitude, at a speed of 500m/s, on Jool, in a polar orbit. The tourist must take sample of the surface and get back home. Reward : 14,356 funds"

Gotta say, even if I don't support much anymore the 1part-1node philosophy I'm wondering how it would play out. So far I think the potential problem to be aware of is the risk of deadlocking a player into a bad combinations of parts.

"+1" -some guy

At first the new 25 km distance was good enough for me to retrieve the first stage. But depending of design, if I drop my first stage around 10km high, the debris simply don't have the time to land before leaving the 25km zone and being deleted. I also don't have the time to switch to them to land them. (even with parachute that open at the last minute) However, if I drop my first/middle stage on a wide sub-orbital trajectory I have the time to orbit the payload and switch to the stage... which can suffer a little during reentry. I wish recovery was purely based on physic, but the problem is very hard to solve for all the reasons pointed out here. Increasing even more the physic bubble could be a problem (maybe with 64bits ?). So for now I'll just have to work around the limit.

On behalf of Cpt.Kipard (which is assuming too much about what we think) I would like to answer a few points : I'm testing right now This tech-tree which used bundle, but intelligently. Although this isn't how Kipard formulated it, I always discussed this suggestion as this. The Bundle used [by the stock-tree are seemingly made to be so "newbie friendly" that choice do not matter. The objective here was to make choice matter in a way that is fun to play, without a need to grind for any part] ad1 : Ideally as long as you get the basic component to get to any planet, you don't risk a deadlock anymore. It will just be less efficient and more costly than hoped. Having to abuse cheaper probes when you wanted a base...etc Also, I don't think anyone in Kerbal SPACE program will research too much spaceplane before realizing rocket are as awesome. ad8 : I think we would all settle on it following a more logical progression (based on technology). The objective is to allow you to research something that fit your (immediate) need without being forced to grind for unrelated garbage in between. Hence "Little to no stupid interdependency" ad11 : As I understand, right now Tier (as in building Tier) is based on Research-point cost. This is not ideal when you want a Tier2 part that isn't as costly than a tier1 costliest part. (though, the game can still be well balanced around it)

Will test, so far it look like it's going in the right direction. Question : Were you capable of doing this one because of the "easier modability" of 1.0, or were you waiting for 1.0 to deliver ? (truth, I want to know if I should keep being so critical against the apparent lack of change in 1.0)

I'm betting someone would make boat out of them. Anyway :