[SPOILERS] Revamped Kerbol system exploration - hypotetical anomaly density

[Vl3d]

21 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

No. I love exploration. What I don't like is hours long travel with no difficulty. What I don't like is getting only a slightly interesting item to look at for all that effort.

I mean, if they want to quickly plop down a bunch of copy paste pyramids and monoliths around kerbin, I don't mind. But that doesn't interest me in driving or flying for hours to go see them. If that's what they do with the game that's fine, but I'd just ignore it and I suspect that most people would ignore it too. What started the discussion was the map shared in the first post of this thread. Look at all those points and tell me how long it would take to visit even a handful of them. And almost all of that time would be spent driving over grassy fields or flying level with no challenge. You could set the game to play itself and walk away, as I did this morning for three hours to cross only a tiny distance of the map.

What I'm advocating for, is if there's going to be sites of interest for exploring, make them worthwhile and challenging rather than just a waste of time and test of patience like ksp1.

If there are going to be lots of anomalies, I'd prefer them to be widely varied, each made interesting or challenging to get to. 

But this would however mean a lot of dev time put into them. So, to justify that time and resource devoted to developing them, they need to be something lots of players will partake in.

Take a look at some good exploration games. Subnautica, Outer Wilds, Snowrunner even. Love those games. But there's a challenge to apply that kind of exploring to ksp. Ksps planets are huge, so much larger than those games little maps.

So my suggestion. What if the sites of interest were hand made by the devs. Each one having something neat to see. And each one with a bit of a challenge to get to. Something similar to those games listed above.

There could be a tight underwater canyon to maneuver a submarine through. There could be a narrow rocky pass to drive a rover through. There could be a narrow ledge to land a plane on. There could be a snaky winding switchback up a mountainside.

But the key is, to limit the amount of the players time wasted getting to those challenges and points of interest. Which is why I suggest a means of fast traveling over the wide open land where you'd only be watching as you hold down the w key. Or watching a plane fly level needing no adjustment.

Then we could have interesting things to do and see. Something with more challenge than just waiting to get there. And by making it not take hours many more players could go do it, justifying the extra time and effort that would be required making these areas.

That would be interesting to me. To me there's a difference between exploring and getting a plane in the air and flying it level on SAS for hours. Exploring is venturing though the caverns of Ember Twin as they fill with sand. Exploring is diving your Cyclops down into the dark void and maneuvering around pillars of rock or tight passages. Exploring is getting a truck stuck in the swamp or trying to squeeze a twinsteer through some trees. I don't really consider flying a plane level for hours, something that could be achieved by an autopilot, all that much exploration. KSP1 did have some good "exploring" content, but that was in space with the rockets, getting to and returning from all the planets and moons. I'd love there to be exploration and lots of sites to go visit in KSP2 to match that feeling of exploration in space between the planets with some interesting and challenging exploration on the planets.

I just don't agree that what KSP1 had on kerbin was really "exploring". All it was was taking off a plane and flying it straight for a while, sometimes a long time.

There's only so much time in the day between work and chores and everything else. If you can set aside a few hours a night to play a game, why not make those hours count. Rather than requiring nothing more than the player flying straight and level for all those few precious free hours.

I agree with you. The anomalies should be interesting. That's what I want also. The OP map theoretically has 200 very interesting hand crafted anomalies scattered all over Kerbin.

[SolarAdmiral]

Yes. The only point I have to bring up to that is how do we get to them?

I would not be interested if the only thing we need to do to get to them is fly in a straight line for two hours. If that's the case I'd probably just watch a summary video on YouTube with all the travel time cut out.

On the other hand, I'd love it if we can fast travel over the vast open flat ground, get closer, then have a good challenge getting right up to them. Either by following a difficult path made by the dev or finding our own way. 

 

 

[Sp1f]

I agree that most of the anomalies should be unique and challenging, not copy/paste monoliths, and I do think that is worthy of dev resources. 

I do think you’re underestimating the challenge and interest of exploring in rovers or planes though. Just because it’s a fairly mindless pursuit to cruise across open grasslands on Kerbin doesn’t mean that rover exploration isn’t fun and challenging even in ksp1. Rugged terrain, mountains, craters, low gravity environments all make it more challenging. It’s a blast to cruise around low gravity moons, jumping off crater rims and doing stunts.

The Kerbol system already has both easy places and difficult places to drive. The fact that you chose the easiest one to demonstrate how boring it supposedly is doesn’t prove your point.

And when we look at KSP2, we can already see plans for terrain on some orbital bodies which is much more challenging than we have seen before. Rugged terrain, molten lava, and who knows what else awaits us, and I would personally love to see all those worlds riddled with anomalies.

 

[Bej Kerman]

9 hours ago, Sp1f said:

I agree that most of the anomalies should be unique and challenging, not copy/paste monoliths, and I do think that is worthy of dev resources. 

I do think you’re underestimating the challenge and interest of exploring in rovers or planes though. Just because it’s a fairly mindless pursuit to cruise across open grasslands on Kerbin doesn’t mean that rover exploration isn’t fun and challenging even in ksp1. Rugged terrain, mountains, craters, low gravity environments all make it more challenging. It’s a blast to cruise around low gravity moons, jumping off crater rims and doing stunts.

The Kerbol system already has both easy places and difficult places to drive. The fact that you chose the easiest one to demonstrate how boring it supposedly is doesn’t prove your point.

And when we look at KSP2, we can already see plans for terrain on some orbital bodies which is much more challenging than we have seen before. Rugged terrain, molten lava, and who knows what else awaits us, and I would personally love to see all those worlds riddled with anomalies.

I think you're overestimating how many people care to drive in KSP, let alone for dozens if not hundreds of kilometers. Rugged terrain, molten lava, doesn't matter. It's all going to look the same after the first hour or so.

KSP 2 could do with a driving autopilot. Set a destination, timewarp, now you're near the destination.

[Vl3d]

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 2 could do with a driving autopilot. Set a destination, timewarp, now you're near the destination.

It's tempting, but it takes the fun out of exploration and removes part of the incentive to build new / better / faster / hybrid vehicles. You could just explore the whole celestial body with just one rover with solar panels.. not ideal.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

27 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 2 could do with a driving autopilot. Set a destination, timewarp, now you're near the destination.

It's tempting, but it takes the fun out of exploration and removes part of the incentive to build new / better / faster / hybrid vehicles. You could just explore the whole celestial body with just one rover with solar panels.. not ideal.

I think we're forgetting the pillars of KSP here. Driving for hours on end isn't one of them.

It does occur to me that all of this could be avoided just by sending the vehicle on a rocket and skipping the drive in the first place.

[Vl3d]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

It does occur to me that all of this could be avoided just by sending the vehicle on a rocket and skipping the drive in the first place.

That's what I've been saying. Rocket, drone, boat transports for rovers.. there are so many ways to avoid driving long distances. Just like real life.

We don't need a walking autopilot, do we?

Edited February 5, 2023 by Vl3d

[Bej Kerman]

On 2/4/2023 at 8:39 AM, Vl3d said:

Hahaha, this is the first time I think someone has ever said there's too much stuff to do and see on Kerbin. No one would actually force you to discover everything, it's just something you can do from time to time, between missions, when you're bored

I'd rather those anomalies have substance than just be identical/procedural assets sprinkled around for the lulz. The thread can go in circles but it all goes back to this:

On 2/4/2023 at 2:19 AM, Pthigrivi said:

Omg no.

[Vl3d]

Here it is guys, in Scott Manley's footage. I caught a glimpse of it! The ANOMALY.. IES!

Spoiler

I don't know why it made me think of this...

Spoiler

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Vl3d

[Drakenred65]

I think I recall one review ran into something early on and they asked him not to show it and darn it I'm going to have to watch them again

 

[mcwaffles2003]

The problem with making unique and rare points of interest very common:

[Director_Valle]

I enjoyed exploring Kerbin, and wouldn’t mind some additional anomalies. As others have said it would be best if some of those were not just sightseeing but could also offer gameplay, like on KSP1 we have some other launch sites, but I always felt the need for additional airports, and why not seaports, maybe even some cities and smaller towns (some could have heliports).

It is true though that flying from KSC to Baikerbanur on my early planes was a little bit tedious (I ended up designing a small spaceplane that could take me to the other far away anomalies, and a supersonic airplane that could take me to the relatively closer ones); so if there were “regional airfields” where you could refuel (and stay the night), it could enable those “tedious” flights/drives/sails, by breaking such long journeys into smaller hops.