What do you NOT want in KSP 2

[pandaman]

10 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Here’s another controversial topic: if there is life beyond kerbin what is the most advanced form you’d like to see?

For me, any life that prompts 2 way interraction is too advanced.

Discovering microbes, and maybe 'creepy crawlies' (worms, bugs etc) that can be observed would be ok (effectively 'upgraded' mystery goo), that can help advance science then that's not too far fetched.

But what we would possibly call 'intelligent' life that would respond to kerbals in any way, other than just bumping into and walking around them, would be a bit out of scope IMO

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by pandaman

[Dientus]

7 hours ago, pandaman said:

But what we would possibly call 'intelligent' life that would respond to kerbals in any way, other than just bumping into and walking around them, would be a bit out of scope IMO

I am of the same opinion.

 

[Superfluous J]

Free reusability.

Recovering a space craft should cost money, not refund it.

[Black Dog]

Basically everything @Stratennotblitz has proposed in one of his threads.

No conflict for control, space pirates, trade hubs, random anomalies throwing your course off, rebel repair stations, alien space gas stations or MMO-hubs.

Oh and PLEASE no leveling system where all your engines automatically get better to match the newest set.

[Bej Kerman]

On 7/26/2021 at 4:47 AM, tiriss said:

The last thing we need is ridiculous missions:  Must land on Minmus with capacity for 15 kerbals and 12000 fuel and 2000 monopropellant and the capability to rove.

What a stupid mission... I know you're autogenerating missions and adding complexity to make it difficult but fun.... But why would you EVER do such a mission.  That's like NASA sending out a mission to the moon and wanting a complex for 50 people, and an administration building and can land the now defunct space shuttles at will ..... and provides food and light and power but doesn't use solar power and cannot mine H3.

Why don't we have linear hand-written missions instead? People like procedural generation because everything's "unique" and keeps you playing for however long, but that's completely false. Procedural generation, especially in the context of KSP missions, is utterly boring and only occasionally generates things worth looking at. Look at Outer Wilds. Sure, you can't keep playing it for thousands of hours, but it's at least not boring. At least it's not garbage made by a computer that doesn't understand intricacy and context. Point being that hand-made missions have a lot more potential than generated ones.

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why don't we have linear hand-written missions instead? People like procedural generation because everything's "unique" and keeps you playing for however long, but that's completely false. Procedural generation, especially in the context of KSP missions, is utterly boring and only occasionally generates things worth looking at. Look at Outer Wilds. Sure, you can't keep playing it for thousands of hours, but it's at least not boring. At least it's not garbage made by a computer that doesn't understand intricacy and context. Point being that hand-made missions have a lot more potential than generated ones.

I've played career mode a great deal and honestly the procedural contract system is pretty impressive given the challenge, but I agree it leaves something to be desired. The main issue is that it could work as an auxiliary system for side-missions and dove-tail missions, but because of the way the game is structured its mistaken as the central progression system of the game. I agree with you that what we really need is a hand-made set of central exploration missions that bind the game together. After a brief set of tutorial/getting to orbit missions we should move right into exploration with flyby, orbit, and land missions. These could then be followed by colonization missions to establish colonies, stations, and reach various population caps. I'd be inclined to keep this relatively simple without too many fussy requirements. The trick is to create a sensible way that they unlock and progress without punishing players for getting ambitious and sending a probe to jool or setting up a base on Duna early if they can swing it. I also don't see a reason why these couldn't be surrounded by minor, optional, even procedural side-quests, but those shouldn't be the backbone of the game. I'd also hate for these to bog players down given how much there is out there to explore. I did a brief estimated breakdown of the total number of missions players should aim to complete in order to go interstellar based on a reasonable estimate of hours-played a while back, and you'll see there isn't a lot of room for fat.
 

Spoiler

Just some quick estimates: I think in principle it should be possible for a semi-experienced player to go interstellar within 100-150 hours of gameplay, or 4h/ week for 6-9 months (for reference it takes around 200h to get to level 100 in Skyrim.) Others may vary but I find I average about 2h/ mission all-in between planning, design, testing, and flight-time. That’s just 50-75 missions. How might that budget out?

1 survey probe per body: 16 missions
2 initial landings on 8 bodies (probe and/or crewed): 16 missions
2 prospecting missions on 4 bodies: 8 missions
3 asteroid/comet missions
3 colony set up missions on 2 bodies: 6 missions
4 logistics missions on 2 bodies (satellites, milk-run establishment): 8 missions
3 additional exploration/science missions on 2 bodies: 6 missions
2 interstellar probes

Total: 65 missions
 

That, plus down-time spent managing tech development, crews, colony building, and managing economies and resources probably brings you close to that 140-150h mark. Keep in mind these are just guesstimated averages, some missions will be much faster or longer than 2h and different players might spend more time on a few bodies rather than trying to visit all 16. You'll notice this isn't really that many missions to play with, but I think its about right considering this is just to get to the point where you've completed enough of the tech tree to build your first interplanetary colony ship. If you make it drastically more time consuming than that or bog players down with tedious tasks you aren't going to get most players to even start colonies, let alone explore other star systems. 

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[TheKSPBeginner]

15 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Free reusability.

Recovering a space craft should cost money, not refund it.

Why?

Bringing your expensive spaceship back home is bound to get you a lot of money back.

[pandaman]

15 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Free reusability.

Recovering a space craft should cost money, not refund it.

Whilst I get your point, and I don't disagree, I always treated the KSP1 'recovery' system as an easy 'gameplay way' to simulate recovery and re-use without needing to 'store' landed craft somewhere.

I do think 100% refund is too much, as some resources would always need to be spent checking it over etc at least, but the cost of refurbishment and re-use would generally be far less than a 'new build' so a 'partial refund' is a relatively convenient way to implement it in game,

[Stratennotblitz]

7 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Basically everything @Stratennotblitz has proposed in one of his threads.

No conflict for control, space pirates, trade hubs, random anomalies throwing your course off, rebel repair stations, alien space gas stations or MMO-hubs.

Oh and PLEASE no leveling system where all your engines automatically get better to match the newest set.

I proposed an advanced comms network guess you don't want that either

[herbal space program]

42 minutes ago, pandaman said:

Whilst I get your point, and I don't disagree, I always treated the KSP1 'recovery' system as an easy 'gameplay way' to simulate recovery and re-use without needing to 'store' landed craft somewhere.

I do think 100% refund is too much, as some resources would always need to be spent checking it over etc at least, but the cost of refurbishment and re-use would generally be far less than a 'new build' so a 'partial refund' is a relatively convenient way to implement it in game,

Not to mention that not allowing recovery and reuse of vessels and parts would be a disaster for the whole "found lying by the side of the road" line!

[herbal space program]

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why don't we have linear hand-written missions instead? People like procedural generation because everything's "unique" and keeps you playing for however long, but that's completely false. Procedural generation, especially in the context of KSP missions, is utterly boring and only occasionally generates things worth looking at. Look at Outer Wilds. Sure, you can't keep playing it for thousands of hours, but it's at least not boring. At least it's not garbage made by a computer that doesn't understand intricacy and context. Point being that hand-made missions have a lot more potential than generated ones.

I think there should be a blend of linear (actually more like a tree)  and procedural aspects to the generation of missions.  Doing some missions will be required to unlock others,  and by default the game will present you with a mission progression that starts easy and close to home and only slowly gets harder and more distant. But if you go do something ambitious spontaneously without a contract (or whatever will take their place), you'll still unlock a tree of new missions that the game will make available to you.  These will have randomized aspects but will also have various fixed objectives pertaining to that body  embedded within them. Sometimes a particular type of mission will contain one of those objectives and sometimes it won't, but once that objective is achieved, you won't get exactly that type of mission again, and the number of times you'll need to do a particular mission to get one with that objective should have a hard limit of perhaps 4. Once the objective is achieved, you'll get  new missions that spring from whatever it is you found by doing so.  I think a model like that should both cut down on the tedium of the current, very limited scope of missions and also make the linear/tree narrative(s) more replayable. To make them even more replayable, there could also be multiple paths to getting to the overarching goals of the game, ala the different victory modes in Civ, which will have distinct if sometimes overlapping trees of achievements,

[Bej Kerman]

18 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Free reusability.

Recovering a space craft should cost money, not refund it.

Because we all know Elon ditched the Falcon rockets in favour of non-reusable rockets that save money by not recovering their boosters. Point being, if there's any sense to be had in your comment, I'm not gonna be the one to see it.

[Dientus]

12 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Because we all know Elon ditched the Falcon rockets in favour of non-reusable rockets that save money by not recovering their boosters. Point being, if there's any sense to be had in your comment, I'm not gonna be the one to see it.

I wonder. How about it costing something to recover, but on the next build, those costs can THEN be recovered? This of course would not happen to pieces returning straight to a launchpad.

 

Such as K-rocket 3 launches, ditched stages (simple beginning design) pay X amount to recover, on the next build the Y amount of the value of the recovered pieces is put towards the current build. It's a more detailed twist to the "farther away from KSC" percentage of KSP1 and if you limit the building recovery reward to applying only to the planetary body the craft is being built on, then recovering Craft on Kerbin would have no effect of building a craft on Duna.

 Too complex? Or just percentage?

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Dientus

[Bej Kerman]

32 minutes ago, Dientus said:

44 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Because we all know Elon ditched the Falcon rockets in favour of non-reusable rockets that save money by not recovering their boosters. Point being, if there's any sense to be had in your comment, I'm not gonna be the one to see it.

I wonder. How about it costing something to recover, but on the next build, those costs can THEN be recovered? This of course would not happen to pieces returning straight to a launchpad.

 

Such as K-rocket 3 launches, ditched stages (simple beginning design) pay X amount to recover, on the next build the Y amount of the value of the recovered pieces is put towards the current build. It's a more detailed twist to the "farther away from KSC" percentage of KSP1 and if you limit the building recovery reward to applying only to the planetary body the craft is being built on, then recovering Craft on Kerbin would have no effect of building a craft on Duna.

 Too complex? Or just percentage?

This would just be adding unnecessary complication to what's supposed to be a simple convenient reward for not being wasteful. I would not consider it an idea worthy of consideration as it's purely based on spite for putting focus on detail where necessary rather than random, minor QOL things like recovery.

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Because we all know Elon ditched the Falcon rockets in favour of non-reusable rockets that save money by not recovering their boosters. Point being, if there's any sense to be had in your comment, I'm not gonna be the one to see it.

They re-use the rockets because it's cheaper than building a new one.

Not because it makes building a new one free.

EDIT: Okay it shouldn't ONLY cost money. There should be money spent to recover things, and then those things should be returned for money. If you recover a lot, you should get more money back but you should still need to spend money to get it, such that making your stuff reusable can cost less than just dumping it in the ocean, but landing back at the runway shouldn't make your mission free minus fuel.

Edited July 28, 2021 by Superfluous J

[herbal space program]

34 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

but landing back at the runway shouldn't make your mission free minus fuel.

Even in a single-stage space plane that you could have refueled and launched again via a docking port?

[Bej Kerman]

15 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

They re-use the rockets because it's cheaper than building a new one.

Not because it makes building a new one free.

EDIT: Okay it shouldn't ONLY cost money. There should be money spent to recover things, and then those things should be returned for money. If you recover a lot, you should get more money back but you should still need to spend money to get it, such that making your stuff reusable can cost less than just dumping it in the ocean, but landing back at the runway shouldn't make your mission free minus fuel.

What? KSC recovers parts, money comes back. I've no idea where you got 'it makes the next rocket free' from. Besides that, you're just adding overcomplication to simple QOL features. Why don't we put our efforts somewhere less worthless?

[cfds]

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

What? KSC recovers parts, money comes back. I've no idea where you got 'it makes the next rocket free' from. Besides that, you're just adding overcomplication to simple QOL features. Why don't we put our efforts somewhere less worthless?

Because recovering only saves you money if you launch the exact same vessel again. SpaceX does not save money be recovering boosters, but by reusing them.

[GKSP]

2 hours ago, cfds said:

Because recovering only saves you money if you launch the exact same vessel again. SpaceX does not save money be recovering boosters, but by reusing them.

Anyone remember the very old "in stock: 999" in the part window?  How about recovering costs a little money, but adds recovered parts to their respective stock.  If any are in stock, you don't need to pay.  Allows for a part "pre-order" function as well.

[Guest]

Well, I'd like the recovered crafts to be simply put in an inventory and kept, you can then scrap them for parts and/or resources or edit them to reload, repair and refuel for the next launch.

I would love to start name my spaceplanes.

It would go hand in hand with the colony resource system and shipbuilding and also be used as an early introduction to those mechanics.

KSP1 simplification works because KSP doesn't have extraplanetary launchpads, resources, parts manufacturing and supply lines, it would start to break apart if your routine heavy cargo seaplane between 2 Laythe colonies ends up every time with the plane sold for scrap metal for some inners money that isn't all that useful all the way out in the Joolian system.

But surely I wouldn't have put it as "recovery should cost money, period."

Edited July 30, 2021 by Master39

[GKSP]

10 hours ago, Master39 said:

Well, I'd like the recovered crafts to be simply put in an inventory and kept, you can then scrap them for parts and/or resources or edit them to reload, repair and refuel for the next launch.

I would love to start name my spaceplanes.

It would go hand in hand with the colony resource system and shipbuilding and also be used as an early introduction to those mechanics.

KSP1 simplification works because KSP doesn't have extraplanetary launchpads, resources, parts manufacturing and supply lines, it would start to break apart if your routine heavy cargo seaplane between 2 Laythe colonies ends up every time with the plane sold for scrap metal for some inners money that isn't all that useful all the way out in the Joolian system.

But surely I wouldn't have put it as "recovery should cost money, period."

Kind of like the screen that shows up with the money and science counter when you recover a vessel currently, you could be given three options after hitting the main "recover" button instead:

1. Recover
This adds all parts to your available stock of parts (you don't need to pay for them in the future if they're in stock)

2. Store
This adds the recovered vessel to some sort of storage system

3. Scrap
Converts the vessel to funds like current system in KSP1

Edited July 30, 2021 by GKSP

[pandaman]

17 hours ago, GKSP said:

Kind of like the screen that shows up with the money and science counter when you recover a vessel currently, you could be given three options after hitting the main "recover" button instead:

1. Recover
This adds all parts to your available stock of parts (you don't need to pay for them in the future if they're in stock)

2. Store
This adds the recovered vessel to some sort of storage system

3. Scrap
Converts the vessel to funds like current system in KSP1

That works, and seems relatively simple.

Then a 'recovery cost' could be paid at the time, which allows for the actual recovery cost itself, plus a 'refurbishment' cost.  Presumably even landed airliners incur some 'turnaround' costs for essential checks etc, even if it's just one guy checking the tyres and washing the windows, he still needs his wages.

I would add, although I'm sure you intended this, that stored and recovered vessels should only get added to the inventories of the planet they are landed on.

[Corona688]

On 7/12/2021 at 3:19 PM, MKI said:

I feel like limiting simple gameplay mechanic such as SAS and Kerbal ranks are too "artificial" of a limitation, and becomes more pointless later with more advanced parts and higher rank Kerbals.

I warned HarvestR about that back in the day, but it turned out to be a nonissue, because we can play whatever game mode we want.

On 7/12/2021 at 8:09 PM, Dientus said:

And some items researched don't exactly seem to fit the tiers they are assigned or the contracts that are offered.

The only thing the tiers are about is the rough order the parts were added to the game.

On 7/18/2021 at 5:28 AM, Serenity said:

But there is no need for this overhype crusade that makes KSP look like an empty shell and a broken game.

This entire forum:  "I hate this game I have 10,000 hours in"

[MKI]

3 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

I warned HarvestR about that back in the day, but it turned out to be a nonissue, because we can play whatever game mode we want.

Except there isn't really many scenarios where you fly without any kind of SAS regardless of game mode. 

Having a Pilot rotate the ship for you is a nice-to-have and a nice artificial limitation, but SAS is almost a near universal requirement for any craft except a few niche circumstances where you just don't need it, like a rover. If SAS was always available regardless of what your doing, most of the game would work the same except beginners wouldn't get tripped up over why they can't get SAS on their sputnik re-creation and it ends up tumbling out of control.

 

[Corona688]

24 minutes ago, MKI said:

Except there isn't really many scenarios where you fly without any kind of SAS regardless of game mode. 

Having a Pilot rotate the ship for you is a nice-to-have and a nice artificial limitation, but SAS is almost a near universal requirement for any craft except a few niche circumstances where you just don't need it, like a rover. If SAS was always available regardless of what your doing, most of the game would work the same except beginners wouldn't get tripped up over why they can't get SAS on their sputnik re-creation and it ends up tumbling out of control.

 

You don't "trip over" it -- the game literally tells you. The stupid place is where it is in the tech tree.  You should already have something better after having gone to all that work.