When ksp2 comes out, what mods will you want to see for it?

[Luriss]

On 7/20/2022 at 4:54 PM, Master39 said:

Those are all things you could do with KSP, but that are done 100% better by other games.

I think that sort of misses the point on why warfare mod(s) for KSP 2 are an attractive idea.

Sure, Children of a Dead Earth lets me simulate fleet battles down to the composition of the armour on my ships and the ratios of fissile material in my nuclear warheads. However, what if I want to interact with the planet I'm orbiting?

In KSP 2, I could decide that I want to use my fleet to bombard a surface colony from orbit. Then, I might decide that I want to use a landing craft to drop in and deploy tanks so I can seize the colony. It might also be possible that this is taking place in a multiplayer game with a few friends, and one of my friend deploys his tanks to defend the colony. After winning the battle, I then use the colony to produce resources and ships to help in the solar system sized (or interstellar!) war against my friends.

Basically, I'd argue it's a trade of detail and quality for scope, and KSP 2 promises a very, very large scope.

[samhuk]

As others have said, it does depend on what KSP2 comes with, but assuming a few things aren't, here goes my two cents:

Real solar system

So, for backstory, RSS for KSP1 never really worked that well because of all the horrendous workarounds to get it to work and the tendency for it to make KSP1 unstable and slow.

However, for seasoned players, the nerfing of planet size in KSP1 made things too easy and boring rather quickly. You could get mass fractions of like 50%. Throwing rocks at your keyboard probably builds something that can get to orbit in KSP1.

So when the RSS mod came about, it brought a huge breath of fresh air into the game for many long-time players. When you get a spaceplane with a decent payload into orbit with the RSS mod, I'm pretty sure someone calls you up to give you a nobel prize a few minutes later.

Robotics

Made KSP1 interesting for much longer. Made planes and bases super cool.  Infernal Robotics mod for KSP1 was an endless source of funny wacky krakenesque physics.

HUD skins

I really liked the reasoure HUD mod for KSP1 because it made the game look a little bit less of an el cheapo default Unity asset game that you could get from your local bakery.

 

P.S. Not too fussed with weapons (this thread really did end up super down that rabbit hole)

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Luriss said:

In KSP 2, I could decide that I want to use my fleet to bombard a surface colony from orbit. Then, I might decide that I want to use a landing craft to drop in and deploy tanks so I can seize the colony. It might also be possible that this is taking place in a multiplayer game with a few friends, and one of my friend deploys his tanks to defend the colony. After winning the battle, I then use the colony to produce resources and ships to help in the solar system sized (or interstellar!) war against my friends.

All of that in the clunckiest way possible, and still with whoever controls the timewaep being the dominating force.

And it will be on either the player or the war-mod modder to go around whatever permission system and colony/craft ownership system the multiplayer will have.

While designing the timewarp system is not as hard as the multiplayer thread 45663 pages of arguing may let you believe, having the system take into consideration hostile interactions would increase the complexity of things by a lot.

[Bej Kerman]

29 minutes ago, Master39 said:

and still with whoever controls the timewaep being the dominating force

I know for a fact the devs won't use that daft solution. Dark Multiplayer solved this issue ages ago with instancing.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I know for a fact the devs won't use that daft solution. Dark Multiplayer solved this issue ages ago with instancing.

Yep, but how does that go with hostile interactions? In how many ways can the timewarp be abused to either attack or become invincible and avoid damage?

It has to be taken in consideration automatically if you don't want situations in which (for example) you can 2x timewarp for a few seconds and de-sync your instance from the missile that was about to hit you.

[t_v]

51 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Yep, but how does that go with hostile interactions? In how many ways can the timewarp be abused to either attack or become invincible and avoid damage?

It has to be taken in consideration automatically if you don't want situations in which (for example) you can 2x timewarp for a few seconds and de-sync your instance from the missile that was about to hit you.

1. You are assuming an unfriendly conflict, where people abuse the rules to gain advantages. If that is the kind of conflict game you prefer, that’s fine, but it is bold to assume that just because the game is not balanced for conflict, people will abuse it and not create agreements to engage in friendly competition with artificial fair rules

2. If we are arguing about the pros and cons of different time warp models, remember that there are models that allow anyone to time warp without desyncing and fix a host of problems with conflict, just like how DSMP fixes problems that other models have. 
 

3. remember, we are talking about a modded experience here. Just because stock KSP is a bad game for conflict, it doesn’t mean that mods can’t make it a good game for conflict. Players de-syncing? Stop that from happening when avoiding attacks, or make the attacks happen anyways. Players attacking others when offline? Stop that from happening, or include automatic defenses. Mods can change the stock game in many ways, and if they can enable conflict, they can also do it in a way that fits KSP, or vice versa. 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, t_v said:

1. You are assuming an unfriendly conflict, where people abuse the rules to gain advantages. If that is the kind of conflict game you prefer, that’s fine, but it is bold to assume that just because the game is not balanced for conflict, people will abuse it and not create agreements to engage in friendly competition with artificial fair rules

2. If we are arguing about the pros and cons of different time warp models, remember that there are models that allow anyone to time warp without desyncing and fix a host of problems with conflict, just like how DSMP fixes problems that other models have. 
 

3. remember, we are talking about a modded experience here. Just because stock KSP is a bad game for conflict, it doesn’t mean that mods can’t make it a good game for conflict. Players de-syncing? Stop that from happening when avoiding attacks, or make the attacks happen anyways. Players attacking others when offline? Stop that from happening, or include automatic defenses. Mods can change the stock game in many ways, and if they can enable conflict, they can also do it in a way that fits KSP, or vice versa. 

1. I don't even think unfriendly conflict is even possible, not if we're still talking about using the full scope of KSP.

Space colonies, resource mining, orbital mechanics, and travel times, make it so that every battle is going to be an organized appointment between two parties in a choosen arena. "That crater at that time with that amount of forces".

Otherwise the easiest way is to just stand out of each other way, we're talking about half a dozen players at best, that still can only fly a single missile/tank/plane/battleship at a time on a battleground that is a whole solar system.

2. Yep, but hostile interactions are not something the devs are building the system around, so it's more than likely that whatever system they'll implement will sacrifice the possibility of war in favour of other things.

3. Which is going to make whatever war mod quite a bit more complex than just adding a couple of guns and bombs.

[t_v]

3 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I don't even think unfriendly conflict is even possible, not if we're still talking about using the full scope of KSP.

Space colonies, resource mining, orbital mechanics, and travel times, make it so that every battle is going to be an organized appointment between two parties in a choosen arena. "That crater at that time with that amount of forces".

Otherwise the easiest way is to just stand out of each other way, we're talking about half a dozen players at best, that still can only fly a single missile/tank/plane/battleship at a time on a battleground that is a whole solar system.

This sounds like a great conflict style for me personally, and we can respectfully disagree. Also, I'm sorry if we are confusing wording with the "unfriendly conflict" part, it seems you want it to have a different meaning. The point still stands that players can make agreements to not abuse rules like sidestepping unwanted conflict by de-synching

As for 2, there are other benefits to those models, what I am saying is that using a bad timewarp model to point out criticism is not a great way to say that time warp in general will mess things up

And for 3, I thought that was pretty much a given, seeing the scope of KSP 2. 

Edited July 24, 2022 by t_v

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, t_v said:

 

As for 2, there are other benefits to those models, what I am saying is that using a bad timewarp model to point out criticism is not a great way to say that time warp in general will mess things up

What's good for a conflict gamemode and what's good for two friends trying to play their own space program in the same shared save/server while often but not always interacting with each other is very different.

A timewarp system that's good for one is going to be terrible for the other.

 

45 minutes ago, t_v said:

This sounds like a great conflict style for me personally

One that isn't in any way different than doing the same in Besiege, given that organizing where and when to fight actually removes the whole "orbital mechanics and multiple solar systems" thing out of the equation.

[t_v]

21 minutes ago, Master39 said:

What's good for a conflict gamemode and what's good for two friends trying to play their own space program in the same shared save/server while often but not always interacting with each other is very different.

A timewarp system that's good for one is going to be terrible for the other.

Can you give me proof that the two are mutually exclusive without using a straw man or using only your idea of "good for conflict"? Because I can see myself being able to do both under the same system. 

22 minutes ago, Master39 said:

One that isn't in any way different than doing the same in Besiege, given that organizing where and when to fight actually removes the whole "orbital mechanics and multiple solar systems" thing out of the equation.

Ah yes, I should just go play Beseige, where I'll just go and build up space colonies with resource supply chains in between conflict, and where I can organize a battle not only in that crater over there, but in orbit above that crater, and where... oh wait. 

I'll put this here again because it has been a few messages since I've reaffirmed this- (actually it hasn't, I reminded you that this is a modded experience 2 messages ago) Even if KSP is bad for conflict (which it completely is) and even if modded KSP is bad for conflict (which it completely could be, because the mod scene does not exist yet), that doesn't mean anything, because if people want to play KSP with fighting badly enough, they will end up playing that, regardless of whatever other games there are that are better. If you want to chose good games for the niche you want, then more power to you! Why does anyone else's decision impact that? (Don't tell me that you'll miss VTOL VR development - one person isn't going to change the dev's decision on development)

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I know for a fact the devs won't use that daft solution. Dark Multiplayer solved this issue ages ago with instancing.

Yep, but how does that go with hostile interactions? In how many ways can the timewarp be abused to either attack or become invincible and avoid damage?

It has to be taken in consideration automatically if you don't want situations in which (for example) you can 2x timewarp for a few seconds and de-sync your instance from the missile that was about to hit you.

KSP isn't a game about warfare so I find all those scenarios irrelevant. It's a game about exploration, everyone being able to fast forward their exploration missions on their own terms is more important than locking down timewarp just to curb scenarios that won't happen in the intended scope of the game.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Bej Kerman
Elaborating

[blorgon]

Hoping we get kOS 2.0

[Catto]

Average BDArmory fan

average MechJeb enjoyer

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP isn't a game about warfare so I find all those scenarios irrelevant. It's a game about exploration, everyone being able to fast forward their exploration missions on their own terms is more important than locking down timewarp just to curb scenarios that won't happen in the intended scope of the game.

Which is exactly what I'm trying to say about timewarp and conflict. A system based on collaboration between players and exploration is going to block a lot of things that are needed for a system that allows for war and conflict.

I'm not asking to take conflict into consideration, just merely stating that whatever timewarp system they implement is going to be problematic for players wanting to play with combat and war.

 

7 hours ago, t_v said:

Can you give me proof that the two are mutually exclusive without using a straw man or using only your idea of "good for conflict"? Because I can see myself being able to do both under the same system. 

If you want proof go back to the 50 pages of discussion on multiplayer on the dedicated thread and try to add "I need to be able to rendezvous a nuclear missile with your base without you timewarping 10 years in the future at the last possible moment, and possibly without you even knowing about what I'm doing" as a requirement and just see how incredibly more complex everything becomes.

With a system made for cooperation people usually want to remain more or less in the same timeframe, skipping ahead a few weeks is not going to be a problem if you don't loose crafts or kerbals during the jump.

With a system made for conflict you have one side wanting the missile to hit now, the other wanting all the time to discover and try to intercept it or move out of the way. That not only opens to abuse (which is the extreme I pointed out) but for a huge discussion about how much time is fair to have when the missile takes a week going from your base to mine. You'll want to timewarp the whole week away, I'll want to play it 1x and do everything I can to try finding it and shooting it down before it reaches my base.

 

7 hours ago, t_v said:

but in orbit above that crater,

Lol at space battles.

A puff of RCSs on my whatever I have and you miss the entire battleground by a few hundred KMs. Even more than ground battles, you have to decide a place, time and amount of forces beforehand, thus making the whole orbital mechanics part of the encounter moot.  At that point Space Engineers is the game you're searching for.

 

7 hours ago, t_v said:

Even if KSP is bad for conflict (which it completely is) and even if modded KSP is bad for conflict (which it completely could be, because the mod scene does not exist yet)

There's no IF in that. Using KSP as a war game is not different than trying to use it as a city builder or as a rollercoaster theme park simulator.

I mean, yeah you probably could do that if the right amount of people spend their time modding in that, but even at it's best you're just using it to try to replicate a sub-par version of Cities Skylines or Planet Coaster.

If you use KSP for conflict you're just bad at choosing games.

 

But now, since we're gone OT more than enough, let's go back to modding shall we?

The kind of mods I'm looking forward too is the ones picking some aspect of stock gameplay and making it deeper. In KSP1 we had the development of the game itself chasing the modding scene. With KSP2 we have confirmation of the game directly replacing the need for some of the biggest mods out there.

When developing a colony, resource mining or extraplanetary launchpad mod the modder had to start from scratch, every model and system had to be implemented in their own way and build up from there. With KSP2 all the assets and systems are going to be already there, what will the modders be able to do with it?

[Gotmachine]

A "deinterstellarification" mod or mod suite that put back the focus of the game on being a contemporary space program simulator :
- Remove the interstellar systems
- Change the scale of the home system to a more realistic one than 1:10 (something between 1:3 and 1:4)
- Expand the home system with more places to visit
- Remove the speculative / scifi tech stuff

Then expand on those core modifications to provide more in-depth gameplay elements that are rooted in contemporary and realistic space exploration realities. Aspects like life support, radiation, science/exploration, economics, ISRU, etc.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Gotmachine

[Snips]

9 hours ago, blorgon said:

Hoping we get kOS 2.0

This!

[t_v]

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

I'm not asking to take conflict into consideration, just merely stating that whatever timewarp system they implement is going to be problematic for players wanting to play with combat and war.

No one else is either, and we know that any system will have problems. That is fine

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

try to add "I need to be able to rendezvous a nuclear missile with your base without you timewarping 10 years in the future at the last possible moment, and possibly without you even knowing about what I'm doing" as a requirement

I’ll reiterate this again in even simpler terms: you seem to see having a balanced experience as a “requirement” for it to be worthwhile, and you don’t seem to understand that for other people, it doesn’t work that way because people can collaborate to balance an unbalanced system. 

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

You'll want to timewarp the whole week away, I'll want to play it 1x and do everything I can to try finding it and shooting it down before it reaches my base.

Case in point. I don’t know anyone that would subject someone else to that sort of experience just because otherwise they would be sabotaging themselves. KSP2 combat is not for you, but that doesn’t mean other people can’t make it an engaging experience. Just because something is imbalanced or broken doesn’t mean it is bad, and I’m tired of you arguing against conflict in KSP 2 as a blanket statement just because you personally would not have a good experience with it with your playing style. 

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

At that point Space Engineers is the game you're searching for.

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

If you use KSP for conflict you're just bad at choosing games.

Let me make this very clear: I have never played KSP with BDA, and I never will. The closest thing I have ever done to conflict in the game is accidentally hitting the runway too hard while someone was taking off. I have never played Besiege or Space Engineers, and I don’t think I’d like it, because I don’t like that kind of pvp conflict in my games. It’s the same reason why I don’t play FPS’s, especially multiplayer ones. I am arguing against your narrow view of what is “good” in respects to how people choose to spend their time. I would do this exact same thing if someone said they wanted improved IVAs in a mod and you said they were “bad at choosing games” and should go play Orbiter instead, or any other game that has better IVAs. Yes, that’s an extreme scenario and “changing the philosophy of the game” and all that, but we’re talking about modded experiences here, where changing the design philosophy is fine. For example, this one removes future tech parts, which is a core design pillar of KSP2:

1 hour ago, Gotmachine said:

A "deinterstellarification" mod or mod suite that put back the focus of the game on being a contemporary space program simulator :
- Remove the interstellar systems
- Change the scale of the home system to a more realistic one than 1:10 (something between 1:3 and 1:4)
- Expand the home system with more places to visit
- Remove the speculative / scifi tech stuff

Then expand on those core modifications to provide more in-depth gameplay elements that are rooted in contemporary and realistic space exploration realities. Aspects like life support, radiation, science/exploration, economics, ISRU, etc.

I really like this! I feel like KSP 1 was limited by its tech when creating mods, and the improved tech and optimization, not to mention the integrated features, open up so much more possibilities for mods. The same modded experience that would have been janky, laggy and crashy in KSP 1 can now be much more streamlined when building on the  persistent thrust, improved UI, automatic multiplayer support, and my personal favorite, the improved terrain system. With all those polish and feature improvements, I would buy the game you just described in a heartbeat, even though I am excited for interstellar and future tech (after all, I would have just used mods)

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, t_v said:

Let me make this very clear: I have never played KSP with BDA, and I never will. The closest thing I have ever done to conflict in the game is accidentally hitting the runway too hard while someone was taking off. I have never played Besiege or Space Engineers, and I don’t think I’d like it, because I don’t like that kind of pvp conflict in my games. It’s the same reason why I don’t play FPS’s, especially multiplayer ones. I am arguing against your narrow view of what is “good” in respects to how people choose to spend their time.

I play them, I've played Besiege, Robocraft (back when it was good), Trailmakers, Space Engineers, but also quite a lot of other PVP games, ranging from TF2 to SOT, from Stellaris to Starfield. When KSP2 was revealed I knew Uber Entertainment from Planetary Annihilation Titans (which, by the way, is a better PVP game with orbital mechanics, colonies, bases and resource extraction than KSP will ever be) and before that I played Forged Alliance.

From vehicle building to FPS, and from there to slow paced strategy games I'm familiar with PvP and war games. So I know what I'm talking about, whatever niche you're trying to fill with combat in KSP2 there's a game (or half a dozen) that does it better.

24 minutes ago, t_v said:

I would do this exact same thing if someone said they wanted improved IVAs

No, it's someone saying that can't wait for a mod to add the possibility to simulate the economy of an amusement park and me pointing out Roller Coaster Tycoon or Planet Coaster. It doesn't matter how talented a modder you throw at the problem, KSP (either 1 or 2) will never be as good at simulating an amusement park as one of those two titles. The same goes for war and combat.

[t_v]

Just now, Master39 said:

No, it's someone saying that can't wait for a mod to add the possibility to simulate the economy of an amusement park and me pointing out Roller Coaster Tycoon or Planet Coaster. It doesn't matter how talented a modder you throw at the problem, KSP (either 1 or 2) will never be as good at simulating an amusement park as one of those two titles. The same goes for war and combat.

And so what? We have already established that KSP 2 will not be better than other games in lots of respects; it will never beat Factorio in automation, it will not beat MSFS in atmospheric simulation, it will not beat EVE in market interactions (and that’s a good example, because having an easily accessible and widespread economy would require sacrifices in the logistics of interplanetary and interstellar transport), but so what? If someone wants to create FAR 2, it won’t beat MSFS or Xplane or “half a dozen games that do it better”. Does that mean that they are “bad at choosing games”? No, it means they want to play an experience which you may find subpar, but you may not go against them to this extent because of it. Let people enjoy their “bad games” if they want to, and please, don’t require KSP to exceed the best games in a category, that is just not going to happen. 

[Bej Kerman]

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

12 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP isn't a game about warfare so I find all those scenarios irrelevant. It's a game about exploration, everyone being able to fast forward their exploration missions on their own terms is more important than locking down timewarp just to curb scenarios that won't happen in the intended scope of the game.

Which is exactly what I'm trying to say about timewarp and conflict. A system based on collaboration between players and exploration is going to block a lot of things that are needed for a system that allows for war and conflict.

I'm not asking to take conflict into consideration, just merely stating that whatever timewarp system they implement is going to be problematic for players wanting to play with combat and war.

There is absolutely no other choice. Coordinating between players with either an admin or a server-wide vote system would be nigh impossible in a small 50x50 arena with only 1-4x timewarp, let alone an entire Universe where many orders of magnitude of timewarp are necessary to traverse distances of many orders of magnitude.

[Luriss]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

No, it's someone saying that can't wait for a mod to add the possibility to simulate the economy of an amusement park and me pointing out Roller Coaster Tycoon or Planet Coaster. It doesn't matter how talented a modder you throw at the problem, KSP (either 1 or 2) will never be as good at simulating an amusement park as one of those two titles. The same goes for war and combat.

Again, I'd argue that you're missing the point.

Sure, I could go and play Planetary Annihilation if I wanted a solar system wide PVP strategy game and yes, it would be better than any recreation in KSP.
The thing is I don't want play Planetary Annihilation; creating that experience in KSP is the whole point and I don't want to get a better experience elsewhere.

Some of the most fun I've ever had playing KSP was doing things that were completely impractical and borderline dysfunctional with the use of mods, trying to push the game as close to the limit as possible. As an example my crowning achievement was figuring out how to make a semi-functional floating colony in Jool's atmosphere.

 

 

As for time warp, I feel like this point is overblown. We don't even know how the system works yet, and even then work-arounds are possible. For example, a group of friends might decide that they will time warp in 1 month chunks to represent a turn in their space race competition. Maybe a server that lets you design fighter jets and dogfight has just disabled time warping entirely. Perhaps someone just decides to overhaul the time warp system to their own preferences through modding.

[Guest]

"I don't want planetary annihilation" I want exactly the same thing but crappier.

Well you be you.

If you guys need me you'll find me over there, using FIFA 2042 as a racing game, or an RPG.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Luriss said:

a group of friends might decide that they will time warp in 1 month chunks to represent a turn in their space race competition

1 month means at the start of the turn you're heading towards Kerbin, and at the start of the next turn you've already flown past it back into interplanetary space. Space isn't small enough for timewarpless to be practical either.

[nsgallup]

I would love to see a remastered version of Outer Planets Mod for ksp2. I used it so much in ksp1 that the kerbol system seems like it is missing something without it. 

[SciMan]

You know, I think I've thought of a rule for this thread.

How "war mods" work is off the topic of "what mods you want to see in ksp 2".

We're not talking about how we want specific mods to work in KSP 2, or if they're even possible.

We're talking about "what mods we want in KSP 2". That's the entirety of the extent of it. It stops right there.
If you want to discuss how war mods might or might not work in KSP 2, make your own thread for it. It's a different enough topic that it deserves its own thread. That way I don't have to keep saying I don't want war mods in KSP 2, because that's exactly my stance on it. I don't think they belong in KSP or KSP 2.

And apparently ultimately neither did the main modding talent behind the most prevalent war mod for KSP. That's why VTOL VR exists. It was literally a case of "I want to make this mod spun off and turn it into its own game".

That's how different war mods are from literally every other kind of mod you can think of for KSP 2.

It's apples and corn, not just apples and oranges.