FTL travel/special relativity

[mcwaffles2003]

3 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

No optional features. Either make it good enough and well enough integrated into the gameplay that everybody needs it, or don't implement it at all.

Last I checked... commnet was optional but yet you still defend it...

I don't agree with this at all, the only way to play should be the one way you like? why not allow people to set difficulties by allowing more restricting features?

6 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

A glider can be passively stable (should be, in fact), but when re-entering, a passively stable glider will go through the atmosphere like a greased cat and then burn to a crisp. To brake for entry, it has to present a high angle of attack, which requires control input.

I don't know if glider probes are a thing IRL, but they're certainly a thing in KSP -- and I can't see why glider probes would not work IRL as well, assuming we had a suitable planet to send them to. Venus or Titan maybe?

Why is it so bad to just put a kerbal in it?

 

[Dirkidirk]

8 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

So no more Curiosity-like missions. Gotcha.

You don't need a net for that, just a sufficiently powerful antenna. No point building relay networks anymore.

No gliders then. Gotcha.

I wouldn't like these changes because I have particularly enjoyed building relay networks, making use of them to send rovers to Eeloo and Tylo, building probe gliders and planes and sending them to Duna and Eve, and so on.

I also think it's frankly a little silly that people who are clamouring for realism are also clamouring for changes that would make analogues of some of our most famous real-life probe missions unworkable. No more Lunokhod, Curiosity, Spirit, Opportunity, because signal delay.

More realistic is not the same thing as better. If it was, KSP would have a 1:1 scale solar system, for one thing.

(I didn't understand what your second statement has to do with the question.)

I already did, didn't I? If you have probe parts with full autonomy, then that would invalidate CommNet and the emergent gameplay that comes with it. In my view that's not a worthwhile trade-off.

so it seems like signal delays should just be handled by modders.

Spoiler

although there could still be relativity in stock ksp2, and kerbals could just have some magical ftl communication like they do in ksp 1, like quantum entanglement.

 

2 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

No optional features. Either make it good enough and well enough integrated into the gameplay that everybody needs it, or don't implement it at all.

I don't use comm net, my kerbals don't go unconscious when experiencing high G's, does that mean that those feature shouldn't be there?

[Guest]

This is getting perilously close to "flogging a dead horse" territory, so I'll summarise and then drop the subject.

I would not want signal delay in the game because it would make direct control of probes over interplanetary distances as it currently works impossible. This would have the following consequences, some which are either outright losses, or require significant new systems to support them, or both:

1. Space probes would likely be workable with a built-in MechJeb (require signal to create manoeuvre nodes, the probe will then execute them when it gets to them regardless). Requires implementing a built in MechJeb (new system), which shifts the game's focus away from building craft and flying them, to building craft and programming them (net negative.)
2. Rovers and atmospheric probes as they currently exist would simply not work. You can't drive a rover or fly a plane if signals take even seconds to arrive.
   • Suggestion 1: Remote control by nearby kerbals. This would significantly restrict career options and, for those who care about that stuff, be less realistic than the current system that allows probe missions that are at least vaguely similar to real-life ones. Net negative.
   • Suggestion 2: Make probes programmable: This would require a big new feature, namely, programmable probe cores, and would almost certainly make probe rovers so complicated only very few players would bother. Big negative.
   • Suggestion 3: Have fully autonomous probe cores that you can control as currently even without a signal (pretend you're the AI). This would effectively invalidate CommNet. There would be no point building relay networks, since you would only use the signal to transmit back Science, and all you need for that is one big-enough antenna. Big negative.

So: signal delay would invalidate a significant number of KSP play-styles – notably, "only probes" careers, remove a whole range of craft that can currently be designed – notably, probe rovers and probe atmospheric craft, and make CommNet pointless – since you no longer require a signal for probe control (only for programming it or transmitting back Science) there would be no point sending up relays as long as you have a big-enough antenna. 

In sum, signal delay would make KSP less enjoyable, less creative, and the missions players would create would even look less like their real-life analogues, because we would not just choose to, but have to send crewed missions everywhere to get anything done.

3 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

I don't use comm net, my kerbals don't go unconscious when experiencing high G's, does that mean that those feature shouldn't be there?

No, the opposite. It means that you shouldn't have the option of disabling the features.

[kerbiloid]

A suggestion.

Extinction mode.

Kerbal got extinct, you can send only probes, but as you don't need to live in Kerbal timeline, there is no light speed delay.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Last I checked... commnet was optional but yet you still defend it...

It should not be optional. Same thing for kerbal and part G limits, require signal for control, atmospheric heating, etc.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Guest

[kerbiloid]

Just now, Brikoleur said:

signal delay would make KSP less enjoyable, less creative

Signal delay just limits the range where you can cheat by sending uncrewed probes, rather than build a space cruiser.

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Brikoleur said:

It should not be optional. Same thing for kerbal and part G limits, require signal for control, atmospheric heating, etc.

What if some of us don't want to play the game the exact same way as you? Seriously? 

 

Your philosophy on options is simply selfish and leaves far less choice of play which will

 

2 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

 make KSP less enjoyable, less creative, 

And we will continue lacking incentive to use kerbals

[Dirkidirk]

16 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

it seems like signal delays should just be handled by modders. although there could still be relativity in stock ksp2, and kerbals could just have some magical ftl communication like they do in ksp 1, like quantum entanglement.

although only if the devs feel like it. both of those could also be options.

Spoiler

@Brikoleur sometimes there is an equal amount of people that want and don't want a feature, that's what options are for.

 

[Guest]

@Dirkidirk if half the player base doesn't want a feature, that means the feature isn't good enough and needs to be redesigned so that (almost) all the player base will want it. This is what I mean by "do it well or don't do it at all." Making a feature optional is just a license to leave it half-baked, and KSP is as flaky as it is because it has too many such half-baked features.

Consider CommNet. If you disable it, then a significant chunk of the tech tree becomes cosmetic only. The only reason you'd want to carry anything other than a Communotron 16 (or the surface-mounted version) is cosmetics. That's just silly. 

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Dirkidirk said:

although only if the devs feel like it. both of those could also be options.

  Hide contents

@Brikoleur sometimes there is an equal amount of people that want and don't want a feature, that's what options are for.

 

not to mention options make for good base mechanics for mods to build off as there is already a relating subsystem... RemoteTech would be a lot harder to have without the optional commnet system. Also, how would we make a difficulty setting without options?

 

@Brikoleur I like plasma blackouts, am I allowed to have those or do you prefer they not exist?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

@Brikoleur I like plasma blackouts, am I allowed to have those or do you prefer they not exist?

All of KSP's optional features should be mandatory. The difficulty settings should only let you tune a few constants (such as resource abundance, funds rewards, reputation rewards, and science rewards). A hardcore mode that forbids reverts and quickloads would be OK if the game wasn't so flaky that you keep losing stuff to bugs through no fault of your own. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Guest

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

The difficulty settings should only let you tune a few constants

"Light speed", 10 ticks.
30 000 ... 300 000 km/s

Or one check: "x10"

Edited February 25, 2020 by kerbiloid

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Brikoleur said:

All of KSP's optional features should be mandatory. The difficulty settings should only let you tune a few constants (such as resource abundance, funds rewards, reputation rewards, and science rewards). A hardcore mode that forbids reverts and quickloads would be OK if the game wasn't so flaky that you would lose stuff to bugs through no fault of your own. 

32 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

It should not be optional. Same thing for kerbal and part G limits, require signal for control, atmospheric heating, etc.

Why are we only allowed to play the game your way?

[Guest]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

Why are we only allowed to play the game your way?

It's not my way. It's the SQUAD way.

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Brikoleur said:

It's not my way. It's the SQUAD way.

No its not... SQUAD give us options. This is your way, and only your way.

SQUAD let me chose if I want plasma blackout, which I only have in my most recent game.

SQUAD let me play without kerbals passing out or wings snapping under g forces

Please get off your high horse, we want to select our adventure, not play yours

[kerbiloid]

Then there can be just a "Reset Default" button.

Or presets, including the "Squad Preset"

[Guest]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

SQUAD let me chose if I want plasma blackout, which I only have in my most recent game.

SQUAD let me play without kerbals passing out or wings snapping under g forces

Yes, and I contend that that was a mistake. They should have the courage to stand by their designs and not let people opt out. Leave it to modders to mod them out for those that really hate them.

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Brikoleur said:

Yes, and I contend that that was a mistake. They should have the courage to stand by their designs and not let people opt out. Leave it to modders to mod them out for those that really hate them.

Continuing conversation with you is obviously one as well, Im done.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Then there can be just a "Reset Default" button.

Or presets, including the "Squad Preset"

KSP is incredibly moddable already, and the intent is that KSP2 will be even more so. Why does it need to be insanely configurable also? Have a clear vision for the game, stay true to it, stick to it, and if someone doesn't like it, let them mod it until they do.

[Dirkidirk]

17 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

 Why does it need to be insanely configurable also?

why not?

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Dirkidirk said:

why not?

Because making something configurable makes it more complicated to test, which makes it flakier, more buggy, and generally of lower quality. (Or more expensive and for a slower release cycle, in the unlikely event that a game studio would actually prioritise QA.)

Edited February 25, 2020 by Guest

[Terwin]

22 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

KSP is incredibly moddable already, and the intent is that KSP2 will be even more so. Why does it need to be insanely configurable also? Have a clear vision for the game, stay true to it, stick to it, and if someone doesn't like it, let them mod it until they do.

From what I understand, the vast majority of players never install a mod.

As such, if there are no configuration options, the most fiscally responsible choice is to select all options so as to target what would be wanted by new/inexperienced players.

This would not involve anything that would tend to frustrate inexperienced players such as:

* No Plasma black-outs

* No Transmission delays

* No Realistic gravity or pressure limits

* Dead Kerbals will always respawn

* Generous science/funds/reputation rewards

* No advanced tweakables

* at least partial control when out of comms

etc

Basically, without options, we would all be stuck on easy mode and need to use mods for anything else.

PD bought KSP to make money, so anything that raises the bar to entry will be optional(and probably off by default) or dropped altogether. 

 

Personally, I would prefer plenty of options so that I can play the way I want with fewer (potentially unstable or slow to update) mods.

@Brikoleur what you are advocating for(no difficulty options in the base game) would require that you have lots of mods to play the way you want(which sounds distinctly different from the low-bar-to-entry easy mode).

[Dirkidirk]

2 minutes ago, Terwin said:

From what I understand, the vast majority of players never install a mod.

As such, if there are no configuration options, the most fiscally responsible choice is to select all options so as to target what would be wanted by new/inexperienced players.

This would not involve anything that would tend to frustrate inexperienced players such as:

* No Plasma black-outs

* No Transmission delays

* No Realistic gravity or pressure limits

* Dead Kerbals will always respawn

* Generous science/funds/reputation rewards

* No advanced tweakables

* at least partial control when out of comms

etc

Basically, without options, we would all be stuck on easy mode and need to use mods for anything else.

PD bought KSP to make money, so anything that raises the bar to entry will be optional(and probably off by default) or dropped altogether. 

 

Personally, I would prefer plenty of options so that I can play the way I want with fewer (potentially unstable or slow to update) mods.

@Brikoleur what you are advocating for(no difficulty options in the base game) would require that you have lots of mods to play the way you want(which sounds distinctly different from the low-bar-to-entry easy mode).

YES. 

but in the unlikely event that PD doesn't allow options in ksp2, this:

1 hour ago, Dirkidirk said:

so it seems like signal delays should just be handled by modders.

Spoiler

although there could still be relativity in stock ksp2, and kerbals could just have some magical ftl communication like they do in ksp 1, like quantum entanglement.

 

is what I want to be. 

[Guest]

If the game is well designed it will have an on-ramp that eases players into that complexity. KSP2 should absolutely not make easymode the baseline. On the contrary: it should make KSP1 with everything enabled the baseline, and then design a tutorial and early-game set-piece challenges that ease players into dealing with them.

Basically: KSP2 needs (1) robust base gameplay, (2) comparable complexity to KSP1 with all the options on as a baseline, with further complexity added in the colonial and interstellar phases, and (3) tutorials, early-game set-piece challenges, and documentation that eases players into it.

Of the stuff you listed, none of the things pose actual significant challenges to newbies. The only problem is if they don't understand what's going on. Comms blackouts with probes for example are immediately understandable. Signal goes away, no green line to KSC, no control, uh-oh I guess I need to wait until KSC is in range again... and hey, what's Arthur C. Kerman saying about relay sats in the hint bubble over there?

The real challenges with KSP1 for newbies are completely different. When I first started with it, I had no idea what a gravity turn or a re-entry corridor are, and consequently went straight up and then sideways to get into space, and made big craters when coming back out of space. I had no idea how RV and docking worked, and spent days screaming in frustration trying to first match orbits, then kiss docking ports. Then I was doing stupidly inefficient transfers matching inclination with Minmus, or eyeballing my way to Duna. Then I built stupidly overengineered craft like carrying massive heat shields to get through Duna's almost nonexistent atmosphere.

This is the stuff KSP2 needs to teach players -- what dV is, when and why TWR is important, how you do a Hohmann transfer, what is a transfer window, what's the best way to reach a body with an inclined orbit, how gravity pinball in the Jolian system works, and so on and so forth. Don't dumb it down: instead, make it transparent and explain the concepts as they come up.

Plasma blackout and G-limits did not enter into it at all. 

This is the kind of stuff that needs to be properly tutorialised and on-ramped in KSP2. CommNet, plasma blackout, G limits and what have you only need pop-up hints (that can be disabled) when they occur.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Guest

[Terwin]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

If the game is well designed it will have an on-ramp that eases players into that complexity. KSP2 should absolutely not make easymode the baseline. On the contrary: it should make KSP1 with everything enabled the baseline, and then design a tutorial and early-game set-piece challenges that ease players into dealing with them.

Basically: KSP2 needs (1) robust base gameplay, (2) comparable complexity to KSP1 with all the options on as a baseline, with further complexity added in the colonial and interstellar phases, and (3) tutorials, early-game set-piece challenges, and documentation that eases players into it.

Of the stuff you listed, none of the things pose actual significant challenges to newbies. The only problem is if they don't understand what's going on. Comms blackouts with probes for example are immediately understandable. Signal goes away, no green line to KSC, no control, uh-oh I guess I need to wait until KSC is in range again... and hey, what's Arthur C. Kerman saying about relay sats in the hint bubble over there?

Not everyone who might like to play with launching rockets(which does include some <5 yr olds) will understand that re-entry heating can generate plasma, and that plasma can block radio signals.  Instead they will just think the game broke and killed their ship, get frustrated, quit playing, demand a refund and rant about how broken it is to all of their friends.  Therefore, PD will not want plasma black-outs if it is not switchable.

The other ones will similarly reduce/prevent frustration and rage-quits.

Not everyone likes or will use tutorials, nor will they be consoled by a pop-up explaining that the loss of their vessel was all their fault.

I am not saying it is right, only that if KSP2 does not have any difficulty options, then the only option will be easy mode, as that will make the game accessible to the greatest number of potential players, as more players = more money and more money is the only thing T2I and thus PD really cares about.

 

That is however very unlikely, as KSP1 already has easy/normal/hard/custom difficulties, and I can't imagine KSP2 failing to have customization toggles.