Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

[Gargamel]

7 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Multiple overlapping threads have been merged. 

 

[hi41000]

these are the items i really wish to see in ksp 2

procedural for nearly everything one would argue it ruins the game because its lego rockets but it could easily work. the way career mode already works is the exact same progression, except they can not be changed. example would be the first fuel tank where it starts out at 100 then 200, 400 and eventually 800 for the fl-X00t fuel tank another example are the rocket boosters where you start out with the flea rocket booster then the hammer and eventually the thumper (although they do have slightly different impulses). the normal stock options can still stay in the game but but i would allow people that go into more depth to be able to customize their rockets for extreme challenges such as the 2 ton rocket to eloo. it would also allow rockets to be less parts overall which would save frames for the crazy designs. engines would be the most radical change (which i  do not expect will happen at all) but overall it would be a nice addition to allow users to create their own, it would also nearly remove the need for engine mods because you could practically create your own unless its exotic

the way the research tree could be is upper is larger machined parts so for example if you decide to make a fuel tank with advanced rocketry you have x maximum for width and a good chunk for height(which it mostly already is) while the bottom are for miniaturization while the center would be roughly same size but different in nature ie nuclear engines or stuff that can not be tweaked ie research parts and command modules and any other that the devs choose.

this would allow people that are really into designing rockets who go for absolute minimum weights or are going for harder challenges to achieve their goal. On another note this would also allow people to make much larger rockets for less parts which would have higher frames per second which is a major win. However i doubt this will happen because it is controversial. but for the love of god at least have it for wings and fuel tanks.

strategia in general, the normal strategies are completely dull and boring to do no one really cares about -1.21324892 funds for +1.21349 science

kerbal engineer because holy crap is info like that incredibly useful

[hi41000]

these are the items i really wish to see in ksp 2

procedural for nearly everything one would argue it ruins the game because its lego rockets but it could easily work. the way career mode already works is the exact same progression, except they can not be changed. example would be the first fuel tank where it starts out at 100 then 200, 400 and eventually 800 for the fl-X00t fuel tank another example are the rocket boosters where you start out with the flea rocket booster then the hammer and eventually the thumper (although they do have slightly different impulses). the normal stock options can still stay in the game but but i would allow people that go into more depth to be able to customize their rockets for extreme challenges such as the 2 ton rocket to eloo. it would also allow rockets to be less parts overall which would save frames for the crazy designs. engines would be the most radical change (which i  do not expect will happen at all) but overall it would be a nice addition to allow users to create their own, it would also nearly remove the need for engine mods because you could practically create your own unless its exotic

the way the research tree could be is upper is larger machined parts so for example if you decide to make a fuel tank with advanced rocketry you have x maximum for width and a good chunk for height(which it mostly already is) while the bottom are for miniaturization while the center would be roughly same size but different in nature ie nuclear engines or stuff that can not be tweaked ie research parts and command modules and any other that the devs choose.

this would allow people that are really into designing rockets who go for absolute minimum weights or are going for harder challenges to achieve their goal. On another note this would also allow people to make much larger rockets for less parts which would have higher frames per second which is a major win. However i doubt this will happen because it is controversial. but for the love of god at least have it for wings and fuel tanks.

strategia in general, the normal strategies are completely dull and boring to do no one really cares about -1.21324892 funds for +1.21349 science

kerbal engineer because holy crap is info like that incredibly useful

[Teek]

One thing I hope to see is a variety of structural parts and cockpits that lean into the futuristic aesthetic for the late game, things designs for functions besides their aerodynamic/reentry capabilities, like what we had with B9.  I already like some of the futuristic fuel tanks and struts that we’ve seen (very THSS vibes, which is a very good thing imo) as well as the skin and coloring options, but I think would be very cool to fully embrace an aesthetic of ships specialized for non-atmospheric travel.  Also, I hope there are some hangar options for the larger ships, for probes and landers and such.  Maybe even a star dock (I know I’ll try to build one)

[Klapaucius]

3 hours ago, hi41000 said:

procedural for nearly everything one would argue it ruins the game because its lego rockets but it could easily work.

It is not a question of it working or not; it is a question about the fundamental way the game works.  I'm happy for procedural to be a mod, as Tweakscale is now, but I don't want it in the base game.  This is a fundamental aspect of KSP for me and many other players.  And while it is viable to mod a Lego-type game and make it procedural, as with the aforementioned Tweakscale, going the other way is not.

[GoldForest]

I just thought of something I would really like to have. Physical fairings, and not the procedural ones like in KSP 1. The old KW type fairings where you built your own. 

The procedural fairings are nice since you can make custom sizes and stuff, but I would really like to see physical fairings make a come back, as they actually were shaped like actual fairings, instead of having to TRY and make a fairing look good. 

[OHara]

On 8/20/2019 at 2:19 PM, AngelLestat said:

is hard for me to understand the point of those who like the lego

I like being able to understand how other people make their craft, and recognizing the lego parts helps with that.  Mostly, I like the removal of un-necessary choice -- the precise length and taper of a fuel tank, for example.

What do you think of procedural parts where the sliders select between discrete values ?  (Other people might call these 'variant' parts.)
I could pick a fuel-tank and then stretch the diameter to 0.625 1.25 or 2.5 meters depending on what I need, rather than remember that 'Rokomax' is the name for 2.5-meter tanks so I can find it in the alphabetical list.  Then I can configure it to be liquid-fuel-only, and let the paint-job-indication follow my choice, rather than needing to know and find that paint-job detail.  Then I can select its length to select between the 100, 200, 400, or 800kg capacity.  I could pick a wing panel and double its size until I have 40m², rather than know which size is wing-connector type-D.

Then we can have our lego parts without so much searching though to box of lego to find the correct one.

[Superfluous J]

I would be happy with (and maybe even prefer who knows) a middle ground between procedural and lego parts. Mostly fuel tanks and structural parts, of course.

If we had all the parts we have now, but you could place one of them and convert it to another in a UI-friendly way, that would satisfy most of my wants with procedural parts.

Imagine unlocking the next bigger tank, and then opening an old ship and just stretching out the current tanks on it to be bigger. Delete half of them (that have nothing attached) and double the rest (not losing any attachments on them) and bam same ship, updated. Or even allow selecting 2 adjacent parts and merging them if a tank of the proper size exists.

[Klapaucius]

1 hour ago, OHara said:

I like being able to understand how other people make their craft, and recognizing the lego parts helps with that.  Mostly, I like the removal of un-necessary choice -- the precise length and taper of a fuel tank, for example.

What do you think of procedural parts where the sliders select between discrete values ?  (Other people might call these 'variant' parts.)
I could pick a fuel-tank and then stretch the diameter to 0.625 1.25 or 2.5 meters depending on what I need, rather than remember that 'Rokomax' is the name for 2.5-meter tanks so I can find it in the alphabetical list.  Then I can configure it to be liquid-fuel-only, and let the paint-job-indication follow my choice, rather than needing to know and find that paint-job detail.  Then I can select its length to select between the 100, 200, 400, or 800kg capacity.  I could pick a wing panel and double its size until I have 40m², rather than know which size is wing-connector type-D.

Then we can have our lego parts without so much searching though to box of lego to find the correct one.

I think what you are asking for, and it is a very good idea, is less about procedural parts and more about part organization.  I agree the current part search is not great.  Something simple, like having a main heading for wing parts and then a drop down menu with the various sizes, rather than having them all piled in one submenu known as aerodynamics would be great.  

 

Better yet (or in addition to), a way for the individual player to organize things in a manner that works for her/him.  Allow the player to create subfolders, tags and metadata.  @katateochi does this really well with his KerbalX craft mod, allowing you to name your craft, give it tags and then sort and search via those tags.

[Xd the great]

1 hour ago, Klapaucius said:

I think what you are asking for, and it is a very good idea, is less about procedural parts and more about part organization.  I agree the current part search is not great.  Something simple, like having a main heading for wing parts and then a drop down menu with the various sizes, rather than having them all piled in one submenu known as aerodynamics would be great.  

 

Better yet (or in addition to), a way for the individual player to organize things in a manner that works for her/him.  Allow the player to create subfolders, tags and metadata.  @katateochi does this really well with his KerbalX craft mod, allowing you to name your craft, give it tags and then sort and search via those tags.

This could work well for people who runs mods.

I wish for better physics (no more kraken drive for my super colony base!)

I also wish for better timewrap. (5x, 10x, 20x, etc), helps with ion engines and whatever crazy high-ISP-low-thrust contraptions there are

[Wolframmington]

more survival management

more career

more missions

open alpha

 

[infinite_monkey]

I really hope for good performance. Maybe it's just the video, but the pre-alpha gameplay seemed pretty laggy, especially the launches.

[Marachdrifter]

Multiple monitor support. 

I want to have my ship in full view in one monitor, and the map in my second, or i want to have one ship in one monitor and a second ship in the second one when docking so that i can control both of them at the same time, or having Kerbals in EVA in one screen and the ship in the second one....

things like that. i think you get the idea...

[xjames]

my wish is for a more involved career and contract system. 
right now on KSP you're never constrained by money. You just gain science points to spend on your tech tree which is very easy to unlock. It needs to be more involved, getting contracts and success and failure into the mix.

Maybe career paths

Maybe a difficulty where you struggle like space x struggles, where you research new tech, refine the tech, learn through failure and analysis... maybe you go bankrupt if you mess up, but if you don't, the reward is that much more meaningful.

Of course there'd be a sandbox mode for when you don't wanna bother, or for when you just wanna build cool stuff early on.. but personally, a more involved career and contract system is what's missing the most from KSP.

[TackleMcClean]

1 hour ago, xjames said:

my wish is for a more involved career and contract system. 
right now on KSP you're never constrained by money. You just gain science points to spend on your tech tree which is very easy to unlock. It needs to be more involved, getting contracts and success and failure into the mix.

Maybe career paths

Maybe a difficulty where you struggle like space x struggles, where you research new tech, refine the tech, learn through failure and analysis... maybe you go bankrupt if you mess up, but if you don't, the reward is that much more meaningful.

Of course there'd be a sandbox mode for when you don't wanna bother, or for when you just wanna build cool stuff early on.. but personally, a more involved career and contract system is what's missing the most from KSP.

never constrained by money?

The only time in career games when I've had total financial freedom was after going to Eeloo and bringing back several hundred tons of karborundum back to Kerbin. 1.6 billion funds secured and I didn't have to worry about the cost of torch, karborundum or orion drives anymore.

But before that - very much so!

[juanml82]

I'd like ion engines that work like real ion engines. The stock Dawn is fun, but it's a magic engine. And NFP engines, which go further in the electric engine route, are cheat engines (with them, I can build rovers with over 4,000 dV which can  land and take off from any Mun/Vall like moon. Fun, but also a cheat engine)

[xjames]

1 hour ago, TackleMcClean said:

never constrained by money?

The only time in career games when I've had total financial freedom was after going to Eeloo and bringing back several hundred tons of karborundum back to Kerbin. 1.6 billion funds secured and I didn't have to worry about the cost of torch, karborundum or orion drives anymore.

But before that - very much so!

I never used that particular mod

[rmaine]

(Warning. Minorly sarcastic post follows. :-))

I'm hoping the KSP 2 team has proofreaders proficient enough in English to know that the correct plural of "craft" is "craft". I cringe enough to detract from the enjoyment whenever I read "crafts" in KSP 1. I tried interpreting it as Kerbal humor, but it just doesn't fit the same style of humor. :-)

 

[nikokespprfan]

I hope they do two things:

1) make ships undirected graphs, no tree structure

2) mak science situations around bodies moddable. I was very disappointed when I learned that I couldn't make a "deep atmosphere of jool" below it's surface height, because they were hardcoded into the game. Pet peeve?, well of course not, how would you dare correctly interpret me like that!

[steuben]

A serious effort at merchandising. A good bit of decent merch can add some nice additional revenue to a game.

Yeah, I know I beat that drum a lot. I even got a special one made. It doesn't go "brrum" when you hit it. It goes "merch".

[infinite_monkey]

1 hour ago, xjames said:

I never used that particular mod

That mod was what FREED him from financial constraints. In career mode, finances were a problem for me. Yes, you unlock parts with science, but you have to pay an initial fee. And your rockets cost money.

[Klapaucius]

1 hour ago, rmaine said:

I'm hoping the KSP 2 team has proofreaders proficient enough in English to know that the correct plural of "craft" is "craft". I cringe enough to detract from the enjoyment whenever I read "crafts" in KSP 1.

 

Perhaps they are referring to pottery, weaving and glassblowing?  Surely they have hobbies outside of being test pilots...

[rmaine]

20 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

Perhaps they are referring to pottery, weaving and glassblowing?  Surely they have hobbies outside of being test pilots...

That did occur to me as the one context where "crafts" is correct.

[ZooNamedGames]

Alright. So it's time for KSP2. After my initial surprise- I've recollected myself and am finally ready to address this new game. As a result- I have come forward and have the following ideas to propose for the dev team. The following ideas coming from a long standing player and follower of this community (bought KSP in 2013 when it was alpha in 0.19 and joined the forums in 2014). Of course I won't just shoot ideas to the dev team- I also will provide implementation ideas and proposals to help make the more complex ideas realistic for them to add. I'll also aim for ideas I think others may not have suggested yet that will help to make a vastly more rounded game (for everyone).

So without further ado- here's the list. Oh and I've categorized them for ease of reading.

 

Kerbals

• G interactive Kerbals - I think the concept of having Kerbals that can be affected in IVA by your flight would be a great addition. Kerbals being slung as you perform a hard turn, or pitch up hard throwing their heads down or throwing their whole bodies left or right as well as squishing them in their seats or harnesses if you accelerate quickly. Eyes going bloodshot red if Kerbals are GLOC'd in reverse Gs.
• First Person - Pretty obvious. Seeing from the eyes of our crew members during EVAs and for when we are in any external command seats.
• Costumes - Selectable costumes would likely help with the immersion and the all around roundness of the game. Instead of always wearing space suits- allowing Kerbals to wear jet fighter suits (example), airline captain uniforms (white shirt, black/yellow bars on shoulders, etc), orange space suits, white space suits, gray (Russian), etc etc.
  • Variable Suit Utilities - As a partial extension to the previous point- KSP2 should not make the same mistake as the first and to make packs with unique traits and functions. Such as a science pack which can do additional scientific experiments, or a pack with communications, or a pack for jet fighters with a parachute, etc etc. It's merely silly that Kerbals can only have a jetpack despite the model it was based off of (the Manned Maneuvering Unit), being only used 3 times- and even if based off of SAFER- that has never been used, merely equipped for safety's sake.
  • New 'Veteran' Appearance - Since I suggest Kerbals be able to choose what color suit they can wear, then I suggest 'veteran' Kerbals (Jebediah, Bob, Bill, Val) receive unique red stripes, like the Apollo astronauts wore during Apollos 13 onwards. (example). Perhaps the stripe color changes, but again, remaining visible against whatever suit is chosen.
• Reflective Kerbal Helmets - After watching the trailer, I hope I'm not the only one who think it would be amazing to have Kerbal visor's that can go down to create such amazing visuals. I can definitely see that being used to create some beautiful cinematic videos. I know the trailer was buy-in-large just visual fodder to build hype but I think that should be in the final game, even if it's the only visual aspect that makes it.
• Taskable Kerbals - Kerbals should be able to receive order queues from the player and have non-selected Kerbals perform their task queue (similar to how you can queue activities for Sims in the Sims games). So that multiple Kerbals can be busy working all at the same time instead of running each Kerbal individually. If a Kerbal cannot complete or do a task, then they will stop and a notification will be given to the player about the error.
• Fat, Tall, Skinny, Short Kerbals - Now that we've got Kerbals with new hair styles and unique looks, expanding on that to create more uniquely sized and propotioned Kerbals would again add to immersion and make Kerbals more identifiable.
• Humans - From the forefront, as mentioned later on, there should be direct RSS/RO support and there would be nothing better than having a 'human' model already in the game. Even if it shares all the (compatible) interactions, functions and animations. Merely having one would be a huge leap forward for RSS/RO players.

 

Planets

• Planetarium Selection - A choice of solar systems would be great. Supporting custom solar systems (Alternix's Mixup planet packs for example). This would be especially great for Real Solar System games which I'll discuss shortly. This would be useful if the developers decide to overhaul the Kerbal solar system and change the geography and the landscaping of the planet's or moons.
  • Direct RSS/RO support - KSP1 has shown quite a significant interest in the RSS/RO configuration of KSP (if there's some dispute over that claim, I'll make a poll). So starting from the ground up supporting a Realistic universe and realistic parts would not only provide useful for modders but also make the game vastly more stable making RSS/RO far more practical. KSP1 didn't have the chance it's sequel will have to be built from the ground up with RSS/RO functionality. Plus, with the previous planetarium selection idea, it makes it easier to have the solar system loaded in and usable from the beginning.
  • Support of Classic Kerbin - Again, another one of the previously mentioned ideas was that if the developers decide to make a new original solar system (rather than just an expansion of the current one), then a choice of planetarium's would help so that older players can enjoy the new game in the universe they've come to know over the last 8 years (such as myself).
  • Planet Creator - Potential DLC Idea admittedly here. But an option of creating planets in the game without needing external coding or modeling abilities would be great and would open up a large pool of options for players. Using tools to create custom sized craters, a drag tool to create ravines and canyons, a flattening tool to create flat plains, and grabbing and pooling tool to create hills, mountains and valleys (low points). As well as a water tool to fill up low lying regions. As well as a planet type mode- so players can create rocky terrestial planets, gas giants, comets, asteroids, a moon, and so on.
• Planet's Geological Features - Planets should have a verity of geological features- such as caves, (lava) tunnels, giant mountains (Olympus Mons), sub surface water (Europa), and so on. Current planets in KSP1 are very bland (one side of Duna is no different from the far side of Eve, Dres, Ike, and so on.). I find lava tubes especially important since Star Theory has been rattling on about colonies- and it's only fair to not ignore the lava tube colony concepts NASA and others have had to live on Mars and the moon with.
  • Variable Water Altitudes - A major mistake with KSP1 was that all water on planets, existed as a sphere set as 'sea level'. Meaning that to have water, it required dips in the planet's surface to reach 0 altitude. Which made things like waterfalls and practical rivers impossible. So to remedy this, Star Theory can allow water to be at any altitude (as it is in real life) allowing for waterfalls and other interesting features that are impossible in KSP1.
• Bigger terrain scatters / interactive scatters - I'm struggling to find the exact quote- but as Armstrong put it during his Apollo 11 descent, he had to fly over massive boulders- (example). So there should be boulders that very in size from 0.1m to 10-20m in size. The following is a video of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin discussing their descent to the lunar surface- and I know Star Theory has done a lot of talking with NASA scientists about deep space but I want them to heed advice about exploring the only other foreign body we've visited in our specie's existence- the moon- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee5IxnaXR3Y . This is doubly important as current terrain scatters in KSP have no effect and are just for visuals.
• Unique Bodies- Comets and their tails, large class asteroids, black holes, orphan planets, Kuiper belt objects, etc etc. These unique bodies complete a solar system and a universe and give us more places to go and explore.

Gameplay / Game Systems

• Craft/Save file upgrades into KSP2 - From pre-alpha gameplay footage, I'm seeing KSP1 parts in KSP2. So Star Theory's claims that KSP1 parts can't be upgraded into KSP2 makes little sense. If they're claiming that the balances (engine thrust, fuel contained, etc) is different then that's a different matter entirely, but not one that can't be rectified. It just seems odd they'd copy the first game's parts and still say they're not compatible. A simple conversion to rebuild KSP1 craft using KSP2 parts even as an external program seems rather straight forward (if it's X part from a directory list of KSP1 parts, then assign KSP2 from KSP2 part directory, in XYZ coordinate spot). A better answer would be appreciated since right now their answer and their actions are in conflict.
• Part Failure - I'm digging from the old dusty collection of KSP1 suggestions. Part failures. An age old suggestion. Parts have a random chance of failure and fail in a monotony of different ways. When togglable, I can't see this harming the game but adding to it. Though I know this has always been a disputed subject but I'm throwing my interests in for that camp.
• EVA Activities - As previously mentioned, I'd hope that Star Theory would consult more than just deep space astronomers and researchers but also reach out to astronauts and other aspects of the space program. As currently EVA in KSP1 is basically non-existent. Even in career mode, we're left with 3 minutes of activities before we're left with 'roving around',  walking aimlessly, etc. In real life- orbital EVAs can take hours. Some of the longest have taken 8 hours. Which is about how long Apollo astronauts spent working on the lunar surface- and both events are set to extremely strict schedules spending nearly every second of every minute in those hours busy working. Of course I don't expect Star Theory to keep us busy for that long in one spot on one planet/moon, but more than 3 minutes would be great! Activities like gathering rock samples, digging up samples, searching for unique soil spots (something done by Apollo astronauts), taking a photo of a spot, deploying small science packages, etc etc. All of these are activities Apollo astronauts were doing and should be perfect examples if put into a more gameplay style could be fun for the players.
• Launch / Flight Commentary - After watching a recent video showing more ingame footage- it's audible at one point that Kerbals are chattering (launch countdown?). I think including this as an option would be great. KSP1 has Chatterer but it's never felt truly connected to KSP1, things happen and it'll continue to talk like normal and is only 1 voice at a time. Plus it's the same audio tracks for all modes of flight. Whether roving, EVAing in space, flying an aircraft on Kerbin and so on. Unique dialogue to each form of flight would be cool- like preflight announcements shortly after takeoff with aircraft, a countdown for rockets- in flight cabin announcements for aircraft, excited jabbering when a Kerbal completes a task (as mentioned earlier) or gathers science. I also think it's important to allow multiple Kerbals to speak (at varying volumes so it isn't a mess). Actual identifiable events would be great so the chatter isn't just background noise and adds to the process of the game. Like Kerbalized "oh no!"s and "Abort!" (or something to that effect).

Parts

• Continued Expansion On Rocketry - In the developer's story video released alongside the trailer, the developers mentioned they wanted to move the focus of KSP2 towards near future technologies. Which is great but there are many facets of general rocketry that KSP1 will never be able to achieve due to it's design flaws. As a result, I would appreciate if Star Theory could continue to expand upon these ideas and continue to promote rockets just like their growth into near future technologies.
  • New Rocket Fuels - In real life there are a verity of rocket fuels. RP-1 (also known as kerolox) (Kerosene+Liquid Oxygen), Hydrolox (Liquid Hydrogen+Liquid Oxygen), HTPB & PBAN-APCP (solid fuels), Aerozine 50/dinitrogen tetroxide (hypergolic fuels). Currently KSP1 only has an analog for Kerolox, Hypergolic fuels (assuming that's what monoprop is based off of), and solid rocket fuels. To make up for the missing hydrolox option- I suggest adding a cryogenic liquid fuel, with the difficulty option of it becoming liquid fuel when it boils off or boiling off and the resource diminishing entirely. Liquid Oxygen would remain (I always assumed it was lite cryogenic in that the insulation inside kept it cold forever).
    • Ketholox - In real life, we are working to develop and utilize metholox fuels which have the same power as kerolox (or at least similar) while having the improved ISP similar to that of hydrolox. So I propose that by harvesting 'natural gas' and converting it to 'liquid green fuel' (I'm out of names) which provides improved ISP and thrust to LFO engines that use it.
  • Custom Rocket Engines - Another potential DLC idea. Players can use another ingame editor to create their own engines and learn basic rocket engine design and see how various engine bell shapes effect the engine's ISP and thrust as well as allowing them to create their own engines (and allowing the developers to let the community to make their own rocket engines if they don't want to be bothered to continue making rocket engines and focus solely on near future technology).
  • Damageable / Warpable Parts - I've been playing with Kerbal Krash System which allows parts to be warped from damage and to suffer effects from such damage. This is perfect for KSP2, especially since one of my friends was wondering why (in the pre-alpha rocket launch footage) the rocket when it twisted and flipped; flipped like a rocket in KSP1 with joints at the connection points of parts instead of in the middle of parts as they realistically would? Perhaps this would be a massive performance hog but if it could realistically be managed so that parts can flex under stress and or be damaged from those stresses (and the stresses of collision) that would be great.

Career

• Actual Research in RnD facilities - As it stands, in KSP1, the RnD center compromises of 0 actual research on the players behalf and remains a place simply to spend points we've collected by spamming the collect science/samples action group. So a place to actually take your Kerbals, or vessels and get some numerical values would be perfect. Learn and see how the air interacts with your craft in a varying degree of angles, speeds, pressures, etc. See how much lift your craft generates to it's weight and drag values. A lot of this may be lost on players but put simply and choosing the simplest data could leave it open to players who are eager to learn. Plus this could be useful in a career mode!
  • Testing Grounds - Similar to the above idea, this could be a place where players could drive their rovers over a verity of selectable terrains, seeing how they handle sharp turns, steep hills, crater walls. As well as actual terrain handling from the above mentioned idea of varying terrain types.
• Better Career Mode - No matter what, a better and improved career mode is necessary. I would provide a specific set of suggestions, but as I'll expand upon below this, there are many questions that need to be answered first as to what and where KSP2 is going. But what remains, is that KSP2 needs a better career mode. One more involved with the science collection, and the research into new parts and vehicles. As well as actually taking greater advantage of KSP2's options. Allowing for more thought and problem solving then adding more boosters (making payloads for premade launchers, flying premade planes to set destinations, landing premade landers on other moons, building rescue craft to repair/boost/salvage/recrew premade stations, etc). Just please don't ruin career again.

 

Questions

• Where is KSP2 going in the long run?
  • As I mentioned before in a post ages back, KSP as a series has no plot- no development in story or formula. Akin to Minecraft, there's nothing to expand upon that couldn't fit in the original. To me, KSP2 is merely KSP Revamped. But regardless of how I feel, I am still curious what Star Theory's plans are beyond release next year. Admittedly yes, they are likely tunnel visioned on getting to that release date, but hopefully someone at Star Theory has spent a few minutes outside of the release date and has asked- where will we go after? More near future tech? Bug fixes? Direct to DLC? A valuable question to knowing what KSP2 will become as time goes on.
• What's KSP2 update schedule going to be?
  • A big part of KSP1's development was routine and exciting new releases as it was in alpha (as a 0.19 player I can attest finding new parts and content was so exciting!) and even now in release. So what will be the development schedule? Admittedly it is a bit early to ask since we're still pre-alpha, but clearly a lot of time has been spent already, so could there be a potential extrapolation based on the time already spent? Just curious.
• What is KSP2 going to be? Funny and comical or serious and scientific?
  • Currently, I feel KSP1 is in a bit of an identity crisis, attempting to be multiple identities simultaneously and is starting to fall apart on all of them. As it's trying to be sleek, and futuristic while carrying it's pre-alpha identity of being a comical space game about building rockets that almost always explode and fail in the most hilarious of fashions. With Kerbals scared, smiling in joy as their rockets explode and the stupid/courage mechanic- leaving quite a clear separation between the direction of KSP and it's original identity. So I'm curious if KSP2 will have a more clear identity from the release- or if it will carrying this same identity crisis with it into the new game.
• What's the plans for career mode?
  • As mentioned, it's hard to discuss what should be suggested for KSP2 since I don't know what kind of approach Star Theory has to the new career mode. Is it going to be scientific? Realistic? Or go for a more gameplay approach like KSP1 did? Knowing that, it would be easier to point out potential flaws and offering suggestions or alternatives to avoid those problems (constructive criticism of course).
• Is Star Theory planning on keeping to KSP's lego style or go towards procedural parts?
  • KSP is about building your rockets but one of the things that made it so easily accessible to new players was that rocket building was as simple as snapping two legos together. But with procedural parts being a thing (and a popular one at that with a certain group of people), it raises the question of whether or not Star Theory will provide more lego style parts like KSP1 did, allowing players to stretch and warp existing parts procedurally, or both. As this will again, affect what should be suggested and the approach Star Theory is taking to the new game. 
• Will there be Squad / Star Theory officially hosted multiplayer servers?
  • Just curious. Since a lot of players don't have the ability to set up their own servers and a public one for players to join and enjoy would be a great middle ground for those who don't want to make their own.

 

 

And that'll be all for now. Thank you for coming to my TED post. It took a while to make so I hope it's worth it and I'd like to know what you (and would like to know what the developers) think! Thanks for reading if you actually do read everything. Have a nice day everybody.

[xjames]

4 hours ago, infinite_monkey said:

That mod was what FREED him from financial constraints. In career mode, finances were a problem for me. Yes, you unlock parts with science, but you have to pay an initial fee. And your rockets cost money.

Maybe I played differently, I don't know. I always had so much more money than I could spend, I had a career going with space stations orbiting Kerbin and the mun, a base on duna, missions to every planet, manned and/or unmanned, or unkerballed. I don't remember ever thinking about needing money. Maybe it was all the contracts I did.

Edited August 27, 2019 by xjames