KSP 2.0 why we need it and what it needs

[MrCow]

On 5/21/2019 at 1:35 PM, Xavven said:

Stock life support

What do you mean by life support? Everyones been saying it and it's driving me nuts, what does it mean!

[iteranthypatic]

11 hours ago, MrCow said:

What do you mean by life support? Everyones been saying it and it's driving me nuts, what does it mean!

Humans need food, water, air, and waste removal/reprocessing to survive in space. So should Kerbals

[Matuchkin]

I believe that, by far, the most important addition to KSP 2 would be a dedicated preparatory mod creation team. As it stands, a large portion of the appeal of the original KSP stems from the way in which it manages to integrate a stock game experience with one of the largest mod communities in the world (that I have seen). Though KSP 2 is a heavily altered game with multiple new features, it will still exhibit the same mod syndrome that the original KSP always had, a syndrome that is admittedly crucial for the continued relevance of the game series. My proposition is as follows: assemble a team of mod creators and preemptively redevelop a series of large, expansive KSP 1 mods to support KSP 2, before the release of the latter. This will serve as a gateway into KSP 2 for the KSP 1 playerbase.

I state this with the understanding that my proposition is hypocritical, as I have little programming experience and therefore cannot be a mod creator myself.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Matuchkin

[Lithobrake]

Lol I doubt they would actually make a ksp 2 

[sturmhauke]

1 hour ago, Lithobrake said:

Lol I doubt they would actually make a ksp 2 

Never gonna happen.

[Lord Aurelius]

3 hours ago, Lithobrake said:

Lol I doubt they would actually make a ksp 2 

Not sure if you're serious? KSP 2 was just officially announced yesterday.

 

 

[StrandedonEarth]

On 6/30/2019 at 10:40 AM, Lord Aurelius said:

Mission control scene with lots of big screens

With multi-screen support! Flight scene on one, map view on another...

[sturmhauke]

4 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Not sure if you're serious? KSP 2 was just officially announced yesterday.

This is a tongue-sticking-out emoji:  It commonly indicates a lack of seriousness.

This is the delta-v symbol: Δv It indicates the amount of effort you will have to expend to intercept the joke as it passes overhead.

[kerbiloid]

"Need"... "Must"... "Should"...

8 years later they've finished decoding HarvesteR's todo's and comments in the program source, and at last got enlightened how to rewrite it from scratch, integrating all made game patches and discoveries in the Unity world.

[ILoveStars]

Good ideas. We NEED a new stock star system.

[Renae]

21 hours ago, Lithobrake said:

Lol I doubt they would actually make a ksp 2 

If you read through the comments at the front of this thread, a lot of people we're not enthralled at the idea of a KSP 2, nor did many actually think it would happen.  Now it's happening and my "SQUEE" meter is brokeded.

 

[Lithobrake]

19 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Not sure if you're serious? KSP 2 was just officially announced yesterday.

 

 

Bruh. It was a joke.

[Loskene]

There's always one

[IncongruousGoat]

7 hours ago, ILoveStars said:

Good ideas. We NEED a new stock star system.

"Need" is a strong word, and"NEED" in all caps is a very strong word. Speaking for myself, I quite like the stock system. KSP 2 should keep it. It's quite well done from a gameplay perspective, if you think about it - there are very few places in the system that are boring to travel to from the moment you're good enough to do so. Veteran players might view it with some disdain, but that's just because we've seen every square inch of it and long for novelty. And, practical considerations aside, there's a good amount of KSP's identity tied up in its wacky planets and moons.

Also, it's pretty clear from the KSP 2 trailer that it's going to have the same (starting) system as KSP, and the game's been in development long enough that any suggestions of this sort are going to be summarily ignored by the devs because it's too late to act on them. So the point is moot in any case.

[Xavven]

On 8/19/2019 at 10:09 PM, MrCow said:

What do you mean by life support? Everyones been saying it and it's driving me nuts, what does it mean!

 

On 8/20/2019 at 9:45 AM, iteranthypatic said:

Humans need food, water, air, and waste removal/reprocessing to survive in space. So should Kerbals

Yes, basically what @iteranthypatic said. Specifically, life support means you can't stick a kerbal in a Mk1 command pod on a trip to Eeloo for 20 in-game years with no extra supplies, just a fuel tank and an engine, and expect him to live.

[ILoveStars]

5 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said:

"Need" is a strong word, and"NEED" in all caps is a very strong word. Speaking for myself, I quite like the stock system. KSP 2 should keep it. It's quite well done from a gameplay perspective, if you think about it - there are very few places in the system that are boring to travel to from the moment you're good enough to do so. Veteran players might view it with some disdain, but that's just because we've seen every square inch of it and long for novelty. And, practical considerations aside, there's a good amount of KSP's identity tied up in its wacky planets and moons.

Also, it's pretty clear from the KSP 2 trailer that it's going to have the same (starting) system as KSP, and the game's been in development long enough that any suggestions of this sort are going to be summarily ignored by the devs because it's too late to act on them. So the point is moot in any case.

True. but there could be a bit more variety in stock objects, like pushing things to the extreme, and giving players more fun challenges to do. There are also some players who want more celestial bodies, but can't insert mods in for some reason. I'm one of those players. 

Ok. Let me rephrase that. 

Good ideas. It would be fun to add a new star system, but not too many so that star mods become useless. 

And also, if you were to scrap star mods and kopernicus entirely, please add an ingame celestial body maker. That would mean making new celestial bodies ingame would be much easier.

Edited August 22, 2019 by ILoveStars

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Xavven said:

Yes, basically what @iteranthypatic said. Specifically, life support means you can't stick a kerbal in a Mk1 command pod on a trip to Eeloo for 20 in-game years with no extra supplies, just a fuel tank and an engine, and expect him to live.

I just pretend that all of this is incorporated into the command pod. Or that kerbals run on atomic batteries.

I'm still strongly in the "no life support please, even as an option" camp. My reasoning is pretty simple:

• If it's implemented in a meaningful way, the unavoidable consequence is running lots of routine supply missions, which will only mean lots of tedious busywork whenever you're trying to do anything more ambitious than a quick trip to the Mun and back. 
• If it's not implemented in a meaningful way (e.g. by just requiring a "life support part" that keeps a kerbal alive indefinitely, i.e. more dry mass) then you might as well not do it at all.

I've said it before and it's worth saying again: there is a place for a more realistic space game, with N-body physics, life support, and the rest of it, as there certainly are players who want the challenge and have the patience. A realism overhaul is an ideal mission for a mod -- and that's why we have mods for it.

The only way I can think of how LS could work and be fun is if there was a way to automate the routine supply missions as well. For example, that you need to fly one supply mission to your base/station, and then click a button after which the same mission runs automatically at an interval, with the funds deducted from your balance. If that's in, then count me in as cautiously pro-LS.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Guest

[sturmhauke]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

The only way I can think of how LS could work and be fun is if there was a way to automate the routine supply missions as well. For example, that you need to fly one supply mission to your base/station, and then click a button after which the same mission runs automatically at an interval, with the funds deducted from your balance. If that's in, then count me in as cautiously pro-LS.

That's how the newer Civilization games handle food caravan routes. Larger cities need more food than they can grow within their own radius, so you can build a caravan unit from a city with a surplus and send it to the one with a deficit. After that the game will handle the food and gold balances for that route automatically. You only need to worry about it if you want to change the route, or it gets raided by an enemy.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

That's how the newer Civilization games handle food caravan routes. Larger cities need more food than they can grow within their own radius, so you can build a caravan unit from a city with a surplus and send it to the one with a deficit. After that the game will handle the food and gold balances for that route automatically. You only need to worry about it if you want to change the route, or it gets raided by an enemy.

Yeah I kind of had that sort of thing in mind. 

I have a feeling though that if you start thinking about it, you'll run into a lot of other complications which you'll have to address. We'd be looking at turning KSP into SimSpaceCivilisation and that's a pretty serious undertaking -- and while that could be a fantastic game in its own right, there are other things I'd rather see the devs focus on.

[GandalfsDude]

Really good ideas so far. Especially better physics, more interesting looking planet surfaces (they should invite you to explore the celestial body), better graphics and I like the idea of cities ( at least some lights that show up on the dark side of Kerbin)

I would like to see a scaling option for fuel tank lenght. Stacking them feels a bit inconvenient and often looks ugly (I'm a sucker for nice, clean and simplistic looking spacecrafts, a bit like their real life counterparts:))

That's all I can think of at the moment:)

[kirmie44]

18 hours ago, ILoveStars said:

True. but there could be a bit more variety in stock objects, like pushing things to the extreme, and giving players more fun challenges to do. There are also some players who want more celestial bodies, but can't insert mods in for some reason. I'm one of those players. 

Ok. Let me rephrase that. 

Good ideas. It would be fun to add a new star system, but not too many so that star mods become useless. 

And also, if you were to scrap star mods and kopernicus entirely, please add an ingame celestial body maker. That would mean making new celestial bodies ingame would be much easier.

The already said in an interview that they are keeping the same system, Just revamping it a bit. I think their goal is to have people create more solar systems for the interstellar aspect of the game

18 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

I just pretend that all of this is incorporated into the command pod. Or that kerbals run on atomic batteries.

I'm still strongly in the "no life support please, even as an option" camp. My reasoning is pretty simple:

• If it's implemented in a meaningful way, the unavoidable consequence is running lots of routine supply missions, which will only mean lots of tedious busywork whenever you're trying to do anything more ambitious than a quick trip to the Mun and back. 
• If it's not implemented in a meaningful way (e.g. by just requiring a "life support part" that keeps a kerbal alive indefinitely, i.e. more dry mass) then you might as well not do it at all.

I've said it before and it's worth saying again: there is a place for a more realistic space game, with N-body physics, life support, and the rest of it, as there certainly are players who want the challenge and have the patience. A realism overhaul is an ideal mission for a mod -- and that's why we have mods for it.

The only way I can think of how LS could work and be fun is if there was a way to automate the routine supply missions as well. For example, that you need to fly one supply mission to your base/station, and then click a button after which the same mission runs automatically at an interval, with the funds deducted from your balance. If that's in, then count me in as cautiously pro-LS.

You don't need life support if you don't have a Kerbal. Also, that's why mods like deepfreeze exist and a big part of 2.0 is base generation so I wouldn't be surprised if there were ways to make a ship produce enough recourses to be self sufficient or at least extend its life to the extreme. if LS is a thing. I expect it to be simple and for mods to give me the hardcore pain that I desire, but just like when lighter versions of deadly reenter and remotetec were implemented into ksp 1.0, I expected a lighter version of TAC LS to be in KSP 2.0

[kirmie44]

This might be reading into the trailer too much but I wonder if we are going to get Raster prop monitor in base game based on the reflection of the helmet 30 secs in

[Superfluous J]

18 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

If it's implemented in a meaningful way, the unavoidable consequence is running lots of routine supply missions, which will only mean lots of tedious busywork whenever you're trying to do anything more ambitious than a quick trip to the Mun and back.

Not necessarily true. I'm hopeful that there will be some kind of managing of a space program in Kerbal Space Program 2, and one of those facets - in my perfect version of the game - would be automated routine missions.

Your Apollo program should be managed hands-on, like we do things now. Sending food up to your space station should not. I don't know exactly how it should be automated, but the player should not have to do it manually more than once, and maybe not even that once.

[ansaman]

I would like to see a few cutscenes to add to the atmosphere of the game. In particular, it would be cool to have a recovery cutscene when a helicopter comes and recovers the object in question or a cutscene when a Kerbal is killed of some sort of memorial service and gravestone and a graveyard you could visit.

[sturmhauke]

That sounds cool in theory, but after a few dozen times they will get tiresome. They would need to be skippable, and ideally have an option to turn them off altogether.