Do you think they'll add anything else to the game?

[quasarrgames]

I still see a lot of suggestions posted on this thread  -which i think is a great thing as it shows the community is still enthusiastic-  but i do sometimes wonder how much you guys expect the features you suggest to still be implemented. That's why i made this poll, just to see.

[klgraham1013]

If there's still money coming in, development will continue.  Despite my own wishes that they'd just finish the game, I believe they'll continue to add minor features to the base while working on new DLC.

[Wjolcz]

Still waiting for the procedural craters for other bodies (only Mun has them) and maybe a life support of some kind. I don't expect that to happen tho.

[RealKerbal3x]

We need a few well-optimised mod inclusions like KER, EVE/SVE and Scatterer, then they should just fix as many bugs as they can and call it a game.

That's probably not gonna happen though.

[linuxgurugamer]

18 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

We need a few well-optimised mod inclusions like KER, EVE/SVE and Scatterer, then they should just fix as many bugs as they can and call it a game.

That's probably not gonna happen though.

That may be your list.  I can think of a totally different list of what I consider essential mods.  The only thing I think everyone can agree on is probably a way to show the amount of dV in a stage.

[eddiew]

I'd like to think there will both be another expansion, and that it'll be an expansion based on lessons learned from the last one. With luck they've reviewed the reception MH got and have concluded that future DLCs need to actually work properly (no broken engines with offset thrust vectors) and should try to be more than just a parts pack. I think we can agree that the mission builder hasn't really done much for the community... it's not a bad feature, I just don't think it's what the player base wanted, especially not in its current succeed at everything or restart completely format.

I'd hope they're now considering things that the modding community hasn't really tackled, such as:

1) Better terrain. Figure out how to do caves and canyons and volcanoes with lava pools, or even purple Eve trees. Figure out a really good procedural generation algorithm. Minecraft can do cool procedural terrain, why can't KSP?
1a) Make special terrain features have rewards, e.g. reputation or science boosts when visiting them for the first time.

2) Reconsider the whole contract/science/research mechanic. Career mode is trivial, rewards are far too high and players have effectively infinite money. Consider gating research tiers behind visiting N bodies in the system to unlock them.

...but I suspect what we'll get is...

3) More planets. Either a gas giant or a wormhole to a new system. Which is legit as an expansion and could be cool, but the modders have done this already, so I'd expect a lukewarm reception.

4) Weather! Clouds and rain. EVE and Scatterer kind of cover this (not so much the rain) but I can imagine it being a part of a future DLC because it's relatively easy to do.

5) Music. I'm constantly baffled that KSP's music is so come and go (usually gone) and that there are so few tracks. There's room for situation specific music, such as suborbital on Dres, or flying at Eve, or approaching Duna...

6) Maybe a delta-v reading? Maybe? Possibly? Nah, doubt it. Not sure anyone on the current dev team actually enjoys doing math  

Edited June 23, 2018 by eddiew

[Gargamel]

2 hours ago, eddiew said:

5) Music. I'm constantly baffled that KSP's music is so come and go (usually gone) and that there are so few tracks. There's room for situation specific music, such as suborbital on Dres, or flying at Eve, or approaching Duna...

It was royalty free music they slapped in there back in the alpha days, and they just haven't attacked it since.  I kinda of consider it iconic KSP music at this point, but I know every one's opinion differs on this. 

This type of question has always made me wonder what is on their to do list.  And at what point will they come to a realization that cludging more code into a working system is harder than starting fresh with a list of features to design for from the start.    That is when we will get KSP2.   When they want to add features, but can't make it work well.    There are so many gameplay mechanics that just don't exist (a point to bases, surface features, more use for planes, weather, interstellar) that I wonder in what version of KSP we will see these things. 

3 hours ago, eddiew said:

6) Maybe a delta-v reading? Maybe? Possibly? Nah, doubt it. Not sure anyone on the current dev team actually enjoys doing math  

Well, it already does the math, just in the background, so I don't know how much more it would have to do to bring it to the fore ground. 

[eddiew]

57 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Well, it already does the math, just in the background, so I don't know how much more it would have to do to bring it to the fore ground. 

Does it? AFAIK nothing in KSP gives indication of delta-v available in any vessel, so my assumption is that the devs never tackled it... Don't need to know it to set and execute manoeuvre nodes.

[RealKerbal3x]

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

That may be your list.  I can think of a totally different list of what I consider essential mods.  The only thing I think everyone can agree on is probably a way to show the amount of dV in a stage.

That’s what everyone wants really....a delta-V readout. Though I’m sure most players wouldn’t be adverse to a few visual enhancements—the new aero in 1.0 was basically FAR lite, so why can’t there be EVE-lite in the game? If they could optimise it enough to work on potatoes, great!

Though, like @eddiew said, the terrain and exploration system could be greatly improved, with stuff like caves and procedural terrain so no two players need explore the same place.

[Gargamel]

4 hours ago, eddiew said:

Does it? AFAIK nothing in KSP gives indication of delta-v available in any vessel, so my assumption is that the devs never tackled it... Don't need to know it to set and execute manoeuvre nodes.

Well since it shows dV required for a manuever, and then it shows when you've burned that dV, and it shows before and after fuel amounts, somewhere the math is done.

I mean, this type of number crunching work is what computers were designed for.  While stage recognition and such will take a bit of ingenuity, the actual math of the rocket equation is fairly straight forward. 

[eddiew]

7 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Well since it shows dV required for a manuever, and then it shows when you've burned that dV, and it shows before and after fuel amounts, somewhere the math is done.

I mean, this type of number crunching work is what computers were designed for.  While stage recognition and such will take a bit of ingenuity, the actual math of the rocket equation is fairly straight forward. 

Setting the manoeuvre is more orbital mechanics than vessel calcs, and we spent years with orbits that would randomly change while timewarping before that got fixed so... clearly nobody wanted to tackle orbital mechanics.

How much dv you've spent is just "I have these engines with this ISP. Burn this much fuel per second to apply this much force, calculate the acceleration," - it doesn't in itself provide knowledge of how long you can do that for. Yes it's part of the full calculations, but it's only part.

Which is why I don't think anyone on the dev team feels willing or capable of getting into the mathematical parts of the game   You'd think by now they'd have enough backing to put out an ad for coder with mathematics background... 

There's also the possibility that it literally is a dev choice rather than a shortcoming, although you'd think by now that the community has made it clear that we consider it the latter. I doubt I'd have got through my first week of KSP if I hadn't discovered KER. I wonder how many people have drifted away when they hit the learning curve that is interstellar travel without a dv readout...

[Gargamel]

6 hours ago, eddiew said:

Which is why I don't think anyone on the dev team feels willing or capable of getting into the mathematical parts of the game   You'd think by now they'd have enough backing to put out an ad for coder with mathematics background... 

Most coders do have some sort of math background, at least in my experience.  At least enough of an understanding to do a little research, play with a spread sheet, and take a couple days to figure it out.  I mean, it's not rocket science or anything. 

(Incidentally, that particular phrase has lost a lot of it's oomph after playing KSP)

6 hours ago, eddiew said:

There's also the possibility that it literally is a dev choice rather than a shortcoming,

Most definitely so, as the original Devs have stated they intended the math to be done by hand.  That's why the idea of a dV readout that requires the user to do a good portion of the legwork, although ingame, is probably the best solution.  And with the idea it being improved with the upgrades to the buildings, you would start off having to plug all the numbers into an equation, and with the highest upgrade, it being completely automatic. 

[klgraham1013]

3 hours ago, Gargamel said:

as the original Devs have stated they intended the math to be done by hand. 

I believe the exact (not exact) stance was that Harvester liked the trial and error style of play.  I'm not even sure "doing the math" was even part of the equation.

#puns

[eddiew]

5 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Most definitely so, as the original Devs have stated they intended the math to be done by hand.  That's why the idea of a dV readout that requires the user to do a good portion of the legwork, although ingame, is probably the best solution.  And with the idea it being improved with the upgrades to the buildings, you would start off having to plug all the numbers into an equation, and with the highest upgrade, it being completely automatic. 

Which makes no sense in the present though. Most people do not want to do maths while playing computer games. We just don't. Now owned by TT, the devs should consider that their job is not to please Harvester, but to sell more copies of the game by adding features that players want.

I would forgive it if you got rough guesstimates (e.g. flavour text such as "We think this could get to Mun and back") for level 2 VAB, and level 3 unlocking the actual dv readouts, but having nothing is probably one of KSP's biggest failings. Ironically, maybe it could have been something like Red Shell that would give them stats on how many players never come back after their first few hours... I have a hunch it's fairly high proportion. If you don't want to watch youtube for instructionals, if you don't become aware of the forums and the modding community, the game feels half baked and unfinished, all for want of a dv readout. 

And players who quit after the first day don't recommend the game to their friends...

(Sorry, personal bugbear. I'll /rant now.)

[SchwinnTropius]

To answer the OP, I believe the devs will only add things to the base game to support future expansions, much like the stock variant switch system. I think they'll focus on DLC from now on as most things the game needs can be found in mods.

[JPLRepo]

On 6/24/2018 at 1:33 AM, eddiew said:

 

6) Maybe a delta-v reading? Maybe? Possibly? Nah, doubt it. Not sure anyone on the current dev team actually enjoys doing math  

Guess I majored in math for no reason then. Actually a number of the devs enjoy doing math.

if there was a delta-V calc In-game we wouldn’t get to do as much math. 

[eddiew]

3 hours ago, JPLRepo said:

Guess I majored in math for no reason then. Actually a number of the devs enjoy doing math.

if there was a delta-V calc In-game we wouldn’t get to do as much math. 

I am corrected! But I would still like you to do the math for me so I don't have to

Seriously though I am sure you lose players when they hit the dv wall... Most folks don't want to do that in a game. Or ever

[FleshJeb]

3 hours ago, JPLRepo said:

if there was a delta-V calc In-game we wouldn’t get to do as much math. 

I love math too. My KSP spreadsheets and code have arrived at some scary obsessive place. However:

A) This is bad logic, even as a snarky response. You could always ignore it.

B) Other people might enjoy it more.

C) Other people might play it more--Inspiring them to learn where the funny numbers come from. "Hmmm, there doesn't seem to be a linear relationship between the amount I have left in the tank and the amount I have left in the dV readout...Why is that?"

D) You badly overestimate most console players.

E) You might sell more copies. Foolish goal, I know.

[Kesa]

On 6/24/2018 at 2:45 AM, Gargamel said:

Well since it shows dV required for a manuever, and then it shows when you've burned that dV, and it shows before and after fuel amounts, somewhere the math is done.

I mean, this type of number crunching work is what computers were designed for.  While stage recognition and such will take a bit of ingenuity, the actual math of the rocket equation is fairly straight forward. 

What you describe amounts to computing the result of the rocket equation doing a step by step integral, while doing calculus, you got it in closed form and can compute it efficiently.

Anyway, the rocket equation is easily googlable, and litterally one line long. I highly doubt no one in squad knows what a logarithm is, I agree math is definitely not the issue.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Kesa

[pandaman]

22 hours ago, JPLRepo said:

Guess I majored in math for no reason then. Actually a number of the devs enjoy doing math.

if there was a delta-V calc In-game we wouldn’t get to do as much math. 

Or...

You could just 'toggle' it off...

Or, more usefully, do it for fun anyway - to check your programming implementation works it out properly.

Sounds like you just accepted the challege of getting a working Dv Calc/Readout in stock .

[Tyko]

23 hours ago, JPLRepo said:

Guess I majored in math for no reason then. Actually a number of the devs enjoy doing math.

if there was a delta-V calc In-game we wouldn’t get to do as much math. 

I think this is the first time I've seen a staff member comment on the "no DV" question...Can you please explain Squad's reason / position on continuing to leave DV out?

Edited June 29, 2018 by Tyko

[JPLRepo]

Think you all missed my Aussie sense of humor. I was referring to the fact that devs do like maths and if we had a DV call then we wouldn’t get to do the calcs and therefore miss out on doing math. It was a corny joke. Anywho. I can’t comment further on what may or may not be coming in the future. (NDA). And please don’t misconstrue that statement either.

[Voidryder]

I think a 4th option is needed:

The Owners will continue to release DLC's in order to make as much money as possible and will do minor bug fixes in the base game to keep people buying. 

 

It is a for-profit game. The goal is to make money. No other way to pay staff or get a return on investments. Once the outlay exceeds the income,  then KSP will run out of dV. 

[StarStreak2109]

Mmh, interesting question. As a business guy, I wonder how much money they made with MH and are still making with ongoing sales of MH and the base game.

Furthermore, IMHO DLCs for this game are hard, since there are so many mods out there adding content and features.

So my prognosis is kinda two-fold:

* The recent DLC did at least okay and some money is still trickling into the company. In this case we'll probably see a couple more DLCs.

* The DLC was a dud, in which case we'll probably see no more iterations.

In both cases, I think we should expect that the number of patches that will be made might also be limited to a very low number, especially if sales are dwindling, since the team must be paid for...

Which in turn leads to the final question: is there a business case for a KSP 2? If not, I'll hope we're being left with a halfway stable final version, which we can enjoy for some time to come, being over time rejuvenated by a host of mods, that add new features and content to the base game.

If T2 do see a case for an eventual successor to KSP than I do hope they keep to the spirit of the game, rather than dumbing it down, like it seems to be the way with recent simulation games...

Wow, long post to write on mobile...

[OHara]

There is a little dissonance between the poll question "what if anything do you think will be added"
and the usual topic of "what do you suggest should be added" that we talk about here in the Suggestions-and-Development-Discussion forum.

It is a useful topic, though, giving some insight into why many of the things that players want are more likely provided by mods.

On 6/28/2018 at 12:40 PM, JPLRepo said:

Actually a number of the devs enjoy doing math.

if there was a delta-V calc In-game we wouldn’t get to do as much math. 

Now it is clear that this was an unserious comment, but it is worth being serious for a moment and pointing out explicitly that a delta-V calculator mostly handles book-keeping, looking up I_sps and tank-masses for the parts used in the caft, not part of doing math that people enjoy.

Seeing in real-time how delta-V changes with fuel-load is a way to understand the behavior of the logarithm and what the tyranny of the rocket equation means.  Such a readout is more an invitation to doing real math (in the sense of taking a mathematical approach to design) than it is a crutch.  In general the enjoyable part of doing math is figuring out how to arrange things to get the result you want.

New players who enjoy math, or might be about to begin enjoying math, are very likely to get more out of the game when using the nice mods Basic-dV and Basic-Orbit, which are available for both KSP 1.3x and 1.4x.