KSP 2.0 - What would you expect (or wish) for a sequel?

[funkcanna]

FAR better career mode.  

More Solar Systems

Better colonisation parts (but more than happy with USI)

3 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

I posted this already, but I wish, that eventually KSP might look something like this...

https://unigine.com/en/industries/simulation/aerospace

Well, one may dream, right????

Wow.  

[Navy2k]

4 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

I posted this already, but I wish, that eventually KSP might look something like this...

https://unigine.com/en/industries/simulation/aerospace

Well, one may dream, right????

The number of partmods would go down significantly =)

[evilaviator]

The option of a Random procedural generated starting solar system. Kerbin would be the same but everything else would be an unknown.

[Kerbol Macrosystems]

I'd love to see the physics engine redone.  The things I'd want to see are: Planetary axial tilt and complex orbit approximation.  Things like sun-synchronous orbits, fuzzy orbits/ballistic capture, and Lagrange points.  These things wouldn't be that bad when you're focused on a ship, but would currently limit you into physics warp in order to be able to handle appropriately.  I'm thinking that when you're focused on a ship you get N-body physics from the body you're orbiting, its moons, and Kerbol.  When you're orbiting Kerbol it's just the main planets, no moons.  

Time warping requires some shortcuts.  A normal time-warp puts you back into Newtonian physics.  You could shortcut a Lissajous orbits (around L4 and L5) by treating L4 and L5 as if they had a pseudo-SOI.  If your orbit closes within the pseudo-SOI the game will treat you like you're orbiting L4 or L5 with some altered but predictable shapes.  This only happens if you already have a closed orbit around those lagrange points when you begin time-warp. Same thing for sun-synchronous orbits.  If you get an orbit close to the parameters reported on wikipedia the game realizes that you have the correct precession and keeps the angle between your orbit and the sun fixed.  

I'm not sure there's an easy way to shortcut ballistic capture, as these become very complex orbits.  The only thing I could think of is to have a "propagate orbit" button.  When you click this the game will pause and devote all of its resources to do a detailed projection of your orbit into the future.  Your vessel then becomes locked onto this path for however long you propagated it for.  The duration for propagation would be user-settable.  Getting an appropriate capture would require some intuition of how long the maneuver would take in game-time.  Once you reach the end of that propagation time-warp goes back to Newtonian physics.  During the propagated orbit most of your options for using the vessel are locked out.  You can't fire engines, rotate the craft, or activate a separation.  Science experiments could still be run as these do not alter the position of mass within the ship.  EVA would be difficult because you would need a kerbal with active physics to interact with a ship that has locked physics. 

[stenole]

If there is a sequel to KSP, I hope it has NOTHING to do with launching rockets and orbital mechanics. KSP already does a good job with those. I don't think a 2nd KSP-like game would be able to significantly improve on the gameplay experience. A sequel should be something related, but completely different from the original.

Examples:

• MMO about colonizing Duna with exploration, base building, resource management and trade
• Kerbal adventure game or RPG featuring the characters from KSP 1.
• Kerbal submarine program on Laythe

On the other hand, as a pure business decision, a KSP 1 remake would probably guarantee enough sales to be a risk-free profitable endevour.

[Kaizen]

- several other systems to colonize

- nbody simulation

- more realism (but not like Orbtier level)

- more bases

- just what has been already said
 

-

[Geschosskopf]

On 6/17/2015 at 10:25 AM, carlorizzante said:

And you? Would would you like to see coming in a future KSP 2.0?

Hmmm....

First, I'd make every single so-called "realism" feature that's been added over the past year or 2, and any coming in the future, totally optional, and able to be changed back and forth during games.  Options are good.  Then I'd fix all the accumulated bugs that have built up over the life of KSP..  Bugs are bad..

As for new stuff......

#1 is deformable terrain.  I want a bulldozer to level off patches of ground so I can build bases without all the ground clipping issues that make them dance and explode for no apparent reason, no matter how carefully built..

Otherwise, I really can't think of anything.  I mean, seriously, there's a mod for anything you can possibly imagine, except bulldozers.  Why then bother making such things stock?  Especially because people's tastes vary.  Those who don't play with a given mod for whatever reason resent having to deal with it anyway when it becomes stock.

[mk1980]

if they decide to actually do a KSP 2 rather than some sort of spin-off or completely unrelated game as their next project, i think they should move away from the unity engine and develop their own custom engine that can handle more complex physics.

as for gameplay features etc. - don't really know. i guess it would be nice to have more detailed planets and more stuff to do once you get there. not sure about colonization, other star systems and all that jazz. I don't think that fits the spirit of KSP. it's mostly a space travelling game with somewhat realistic rockets and orbital mechanics, not a sci fi game based on technologies we might (or might not) have in a few hundred years.

i kind of grew attached to the kerbals with their stupid bulbous eyes and their huge heads, so i wouldn't mind seeing other games from squad that use kerbals as protagonists. doesn't have to be another space game. could be anything, really.

[Renegrade]

Ugh this again.  The title of this thread has been bugging me since this thing was originally posted back in 1867.  "KSP 2.0" implies a version number, which means it's really still just KSP 1.  "KSP 2" or "KSP II" would be more clearly a sequel (especially the Roman numerals one).

[suicidejunkie]

Here's an idea that avoids being KSP++:

You are the manager of the VAB.  Kerbals are driving around madly delivering random parts and doing doughnuts in their trucks, and you must take the parts and quickly plan and assemble rockets from them before they pile up.

As you cap off each rocket, a Kerbal pilot will roll it out and launch it automatically.  You get points based on how far they can go and what science packages were installed.  The better you do, the faster the parts flow, and the more advanced the parts you get.

KSP: Rocket Tetris

[wumpus]

If I were Squad I would consider something like "Kerbal Air Program", where you would start closer to the Wright brothers and work toward the jet era.  My guess is that a lot would depend on learning more about game design (presumably they would have to understand how to make a good career mode before starting such a thing).

I think of things like "civilization, civ 2, civ 3" and can't really justify what a "KSP 2" would want.  I'm guessing something like "world of tanks" moving into "world of warships".  KSP just doesn't lend itself to Madden year+1.

[GiantTank]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

If I were Squad I would consider something like "Kerbal Air Program", where you would start closer to the Wright brothers and work toward the jet era.  My guess is that a lot would depend on learning more about game design (presumably they would have to understand how to make a good career mode before starting such a thing).

I think of things like "civilization, civ 2, civ 3" and can't really justify what a "KSP 2" would want.  I'm guessing something like "world of tanks" moving into "world of warships".  KSP just doesn't lend itself to Madden year+1.

Yeah, KSP cant spam roster updates

 

I would like to see bug squashing before new features. Other than that, futuristic things. Massive starships cruising around would be boatloads of fun.

[autumnalequinox]

My vision for another KSP (a remake I suppose) would be built on a dedicated engine (I mean look at Space Engine, and that's just one person) with more complex physics.  I want a strong foundation built but fundementally the same game.  Strong framework for mods.  

Essentially, I would like to see veteran players (those with coding experience and many of the modders-turned-devs) rebuild the game from the ground up for strong performance, graphical updates, and stability.  Let us do the rest of the work.  Basically, I would like to see Unity tossed aside.

Oh and the only stock change I would like is some randomness to the Kerbol system.  World seeds that move planets and moons around and make each game a totally new experience of discovery.  I mean, that's what really draws most of us here (I still avoid exploring every world so I don't see it all yet and I've played for years)  

[the_Demongod]

KSP's actual space stuff is pretty good as it is. The only way I could see improving that would be to basically go the stock RO/RSS/FAR/RemoteTech/Life Support/<insert all realism mods ever here> and have much more realistic aerodynamic design, PID controller tuning, kOS, etc. which is not something everyone wants in the game (obviously some people prefer to keep things lighthearted and as math-free as possible).

So the only way in which the game can really grow is on the terrestrial and extra-terrestrial side of things. This includes:

Terrestrial:

• Overhauled Career. While enjoyable and fairly well-done, I think everyone can agree that career mode could be so much more, especially if we assume that ours is a private space program company.
  • Less micromanaging all around. Currently you're the only person in the entire space program who seems to be able to think autonomously. This will be important for the next things:
  • More in-depth and impactful management. The current administration strategies are pretty unimportant few people actually use them. By broadening the scope of career mode, we'll have more aspects of the program to macromanage, such as the resources noted in a bit.
    • I feel compelled to put this as a sub point just to make it stand out, because a very impactful decision could include actually being able to choose where KSC will be located in the world at the beginning of your career, or to possibly relocate (at a massive cost obviously). Players would have to make compromises between having access to nearby resources, having a clear range (see "life on Kerbin" §Civilian), being closer to the equator (not being on the equator results in non-equatorial orbits), etc.
  • More advanced resources. We're only seeing the very surface level here with reputation and funds. Additions could include:
    • Actual, physical resources required for construction or even maintenance for the space center. Examples: metals, polymers, silicon (for electronics, if manufactured on-site), electric power to meet manufacturing or research requirements, etc (wind tunnels and particle colliders probably take a lot of power).
    • Fuel as a separate resource as well, needing either to be purchased from a 3rd party (especially early-game when the program is small) or produced internally (late-game when the space program has the funds to facilitate on-site fuel production).
    • Other expenses besides paying for rocket parts. Employee salaries, utilities, research & development, etc. all take money in real life and could in the game as well.
    • Closely related to the previous point, outsourcing. This could include ordering rocket parts from external manufacturers, ordering fuel, R&D, or anything else that a budding space program would need to obtain externally before it has the means to produce everything itself.
    • An extension of "reputation" could include employee morale (which might affect efficiency and would plummet after a failed launch), public opinion (would affect the amount of contracts you're offered), etc.
    • Time. I don't think it would be unrealistic to have a stock Kerbal Construction Time type system given the above enhancements.
  • Improved contracts. They should make sense and be realistic. Maybe a few "test item in condition" contracts are realistic, but for the most part it would be requests to put things in orbit or repair existing hardware (which brings me to my next point)
• Other life on Kerbin. This includes:
  • Civilian - populating Kerbin would change everything. There would be cities, roads, cars, commercial aircraft, and boats. It would absolutely transform Kerbin from a desolate rock in space into a thriving planet like our Earth. It would give a sense of purpose to the space program (for Kerbalkind?). It would also hamper you in that you have to be mindful of where you're dropping hardware. You can't launch from the Kerbin equivalent of Vandenberg AFB and say "eh, there's nothing in Kansas anyways, can't hurt to ditch a massive lower rocket stage randomly into some area that may or may not be populated." You'll have to place your space center somewhere (as discussed earlier) where this won't be a problem (or will, if you want to go maximum Kerbal and ditch your rockets into cities). Also, don't accidentally hit any commercial airliners. We don't want to be accused of terrorism now, do we? This also applies to de-orbiting or landing any spacecraft that were already in orbit or returning from elsewhere in space.
  • Other space industry - Having some competition could really drive things, and this could even be a prime source for some multiplayer integration. Another space program may try to beat you to certain goals, come to your aid in an emergency (The Martian, anyone?), or even sabotage/attack you (I wouldn't have this stock,but those with a BD Armory equivalent would definitely mod this in. I think building ASAT missiles could be really cool tbh). In addition, you could give them contracts to repair or refuel your hardware or space stations in orbit, and they in turn could hire you to do the same to their own equipment.

Extra-terrestrial:

• Vastly more detailed planetary surfaces. The current system of having several massive biomes that are roughly the same everywhere is, let's face it, pretty boring. We need much more detail on the surface that can actually warrant rovers and such. This includes opportunities for science, there should be many more surface sampling options available, including perhaps randomly generated chances of various rarity of finding anomalous features, including life. This would require taking core samples of rocks, seeking out valleys that might have once held water, etc. I realize this is difficult development-wise. Procedural generation for small details could be an option I suppose, while keeping the major features the same?
• Vastly more detailed orbital structures, such as planetary rings and asteroid belts. Procedural generation is definitely the way to go on this one. I want to be able to fly into the ring of a planet and see glorious volumetric lighting and crepuscular rays from all the dust and rocks. I also want to be able to explore an asteroid belt like the Dawn mission did.

General:

• Life support should probably be at least available as an option for stock since it plays such a huge role in real-life space travel.
• Potentially improved Kessler Syndrome if such a thing could be implemented without killing performance
• Even more realistic aero. A voxel-based aerodynamics model is definitely in order. This could be adjusted as desired, but definitely needs to be more realistic than it currently is.
• Orbital decay, potentially. If such a thing could be implemented (requiring calculations when the vessel was not being focused on), then automated station-keeping (i.e. orbit re-boosting) could definitely be as well. This would also open up the door for more resupply requirements in addition to life support.
• ScanSat, we need better interaction between orbital spacecraft and the surface.
• Something like TestFlight to encourage test-bed experiments and making for overall more realistic hardware
• Improved graphics would definitely be amazing, especially using something like UNIENGINE like @StarStreak2109 said above. hnnnnnngggg
• More discovery. I was dismayed to find that as soon as I start a new career, I can jump into the tracking station and see all the planetary bodies as if I was orbiting them. If this wasn't an option, there would be much more interesting options in terms of discovering the solar system. Maybe you can choose to start at a time when nobody knew anything about the solar system, and when you go to the tracking station all you'd see is the sun, moon, and any other extremely obvious bodies. Maybe you'd begin with some simple coordinates in the sky and you'd have to somehow derive the existence and orbits of the other planets before you can even see that they exist.  This would be especially cool in a procedurally generated solar system.
• Overhauled science. Some aspects of the current science system are fine (such as receiving science from data gathered from locations), but is that science really something that can be used to develop better rocket engines? Maybe an atmospheric pressure scan would, but in general, not really. Now I know that it would be boring to obtain all R&D-spendable science by playing "test bed simulator 2017" so some sort of compromise would have to be made. Something like TestFlight (which I mentioned above) would definitely add a lot. Perhaps linking certain experiments to certain nodes of the tech tree for a non-linear tech unlock system? I don't really know, just throwing out some ideas.

 

And wow, that was a lot longer than I intended it to be. But if you think about it, really the only way to turn KSP into an actual KSP 2 would be to make major changes like the ones I've detailed here, otherwise we'll truly just be getting KSP 2.0 like the title says (i.e. a version number instead of a separate game).

 

 

[juanml82]

First, a suitable game engine. Unity is behind a lot of the game flaws. As the rest, in no particular order

Second, I feel Squad should trade more developers for less time between updates and bug/wrong features fixing. The time warp around Gilly is one of those stupid examples of stuff that should have been fixed years ago... but they have, what? less than 10 developers working in this game - so it gets postponed (I guess they have noticed) for years?

Third, the entire gameplay experience should be started from scratch. I think career mode and contracts have no salvation. It's not about incremental upgrades and corrections. I think it's about hiring someone with good experience designing gameplay/rpg style mechanics and starting fresh.

Four, updated graphics! Just imagine a KSP 2 where exploring Vall has the eye candy the exploration of the Jovian moons would have! And this includes a populated Kerbin.

Fifth, really, really, focus in gameplay. You can't dock bases. There are no parts designed for bases or space stations. The last update caused havoc with rovers. KAC is still not stock. dV readouts are still in "later" status. Interplanetary travel requires external tools. Electric planes would be great for exploring Duna and Eve. Honestly, was there any squadcast ever dealing with interplanetary missions?

 

So, essentially, my opinion boils on two things:

A capable game engine with up to date graphics (and if that breaks Macs, sorry guys. Bootcamp. Few games come out for Mac anyway).

Get someone with good experience in gameplay to lead a larger team of developers and build upon what was already built - and tear down the stuff that doesn't work.

Edited June 5, 2016 by juanml82

[Clockwork13]

If KSP 2.0 ever happened, I'd like something that is different, but not an upgrade of normal KSP. Like, a different game but still in the KSP universe. That way the original doesn't become obsolete.

[rkman]

Have the released game not be a rolling beta.

 

[pandaman]

For me, KSP 2 would be in essence a completely new version of what we already have, but completely rewritten, with probably a custom engine in place of Unity.

The gameplay would essentially be the same (it's KSP), much like all the CoD incarnations are like each other. A completely new solar system (even Kerbin could have different geography), so there's enough difference to give a new experience, updated graphics etc.  But overall retaining the familiar KSP feel, setting and atmosphere.

Any real deviation from the current KSP gameplay would be a different game so should IMO be called something else. Like -  'Kerbal Space Pilot' if it is an IVA flight sim, 'Kerbal Space Manager' if it deals with the running of the program with the flights themselves primarily AI controlled. 

[JebsDead]

• Real time multiplayer
• Real time multiplayer
• Real time multiplayer

[Bigbootie]

24 minutes ago, JebsDead said:

• Real time multiplayer
• Real time multiplayer
• Real time multiplayer

I hope they never put one second of development time into any kind of multiplayer/MMO anything ever, ever, ever. 

[Planetfall]

On 6/17/2015 at 11:20 AM, luizopiloto said:

and we should hire dogs on a PetShop... besides the Astronaut center...

The Russians never considered bringing Laika home. they planed to poison her but she died of heat exhaustion instead.

I couldn't bear to launch a dog to space without being certain s/he would survive. They can't give consent and are so innocent and cute. 

Sorry if i'm over reacting but my dog just died a week ago.

2 hours ago, pandaman said:

                                                    -snip-

Any real deviation from the current KSP gameplay would be a different game so should IMO be called something else. Like -  'Kerbal Space Pilot' if it is an IVA flight sim, 'Kerbal Space Manager' if it deals with the running of the program with the flights themselves primarily AI controlled. 

Interesting point 

[Dispatcher]

Cooperative (and also even Competitive) Multiplayer.

[Javster]

Multiplayer, and stability

[JebsDead]

4 hours ago, Bigbootie said:

I hope they never put one second of development time into any kind of multiplayer/MMO anything ever, ever, ever. 

Not MMO...  I want to be able to play real time ... In the same space ... with select friends.

[Combatsmithen]

1 hour ago, JebsDead said:

Not MMO...  I want to be able to play real time ... In the same space ... with select friends.

MMO KSP would attract so many squeakers. OMG MOM GET THE CAMERA I JUST CRASHED MY ROCKET INTO ANOTHER GUYS ROCKET AFTER DOING A 360 NO SCOPEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111!!11!!1 But seriously. It would be cool if everyone could work together, but since thats and impossibility. NO MMOS!

Edited June 5, 2016 by Combatsmithen