So what's the next DLC going to be about?

[Gorman]

I think that while life support is a good idea, there are already 3 mods that I know of that can handle this more or less. I think for a DLC that you are going to be paying $15 for, it needs to be something bigger in scope.

[mattinoz]

6 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

It's funny because I made the same argument to someone else about life support lol, that it's just extra dead weight. Yet here I am arguing the opposite lol.

Well really, I'm not arguing; just saying, it could be tweaked. I mean how much percentage of the weight of like Apollo or the Shuttle is human supplies like oxygen, food, water? What percentage, anyone know? I wouldn't think it's that much right? 5% maybe? I feel like most of the existing mods go overboard on the weight gain from LF supplies, another reason I don't use one.

I will concede that perhaps stock LF isn't a "big" enough feature for an entire expansion, but it could be packaged in with thematic other stuff, like expanded base building and such. (I know, I know; mods. If we let that stop us though, there isn't anything left to add lol.)

USI life support works on roughly 10kg a day so similar to human requirements. And assumes 15 day period covered by stock capsules. So it only really becomes an issue if you want kerbal to stay active in space longer term. Adds to that simple recycling so you can reduce weight by taking more equipment. It’s a mission planning thing that feels like the right balance of having to think about an obvious requirement but not getting bogged down in lots of interactions. 

[klgraham1013]

51 minutes ago, eddiew said:

Which is much better, imho, as it leads to learning to live with mistakes

Having Kerbals die doesn't lead to learning to live with mistakes?  

[eddiew]

2 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Having Kerbals die doesn't lead to learning to live with mistakes?  

No, because most people will just hit reload. If you want people to live with failure, the penalty for failure can't be taking away their only 5-star pilot.

Building a rescue mission is fun (for some) but sending yet another kerbal on a tour to gain experience... not so much.

[steve_v]

So make it a difficulty option, like USI does, and as the ability to quickload is. Problem solved.

[klgraham1013]

Just now, eddiew said:

No, because most people will just hit reload. If you want people to live with failure, the penalty for failure can't be taking away their only 5-star pilot.

Building a rescue mission is fun (for some) but sending yet another kerbal on a tour to gain experience... not so much.

Really depends on the type of player.  That's the problem with KSP really.  It's, sort of, put out there at as a casual game, when it's really the farthest thing from that.  Either way, I'd rather the DLC be something not from mods.

[MinimalMinmus]

If you wish for something contracts can't do, how about a story mode when in carreer, like it was originally planned?

[steve_v]

2 minutes ago, MinimalMinmus said:

how about a story mode when in carreer, like it was originally planned?

Any improvement to the excruciatingly boring and unfocused career mode would be welcome. A story to follow, or at least some long-term goal other than "grind silly side quests until you unlock all the parts" would be very nice.
If the current DLC is any guide though, TT intends to let the community do all the work on that one...

[Nikolai]

34 minutes ago, steve_v said:

TT intends to let the community do all the work on that one...

I'm not sure that's a completely bad thing.  That might mean that we end up with a small handful of really good stories (among other interesting efforts that don't quite measure up for one reason or another), as opposed to one story.

I'm inclined to be optimistic, given the quality of some of the mods I've seen -- there's real talent in our community.

[Atkara]

Heh... imagine if I had a storyline to follow, while at this:

I won't blame anyone for not wanting to go that way, as long as I don't get blamed for not stopping at Duna or Gilly

[Richy teh space man]

Terraforming maybe? Have the ability to add some kind of atmosphere or remove it to some of the other bodies, as well as oceans / plant life.

Maybe cities too.. Kerbins still a little bare.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Richy teh space man

[NSEP]

The Future, probably. With BFR's, Leather seated spacecraft, inflatables and VASMIR's.

[wumpus]

15 hours ago, g00bd0g said:

How 'bout "For Science!". Featuring more science stuff and maybe some further planets requiring even more extreme designs and new parts. Integrated KER, KAC, and Transfer Window Planner.

While this sounds well and good, I'd expect some real science with a name like that (especially considering just how much rocket science we all learned with KSP).  That is a hard act to follow.

Also, wasn't this (Making History) announced April 2013?  We may have a bit of a wait for the next one (although considering just how deep in early access KSP was in 2013, a DLC was a particularly stupid thing to announce).  Maybe they needed to impress investors or something.

[FungusForge]

2 hours ago, Richy teh space man said:

Terraforming maybe? Have the ability to add some kind of atmosphere or remove it to some of the other bodies, as well as oceans / plant life.

If the next DLC were to be a planet making tool and a tech tree editor that'd be pretty great.

[jrolson]

Would like to see more base building stock parts, terrain deformation so we can dig and make caves, and a stock hinge part that could move 90 degrees would be useful.

Edited March 14, 2018 by jrolson

[Gorman]

41 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Also, wasn't this (Making History) announced April 2013?  We may have a bit of a wait for the next one (although considering just how deep in early access KSP was in 2013, a DLC was a particularly stupid thing to announce).  Maybe they needed to impress investors or something.

Wow I never knew that, I guess the next DLC isn't something we should be worrying about for a few years yet. I just had a thought, what if we Squad go on a new model where the base game is not developed any more and all development goes into the next DLC, the same kind of system that most games adhere to like the Civ games.

[RealKerbal3x]

16 minutes ago, jrolson said:

terrain deformation so we can dig and make caves

Sounds like Astroneer.

I think stuff like improved planetary exploration would be fun. For example, Duna might have a lot of radiation, so it would be cool if we could create underground bases and the like.

[LordFerret]

17 hours ago, Daze said:

Deep space exploration and "near future" (  Nertea) stuffs

 

16 hours ago, g00bd0g said:

How 'bout "For Science!". Featuring more science stuff and maybe some further planets requiring even more extreme designs and new parts. Integrated KER, KAC, and Transfer Window Planner.

Yea, those two ^
Perhaps some things like TNOs and Kuiper belt objects, or an Oort equivalent ... imagine the water ice mining missions. And, if we're to have near light-speed (which we kind of do, Ions) or superluminal ability, then how about distant stars - say - the local neighborhood, full of exoplanet potentials. It would be a stretch (asking too much), but give them proper motions as well - along with Kerbol.

I'll make a note here; With Celestia, there was an issue about populating distant galaxies or clusters with stars as was the depicted in the sim with our local neighborhood - namely, they said it couldn't be done. However, a way was found, and it worked very well. The same idea could be applied to KSP's math boundaries.

 

5 hours ago, eddiew said:

Actually I think RoverDude's USI Life Support has an option to have kerbals just "refuse to work" when they run out of food. They won't EVA, they won't do SAS things or work labs or drills, but they don't die. The only way to get them moving again is to attach a canister of supplies to their ship - or tow it home.

Which is much better, imho, as it leads to learning to live with mistakes   On the other hand... is it just extra weight? LS pretty much sums up to "you need to add x kg per kerbal per day of the mission". Not sure what the gameplay gains from this are...

Wow, I'd be nowhere in this game. LOLZ!

[Kerbart]

There are two aspects to Making History:

• Parts
• The Mission system

The two work together; without the missions, MH would simply be a part-pack without generating much incentive to buy it; without parts, MH wouldn’t be offering enough to be attractive.

So, I’m going to assume we’ll see something similar in the future. A set of parts, and an in-game extension that makes the parts more valuable and emphasizes the expansion character or the mod.

candidates for that could be along the lines of:

• Robotics, and a programming console for it
• Basebuilding, and some kind of Elite kind of economy to fly resources between those bases
• RemoteTech, and programmable cores (doesn’t exclude the robotics in another round)
• Etc.

Another option is a multiplayer service, but I suspect if we ever see that it will be seperate from expansions (albeit a good money maker for TT if implemented wisely. Keyword wisely).

[syfyguy64]

Multiplayer?

[wumpus]

27 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Another option is a multiplayer service, but I suspect if we ever see that it will be seperate from expansions (albeit a good money maker for TT if implemented wisely. Keyword wisely).

 

2 minutes ago, syfyguy64 said:

Multiplayer?

The killer for multiplayer is that player control of time acceleration is problematic at best.  Perhaps something where vessels/zones are automatically run at maximum acceleration for their areas (mechjeb might be needed for burns and especially docking).  Note that removing acceleration for your own physics bubble could cause problems, let alone for your docking target.  I wouldn't want to be responsible for getting multiplayer to work acceptably.

[Kerbart]

26 minutes ago, wumpus said:

 

The killer for multiplayer is that player control of time acceleration is problematic at best.  Perhaps something where vessels/zones are automatically run at maximum acceleration for their areas (mechjeb might be needed for burns and especially docking).  Note that removing acceleration for your own physics bubble could cause problems, let alone for your docking target.  I wouldn't want to be responsible for getting multiplayer to work acceptably.

There's a substantial difference between a peer-to-peer multiplayer version and a server driven, MMO style multiplayer where craft can exist in real time without the player logging on. Something T2 can pull off.You just get rid of time acceleration completely. Sure, certain burns might need to take place at really inconvenient moments, that's where thinking your maneuver nodes (which can show execution time in real earth date/time adjusted for your timezone) comes in play, as well as working in teams... let's call those teams "space agencies"  I don't want to derail this thread and I'll happily take the discussion to a separate thread, but the gist is: multiplayer, in a different form than we have now, can certainly be an exciting option and offers a subscription model that players might find attractive. But it's not something that would come to us through an expansion pack that we need to pay for.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Kerbart
Oh English with your limited orthogonality...

[322997am]

No, please stop with the DLC. I dont think that we want this game to turn into GTA or Civilization, where DLC's are the only form of new content.

[Gargamel]

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

While this sounds well and good, I'd expect some real science with a name like that (especially considering just how much rocket science we all learned with KSP).  That is a hard act to follow.

Also, wasn't this (Making History) announced April 2013?  We may have a bit of a wait for the next one (although considering just how deep in early access KSP was in 2013, a DLC was a particularly stupid thing to announce).  Maybe they needed to impress investors or something.

 

6 hours ago, Gorman said:

Wow I never knew that, I guess the next DLC isn't something we should be worrying about for a few years yet. I just had a thought, what if we Squad go on a new model where the base game is not developed any more and all development goes into the next DLC, the same kind of system that most games adhere to like the Civ games.

No, that's just when they cut off the free extras promise, as they realized paid DLC was the only way they would continue to profit.  I think the DLC was announced last summer/spring. 

4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

There's a substantial difference between a peer-to-peer multiplayer version and a server driven, MMO style multiplayer where craft can exist in real time without the player logging on. Something T2 can pull off.You just get rid of time acceleration completely. Sure, certain burns might need to take place at really inconvenient moments, that's where thinking your maneuver nodes (which can show execution time in real earth date/time adjusted for your timezone) comes in play, as well as working in teams... let's call those teams "space agencies"  I don't want to derail this thread and I'll happily take the discussion to a separate thread, but the gist is: multiplayer, in a different form than we have now, can certainly be an exciting option and offers a subscription model that players might find attractive. But it's not something that would come to us through an expansion pack that we need to pay for.

Are you suggesting a space simulation done in realtime?    Even trips to Minmus would be boring and too cumbersome to actually play regularly. 

[Kerbart]

48 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

 

No, that's just when they cut off the free extras promise, as they realized paid DLC was the only way they would continue to profit.  I think the DLC was announced last summer/spring. 

Are you suggesting a space simulation done in realtime?    Even trips to Minmus would be boring and too cumbersome to actually play regularly. 

Human ingenuity will take care of that. You can launch multiple craft. Clash of Clans has build times of 10 days or more yet it is one of the most popular mobile games; nobody complains it's boring. Besides, why would a one day trip be boring?