Some ideas for KSP 2

[ZooNamedGames]

12 minutes ago, klesh said:

To you.  You already know KSP can be great despite its graphics.  I have friends who refuse to play it because it "looks like its from 2002", and they're not interested in modding a game right out of the box for it to look modern.

I don't agree with them, but you have to consider the perspective of someone who has yet to be bitten by the KSP bug.

 

Well that's a relatively small portion of the community since I've been here and I haven't ever heard that.

Everyone I've met from a range of community's are beyond happy just to have the game. Even if they did have problems with the graphics, the ability to mod it up isn't a problem to them.

Games have to be compatible for most people or you lose buyers who can't run modern games. 

[klesh]

25 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Well that's a relatively small portion of the community since I've been here and I haven't ever heard that.

 

Well sure, the people here are into the game, they've been bitten.

 

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, klesh said:

 

Well sure, the people here are into the game, they've been bitten.

 

Don't worry. My statement is applicable to other game communities I've participated in as well.

[Kerbart]

I doubt it will happen. But let's entertain the thought. What would be the angle?

• Same game, just a money grab
• Same game, but Better™
• Same game, but a sequel
• Different game

I think we can dismiss option 1 (that'd be stupid), and option 3 (as a sandbox game there's no real story for starters, so how could there be a sequel)

That leaves you with option 4, which for this discussion is out of scope (a true management game, without the actual flying, perhaps? Or with some flying to determine costs and effectiveness of a rocket?).

And then there's option 2, which seems to be the subject of this thread. Just to be clear, this is just one of the options  Squad would have for a KSP 2 title)

Starting with a clean slate, and “knowing what we know now” (but Squad/Felipe didn't when starting out) you could do a few things different:

• Use a different engine. Unity seems to have its issues. When you know/assume you're going to sell hundreds of thousands of copies there are other opions that probably are better
• Rethink and revamp career mode. Career mode now is basically something that grew out of something that grew out of something, and is a Frankenmonster that neither satisfies or delivers. Many of us (including me) do play career but that doesn't mean we think it's great; it's just that we prefer it over unrestricted sandboxing (which is also fine, let me be clear on that). But I'm pretty sure the group of players that says “no, don't touch it, career is perfect as it is” is negligible small compared to the total number of KSP players.
• Drop the “information is for dummies LOLZ” attitude and provide ample readouts, KER style. Many think that people stop playing KSP because they're frustrated (and a lack of good information is part of that), not because it's "too numerical"
• Multiplayer. I'm not a big fan, but many are. KSP2 should have multiplayer built-in from the start

As to exactly how, I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

[KAL 9000]

KSP is about going to other planets. If they make a KSP 2, it should be about what you do when you get there (i.e. bases, exploring the surface, colonization, etc.)

[Ozymandias_the_Goat]

It is hard to have any update so big to justify a v 2.0 for such a game. Probably KSP will stay in v 1+ pretty much forever, or at least the next few years. If Squad can increase their manpower, and maybe make a few more games, then a v 2.0 may be in distant sight. But until, and if, that time, we are stuck in some version of 1.0. As for what v 2.0 may contain, I would think some kind of story focused game play.

[StupidAndy]

taken from my strange mod idea thread, my idea on what career mode should be!

Quote

so you are appointed administrator of the Kerbal Space Program, and you have to do a set programs set by the Kerbal Kongress, and the President, and (this can have an overhaul of the shipbuilding process) for major stuff like Kerbal Mercury or Voyager, you have to ask for funding from the kongress to do the program you want, say, a mission to Duna, and you have to ask for the funding, and you have a set parameter for the money, so lets say, 200,000 funds, and the leftover funds you keep so you can do another small mission like a satellite launch, so you do the mission, and this is where the rep comes into play, you have five different types of rep, Kongressional, Employees, Astronauts, Populace and Presidential. if any of these go low, you have to change something or you get fired, and the things you change is in the strategies, which I never liked, like "overwork ground staff," you would take that out so they like you better, and Kongressional and Presidential rep is for program completion, but every four years, when the election for a new president comes, you have to have finished the program by then, because when that happens, you get a new thing, where the kongress will raise your budget, allowing for another program, or lower it, taking another program away, or giving you more funds for the current projects.  Astronaut rep is for whether you have sent them into space recently, or if an astronaut had died recently, population rep is for prebuilt things, like you don't know a good solar array, you can ask Rockomax if they have an idea for it, and you get that idea for the solar array, and it goes into your subassemblies. so now back to funds. if you have higher rep, you get better mission parameters and you can eventually tell what you want to do, and you get what you want to do, like a Jool V mission, or Moon Base, and best of all, moar funds. and here is the stuff for upgrading buildings, basically, you just ask for the funds like in the mission stuff, but you have to do things, like do 10 new keostationary satellites, so you cant just continually ask for funds to do the buildings

and here is my shipbuilding idea, though this kind of works better for things that use reusability, but it can work for the non reusable ones, like Mercury or Gemini:
so you have the ground crew, and you have an amount, and with your excess funds you can ask for more, and that gives you less time to build, and you can take some away, for more money, but it takes more time to build, wait, this idea sounds better in KCT, oh well, and for reusable things it has a timer saying "5 more days until ready to launch" so you don't have to wait for months to build a new one. and the rest is just KCT inclusion, well, most of this is KCT

this is my idea for what career mode should be in KSP 2, the one we have now is good, but I think this could make it better! I should find my science overhaul thing too....

HERE IT IS!

Quote

since SQUAD has a trademark on mystery goo, they're not going to outright get rid of it, they just aren't...

but what if in the RnD building, you had another panel, and in that panel, you have all of the planets. At first there isn't any data, so you know nothing about them, but when you go there with, shall we say a thermometer, you can get the info on the reentry heating, if you go there with a barometer, in atmosphere, you get the reentry effect for aerobraking and the lifting capabilities, and when you do mystery goo, you get something like a, I don't know, random fun fact about kerbal ideals on the planet, like they thought that maybe the kerbals thought that hoop was just minmus flying away because they thought it was mad because everyone liked the mun better?

i think my idea can be good for players who need the info for building gliders on duna, and it opens up some modding opportunities, like kerbalism can team up with dmagic OS to have the magnetotron scan for the magnetic field!

this idea to me sounds like a good one, because personelly, I think we know too much about planets we never been to, I mean, nasa didn't start out knowing that Mars had liquid water in some places? Did they?

HEY! I HAVE THREE DOTS!

Edited January 17, 2017 by StupidAndy

[Kosmonaut]

@StupidAndy

Psssst... New England beats Green Bay any day, anytime, anywhere. 

[Blaarkies]

KSP 2 will be released on the day before Minecraft 2 gets released...no wait, the day after Half-Life 3 launches! 

[RocketBlam]

On 1/16/2017 at 10:28 AM, ZooNamedGames said:

Honestly, KSP 2 would be the worst idea for Squad as a whole. There would be many issues with the idea.

One, they have minimal development staff to design a brand new game, when they did this before, they had the interest of a couple thousand people, not several million watching and demanding.

Two, KSP 2 would be overshadowed by the original KSP in everything it does. Critics will not praise it and the community outside our own will look down on it. There would be little Squad could do to make KSP 2 unique enough to stand beyond it's original which was praised well by many many people.

Three, KSP2, like any update for KSP, will get updated and eventually the epic change brought by KSP2 will be forgotten by the next major update as people are more interesting in the content and bug fixes than it as a whole. If you don't believe me, then, answer this; how excited were you for beta? for the 1.0 release? for 1.1? You may have been hyped, but if Squad said "If you pay us $40 for this update" you'd be outraged.

That's all KSP2 would be, just a big update for KSP that's permanently overshadowed by the original with minimal staff to design and build it. Everyone who made the original KSP versions are gone and everyone you liked making the new KSP content, such as Porkjet and Nathankell, are also gone.

I love KSP. That said I don't want them doing stupid publicity stunts. If they want to remake KSP fine. But don't slap a '2' on there and make me pay for it.

If you want more content or something new to KSP, then add it to KSP. Don't force players to buy a new KSP update.

I didn't really post this to discuss whether I think KSP 2 is a good idea, but rather to just discuss what I would like to see in KSP 2. I think there's going to be a KSP 2. Games peak and then fade away. Kerbal isn't selling like it used to, I'm pretty sure, and it won't always be selling well. So software companies release new versions. Sometimes the new version sucks, and sometimes its better, but for a popular game like KSP, I'm sure there will be a new one. They may even be working on it now.

I hope they do release a new version, because while KSP is very engaging as a simulation, it has some pretty serious issues as a game. They've ironed out some of these issues, but some of them are inherent to the basic design of the game, and they're not going to change. Releasing a whole new version gives them a chance to go back and rethink basic elements of the game.

But I disagree with most of what you said, and I'll try to be brief, because like I said, I didn't post this to discuss whether it's a good idea or not.

"One, they have minimal development staff to design a brand new game, when they did this before, they had the interest of a couple thousand people, not several million watching and demanding."

I don't get this. They had almost no resources to develop the first version. Now they have the money to hire more developers. And the interest of several million people is a whole lot better, not worse, than the interest of a few thousand.

"Two, KSP 2 would be overshadowed by the original KSP in everything it does. Critics will not praise it and the community outside our own will look down on it."

How do you know this? Maybe it will be better? I don't have a crystal ball, but game sequels generally do as well, or better, than the originals. 

"Three, KSP2, like any update for KSP, will get updated and eventually the epic change brought by KSP2 will be forgotten by the next major update as people are more interesting in the content and bug fixes than it as a whole."

I don't see why this matters. This always happens in games. This is no reason not to do a sequel.

Squad is in it for the money. There's nothing wrong with that. So they're not going to just let KSP fade away and give up. I'm sure they'll create a sequel.

 

[brienne]

Ksp 2 ?

I dont see what ksp2 would give me ksp doesnt already give.

[RocketBlam]

A couple of other ideas:

1. Skinnable parts. I would love to be able to change the appearance of parts. You can do this in some mods now.

2. Parts that get better with later versions. For example, you start out with the long 2.5m fuel tank. You should be able to upgrade this later to be lighter, or carry a little more fuel.

3. Possibly some failure simulation. This would be tricky, but some way to simulate things like an RCS thruster that fails, or a solar panel that does not deploy correctly. Or maybe (not that this has ever happened) an oxygen tank explodes and takes out your electrical capacity and some of your life support...

[Sharpy]

If KSP was a perfect game, No Mans Sky would not arouse so many hopes.

If KSP2 does what No Mans Sky failed to do, it will be a huge success.

Make a hybrid of the two. Keep physics, construction and basic framework of KSP rocketry and conquest of space. Make the universe similar to what NMS promised (and failed to deliver). Add a decent underlying story.

[ZooNamedGames]

15 hours ago, RocketBlam said:

I didn't really post this to discuss whether I think KSP 2 is a good idea, but rather to just discuss what I would like to see in KSP 2. I think there's going to be a KSP 2. Games peak and then fade away. Kerbal isn't selling like it used to, I'm pretty sure, and it won't always be selling well. So software companies release new versions. Sometimes the new version sucks, and sometimes its better, but for a popular game like KSP, I'm sure there will be a new one. They may even be working on it now.

I hope they do release a new version, because while KSP is very engaging as a simulation, it has some pretty serious issues as a game. They've ironed out some of these issues, but some of them are inherent to the basic design of the game, and they're not going to change. Releasing a whole new version gives them a chance to go back and rethink basic elements of the game.

But I disagree with most of what you said, and I'll try to be brief, because like I said, I didn't post this to discuss whether it's a good idea or not.

"One, they have minimal development staff to design a brand new game, when they did this before, they had the interest of a couple thousand people, not several million watching and demanding."

I don't get this. They had almost no resources to develop the first version. Now they have the money to hire more developers. And the interest of several million people is a whole lot better, not worse, than the interest of a few thousand.

"Two, KSP 2 would be overshadowed by the original KSP in everything it does. Critics will not praise it and the community outside our own will look down on it."

How do you know this? Maybe it will be better? I don't have a crystal ball, but game sequels generally do as well, or better, than the originals. 

"Three, KSP2, like any update for KSP, will get updated and eventually the epic change brought by KSP2 will be forgotten by the next major update as people are more interesting in the content and bug fixes than it as a whole."

I don't see why this matters. This always happens in games. This is no reason not to do a sequel.

Squad is in it for the money. There's nothing wrong with that. So they're not going to just let KSP fade away and give up. I'm sure they'll create a sequel.

 

Let's fix KSP1 before starting clean and making a new game.

[StupidAndy]

what they could do is make it a better polishing, with everything upped, the game engine, the graphics, the parts, N body physics?

[Wjolcz]

I'm confused. Are we talking about a completely new game with kerbals or KSP remastered? Because if it's the same solar system, rockets and spaceflight then it's KSP remastered. If it's a different solar system then it's KSP Modded.

The only way I see, when it comes to making a new game, is not going the same way (gameplay-wise) KSP did. They should do something new and fresh. Otherwise, it WILL BE THE SAME EXACT GAME and the dev time spent on it will be wasted and I guarantee you IT WON'T sell well.

Kerbal flight sim would be the most sensible thing to do in this case.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Veeltch

[Kerbital]

On 1/16/2017 at 5:12 AM, Veeltch said:

Why do you want to pay for a new game that is just KSP + more/better stuff? I really don't get that. You can mod the current game. The fact that they didn't do all this to the current game only makes me think they won't do it for a new game about the same space flight.

I don't mean to attack you or anything, but how does paying for things that can be/are already available as mods makes the game better?

I'd much rather see a new kerbal flight sim sequel instead of this "KSP remastered" version.

I would gladly pay for KSP2 or KSP remastered built on new engine, with better graphics, better performance, with much longer tech tree and more content. I like mods too, but mods break often when the game is updated and all your creations are unusable. Mods have compatibility issues often. Or you get used to a mod and the mod gets discontinued and you suddenly feel like you can't play the game any more.

KSP was an unexpected hit and by all means it's a great game except it's buggy, unpolished and suffers serious performance issues. I guess it was not expected to be a hit. Now, knowing that they have solid following they could release a better version of the game but they would need money because it will require work. I'll gladly support a crowdfunding effort or just pay for new game.

10 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I'm confused. Are we talking about a completely new game with kerbals or KSP remastered? Because if it's the same solar system, rockets and spaceflight then it's KSP remastered. If it's a different solar system then it's KSP Modded.

The only way I see, when it comes to making a new game, is not going the same way (gameplay-wise) KSP did. They should do something new and fresh. Otherwise, it WILL BE THE SAME EXACT GAME and the dev time spent on it will be wasted and I guarantee you IT WON'T sell well.

Kerbal flight sim would be the most sensible thing to do in this case.

What about KSP Expanded? With new systems, new tech, etc?

 

On 1/18/2017 at 4:50 AM, brienne said:

Ksp 2 ?

I dont see what ksp2 would give me ksp doesnt already give.

Less bugs? Better graphics and better performance? I've played KSP for several months, stopped because of the awful GC stutter. Came back after 1.2.2 came out. It didn't fix any of the performance issues but broke pretty much all of the mods I used. Some were updated but some not and may never be. So I'm at the point where I'm ready to give up KSP for good.

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Kerbital said:

I would gladly pay for KSP2 or KSP remastered built on new engine, with better graphics, better performance, with much longer tech tree and more content. I like mods too, but mods break often when the game is updated and all your creations are unusable. Mods have compatibility issues often. Or you get used to a mod and the mod gets discontinued and you suddenly feel like you can't play the game any more.

KSP was an unexpected hit and by all means it's a great game except it's buggy, unpolished and suffers serious performance issues. I guess it was not expected to be a hit. Now, knowing that they have solid following they could release a better version of the game but they would need money because it will require work. I'll gladly support a crowdfunding effort or just pay for new game.

I feel like that argument is kind of a moot one though. If we assume they stop working on KSP and start working on KSP2 then there will be no KSP updates so the mods [for KSP] will never break and will always be compatible with the latest version released.

KSP has its problems mainly due the fact the devs weren't experienced at coding back when its first versions were being released. They would learn as they developed the game.

Now if we assume KSP2 has everything fixed, is better and prettier + everything that mods already do (like the extended tree) then the risk involved is high. KSP2 would probably feel like a visually better copy of KSP. For me not buying KSP2 when I already have modded KSP is a no-brainer. Sure, it's not as pretty as its remake, has RAM and garbage accumulation problems, but it works, so why should I spend money on something that is a nicer copy of itself? It actually has the opposite result for someone who doesn't know how KSP's development history looked like. If they see a buggy game in its "finished" state AKA dead and then they see another one with the same title they will probably think "Hmm... What if this remake will be abandoned just like the previous one? It looks better but I can mod all that into KSP."

Let's compare them to cars. We have car A and car B. Car A was first. It's fully functional, looks OK and has manual windows. Car B looks exactly the same as car A except its seats are more comfortable, the windows are electric and the steering wheel feels a bit nicer. The problem is you already have car A and you can replace the manual windows with electric ones for free. Now you are offered car B for the same price you bought car A. You can't sell car A. Do you buy car B?

If I could exchange KSP for KSP2 without paying anything then sure, but paying the full price for pretty much the same product? Why would I?

2 hours ago, Kerbital said:

What about KSP Expanded? With new systems, new tech, etc?

Elaborate. What possible systems and expansions could possibly be offered in KSP2 that differ from the massive library of expansions (mods) I can have for free?

Edited January 20, 2017 by Veeltch

[Broke dead dogg]

Having read through the entire thread, it seems to me the greatest avertion to ksp2 is the notion of having to pay for it.

Unfortunately, in real life, game devs need income to continue to work and they cannot rely on new players indefinitely.

Imho I believe an approach similar to frontiers Elite Dangerous would be better, so that every so often new content would be released as a new paid season, these could include new systems to explore, new mission types perhaps even a new race to be in competition with. There is also much more scope for surface based activities

This approach would also give sqaud opportunities to upgrade/overhaul the existing engine and provide much needed revenue.

I know there are mods out there that can provide similar features, however I believe that a purpose built expansion by the devs would ultimately be better, more in depth, and more stable than any free mod.

[Wjolcz]

4 hours ago, Broke dead dogg said:

Having read through the entire thread, it seems to me the greatest avertion to ksp2 is the notion of having to pay for it.

No, it's not the problem. The problem is ruining your PR by releasing the same thing except prettier and calling it a completely new game for the same price.

4 hours ago, Broke dead dogg said:

Imho I believe an approach similar to frontiers Elite Dangerous would be better, so that every so often new content would be released as a new paid season, these could include new systems to explore, new mission types perhaps even a new race to be in competition with. There is also much more scope for surface based activities

So basically paid DLCs. Another great way of ruining your PR. Especially when mods are already there and free. Remember when Valve tried to make everyone pay for mods, or something like that? Not like I cared about it that much, but IIRC people were rather unhappy.

4 hours ago, Broke dead dogg said:

This approach would also give sqaud opportunities to upgrade/overhaul the existing engine and provide much needed revenue.

Nope. They've already stated many times that the engine change is not happening for KSP.

4 hours ago, Broke dead dogg said:

I know there are mods out there that can provide similar features, however I believe that a purpose built expansion by the devs would ultimately be better, more in depth, and more stable than any free mod.

After seeing what they did to career mode I'm very skeptical about any DLC released by SQUAD being "in depth".

[Kerbital]

20 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I feel like that argument is kind of a moot one though. If we assume they stop working on KSP and start working on KSP2 then there will be no KSP updates so the mods [for KSP] will never break and will always be compatible with the latest version released.

KSP has its problems mainly due the fact the devs weren't experienced at coding back when its first versions were being released. They would learn as they developed the game.

Now if we assume KSP2 has everything fixed, is better and prettier + everything that mods already do (like the extended tree) then the risk involved is high. KSP2 would probably feel like a visually better copy of KSP. For me not buying KSP2 when I already have modded KSP is a no-brainer. Sure, it's not as pretty as its remake, has RAM and garbage accumulation problems, but it works, so why should I spend money on something that is a nicer copy of itself? It actually has the opposite result for someone who doesn't know how KSP's development history looked like. If they see a buggy game in its "finished" state AKA dead and then they see another one with the same title they will probably think "Hmm... What if this remake will be abandoned just like the previous one? It looks better but I can mod all that into KSP."

Let's compare them to cars. We have car A and car B. Car A was first. It's fully functional, looks OK and has manual windows. Car B looks exactly the same as car A except its seats are more comfortable, the windows are electric and the steering wheel feels a bit nicer. The problem is you already have car A and you can replace the manual windows with electric ones for free. Now you are offered car B for the same price you bought car A. You can't sell car A. Do you buy car B?

If I could exchange KSP for KSP2 without paying anything then sure, but paying the full price for pretty much the same product? Why would I?

Elaborate. What possible systems and expansions could possibly be offered in KSP2 that differ from the massive library of expansions (mods) I can have for free?

 

I know there are many mods, but mods break or become incompatible when the game is updated. I'd rather have more content built into the game.

[Kosmonaut]

What about something more like space engineers?

[Wjolcz]

On 20.01.2017 at 9:20 PM, Kerbital said:

I know there are many mods, but mods break or become incompatible when the game is updated. I'd rather have more content built into the game.

Quote

I feel like that argument is kind of a moot one though. If we assume they stop working on KSP and start working on KSP2 then there will be no KSP updates so the mods [for KSP] will never break and will always be compatible with the latest version released.

 

[RuBisCO]

KSP 2 would need to have a whole lot to warrant a whole rebuild and not simply be an update or expansion pack.

I real size worlds and at least 2-body orbital physics is what I would like from a KSP 2, but they might simply be able to have an expansion pack that does that. 

 

[MR L A]

On 17/01/2017 at 2:30 PM, ZooNamedGames said:

That's the problem I'm seeing, everyone wants just new this and that. If you just want a better graphics then fine, but someone of us don't have your 6.0GHz 2000GB of RAM setups. KSP graphically is fine. You have alternatives if it doesn't look good enough through modding.

Kerbal Space Program is a game that until something significant changes in the gaming industry (something that changes gaming forever), doesn't require a sequel, or any sort of change.

Put it this way, would you pay for Minecraft2 that only provided new shaders? No. You wouldn't.

I very much disagree with the PC spec argument you bring up. My rig is currently an APU inside a cardboard box. It runs KSP reasonably well, surprisingly it is still playable with Scatterer too, BUT the GPU component is vastly underutilised in the base game. Pretty much everything you see is CPU based. The game COULD have MUCH better graphics with no hit to frame rate if it was capable of gpu processing to a much larger extent that it can now.

My rig runs Skyrim Remastered, a much more graphically demanding game than KSP even with pretty mods, better than it does KSP. Your point about computer specs is just a non-starter really. It isn't our PC specs that are limiting how good KSP looks, it is the game/engine itself.