KSP2 Hype Train Thread

[The Aziz]

Also, forgot to mention - no matter how well thought out the tutorials are, many newbies will want to go big from the start. Building a Saturn V replica on day 1, even if without required flying skill they will only manage to get it no further than LKO. Falcon Heavies, aiming for Duna etc.

Give them 1.25m parts on the start of the Science/Progression mode and they won't know how to utilize them after using 3.75m all the time.

Edited February 1, 2023 by The Aziz

[GoldForest]

8 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

There's two different views on that but I personally agree with Vl3d (and that rarely happens). Showing new player EVERYTHING, full set of few hundred parts may be overwhelming, just like I was when I returned to KSP around 0.23, it already had much more parts than when I played previously around 0.9. Thankfully the science mode was available so I switched to that.

Gradually introducing new player to more parts, mechanics, along with respective tutorials sounds safe. Why many non-sandbox games don't give you full arsenal and heaviest bosses to beat from the start, but instead give you entry level gear and easy enemies? So you can learn how basic things work before heading into the unknown.

Hmmm. Well, I feel like exploration mode is going to be difficult, seeing as you actually have to explore and achieve milestones, from what I remember. A new player is going to fail many times starting a new game. That failure might lead to them becoming dissuaded in playing more, where as in Sandbox, you fail, no big deal. You don't gain anything, but you don't lose anything either. 

3 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

We don't know how those modes look like in KSP2. Some other games, like Astroneer, do a good in introducing players to gameplay elements. And it's a given that KSP2 career mode will be completely different from KSP1 career mode — not to mention that there might be other modes and missions available for beginners.

In KSP1 that statement is certainly true, due to the frankenformat of career progression, but it's easy to assume that this will be something where KSP2 can greatly improve upon.

Yes, I know. Exploration mode is the new career mode. Focuses on exploration and milestones. At least, from what I remember hearing about it with the limited information Intercept puts out. I didn't say KSP 1's career mode will be the same. I even say in the reply you reply that it focuses heavily on exploration. 

As for different modes, I doubt there will be anything but two modes. Sandbox and Exploration. Nate said it himself. They got rid of science mode and career mode and are creating a new game mode with emphasis on exploration. 

2 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Also, forgot to mention - no matter how well thought out the tutorials are, many newbies will want to go big from the start. Building a Saturn V replica on day 1, even if without required flying skill they will only manage to get it no further than LKO. Falcon Heavies, aiming for Duna etc.

Give them 1.25m parts on the start of the Science/Progression mode and they won't know how to utilize them after using 3.75m all the time.

Hmmm, didn't think about that. I guess in that respect, limitations would be nice. 

Perhaps a Sandbox Beginners mode? It unlocks parts over time instead of with science, so they can play but don't have to worry about unlocking or exploring. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Hmmm. Well, I feel like exploration mode is going to be difficult, seeing as you actually have to explore and achieve milestones, from what I remember. A new player is going to fail many times starting a new game.

From what I understood about the progression they described and all the exploration based stuff is going to come into play later, during the interplanetary/colonial phase of the game.

That would give the advanced players something to do beyond the Kerbin SOI phase and reduce the load of new mechanic dropped on new players at the beginning.

[Kerbart]

32 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

That failure might lead to them becoming dissuaded in playing more, where as in Sandbox, you fail, no big deal. You don't gain anything, but you don't lose anything either.

How would failure in Exploration mode be any different? Since we're in "Nate said so himself" territory, didn't he say that there were no dead ends (running out of money) in Exploration mode?

I still think it's wise to wait until the game is published — even if there's no learning mode there still might be missions or other learning trajectories we're not aware of. I don't think Sandbox is well suited with its plethora of large parts which lead to harder to build rockets. The reason it is better suited in KSP1 is because career didn't exactly give beginners the parts they needed most either. That doesn't mean it remains the preferred mode when better means are available, or when Exploration mode does have a better balanced "tech tree" (or whatever mechanism is used to make bigger/better/faster gradually available).

[tstein]

1 hour ago, WelshSteW said:

 

I'm torn on this. Will they really want to attract new players to an EA version of the game? Or is the EA version for us, and they'll hype up the marketing and publicity when the game is coming up for 'proper' release?

 

That is what I keep saying. While not in game industry, my company do not want to draw new costumers with our experimental  new products, only when they are validated, by a specific type of costumer that we know are not going to rage if something need to be changed)  we want them to  be tried by everyone.   It is very very bad marketing to sell a product  with 80% of its features for the  general public that  still needs to be convinced.

[mcpattyp]

I have been fairly pessimistic on KSP 2 in general, but I’m done being a naysayer. At this point, with the game only 3 weeks away, I’m just going to hold my opinions internally and either verify or prove them wrong once EA releases

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Mmmm. Considering that career mode will put heavily emphasis on exploration, I completely disagree with your view. Newbies should play sandbox with all parts. They should learn what each part does for themselves. Build rockets, planes, rovers without constraint. Then when they're ready, then I would suggest a career/exploration mode. Because then they'll have the knowledge needed to go and explore the universe. If they jump into exploreation mode without knowing what they're doing, they're going to get frustrated, and they're going to quit, possibly never to return. 

So, yes, sandbox mode first, exploration mode second. 

I hated this part about sandbox when I started. I found the part selection overwhelming and there was too much data to take in to even know where to start.

9 minutes ago, mcpattyp said:

I have been fairly pessimistic on KSP 2 in general, but I’m done being a naysayer. At this point, with the game only 3 weeks away, I’m just going to hold my opinions internally and either verify or prove them wrong once EA releases

A refreshingly new outlook xD

[Vl3d]

3 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I hated this part about sandbox when I started. I found the part selection overwhelming and there was too much data to take in to even know where to start.

Agree, it's just too much complexity, you don't have any clue where to start. I have never played sandbox. But I do use money cheats.

[WelshSteW]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

This, right now, is the 'proper' release. Because of its limited complexity and because this is where the tutorials are released. (But I would argue that the science mode progression update is the best place for new players to start, not sandbox.)

 

No it isn't, by definition. It's Early Access.

 

Proper release will be when the game gets to v1.0 or whatever they call the first non-EA version.

 

[tstein]

40 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Agree, it's just too much complexity, you don't have any clue where to start. I have never played sandbox. But I do use money cheats.

I think worst than the  options is the lack of someone/something telling you  how to progress. The  career , even with the simplistic contracts still gave you an early  path..  launch something.. tryt to get high.. try to  orbit... good now try for the mun pass by....

 

That sequence helps a lot newcomers. It can although be covered by a good tutorial sequence that helps you all the way  to a landign in minumus (woudl do that before the mun)

[The Aziz]

All that would be needed then is a list of world's first challenges. In KSP1 they were part of contracts, here it could be just a checkbox. Launch first rocket, reach space, reach orbit, reach GKO reach polar orbit, flyby the Mun, orbit the Mun, land on the Mun, same for Minmus, reach solarcentric orbit, flyby Duna/Eve etc etc.

Edited February 1, 2023 by The Aziz

[Snafu225]

3 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

All that would be needed then is a list of world's first challenges. In KSP1 they were part of contracts, here it could be just a checkbox. Launch first rocket, reach space, reach orbit, reach GKO reach polar orbit, flyby the Mun, orbit the Mun, land on the Mun, same for Minmus, reach solarcentric orbit, flyby Duna/Eve etc etc.

That's a nice idea. Despite Sandbox not having progression, there could be a little "record keeping book" which includes all/most of the milestones. First page would include, reach 70k, orbit kerbin and those baby steps. 

Apart from that: The building interface in the VAB itself should help a lot with part complexity as apperently parts are further categorized into XS/S/M/L/etc parts. So figuring out which parts fit nicely together shouldn't be as big of a guesswork as in KSP 1, in which you rely on a "eh kinda working" sorting functionality and miniature preview pictures.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Agree, it's just too much complexity, you don't have any clue where to start. I have never played sandbox. But I do use money cheats.

why not just play science then?

[Vl3d]

22 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

why not just play science then?

Because of the building / interface progression and there are a few interesting contracts - like fainting kerbals or tourism or planes or space stations that inspire me. I would not have reason to do these missions if I played science.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Vl3d

[KSACheese]

20 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Because of the building / interface progression and there are a few interesting contracts - like fainting kerbals or tourism or planes or space stations that inspire me. I would not have reason to do these missions if I played science.

I have the same thought process with career mode - contracts like "build a space station", "build a surface base", or "put a satellite here" push me to play the game in a way that I wouldn't be incentivized to in science mode.

[Missingno200]

151, the original Pokemon!
Hey uh, this is a bit stupid but has anyone heard about the N-body physics? Trying to remember if they were going to implement it or if we're stuck with patched conics still. I want to tell my cousins more about what they can expect.

[GoldForest]

6 minutes ago, Missingno200 said:

151, the original Pokemon!
Hey uh, this is a bit stupid but has anyone heard about the N-body physics? Trying to remember if they were going to implement it or if we're stuck with patched conics still. I want to tell my cousins more about what they can expect.

Patched conics, except for Rask and Rusk. The twins get N-body, iirc. 

[Missingno200]

5 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Patched conics, except for Rask and Rusk. The twins get N-body, iirc. 

Why THAT system? Why not have N-body for all of the planets?
Eh, oh well. I'll let them know about it being patched.

[The Aziz]

Because it's easier if all your ships are in stable orbits and you don't have to worry about upkeeping them in place every time a moon passes by. And since Kerbol system is untouched, means Vall will stay where it should.

And even R&R have more of a Nbody hack, where both bodies are still on rails but their gravitational pulls are affecting spacecraft as you would expect.

[GoldForest]

8 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Because it's easier if all your ships are in stable orbits and you don't have to worry about upkeeping them in place every time a moon passes by. And since Kerbol system is untouched, means Vall will stay where it should.

And even R&R have more of a Nbody hack, where both bodies are still on rails but their gravitational pulls are affecting spacecraft as you would expect.

I'm really interested in seeing how they handle the twins spinning around each other, while being tidally locked, while also being N-bodied, while also orbiting around Deb Deb. Or was it To Be Announced?

[darthgently]

I'm wondering if the existence of n-body  code for R&R in stock will make it easier for a mod to implement n-body elsewhere.  Time will tell.  There would be performance hit of course, but for thosev already playing RSS etc that likely would not be a concern

[Stephensan]

everytime i hear nbody physics, i just think "deadspace between two large gravity pulls like planets"

[The Aziz]

5 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I'm really interested in seeing how they handle the twins spinning around each other, while being tidally locked, while also being N-bodied, while also orbiting around Deb Deb. Or was it To Be Announced?

Make a virtual barycenter around both will orbit (like Jool system without Jool being anything more than a point), and since they're on rails, apply the same velocity to both, on the opposite sides of the barycenter. That solved. But make the nbody gravity from the twins affect only craft.

In KSP1 the gravity is very hacky already, Kerbol reportedly has like 1.something G. So pretty sure they can pull this off.

[tstein]

3 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I'm wondering if the existence of n-body  code for R&R in stock will make it easier for a mod to implement n-body elsewhere.  Time will tell.  There would be performance hit of course, but for thosev already playing RSS etc that likely would not be a concern

Probably it is not  a true N-body implementation or there would be no reason to not have it  always on between kerbin and the moon (the most interesting place to use it). Again NBody  is something trivial to implement (cosnider only the ships beign affected by N-gravitational pulls and only from moons and planets). The hard thing is PREDICT the orbit  in future without incurring a large computational cost and the game navigation  is completely dependent on that.

30 minutes ago, Missingno200 said:

Why THAT system? Why not have N-body for all of the planets?
Eh, oh well. I'll let them know about it being patched.

99% sure it is because of  interface.  Simulate n-body  is easy, really easy. The hard part is predict future orbits. So  you cannot plot a parametrized orbit and see if it intersects another parametrized orbit ... you need to iterate the simulation until  that point.  Sicne you do not knwo how far you need to go into the future you need to spend quite a bit  or processing to  compute it.  Ye sin a few second you could extend current orbit by several months of prediciton no problem.. that is easy. the problem is.. how to show the orbit while you are accelerating? you will not be able to update the orbits 3 years ahead in time while you are accelerating.

[GoldForest]

34 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Make a virtual barycenter around both will orbit (like Jool system without Jool being anything more than a point), and since they're on rails, apply the same velocity to both, on the opposite sides of the barycenter. That solved. But make the nbody gravity from the twins affect only craft.

In KSP1 the gravity is very hacky already, Kerbol reportedly has like 1.something G. So pretty sure they can pull this off.

AH, I guess they could make a fake point. 

I was thinking they might do something like one of those fake orbits where the two are in the same orbit, but one is slightly offset. Like the ISS and it's 'orbiting' satellite.