Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

[DanThePickledMan]

I would really like to see a much more added on science structure, not just more that you can unlock, but having the ability to spend lots of science points on upgrading specific parts to be more efficient etc, would be great as a way to extend the current maxed out of science situation.

Even if there is only 1 upgrade for each part, but cost thousands of science points to get, it would make collecting science more important post unlocking everything.

Also being able to collect really small amounts of science from drilling resources would be cool.

[tater]

2 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Not exactly true. If you're frugal you can upgrade every building and max out the tech tree but then the money'd dry up pretty quick after that. Especially if you don't use strategies to turn science and rep into more money. I know because of this:

 

 

Yeah, I should say only doing stuff you'd do anyway, not really no contracts.

Ie: you want to build a base on the Mün, so you take the landing contracts now and again.

[airtrafficcontroller]

45 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

This request has nothing to do with the fact I will totally not use the orion drive for nuclear bombing the KSC.

I know right? We will never put that in a rover...

[Tw1]

I do hope they move away from relying on contracts, as a game mechanic, and make them a smaller, suplimentary thing. 

This is my rant about the old career mode, and why it really does need to be expanded quite considerably. KSP2 is the chance to do this. 

As I've said before, I would rather have reasons to do things in places, opportunities to achieve goals of my own, rather than being mostly just the delivery guy. I want to be directing the program myself, more than being a service provider. 

The way contracts worked, especially before they started adding things like Researching in the lab always seemed like a cop out to me, in place of fleshing out the game fully. 

Clearly, in the world of the game, the contract offering organizations are achieving something through the results of what they ask you to do. Why can't your own organization (your space program) also achieve those things? I want to play proactively, not reactively. 

I'm hoping the colonization mechanics and the hinted at requirement for reasources achieves this. Progression should be about achieving stuff in space, not ticking of arbitrary lists the game imposes on you. 

Career mode really breaks the 'you vs the laws of the universe' by reminding you that you are playing a video game. It's not immersive. I play the game to feel like I'm doing space stuff, something no other game can offer, and feel career should be contributing to that. 

I want a fluid system of goals which you can meet in many ways, in any order you like, without external pressure. Just you vs the universe. 

Career mode and science mechanics should be there to bring to life sides of the game which are still underdeveloped. I care very little about arbitrary tech trees, but love the idea of expanding kerbal knowledge of their universe, so I still play science. But I wish it was more of an experience than just point scoring and my own imagination. Breaking ground to me, was a great step in the right direction. 

I want science to be an experience, part of playing, not just a click to score points. 

I don't think KSP doesn't need a way for you to "win", or even entirely "complete it". Irl, space exploration isn't truly going to be over, it's going to evolve, and eventually become space civilization. There needs not be a game over, because it would be possible to put yourself in a position where you cannot continue due to poor planing, too many failures, and bad management. 

Career mode should make it feel like you are running an organization, managing the funds, planing the next steps, and all this should be done to achieve your own spacey goals. Running an organization is like a whole other design challenge, where a rocket needs to have stages  sequenced, fuel to weight  optimizated and so on.

I think it would be wrong to bog the player down with lots of budgeting and spreadsheets. But the economic aspect should at least be presented in a way that feels authentic. 

This is what I've always felt career is lacking. It does not bring to life this side of running a space program. OK, it does sorta, but only a little. 

The simplified scanning, science which is just delivering parts to locations, stuff like paying for kerbals as a one of... (if it still works like that?) really put me of career because it didn't have the same verisimilitude as the rest of the game. While not entirety realistic, most of the time it sorta made sense. 

Simplification of the flight sim are usually omissions, like reaction wheel saturation or life support, rather than something which seems quite different to what might happen in real life, which is what a lot of the career mode seems like. 

Needing to find something more common in space, because it's unaffordable to get from Kerbin? That makes sense. Can't use a part because earlier versions haven't been tested in enough space environments? That could also make sense. 

I argue that a regular payment, based on achievements / time, would be a much better way to fund the program, rather than just individual contracts. That's something I'd love to see added. 

This would need to be balanced by having ongoing costs, and a need for more money should you expand operations, be they on the ground, or in space. Kerbals deserve a salary. 

The tech tree, contracts, or building the space center, should not be the main reason for players to go to space. Give us reasons to explore things to discover, changeable environments to monitor, and reasons to develop places for ourselves.

Kerbal could be far more than a building and flight game. It could also be a science game. And a perhaps even a proper tycoon game, like in the original pitch. 

To sum up, I wish for KSP2 to feel like less of like a fairly average game tacked on on top of a fantastic contraption builder  and spaceflight sim, and more like a full space program, space exploration experience. 

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Tw1

[Starhawk]

14 hours ago, tater said:

There is no answer to the question: "Are there space programs on Kerbin that are not owned by the player?" that is not "Yes."

I have to disagree with this point.

I certainly imagine that the corporate world on Kerbin has become interested in space after it has been explored by the player and that they eventually try their own launches and that is what results in stranded kerbals in need of rescue.

But my particular head canon has nothing like a competing space program to the one I am operating.

As @Snark keeps pointing out, there are so many different ways to play this game and so many different things that players want/expect/enjoy that the designers have a real challenge on their hands.

As far as the different ways of enjoying the game, one thing that comes to mind for me is the concept of time.
I am still surprised that so many players don't just time warp until the current mission reaches it's destination.  I have played some careers filling the time with other missions, but for the most part I like to play one mission at a time and I don't even bat an eye at warping ahead several years if that is the next interesting point in the mission.  It always seemed to me that the designers had that in mind when they put the game together.
From what I read, I am in the minority as far as the way I think about time and time warping.  I am very pleased that the game allows for both play styles and is open enough that it accommodates players who enjoy approaching the game in very different ways.

I always thought that if time was to become a more significant factor, the economics would be a way to do that.
For instance if there were monthly operating costs for KSC or even for each of the facilities.  That would definitely force the player to fill time during long missions with missions that would keep the lights on in the meantime.

I wonder if time will matter more in the new 'progression mode' of KSP2.

Happy landings!
 

[tater]

1 minute ago, Starhawk said:

I have to disagree with this point.

Did you launch the kerbals that appear for rescue contracts, yes, or no?

If the answer is "no," someone else did.

There is another space program by definition, if you think otherwise, you are simply wrong.

[Snark]

23 minutes ago, tater said:

If the answer is "no," someone else did.

There is another space program by definition, if you think otherwise, you are simply wrong.

Either that, or else you have a different headcanon from tater's, difficult though that may be to imagine.

The point is that different people have different ways of looking at the game.  Just because they're different from yours doesn't mean that they (or you) are wrong.

[Starhawk]

19 minutes ago, tater said:

There is another space program by definition, if you think otherwise, you are simply wrong.

I must disagree with this statement.

As @Snark pointed out above, there are other possible explanations for other players in their own head canons.

While I get that you don't view it that way, that does not mean that others are simply wrong.

The various ways that players fill in the gaps using their imaginations is one of the great attractions of this game.

Happy landings!

[Tw1]

29 minutes ago, Starhawk said:

I certainly imagine that the corporate world on Kerbin has become interested in space after it has been explored by the player and that they eventually try their own launches and that is what results in stranded kerbals in need of rescue.

This is my Headcanon too. Whether or not this counts as a space program depends on what you consider a space program. 

[tater]

42 minutes ago, Snark said:

Either that, or else you have a different headcanon from tater's, difficult though that may be to imagine.

The point is that different people have different ways of looking at the game.  Just because they're different from yours doesn't mean that they (or you) are wrong.

This is not debatable.

Please, explain where the kerbals that the game even tells you don't belong to you came from. be precise.

You say there's a different way of looking at it. I'm all ears, where did the kerbals in spacesuits, in ships, on other planets in the solar system come from who need rescue? How do the other companies (requesting rescue) know there is a guy around a planet only you have ever visited?

 

36 minutes ago, Tw1 said:

This is my Headcanon too. Whether or not this counts as a space program depends on what you consider a space program. 

So kerbals (trained as astronauts) in spacesuits, inside spacecraft around or on other worlds were not sent by a space program? Do tell.

42 minutes ago, Starhawk said:

I must disagree with this statement.

As @Snark pointed out above, there are other possible explanations for other players in their own head canons.

While I get that you don't view it that way, that does not mean that others are simply wrong.

The various ways that players fill in the gaps using their imaginations is one of the great attractions of this game.

Happy landings!

Explain, I'm all ears. There are so many plausible explanations, coming up with a good one must be easy.

Magic?

Edited September 4, 2019 by tater

[tater]

When it was just kerbals, people might have suggested an explosion that somehow orbited them. I'm willing to take that as an edge case (odd that they're near an explosion of that magnitude in a space suit, but whatever). If so, demonstrate this is possible by doing it (make something that is not a rocket (space program!) that throws them into space into a perfectly circular LKO. You've now explained LKO lone kerbals. What about ones in a capsule or lander can? OK, now what about those landed on another world. All you need do is demonstrate it's possible. So thrown from Kerbin with escape velocity in a way they can land anywhere in the solar system where rescue contracts exist, without dying, and without being in anything that could be construed as a spacecraft (because that would be a space program).

Also, if they are at a world that you as the player visited, but did not leave comms, and you later get a rescue contract there, how did they know there was someone there, the only spacecraft ever to be there (requiring a high gain antenna to transmit) was yours, and it is no longer there, so the place is 100% out of any communication with Kerbin. Magic? Telepathy? (in which case why can't I transmit with telepathy?)

Edited September 4, 2019 by tater

[Tw1]

58 minutes ago, tater said:

So kerbals (trained as astronauts) in spacesuits, inside spacecraft around or on other worlds were not sent by a space program? Do tell

For the record, I do imagine there being other space programs, just secondary ones that follow along after the players main ones. 

But consider: Commercial space travel with staff. Mining operations using manned serveryers. Commercial satalite companies with operatives who do in space maintenance. In the stock kerbal universe, the downsides of manned launches are not as steep, so it could be possible. 

I wouldn't call commercial space operations a space program. In my mind, that requires then to be doing exploratory stuff. Science and technology development for it own sake, rather than a commercial interest, but there's some blurriness there. I think it's worth considering space business and launch providers their own things, if they aren't out there trying reach new fronteers. 

 

But this is getting of topic. Shall we go back to discussing each other's ideas about KSP2, and gameplay? I think this is going to end up one of those things were we could spend forever nitpicking each others personal associations with worlds. 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Tw1

[Snark]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Please, explain where the kerbals that the game even tells you don't belong to you came from. be precise.

*shrug*

Why should he?  People like what they like, and form their own opinions according to their own needs.  It could be magic ponies sprinkling pixie dust.  If it works for him, that's all that matters.  After all, nobody's opinion is more "right" than anyone else's-- that's what an "opinion" is.

Lest we forget, this is the "Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2" thread, not about whose opinion is "right".  It's a place for people to say, "here's what I hope the game does or doesn't do", and find out what other people are hoping.

And naturally, whatever anyone expresses, in that regard, is "right".  They're just saying what they like, and trying to argue with that would be pointless, like trying to have an argument over which ice cream flavor is better, vanilla or chocolate.  (Chocolate.)

Of course, there's nothing wrong with asking about someone else's thoughts or opinions, out of curiosity.  After all, we're all friends here (right?), and lots of us are interested in each other's views.  For example, when you were expressing your own viewpoints, I was interested (precisely because they're not a carbon copy of my own), so I asked about it.  You've got a fresh (to me) viewpoint, naturally I'm gonna be interested in your ideas-- maybe I'll hear something that I like, or that didn't occur to me.  And even if it's something that's contrary to my own likes, it's still worth learning about, isn't it?

And as it turned out, you have a variety of ideas, some of which I agree with, others of which I'm diametrically opposed to-- which of course is fine.  Certainly no reasonable person would try to argue with you about what you like.  Just as no reasonable person would expect everyone to like the same things.

So it's fine to ask about others' opinions, if one is interested in that.  But trying to argue that someone likes a "wrong" thing achieves nothing.

We've wandered fairly far afield from the topic at this point, so I'm going to leave the matter there in hopes that the thread may perhaps inch a little closer back to the rails.    Thanks for explaining your opinion, I feel that I understand your viewpoint now, which is what I was interested in.  I've expressed my own already, FWIW, so there's no need to belabor that point further.

[TBenz]

1 hour ago, tater said:

So kerbals (trained as astronauts) in spacesuits, inside spacecraft around or on other worlds were not sent by a space program? Do tell.

"Space Program" often refers to a government agency, such as NASA, or Roscosmos. I haven't seen it formally defined one way or another, but an argument could be made that "Space Program" is a distinctly governmental affair, and private space companies are just private space companies. Either way, it's clear that these Kerbals were launched by private companies, seeing as how you get the missions to recover them from the exact same private companies. And whether or not you might refer to these private companies as "space programs", they don't seem like the type of entities that would be racing you to the Mun at great expense for nothing more than bragging rights.  

[tater]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Why should he?  People like what they like, and form their own opinions according to their own needs.  It could be magic ponies sprinkling pixie dust.  If it works for him, that's all that matters.  After all, nobody's opinion is more "right" than anyone else's-- that's what an "opinion" is.

Lest we forget, this is the "Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2" thread, not about whose opinion is "right".  It's a place for people to say, "here's what I hope the game does or doesn't do", and find out what other people are hoping.

The original point that brought this up was the fact (not opinion) extant KSP has other entities sending stuff into space that are not controlled by the player, they are just mostly unseen in the game---except for their stranded kerbals and equipment which are stock contracts, and hence KSP canon. People can delude themselves at will, but in a game about little green people making a space program, when you find identical people in space, who are in identical suits riding inside the same spacecraft parts YOU buy, Occam's Razor says it's a space program/company/whatever, not pixies.

Since those are a thing in stock KSP, and Squad lacked the resources (and code base?) to make them more complex in a way that worked for people's machines, it would be a reasonable "hope and wish" for them to take a thing that is already demonstrably in KSP (alternate space programs), and flesh them out a little.

 

1 hour ago, TBenz said:

"Space Program" often refers to a government agency, such as NASA, or Roscosmos. I haven't seen it formally defined one way or another, but an argument could be made that "Space Program" is a distinctly governmental affair, and private space companies are just private space companies. Either way, it's clear that these Kerbals were launched by private companies, seeing as how you get the missions to recover them from the exact same private companies. And whether or not you might refer to these private companies as "space programs", they don't seem like the type of entities that would be racing you to the Mun at great expense for nothing more than bragging rights.  

They leave kerbals and equipment all over the solar system, and before the player builds any infrastructure, so they must be exploring.

Arguing that I'm wrong to use "program"? Fine, call them launch and spacecraft providers, whatever you want to call a generic entity that sends stuff to every world in the solar system. Bottom line is that that is a thing in KSP already, it's just very poorly done. Improved KSP would take that fact and run with it. Rescue contracts? Sure, how about other entities with stations or bases that seek resupply? That's a pretty normal KSP type contract, and it might be fun to visit an alternate station/base that you didn't design. Maybe another program sends a craft to grab a asteroid, and it bumped the thing and broke the engine off, and they ask for their crew to be rescued, AND they offer more funds if you can move the thing into a stable orbit around wherever. Instead of a single kerbal in a single part, you rendezvous with a large ISRU craft attached to an asteroid with 5 crew. Even if not an explicit race, it might be cool (and instructive for new players) to see other programs flying stuff at certain launch windows. When a Duna window opens, you might see a spacecraft on the map you can check out (but not interact with) that does a TDI burn. If you highlight it, and stay in map mode, you see the maneuver it does, go to external view, and you can see what that craft looks like.

The ability to have NPC kerbals and programs (whatever you chose to name spacefaring companies/agencies/entities in a game called Kerbal Space Program) would be a useful thing to wish for. Even on the player end. I'd like to visit a station I have or a base, and as I approach there are kerbals on EVA doing stuff. Or if I leave a crew at a base, it would be nice if for a certain amount of time each day they EVA and do whatever it is kerbals do---it would make it seem more alive.

Edited September 4, 2019 by tater

[Twidget_Gray]

I would like to see Solar Sails in KSP2.

[Tw1]

I would prefer less of other space programs personally. It's more fun when I'm the Pioneer, taking the kerbals on their first steps. If there are already kerbals all over outer space, then you don't get to have those moments. 

That is why I, (and I suspect others) Headcanonn the other space endevours as secondary, following on after you've done the pioneering work. It's more fun that way.

I would prefer them not to go before us in KSP2. It would be disappointing to think you're stepping on an unvisited planet, only to find out kerbals are already there. 

Also, if they are managing all this space stuff for themselves, what did they need me for? 

Flesh 'em out, sure, could be cool, especially if things could go both ways, with you contracting supply missions and stuff to them. But let's not have them damper the feeling of settling out into the unknown. 

 

[Superfluous J]

6 hours ago, Twidget_Gray said:

I would like to see Solar Sails in KSP2.

With the announced thrust on rails, these seem to be an obvious add.

[nsgallup]

19 hours ago, Twidget_Gray said:

I would like to see Solar Sails in KSP2.

Great idea!

[GoldForest]

Just thought of something that KSP needs. Longer tanks. 
We've heard about the 2 new sizes, though we don't know what they are, but I feel we also need longer tanks, I mean, we have a super double length 5m tank, so why not super double length other tanks? And longer struts. 

I think we should have at least twice the length of some tanks now:
FL-T1600
FL-TX3600
S3-28800
Jumbo-128

Triple length wouldn't be too bad either.
FL-T2400
FL-TX5400
S3-43200
Jumbo-192

[Bartybum]

17 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Just thought of something that KSP needs. Longer tanks. 
We've heard about the 2 new sizes, though we don't know what they are, but I feel we also need longer tanks, I mean, we have a super double length 5m tank, so why not super double length other tanks? And longer struts. 

I think we should have at least twice the length of some tanks now:
FL-T1600
FL-TX3600
S3-28800
Jumbo-128

Triple length wouldn't be too bad either.
FL-T2400
FL-TX5400
S3-43200
Jumbo-192

Absolutely, holy crap. I'm sick of Jumbo 64s

Edited September 7, 2019 by Bartybum

[Technical Ben]

17 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Absolute, holy crap. I'm sick of Jumbo 64s

Procedural. I don't think they have gone in KSP2... but hopefully *will* with wings. But IMO all tank parts need to be procedural. With shrinking possible... and then last one is a jumbosizer going up to max sizes. The game really suffers from not having it at times.

On 9/4/2019 at 8:25 PM, tater said:

The original point that brought this up was the fact (not opinion) extant KSP has other entities sending stuff into space that are not controlled by the player, they are just mostly unseen in the game---except for their stranded kerbals and equipment which are stock contracts, and hence KSP canon. People can delude themselves at will, but in a game about little green people making a space program, when you find identical people in space, who are in identical suits riding inside the same spacecraft parts YOU buy, Occam's Razor says it's a space program/company/whatever, not pixies.

Since those are a thing in stock KSP, and Squad lacked the resources (and code base?) to make them more complex in a way that worked for people's machines, it would be a reasonable "hope and wish" for them to take a thing that is already demonstrably in KSP (alternate space programs), and flesh them out a little.

 

They leave kerbals and equipment all over the solar system, and before the player builds any infrastructure, so they must be exploring.

Arguing that I'm wrong to use "program"? Fine, call them launch and spacecraft providers, whatever you want to call a generic entity that sends stuff to every world in the solar system. Bottom line is that that is a thing in KSP already, it's just very poorly done. Improved KSP would take that fact and run with it. Rescue contracts? Sure, how about other entities with stations or bases that seek resupply? That's a pretty normal KSP type contract, and it might be fun to visit an alternate station/base that you didn't design. Maybe another program sends a craft to grab a asteroid, and it bumped the thing and broke the engine off, and they ask for their crew to be rescued, AND they offer more funds if you can move the thing into a stable orbit around wherever. Instead of a single kerbal in a single part, you rendezvous with a large ISRU craft attached to an asteroid with 5 crew. Even if not an explicit race, it might be cool (and instructive for new players) to see other programs flying stuff at certain launch windows. When a Duna window opens, you might see a spacecraft on the map you can check out (but not interact with) that does a TDI burn. If you highlight it, and stay in map mode, you see the maneuver it does, go to external view, and you can see what that craft looks like.

The ability to have NPC kerbals and programs (whatever you chose to name spacefaring companies/agencies/entities in a game called Kerbal Space Program) would be a useful thing to wish for. Even on the player end. I'd like to visit a station I have or a base, and as I approach there are kerbals on EVA doing stuff. Or if I leave a crew at a base, it would be nice if for a certain amount of time each day they EVA and do whatever it is kerbals do---it would make it seem more alive.

Oooh. I just mentioned this exact idea on the other thread. As in, for casual players, the "other" space programs/Kerbals could help you progress when you hit a wall. You could sit in on their launches/stations/habs. See where/when they get there, and for cash/lower points buy their "tech/science" for those who don't want to go to Moho/Jool/Eelo for the normal tech tree/science/progression... you could even just leave timewarp on and watch the AI complete all the missions (probably just auto complete them  ) . You'd "skip" to the end of the tech tree. You'd not get points, but it would allow you to start at any point in the game history. A bit like choosing 1950s/60s/70s etc, or 90s/00s/10s or even now. Choose early career, and you get small rockets, ICBMs etc... choose mid and you get shuttles. Choose late, you get SpaceX style re-use. Choose future, you get the high tech stuff. Not "cheating" just choosing the starting states.

[GoldForest]

29 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Absolute, holy crap. I'm sick of Jumbo 64s

?????

[KayTannee]

• A user friendly save system, where there's not like 3 or 4 different kind of saves. Which don't really make a whole lot of sense to the lay user.
• Planet Shine by default
• Decent stats to actually understand whats going on, ie. kerbal engineer.
• Automated systems (as progress in career), kind of like mechjeb. But taken further, should be able to have boosters land spacex style if progress far enough. Or have miner probes, ferry resources automatically even if not focuses. Espeically as resources to build massive ships more important now. Turning KSP into a kind of KSP Transport Tycoon, or Sid meier's Sim game in later stages. Build and prove something works, sort out basic logic. System will repeat in background.
• Procedural fairing, like the procedural fairing mod - but more user friendly and less janky.
• Different views in normal gameplay, airflow for example. Something that visualises whats actually causing the issue, Cities Skylines great example for in game data visualisations.
• Just basically take all the best QOL mods and merge them in and take them a bit further.

Sneaky edit as remembered stuff...

• Laser highways, set up a network of laser outputs across the solar system and beyond to push space craft around the systems. This is the most realistic (IMO) economic end goal for commercial stellar and interstellar transport.

Edited September 6, 2019 by KayTannee

[Redneck]

Voxel terrain in a limited way. Possibly a drill head/bit part for under ice exploration to go with user constructed water craft. (think ice world with ocean underneath (Europa)) on the PQS. Also enhanced IVA. (Move through interior of ship/station/craft)