Development Going Forward for KSP

[Red Thought]

I have been playing through a career mode save file on normal... oops...    No content mods...  First time that I have done so.     I am used to 2.5x scale mod, which makes things much harder, I see now.    Anyway lol I have maxed tech already, and have barely touched minmus or kerbal science points.   Just have a station above minmus  that gave me all the science that I needed to max everything out.     I built one above the Mun too, but have not even bothered landing on the Mun yet, as why bother....    The science alone from putting a station into orbit around the Mun gave me at least 2k science.    That with the 5k science i got from Minmus station after only having landed on two spots, gave me enough science to nearly max science tree out.  I have sent two probes out of system to the closest two planets to the Sun, but only got 300 or so science for that.    Perhaps Take Two could spend some time making an actual career mode, that informs you of difficulty before you start a vanilla play through.    Instead what we got was.......   Drum Roll please........   Missions!!!!!!!!!!!    Yes missions, do exactly nothing for base game play.   We did get a few more parts, yes....   Mods already did a great job of that task.      What seems to be lacking from this game is only in the career mode and overall scale of the universe.   Mods have covered the later well, but the former is really out of modding hands and if polished off could add so much dimension to this game that its not even fathomable to the Devs, apparently.   

 

TLDR :   Ksp is currently a AA game, for 40 USD.   DLC  Worth 3.50 USD.   KSP, has potential to be a AAAAA game  Worth 70 USD for base game.    On top of that if Take Two was smart, they would offer "cosmetic DCL"  for those who have extra money to spend on a game they love.    Updates should be done bi annually, to give modding community time to keep up, and all Updates should be major, adding AAA content into the game.    Take two has enough money to make this game into what it should be.     Will you take up the challenge, Take Two???

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, Red Thought said:

Perhaps Take Two could spend some time making an actual career mode, that informs you of difficulty before you start a vanilla play through. 

If it's too hard or too easy, there are options for that.   Settings can change the amount of returns on various things.  You can alter your gameplay style to change the way it feels. 

1 hour ago, Red Thought said:

What seems to be lacking from this game is only in the career mode and overall scale of the universe.   Mods have covered the later well, but the former is really out of modding hands

There are a lot of mods that change the career mode style. 

1 hour ago, Red Thought said:

TLDR :   Ksp is currently a AA game, for 40 USD.   DLC  Worth 3.50 USD.   KSP, has potential to be a AAAAA game  Worth 70 USD for base game.    On top of that if Take Two was smart, they would offer "cosmetic DCL"  for those who have extra money to spend on a game they love.    Updates should be done bi annually, to give modding community time to keep up, and all Updates should be major, adding AAA content into the game.    Take two has enough money to make this game into what it should be.     Will you take up the challenge, Take Two???

Your TLDR is not a summary of the above text, but a separate paragraph altogether. 

You complain about the gameplay, but then ask then for Cosmetic DLC's.   Squad is a smallish company, which would you prefer them work on?  Gameplay mechanics that are not accessible to modders, or cosmetics that are?  They don't have the resources to commit to major overhauls all the time.  They have to choose their battles.  TT is not going to invest major capital into a title that has pretty much run it's course in terms of ROI.  TT will have Squad do what it can with what it has.  Maybe for KSP 2 will TT make major investments, but not now. 

Any type of deep cosmetic improvements to the game would require a complete rebuild from the ground up, redoing how the engine works.  That is not an update, that is KSP 2.  Plus, the game was intended to be cartoonish. 

I don't want them to force out updates every 6 months.  I want them to work on core updates, improvements to the game, and release them when they are ready (read thoroughly tested). 

 

[Kerbart]

9 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

(...) Squad is a smallish company, which would you prefer them work on?  Gameplay mechanics that are not accessible to modders, or cosmetics that are?  They don't have the resources to commit to major overhauls all the time.  (...)

He's not asking for a lot. Just to fix career mode so the game has a story line comparable to Call of Duty or Half Life, and then redo all the parts and planets so it's Earth scaled, for... reasons. Might as well add live scenery to spice things up, maybe a few cities on Kerbin, GTA style. T2 has that laying around anyway.

Really, how hard can it be?

[Gargamel]

I have a bone to pick with you @Kerbart.  I was drinking my adult beverage last night when I noticed when of my scientists was named Kerbart.  For some reason, that struck me very deeply, and there is now AB sprayed all over the screen and wall.   So that's where you got the name from. 

[Kerbart]

2 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

I have a bone to pick with you @Kerbart.  I was drinking my adult beverage last night when I noticed when of my scientists was named Kerbart.  For some reason, that struck me very deeply, and there is now AB sprayed all over the screen and wall.   So that's where you got the name from. 

Not really @Gargamel, just a contraction of "Kerbal" and my real name (which I'd like to keep under wraps). I'll chalk it up to coincidence as I doubt my infamy has spilled over to Squad to put me in the game. But now I look forward to encountering a Kerbart in the game!

[Vanamonde]

This discussion of the game's development has been moved to Development Discussions. 

[Red Thought]

13 hours ago, Gargamel said:

You complain about the gameplay, but then ask then for Cosmetic DLC's.   Squad is a smallish company, which would you prefer them work on?  Gameplay mechanics that are not accessible to modders, or cosmetics that are?  They don't have the resources to commit to major overhauls all the time.  They have to choose their battles.  TT is not going to invest major capital into a title that has pretty much run it's course in terms of ROI.  TT will have Squad do what it can with what it has.  Maybe for KSP 2 will TT make major investments, but not now. 

Actually I was referring to one of my other favorite games,  that sort of had a succesful DLC policy, and made tons of money in the process,  they started out as a minuscule company,  Paradox Interactive, makers of Europa Universalis IV.    They have tons of very minor cosmetic dlc that they sell for 5 dollars at release.  These Dlc do nothing for core game play.  Yet lots of people buy then, just to support their favorite game's development.   I have 2k hours into that game and have purchased over 200$ in dlc that wasn't needed at the time or at all.   For all that money its still pennies on the hour of game play.   Also the constant development that EU4 had due to it's dlc policy had me enthralled with the game for two years or more.  I bought every dlc, which sold for 15-20 USD each, the day they came out.  I also bought several of the cosmetic and musical dlc for 5$ each.    

Yes, Dev teams do need to choose their "battles"   and the "missions development"  added little for, most likely, a good half KSP player base, myself included.   

Why on Kerbal make  KSP 2 when there is so much that can be done yet with KSP.   Not to mention that if they play their cards right, there is a boat load of money to be yet made on KSP.  All they need for this is a proper strategy going forward.   A good start would be a music based dlc for ~ 10$  This dlc should add nothing, but new music to the game and not be really needed to fully experience KSP.      A DLC of this nature must be made ensuring that it will not break any major mods.   This would give TT a moderate input of cash, that they could then, hopefully, put towards new development.    This new development should go into an actual DLC, priced at 15-20 USD, that adds something major to the best part of KSP, the Career mode.

 Further more constant innovation and improvements to KSP will add fresh excitment to the game, ensuring that the modding community never gets bored and continues to thrive.

13 hours ago, Kerbart said:

He's not asking for a lot. Just to fix career mode so the game has a story line comparable to Call of Duty or Half Life, and then redo all the parts and planets so it's Earth scaled, for... reasons. Might as well add live scenery to spice things up, maybe a few cities on Kerbin, GTA style. T2 has that laying around anyway.

Really, how hard can it be?

Please, Please, Please.   Nothing comparable to a Call of duty story line,  I would be Upset then.  If I had a physical copy of KSP, I would at that point destroy it.....   lol   Real Earth scale would be too boring and time consuming for most, perhaps not for I, but for most. Besides the scale of game is easily modded.  I have messed around with earth sized scale, it's brutal.   Game engine would need to be upgraded greatly in order to reduce the time needed to go anywhere.     As of such would not be an improvement.   A few cities would be nice if it wasn't too hard on the average pc, perhaps in the future.  

By the way have you heard of the fallacy,  Reductio ad Absurdum?  You sir are guilty of that fallacy, please shy away from it in the future.     

Edited March 19, 2018 by Red Thought
Grammatical error

[Red Thought]

13 hours ago, Gargamel said:

If it's too hard or too easy, there are options for that.   Settings can change the amount of returns on various things.  You can alter your gameplay style to change the way it feels. 

There are a lot of mods that change the career mode style. 

Yes I understand that I can change settings.  My problem with this system is that there is little to no guidance letting a fresh Kerban cadet know exactly how difficult of a game they are getting into when choosing the various options in career mode.     I have not personally ever noticed a good mod that meaningfully changed career mode.  Before DLC and 1.4 came out I had 30+ mods loaded.  I will look again, however.     I see so much potential for this, my favorite, game.  I just want to see Take Two do all that they can to both make money, and improve upon KSP.

 

[qzgy]

Honestly the Career mode is kinda messy, just in general. It would be nice to see a complete rework starting from stratch and actually making it compelling or less boring than the current grind it is (at least for me the times I tried.)

[Kerbart]

2 hours ago, Red Thought said:

By the way have you heard of the fallacy,  Reductio ad Absurdum?  You sir are guilty of that fallacy, please shy away from it in the future.     

My point was that a “fix career” is not as simple as it sounds. Perhaps better not to touch it than to fix it only halfway, and to turn it into something truly exciting and engaging. Right now, it’s main function seems to be (a)provide a challenge where the player can make progress and (b) introduce new players to not all parts at once.

Perhaps we shouldn’t worry too much about it, given the sandbox character in the game. Missions are certainly a way to bypass Career, though they’re a bit too buggy right now to form a proper opinion about them.

As for what oratory devices I apply in the future I will decide for myself, thank you very much, sir.

[Red Thought]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

My point was that a “fix career” is not as simple as it sounds. Perhaps better not to touch it than to fix it only halfway, and to turn it into something truly exciting and engaging. Right now, it’s main function seems to be (a)provide a challenge where the player can make progress and (b) introduce new players to not all parts at once.

What exactly are you arguing for?   Are you arguing that no work should be done at all on KSP?     Is sandbox all that you do?

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

19 hours ago, Red Thought said:

Actually I was referring to one of my other favorite games,  that sort of had a succesful DLC policy, and made tons of money in the process,  they started out as a minuscule company,  Paradox Interactive, makers of Europa Universalis IV.    They have tons of very minor cosmetic dlc that they sell for 5 dollars at release.  These Dlc do nothing for core game play.  Yet lots of people buy then, just to support their favorite game's development.   I have 2k hours into that game and have purchased over 200$ in dlc that wasn't needed at the time or at all.   For all that money its still pennies on the hour of game play.   Also the constant development that EU4 had due to it's dlc policy had me enthralled with the game for two years or more.  I bought every dlc, which sold for 15-20 USD each, the day they came out.  I also bought several of the cosmetic and musical dlc for 5$ each.    

Yes, Dev teams do need to choose their "battles"   and the "missions development"  added little for, most likely, a good half KSP player base, myself included.   

Why on Kerbal make  KSP 2 when there is so much that can be done yet with KSP.   Not to mention that if they play their cards right, there is a boat load of money to be yet made on KSP.  All they need for this is a proper strategy going forward.   A good start would be a music based dlc for ~ 10$  This dlc should add nothing, but new music to the game and not be really needed to fully experience KSP.      A DLC of this nature must be made ensuring that it will not break any major mods.   This would give TT a moderate input of cash, that they could then, hopefully, put towards new development.    This new development should go into an actual DLC, priced at 15-20 USD, that adds something major to the best part of KSP, the Career mode.

 Further more constant innovation and improvements to KSP will add fresh excitment to the game, ensuring that the modding community never gets bored and continues to thrive.

Please, Please, Please.   Nothing comparable to a Call of duty story line,  I would be Upset then.  If I had a physical copy of KSP, I would at that point destroy it.....   lol   Real Earth scale would be too boring and time consuming for most, perhaps not for I, but for most. Besides the scale of game is easily modded.  I have messed around with earth sized scale, it's brutal.   Game engine would need to be upgraded greatly in order to reduce the time needed to go anywhere.     As of such would not be an improvement.   A few cities would be nice if it wasn't too hard on the average pc, perhaps in the future.  

By the way have you heard of the fallacy,  Reductio ad Absurdum?  You sir are guilty of that fallacy, please shy away from it in the future.     

Your comments above effectively sum up all the worst parts of the gaming industry today. It's the reason I skip past anything with Paradox's name on it. Release money-grabbing DLC with no content? No thanks, bud. Would you also like to click on an outer planet and be told "you must purchase such and such DLC to access this planet"? I too would "destroy" my copy of KSP if I ever saw such a thing. Here's hoping they never stoop so low.

[Thobolt]

In some sense Red Thought expresses what is my worry too: KSP has a huge potential to be an awesome game. But as it stands right now it is a great construction and physics simulation - game part is totally missing and it seems that SQUAD isn't very interested in developing it. 

One thing I'm complaining about is lack of "in game motivation" -  I mean by it "what is motivation for kerbals" not what is players motivation.  I'm not into Civ-like winning conditions, so I think DontStarve-like check_your_resourses, don't_take_too_much_risks approach is better, but both are possible.  So actually I dream that SQUAD would somehow merge with Klei and let them make the game part.

But SQUAD has decided  to relay on modders ...

On 19/03/2018 at 2:36 AM, Red Thought said:

What seems to be lacking from this game is only in the career mode and overall scale of the universe.   Mods have covered the later well, but the former is really out of modding hands

with DLC they gave modders at least some tools to fix this.

As a new player (ca 250h not visited any planet yet, too much hassle with the moons), I would like that someone made one huge in-game tutorial which would drag a player through every aspect of the game (I have no idea what the Kerbnet is) and maybe made some parallels with Earth space exploration or had some other storyline.

One example of lack of game intrinsic motivation is how science works: if you take temperature reading in vacuum then the game says that you are an i***t and then gives you science points :-P. And is there any meaningful difference between science instruments?  I haven't found that out yet.

Still, I think missions are step in right direction. But without some general goal (avoiding destruction of Kerbal by asteroid; finding space Kraken; colonizing Mars) they do not help much.

So those where my thoughts,  sry for bad english, greetings to SQUAD (and others) from Estonia and I hope SQUAD proves my assumption about their disinterest to be wrong. 

 

 

[Gargamel]

19 hours ago, Thobolt said:

But as it stands right now it is a great construction and physics simulation

That was the core of the original game.  If you do some digging, and find the stories behind the origins of KSP (including scribbled drawings of early kerbals) that is all it was intended to be.  It gained traction and went from there, adding the features you see now as it went.  A lot of the infrastructure that would be required for a lot of the features we want was never included back when it should have been, the goals we have now weren't even on the radar then.   The amount of effort to fix any of the major problems we have, might as well start from scratch and build KSP 2.  At least KSP 2 would provide the income to fund the development. 

[Red Thought]

On 3/20/2018 at 7:21 AM, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

On 3/19/2018 at 11:59 AM, Red Thought said:

Actually I was referring to one of my other favorite games,  that sort of had a succesful DLC policy, and made tons of money in the process,  they started out as a minuscule company,  Paradox Interactive, makers of Europa Universalis IV.    They have tons of very minor cosmetic dlc that they sell for 5 dollars at release.  These Dlc do nothing for core game play.  Yet lots of people buy then, just to support their favorite game's development.   I have 2k hours into that game and have purchased over 200$ in dlc that wasn't needed at the time or at all.   For all that money its still pennies on the hour of game play.   Also the constant development that EU4 had due to it's dlc policy had me enthralled with the game for two years or more.  I bought every dlc, which sold for 15-20 USD each, the day they came out.  I also bought several of the cosmetic and musical dlc for 5$ each.    

Yes, Dev teams do need to choose their "battles"   and the "missions development"  added little for, most likely, a good half KSP player base, myself included.   

Why on Kerbal make  KSP 2 when there is so much that can be done yet with KSP.   Not to mention that if they play their cards right, there is a boat load of money to be yet made on KSP.  All they need for this is a proper strategy going forward.   A good start would be a music based dlc for ~ 10$  This dlc should add nothing, but new music to the game and not be really needed to fully experience KSP.      A DLC of this nature must be made ensuring that it will not break any major mods.   This would give TT a moderate input of cash, that they could then, hopefully, put towards new development.    This new development should go into an actual DLC, priced at 15-20 USD, that adds something major to the best part of KSP, the Career mode.

 Further more constant innovation and improvements to KSP will add fresh excitment to the game, ensuring that the modding community never gets bored and continues to thrive.

Please, Please, Please.   Nothing comparable to a Call of duty story line,  I would be Upset then.  If I had a physical copy of KSP, I would at that point destroy it.....   lol   Real Earth scale would be too boring and time consuming for most, perhaps not for I, but for most. Besides the scale of game is easily modded.  I have messed around with earth sized scale, it's brutal.   Game engine would need to be upgraded greatly in order to reduce the time needed to go anywhere.     As of such would not be an improvement.   A few cities would be nice if it wasn't too hard on the average pc, perhaps in the future.  

By the way have you heard of the fallacy,  Reductio ad Absurdum?  You sir are guilty of that fallacy, please shy away from it in the future.     

Your comments above effectively sum up all the worst parts of the gaming industry today. It's the reason I skip past anything with Paradox's name on it. Release money-grabbing DLC with no content? No thanks, bud. Would you also like to click on an outer planet and be told "you must purchase such and such DLC to access this planet"? I too would "destroy" my copy of KSP if I ever saw such a thing. Here's hoping they never stoop so low.

I actually agree with you on this one, and I am personally a little disgusted with Paradox atm.   I like the premise of their dlc policy, for the simple fact that it does get a lot of incoming money to work with, for further development.     However there are many other aspects of their dlc policy that are quite......   disappointing.   As I mentioned i have spent around 200+ dollars on two of their games.    I have not played in a while and have missed the last several dlc though.     I wanted to play Crusader Kings 2   one day so loaded up Steam downloaded game updates, started new game.    I then stared at the country map for about and hour pondering what nation and who in that nation I would play.  Then my eyes and brain focused on the only Jewish country in the game, a tiny little nation, with a big job ahead of it.   Okay, that sounds like it could be fun.   So i think about it a little more and study my political  surrounding well.   Finally decide to take the plunge as this tiny little doomed nation, one of the best parts about paradox games.     I click on the play button and am told that I need another DLC to play this nation......   I at this point let out a big sigh, with all my dreams of a new conquest, in one of my all time favorite games, dashed.   Now at this point, I could have gone to the store and bought the ability to play this one tiny nation in a very large game for 6$.    But at this point I feel a little hurt by that DLC policy, especially with all of the money that I have already given that company in the span of two games.  So I decided to just play a game of LOL instead.   

I do not want that to happen to this game.    It seems to me that Take Two could take what they have already done with this game, in this first expansion, and expand upon that practice going forward.   For example if someone has purchased the full game and first two, or even any two, dlc having spent around  70$.   Perhaps that person would then receive the next X number of DLC for free, as Squad did for those who bought the in early 2013.   I  believe after personally experiencing Paradox Interactive's rather harsh DLC policy that could be adjusted to create capital while treating its player and customer base, in a respectful manner.   

I would love to know the rest of the community's thoughts on this subject?

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

3 hours ago, Red Thought said:

I actually agree with you on this one, and I am personally a little disgusted with Paradox atm.   I like the premise of their dlc policy, for the simple fact that it does get a lot of incoming money to work with, for further development.     However there are many other aspects of their dlc policy that are quite......   disappointing.   As I mentioned i have spent around 200+ dollars on two of their games.    I have not played in a while and have missed the last several dlc though.     I wanted to play Crusader Kings 2   one day so loaded up Steam downloaded game updates, started new game.    I then stared at the country map for about and hour pondering what nation and who in that nation I would play.  Then my eyes and brain focused on the only Jewish country in the game, a tiny little nation, with a big job ahead of it.   Okay, that sounds like it could be fun.   So i think about it a little more and study my political  surrounding well.   Finally decide to take the plunge as this tiny little doomed nation, one of the best parts about paradox games.     I click on the play button and am told that I need another DLC to play this nation......   I at this point let out a big sigh, with all my dreams of a new conquest, in one of my all time favorite games, dashed.   Now at this point, I could have gone to the store and bought the ability to play this one tiny nation in a very large game for 6$.    But at this point I feel a little hurt by that DLC policy, especially with all of the money that I have already given that company in the span of two games.  So I decided to just play a game of LOL instead.   

I do not want that to happen to this game.    It seems to me that Take Two could take what they have already done with this game, in this first expansion, and expand upon that practice going forward.   For example if someone has purchased the full game and first two, or even any two, dlc having spent around  70$.   Perhaps that person would then receive the next X number of DLC for free, as Squad did for those who bought the in early 2013.   I  believe after personally experiencing Paradox Interactive's rather harsh DLC policy that could be adjusted to create capital while treating its player and customer base, in a respectful manner.   

I would love to know the rest of the community's thoughts on this subject?

You've hit on it exactly. I too own EU4 and CK2. As a guy who thinks Medieval 2 and Civ IV are 2 of the greatest games of all time, I was told the 2 Paradox titles were right up my alley and that I would absolutely love them. And that may well be true; but I'll never know. I bought both games and loaded 'em up, very excited. You know that feeling when you download a game that you're sure is going to be awesome? That's how it was until I checked 'em out. I was horrified by the blatant, gimme more policy and immediately turned 'em off. I'm kind of amazed they're able to keep it at it. I wouldn't care if the games were the best ever made; I won't give my money to a company like that. I thought Surviving Mars looked interesting; and then I saw the publisher. I didn't lament an opportunity lost. I just moved on.

As for KSP, I've often wondered why they don't release "mod packs". With 10 or a 12 popular mods bundled together for 10 bucks. I'm sure there are tons of legal reasons, but it would seem to make sense for everyone. Squad and T2 could take their cut, and modders could start making some money. For us players, you'd have the understanding that they will always be kept current with every update and expansion on day one. It seems like everyone would win, but I don't know anything about the inner workings of the industry; so I don't really know if such a thing is possible.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Cpt Kerbalkrunch