Blocker features in KSP2 -- what would stop you from playing it?

[Curveball Anders]

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

But weapons cause explosions

Or death.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Curveball Anders said:

Or death.

But also explosions.

[Guest]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

But also explosions.

Okay, so you want to play game that (1) doesn't have complications like CommNet, atmospheric heating, or G-forces, but (2) does have weapons and explosions.

Remind me, why are you playing KSP again?

[James Kerman]

Some content has been removed. If you have a differing opinion you are more than welcome to discuss in a polite manner however personal attacks will not be tolerated as they bring conflict to the forum with no benefit to the community.

[Dirkidirk]

On 2/29/2020 at 3:28 PM, Brikoleur said:

Okay, so you want to play game that (1) doesn't have complications like CommNet, atmospheric heating, or G-forces, but (2) does have weapons and explosions.

Remind me, why are you playing KSP again?

*cough*

 

 

( I think he's joking)

Edited March 9, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[archiebald]

Not sure if this has been said yet, but blockers for me would be;

• Only available on Steam (I avoid it like the plague).
• Taking itself too seriously as a space-sim, don't lose the frivolous humor.

What I would love to see is;

• Methods to reduce part counts (weldable parts, etc. [which would also simplify refueling])
• Easier management of input controllers (I use a 6DOF mouse but can't utilize it fully in KSP1)

 

 

[Dashthecat1]

On 8/31/2019 at 1:06 PM, Klapaucius said:

I don't know how much in the background coding this complicates things, but it seems to me you could easily make everyone happy by having a difficulty setting--like you do for example in Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak or even some of the RPGs.   This would appear in the start screen along with choosing sandbox or the new "progression" mode (I don't know if that is the official name or not). 

 

Easy mode (or easier mode, there should be no really easy in KSP): just like KSP as we know it.

Medium: Same as above but with orbital decay

Hard: Full life support, orbital decay, fuel issues etc.

 

And leave the rest for the modding community.

 

BTW:  Reading between the lines from interviews so far, I think there is going to be some form of autopiloting, so it is conceivable that issues like decay can be managed without too much difficulty. This is, of course,  only speculation.

Maybe not difficulty but I think it would be great if they added individual settings instead of grouping them into difficulties. Lets say you wanted to have the challenge of different types of fuel, but didn't want the hassle of life support or orbital decay. then you could just use one setting instead of lumping them together as difficulties.

[Guest]

My issue with features like orbital decay and realistic LS is that they don't really add difficulty, they add tedium. Manually correcting decaying orbits isn't fun, it's boring, and manually running supplies to craft so they can maintain their orbits or LS isn't fun either, it's also boring. To not be boring, you need a way to automate it away: set up automatic resupply missions, and have automatic orbit keeping.

In that case, the features become pointless unless there are some other gameplay benefits. How is orbital decay with automatic orbit-keeping and automatic resupply different from no orbital decay? If it's not, what's the point of it?

Orbital decay makes sense if it's a side effect of some other system that does add meaningful gameplay. N-body or 3-body physics, for example, which would add Lagrange points, binaries, and what have you, which would add some interesting possibilities. 

Realistic LS makes sense if it's a component in a larger gameplay system involving setting up a network of supply lines for and between colonies and outposts, with automatically flown missions.

But I do not think that realism for the sake of realism makes a lot of sense, and it makes even less sense if it adds tedium without really adding challenge.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Guest

[Bartybum]

On 3/1/2020 at 7:28 AM, Brikoleur said:

Okay, so you want to play game that (1) doesn't have complications like CommNet, atmospheric heating, or G-forces, but (2) does have weapons and explosions.

Remind me, why are you playing KSP again?

Because he likes explosions, clearly. I'm surprised you two are taking Bej seriously lmao

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Because he likes explosions, clearly. I'm surprised you two are taking Bej seriously lmao

He's a KSP fan like the rest of us. I listen to his opinions just as much as everybody else's, even if I disagree with them.

[Bartybum]

7 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

He's a KSP fan like the rest of us. I listen to his opinions just as much as everybody else's, even if I disagree with them.

You misunderstand me. He's just playing around

[Bej Kerman]

On 2/29/2020 at 8:28 PM, Brikoleur said:

Okay, so you want to play game that (1) doesn't have complications like CommNet, atmospheric heating, or G-forces, but (2) does have weapons and explosions.

Remind me, why are you playing KSP again?

i never said I didnt want those in the game, but I should have the choice to disable any of them, Commnet in my case, because I don't always have enough time to play KSP """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""properly""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".

[Vegatoxi]

On 2/28/2020 at 1:29 PM, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

On 2/26/2020 at 5:57 PM, Vegatoxi said:

1. No presistent universe in MP = NO BUY!
2. No subterrain environment = NO BUY!
3. No realistic aerodynamic = NO BUY!
4. No terrain modification = NO BUY!
5. No dedicated servers = NO BUY!
6. No native BD armory = NO BUY!
7. No procedural wings = NO BUY!
8. No clouds = NO BUY!

To be continue...

1.Why    2. Why?  3.Mods are here for a reason  4. Why would you need that?  5. Probably  6. KSP has never been a game fit for weapons, make your own https://kerbalx.com/jeb_/Lupus-short-range-guided-missile  7.Then go play Simpleplanes  8. Done

1. Cuz i dont want to start from scratch every day or week.

2. Cuz it's also part of exploration.

3. There is no such mods. At all

4. Quality of life thing

5. I need to be sure.

6. Times change™

7. I dont want go to simpleplanes. Especially in case where even KSP have it with mods and it's much better than stock wings.

8. Ok.

[Dirkidirk]

39 minutes ago, Vegatoxi said:

1. Cuz i dont want to start from scratch every day or week.

2. Cuz it's also part of exploration.

3. There is no such mods. At all

4. Quality of life thing

5. I need to be sure.

6. Times change™

7. I dont want go to simpleplanes. Especially in case where even KSP have it with mods and it's much better than stock wings.

8. Ok.

1. why would you have to start from scratch every day or week just because there isn't a 24/7 server? just play on your own. (also the management of that server would be insane or something, there are already plenty of problems with a private server with like 6 people).

2. not something that warrants not buying the game.

3. why exactly do you wan't Realistic aerodynamics in the first place? also read 2.

4. read 2.

5. ok

6. just get a mite srb and a nose cone and you are off! why do you need weapons anyway. were they the reason you bought ksp? read 2.

7. well they might add it, but again read 2. and I thought that the focus of kSp was Spac- oh yeah, spaceplanes.

8. Ok.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Dirkidirk

[mikegarrison]

I'm not likely to buy KSP2 precisely because I've played over 2000 hours of KSP. It sounds like they are remaking it too closely. Seems like a lot of "been there, done that" to me.

[DunaManiac]

23 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

6. Times change™

"Times change" Is not exactly a reason why weapons should be allowed in the game.

[sturmhauke]

On 2/26/2020 at 6:57 AM, Vegatoxi said:

3. No realistic aerodynamic = NO BUY!

On 2/28/2020 at 2:29 AM, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

3.Mods are here for a reason

On 3/5/2020 at 3:07 PM, Vegatoxi said:

3. There is no such mods. At all

You sure about that?

 

[Superfluous J]

100% blocker feature for me: No options.

 

[LittleBitMore]

This post is becoming kind of flamey. These posts are mostly borderline condescending or almost attack-ey.

Think: if you can reply to a post with "SHOTS FIRED!" or "OHHHHHHHHHH", then it's probably flamey. And I'm seeing a lot of these. I am nowhere near the right position to say "stop being so rude to eachother", but this is probably where a majority of fights on the KSP Forums break out: threads on controversial KSP2 topics.

If you'd like me to provide examples, I can. Open the spoiler.

Spoiler

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

100% blocker feature for me: No options.

 

It seems like the argument over on that post (which was pretty heated as is) has begun to leak out into this post. This is openly offending this feature suggestion, for Pete's sake.

2 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

On 2/26/2020 at 6:57 AM, Vegatoxi said:

3. No realistic aerodynamic = NO BUY!

On 2/28/2020 at 2:29 AM, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

3.Mods are here for a reason

On 3/5/2020 at 3:07 PM, Vegatoxi said:

3. There is no such mods. At all

You sure about that?

This is condescending if I ever saw it.

 

I don't have to provide more examples, because these are the two bottom most posts. I had to scroll up an inch to see these.

I think this post needs to calm down. I could be overreacting (it's happened before), but this post is most definitely heating up. the entire KSP2 subforum is heating up, but this specifically is getting a little too heated for my liking.

I would like something to be done about this. I'm pretty sure none of us want such a major topic closed, so why don't we all just try our bests to be constructive instead of loudly disagreeing with each other?

Edited March 7, 2020 by LittleBitMore
formatting

[Bartybum]

Amen, wouldn't mind if people were kinder to each other.

Big deal if someone wants weapons in stock. I don't care much for weapons either, but there's no need to gate-keep over different tastes.

"WeApOnS dOn'T bElOnG iN KsP"

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, maaan

Peeps definitely need so be a bit more tolerant of one another.

Edited March 7, 2020 by Bartybum

[Guest]

Getting a bit meta, but my utopia isn't one where everybody agrees about everything. It's one where people disagree about things, recognise that they disagree about those things, respect each other nevertheless, and are able to find common ground in areas in which they do not disagree, while going their separate ways -- and advocating for and against -- in the areas of disagreement.

I'm pretty sure that there is a pretty broad and pretty deep common ground here about what KSP2 ought to be about: building spaceships and sending them to exciting new far-flung locations. Surely we can agree to disagree about options, metallic hydrogen, the advisability of building it on Unity, console ports and the characteristics thereof, whether and how life support should be implemented, and so on and so forth, without losing sight of this common ground?

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

  

On 3/1/2020 at 5:41 AM, Dirkidirk said:

*cough*

Keep away! Keep away!

 

On 2/29/2020 at 11:28 PM, Brikoleur said:

so you want to play game that (1) doesn't have complications like CommNet, atmospheric heating, or G-forces, but (2) does have weapons and explosions.

Unguided rockets don't need CommNet. In orbit they also don't need g-forces.
So, shooting at sats with Hydra's looks fine with that.

On 3/4/2020 at 1:26 PM, Brikoleur said:

Manually correcting decaying orbits isn't fun, it's boring

It gives a purpose to regular flights and refuelling process. Otherwise you just have an Immortan Jeb in a barrel orbiting around Kerbin.

On 3/4/2020 at 1:26 PM, Brikoleur said:

To not be boring, you need a way to automate it away: set up automatic resupply missions, and have automatic orbit keeping.

This makes sense when you have orbital stations across all the planetary system. And several mods do this. And anyway you have to refuel them from time to time, and most of them orbit around airless bodies.
But how could it be boring to supply 1-2 orbital stations.

On 3/4/2020 at 1:26 PM, Brikoleur said:

Orbital decay makes sense if it's a side effect of some other system that does add meaningful gameplay. N-body or 3-body physics, for example, which would add Lagrange points,

If the Lagrange point was inside the atmosphere, the Moon would fall long ago.
Air drag and gravity of the 3rd body are unrelated sources of the orbit decay.

[Superfluous J]

13 hours ago, LittleBitMore said:

If you'd like me to provide examples, I can.

I will admit that was posted in haste and was more directed than it could have been, but I really don't think I'd want a KSP with no way to pick and choose my options.

The first couple hundred hours of KSP I played the way the devs wanted me to play. The remaining thousands were the way I wanted to play.

[Leopard]

personally for LS and orbital decay/station keeping stuff there are two easy solutions, the obvious one is a toggle in an options menu, personally the better option is roughly thus:

as the player you are meant to be at the cutting edge, doing things for the first time, exploring the boundaries, you are not micro managing everything though. so lob a satellite up, baby sit it for a while - some sort of alarm when its orbit changes more than say 1km at Ap or Pe, you go back, correct it, once you have done that a few times successfully its now "routine" and can be managed automatically - as long as the thing has fuel - so you can either re-supply or replace over time.

for a space station say you design a fuel launcher, you fly it a few times, once its reliability is above 'x'% again it can be automated - pay the cost and you can have a launch every few months or whatever.

provides a point to developing reliable re-supply craft, without the need to actually fly each and every one of them yourself - also means you could arrive at your space station to find a tanker craft on final approach and just sit back to watch, or find the one docking port is occupied at present, your call is important, please hold..

I would like the sort of difficulty thing the console version used to have but no longer does. you have 'easy', 'medium', hard' and custom, can click one of the first then change it, use it as a basic template - the ability to then save those settings to use again would be nice

[Guest]

^
Something like this but with even less grind. I don't want to have to fly a routine mission a few times before I can automate it. A minimal comms relay constellation is three satellites. If I have to fly a resupply mission to each of them three times to demonstrate reliability, that's nine missions. If I'm playing a probes-heavy career, I have constellations around all bodies I'm interested in; in the last one I played that was Kerbin, Mun, Minmus, Duna, Eve, Moho, Tylo, Dres, and Eeloo. With three missions each that would mean 27 milk runs, just for the relays. And this was just in the Kerbolar system, and just for the relays. 

I could not put up with that level of tedium. If LS and/or orbital decay and/or N-body orbits are in, they need something more than that to stop the game turning into even more of a mind-numbing grind.