KSP 1 DLCs in KSP 2

[The Aziz]

9 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Think Galileo's Planet Pack, for example.

Haven't played but as far as I know, you don't launch from the equator, the closest moon is much further and not on a circular, equatorial orbit... That is more difficult. For new player, reaching a moon as fast as they can is a better achievement than knowing how to deal with inclination changes (to reach said moon).

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

Haven't played but as far as I know, you don't launch from the equator, the closest moon is much further and not on a circular, equatorial orbit... That is more difficult. For new player, reaching a moon as fast as they can is a better achievement than knowing how to deal with inclination changes (to reach said moon).

Iota is not inclined. Ceti is though, like Minmus.

dV requirements for Iota are similar to stock, just the transfer times take longer.

It also has much less gravity, actually making it easier than the Mun.

 

The launch site could obviously be changed. I was not thinking of a carbon copy of GPP either folks.

Edited June 12, 2022 by MechBFP

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

3 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Haven't played but as far as I know, you don't launch from the equator, the closest moon is much further and not on a circular, equatorial orbit... That is more difficult. For new player, reaching a moon as fast as they can is a better achievement than knowing how to deal with inclination changes (to reach said moon).

Iota is not inclined. Ceti is though, like Minmus.

dV requirements for Iota are similar to stock, just the transfer times take longer.

It also has much less gravity, actually making it easier than the Mun.

 

The launch site could obviously be changed. I was not thinking of a carbon copy of GPP either folks.

It doesn't need to be anything other than Kerbin.  Without the Kerbol system, it would not be a Kerbal game. The very start of KSP 2 does not need to have any more challenge than the original game had, either - there are systems for you to reach and set up colonies on if you're desperate for a challenge.

[The Aziz]

So if launch site can be changed and dv requirements are nearly identical... why change anything at all? Yes the planets will be in the same positions and roughly same size, but experiences near or on surface will be different anyway:

You'll have to land much more carefully to avoid large rocks

The atmosphere itself may make your spot-on landings harder. To aim for target that is, basically, flying on IFR

The terrain itself is much more unforgiving, the only places actually risky to land on in KSP1 were Kerbin mountains, Mun poles and Dres canyon. Now there'll be plenty of such places. For example I'd avoid going anywhere near Dunian mesas if I didn't know what I was doing.

[MechBFP]

10 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

So if launch site can be changed and dv requirements are nearly identical... why change anything at all?

I am not overly concerned with the Kerin/Mun/Minus analog, those do have to be fairly straight forward for new players, I agree. However anything past that is fair game for experienced players anyway IMO and certainty being able to explore something different closer to the start of the game would be refreshing.
As I already said, the planets are going to be quite different from a surface perspective, so that part of the gameplay is fine. However the aerobraking, dV required, etc, is all going to be identical. Perhaps veteran players will have the ability to go interstellar quite a lot sooner than new players, if they are good enough, which would be okay with me as a work around.

I am somewhat dreading being locked into the Kerbin system for an extended period of time, as I highly prefer the progression mode over sandbox.

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Without the Kerbol system, it would not be a Kerbal game.

"Without Morrowind it just would not be an Elder Scrolls game!"

"Without Vault 13 it would not be a Fallout game!"

and so on.

Aside from that comment just being silly because it is a non-sequitur, there are many ways they could start the player in a new system, if they wanted to, and still have Kerbol as a destination you could visit. An alternative location could even be temporary aka a "https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ATasteOfPower" thing explained however they might wish to do it.

Many other potential story telling ways to make it an option, if they wanted to. Who knows, maybe they are planning this already and I will be pleasantly surprised. I shall see.

 

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, MechBFP said:

Aside from that comment just being silly because it is a non-sequitur

You never explain how it's a non-sequitur. 

2 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

there are many ways they could start the player in a new system, if they wanted to, and still have Kerbol as a destination you could visit

What crazy scenario leads to "we forgot how to make all the technology we had getting here, and now we want to go back to the Kerbol system"? Is starting at Kerbol and wanting to leave the familiarity of Kerbin to visit other stars too straight forward?

[Pthigrivi]

I have reasonably high hopes that the added structure of resource prospecting and colony  building and who knows what other goodies with the science system will make replaying the Kerbol system a qualitatively different experience. 

[t_v]

1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

I am not overly concerned with the Kerin/Mun/Minus analog, those do have to be fairly straight forward for new players, I agree. However anything past that is fair game for experienced players anyway IMO and certainty being able to explore something different closer to the start of the game would be refreshing.

I would like to see different starting planets as a nice quality of life feature, but I’d be happy to have it as a mod. One thing I’d like to add is that I don’t want it to be like Gael from GPP, because ideally each starting planet brings with it a new experience and not a retextured old one. Yes, inclinations and all that, but I’d like delta-v numbers to be different and for there to be different challenges wherever you start. A ringed planet would make your options for where to place your ships limited, or a planet very close to a star could be easy to get into orbit around but require a lot of delta-v to get to the next planet. I haven’t gotten to the point of being sick of the Kerbol system (and I don’t think I ever will, because it is a nice system in my opinion) but I understand the desire for a different experience once in a while. I just don’t think that it should be similar to the Kerbol system. 
 

Another reason I think that each starting planet should be different is because they have to be developed, and the easiest way I see this being implemented is by having the planets already in the game become options to start with. Similar to the arguments for RSS, having a starting system that isn’t in the default game would mean maintaining a whole system that many players wouldn’t interact with. So, the alternative starting planets should be in the game, and each planet should be unique enough to pose its own gameplay differences, not just visual differences. Starting on Ovin would be a fun challenge for experienced players, and Ovin is very distinct from Kerbin visually and gameplay-wise, and the DebDeb system is too. 

[Pthigrivi]

But like honestly how many combinations of dV challenges is even interesting? Oh on this planet you need 1900 but on this other planet its 2500! It just doesn’t matter. Where the replay value should be is in exploiting different resources and fuel types and thinking differently about where and how you build and optimize colonies and stations and outposts. You might start one game by rushing to Duna and developing the infrastructure for harvesting volatiles and uranium or another save where you focus on He3 from the moon and Xenon from Eve to move out to Jool. Maybe there are different paradigms for life support that utilize more direct sunlight to grow crops or rely more on energy intensive closed loop recycling. Im just saying the landing puzzles are great and all but the progression needs to account for more and more efficient and powerful engines that make early near-kerbin landings entirely trivial. Design the game to work well in one direction. Don’t worry about it making sense from any other starting point. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[t_v]

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

But like honestly how many combinations of dV challenges is even interesting? Oh on this planet you need 1900 but on this other planet its 2500! It just doesn’t matter. Where the replay value should be is in exploiting different resources and fuel types and thinking differently about where and how you build and optimize colonies and stations and outposts. You might start one game by rushing to Duna and developing the infrastructure for harvesting volatiles and uranium or another save where you focus on He3 from the moon and Xenon from Eve to move out to Jool. Maybe there are different paradigms for life support that utilize more direct sunlight to grow crops or rely more on energy intensive closed loop recycling. Im just saying the landing puzzles are great and all but the progression needs to account for more and more efficient and powerful engines that make early near-kerbin landings entirely trivial. Design the game to work well in one direction. Don’t worry about it making sense from any other starting point. 

That too - I talked about delta - v and landing/ orbiting puzzles as two examples but meant “gameplay differences” in the more general sense. I’m just hoping that not every starting planet is an oxygen-rich rocky planet with two moons which have roughly the same resources as the Kerbin system. And I agree with the balancing aspect, making things work on Kerbin is important to have good balance for the default game, and starting on other planets can be much easier or harder depending on the planet. 

[The Aziz]

A reminder that at the start of the colony in an alien system you'd be starting from scratch. You may already have the tech but lack resources to use it for expansion, so you have to use lower level tech to gain those resources. Be careful with planning, or you may end up stranded if you land on a body with no ways to refuel.

[MechBFP]

13 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

What crazy scenario leads to "we forgot how to make all the technology we had getting here, and now we want to go back to the Kerbol system"?

Crash landing on a planet with neither the resources or infrastructure. Pretty simple. 
Remember this is KSP 2 we are taking about, not KSP 1. 

I would get your point if we were talking about KSP 1 though. 

[Bej Kerman]

47 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

14 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

What crazy scenario leads to "we forgot how to make all the technology we had getting here, and now we want to go back to the Kerbol system"?

Crash landing on a planet with neither the resources or infrastructure. Pretty simple. 

Then where do the resources and infrastructure for an entire launch pad and space colony come from? Mark Watney didn't build the base he lived in all on his own, nor could he just build rockets like that.

[MechBFP]

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then where do the resources and infrastructure for an entire launch pad and space colony come from? Mark Watney didn't build the base he lived in all on his own, nor could he just build rockets like that.

Salavage from the crashed mothership, local mining, etc. Surely you have somewhat of an imagination that  you can think of some of this stuff yourself rather than having me spell it out to you. I am sure the creative writers could think of a lot of other things too.

[Bej Kerman]

17 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

26 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then where do the resources and infrastructure for an entire launch pad and space colony come from? Mark Watney didn't build the base he lived in all on his own, nor could he just build rockets like that.

Salavage from the crashed mothership, local mining, etc. Surely you have somewhat of an imagination that  you can think of some of this stuff yourself rather than having me spell it out to you. I am sure the creative writers could think of a lot of other things too.

And this is supposed to be better than starting on Kerbin, how? What motive is there to reach for the unfamiliarity in the stars if you're already on an alien planet?

Edited June 13, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[MechBFP]

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And this is supposed to be better than starting on Kerbin, how? What motive is there to reach for the unfamiliarity in the stars if you're already on an alien planet?

Ask real questions instead of rhetorical ones if you actually want an answer. 

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, MechBFP said:

24 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And this is supposed to be better than starting on Kerbin, how? What motive is there to reach for the unfamiliarity in the stars if you're already on an alien planet?

Ask real questions instead of rhetorical ones if you actually want an answer. 

Or do you not have an answer in the first place? The point at which you drew the line between rhetorical and "real" is arbitrary.

[BowlerHatGuy3]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

And this is supposed to be better than starting on Kerbin, how? What motive is there to reach for the unfamiliarity in the stars if you're already on an alien planet?

It’s not whether it’s alien or not, it’s how familiar it is. Kerbin is just a small earth, is it not? Most of the Kerbol system follows this rule as well, as almost every planet or moon has a real world counterpart.  This doesn’t have to be the case in KSP2 though. You don’t start a space program on a ringed planet, Tatooine equivalent or irregularly shaped body every day. It would spice things up a bit.

[Pthigrivi]

7 hours ago, t_v said:

That too - I talked about delta - v and landing/ orbiting puzzles as two examples but meant “gameplay differences” in the more general sense. I’m just hoping that not every starting planet is an oxygen-rich rocky planet with two moons which have roughly the same resources as the Kerbin system. And I agree with the balancing aspect, making things work on Kerbin is important to have good balance for the default game, and starting on other planets can be much easier or harder depending on the planet. 

I guess what I mean is ideally resources and landing difficulty would be balanced from end to end--from Kerbin to lunar missions to Jool and all the way to the farthest systems--with the expectation that you would already have highly advanced engines by the time you encountered any planet in another system. Kerbin probably shouldn't have any harvestable resources, and Gurdamma should be designed to allow an interstellar mothership to set up shop. You wouldn't want to balance everything with the expectation of starting from anywhere else because it would mean redesigning all of the resource values throughout the game. Maybe for a mod?  But I don't see a strong reason to make this stock. 

[SciMan]

On 6/11/2022 at 11:56 PM, Master39 said:

To me, after years spent in trying to make the perfect Apollo-like lander it felt a bit like cheating when they decided to go with a perfect 1:1 Kerbalized replica all-in-one part for the lander and it's a completely useless part, cluttering the command modules tab if you're not building an Apollo replica.

You know, it's not even good at doing the job it was intended to, it needs a MM patch to make the RCS thrusters it has as part of it not make the thing rotate unintentionally when you use translational thrust, or unintentionally give you some translational effects when you use rotation inputs.

Point is, if you think you have to offset the COM to fix something, and it's not a capsule designed to reenter Kerbin's atmosphere, chances are you can fix that problem a different way without messing up all the "non-approved" ways that part could be used.

If that thing didn't have that dang CoM shift in its config files, I'd use it a lot more for other landers, because it DOES represent a good lander design for many non-atmospheric bodies (such as yes, the Mun, but remove the descent stage and it becomes quite a nice "rock-hopper" for Minmus and other smaller really low gravity bodies).

Not to mention that if you attach a small claw to it somewhere then it would make a good base to use for craft that interact with asteroids (not redirect of course, heck even the large claw we have isn't good for that with the class-E 'roids, but the point stands that the part is incredibly pigeonholed by exactly the fact that it has that blasted CoM offset in its config.

Now I get why they did that, it's probably "so the lander doesn't tip over so easy". But that's not something you should hand-hold the player thru. That's something that the RL LEM had to deal with, so the player building a Saturn-V replica (including Apollo CSM and LEM) to do a moon mission should have to deal with that too by picking a properly "flat enough" landing spot (not "that" hard to find on the Mun), rather than unrealistically offsetting the craft's CoM and messing up the RCS balancing. Or if you ARE going to do that, then at the very least make dang sure the RCS translation thrust fires thru the center of mass on all axes.

 

EDIT: As for the rest of the discussion that's happening in this thread for the past page or so, I fail to see how "changing the Kerbol system as we know it, simply because we're 'too used to it' " counts as "DLC from KSP 1 that carries over into KSP 2", which correct me if I'm wrong is the title of this thread, is it not?
In other words, I think we should return to the topic of the thread, since we seem to be about out in Eeloo orbit when we should be in LKO.

Edited June 13, 2022 by SciMan

[t_v]

36 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I guess what I mean is ideally resources and landing difficulty would be balanced from end to end--from Kerbin to lunar missions to Jool and all the way to the farthest systems--with the expectation that you would already have highly advanced engines by the time you encountered any planet in another system. Kerbin probably shouldn't have any harvestable resources, and Gurdamma should be designed to allow an interstellar mothership to set up shop. You wouldn't want to balance everything with the expectation of starting from anywhere else because it would mean redesigning all of the resource values throughout the game. Maybe for a mod?  But I don't see a strong reason to make this stock. 

You are entirely correct that it would be unbalanced and the devs should not be expected to make it balanced. But do you mean that the experience would have to have meaningful progression, therefore it would have to be balanced which the devs are not expected to do? I was thinking to just leave it unbalanced, and if the system that the player starts in has absolutely nothing that can make oxidizer, the the player can’t launch anything that needs oxidizer from colonies because there is no oxidizer to put in it.

I guess some late-game resource puzzles will not be “solvable” with early game tech though, so you probably shouldn’t start on those celestial bodies. 

[Rutabaga22]

12 minutes ago, SciMan said:

As for the rest of the discussion that's happening in this thread for the past page or so, I fail to see how "changing the Kerbol system as we know it, simply because we're 'too used to it' " counts as "DLC from KSP 1 that carries over into KSP 2", which correct me if I'm wrong is the title of this thread, is it not?
In other words, I think we should return to the topic of the thread, since we seem to be about out in Eeloo orbit when we should be in LKO

I agree, but you can't force people to change subjects, 

[SciMan]

Do I have to pull out the "no, but they can" meme from Thor:Ragnarok?

If you didn't catch on yet, I'm talking about the moderators, but I would hope that that would be obvious.

[Rutabaga22]

1 minute ago, SciMan said:

If you didn't catch on yet, I'm talking about the moderators, but I would hope that that would be obvious.

I'd have the mods put this post back on course, but I don't want to bother them.

 

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, BowlerHatGuy2 said:

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

And this is supposed to be better than starting on Kerbin, how? What motive is there to reach for the unfamiliarity in the stars if you're already on an alien planet?

It’s not whether it’s alien or not, it’s how familiar it is. Kerbin is just a small earth, is it not? Most of the Kerbol system follows this rule as well, as almost every planet or moon has a real world counterpart.  This doesn’t have to be the case in KSP2 though. You don’t start a space program on a ringed planet, Tatooine equivalent or irregularly shaped body every day. It would spice things up a bit.

No, it would just make things boring. You said it yourself, Kerbin is very familiar, and it'd be dandy if KSP 2 didn't immediately give us unfamiliar lands at the very start of a game.