Expectations and Directions (Game Design) for KSP2 - Balancing what I hoped for vs what I think they're doing.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I'm coming to grips with the fact that KSP2 won't be what I expected.

Spoiler

I had hoped for a revamp of the original, with a new engine, newly reworked physics system and basically a new version of KSP with a lot more emphasis on Science and exploration - a game that would be tied to how actual scientists and space agencies get us out to space, discover new worlds and one that would introduce all the cool, real-world extraterrestrial exploration and science humans do to a new generation of gamers.  I wanted to run a Space Program where my Kerbals would not just build rockets and zip around, but also observatories and labs where with each new tech unlock and visit to a CB I'd be learning something more about the Kerbolar Universe... and I wanted it grounded in very real science / science-like gameplay.

What I think we are getting is something quite different.  Based on what I've read (and read between the lines) - the game in its final form will be something like a crossover between KSP and Satisfactory.

It seems like 1.0 will offer us the basics of KSP-like flight features - where we can have spaceplanes flying around the atmospheres, and rockets visiting the various CBs.  That's obvious.  But Science won't be a core feature.  Instead, the entire game direction seems to be focused on the Colony Building, Resource Extraction and Supply Route mini-game.

So - here's what I foresee:  Science won't be 'contracts' like we had in KSP.  It also won't offer a major change to gameplay or even a real purpose for the player.  Instead, Science is merely a required feature for players to identify Resource Nodes on the various CBs and unlock extraction methods.  Eventually, with Colonies we get to start building places that can take advantage of those resources... but they won't be able to until the Resource Management part of the game is implemented.

1.0 will look like this: 

• Players do KSP things with a limited part list and science tools to get out to the local CBs and discover some resources that can help them get farther, faster.
• Player builds some on-site science outposts and maybe a small colony on one of the moons (or a fairly easy-to-get-to planet) to unlock extraction of the resource.  As part of this, Player builds a Colony Building dedicated to turning the extracted resource into fuel.
• Player builds and drives a rover to one of the Resource Nodes and sets up extraction buildings (prefabbed?) or builds a dedicated mining 'ship'.  The building or ship/rover starts extraction and storage of the Resource.
• Player builds a different rover to transport the resources to the Colony.  Think 'truck'.  Player manually drives the route from ISRE to the appropriate Colony building to offload and back again to the extraction site, setting / recording the route.  Once established, the player can automate the route.
• Player makes sure the Colony Fuel Conversion building is able to transfer fuel to the launch site and any ships there are able to take on resources / fuel and leave the Colony.
• Player builds a rocket at the Colony VAB to ship the fuel somewhere.  Either back to Kerbin (early) or to an orbital Colony VAB (Mid-Late).  This is where ship / part sizes start to matter.  Player initially likely only has small to medium parts which will be a limiting factor.
• Player flies the route from the ISRE/U Colony to the destination (KSC/Orbital Colony-VAB) and drops off the fuel and returns.  Again, recording the route allows the player to automate the route for constant fuel transfer.  This likely has to be done with each 'class' or 'size' of ship/parts the player unlocks; meaning only small amounts of fuel/resources will transfer initially... and then with each unlock the Player can continuously upgrade their resource extraction and fuel routes until they are producing enough to build really big ships.
• Repeat for the farther worlds within the Kerbolar system.  Eventually the player has a fully functional multi-world Colony and ISRU system feeding a fuel-based transfer economy that allows them to build a REALLY BIG ORBITAL VAB - and their first Interstellar Ship.
• The Player then gets to visit the other systems.
• Rinse, Repeat.

If I'm correct about this... it will be a cool game.  Not what I was expecting - but it could work out really well.

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

To expand a bit:

Resource Nodes are likely to be in places that are not good places to build the Colony.  Low quality nodes will be easier for the player to get to than high quality nodes.  Players may need to create outposts and multi-staged routes to get resources to the Colony.  Think resource extraction and trucking of ores to a local launch site (built by the player) and a point-to-point rocket from the far side of the CB to the Colony for conversion. 

So one challenge for the player will be to identify a decent location near a node and build up a colony capable of extracting and converting the resources into an exportable product.  Science advances or exploration may unlock / identify higher quality, harder to extract resources that the player needs to exploit in stages via unlocks. 

Players may also need to have local resource extraction for the purpose of expanding the Colony (non fuel resources - like O2, water, etc) and supply routes to and from KSC to keep building up each Colony. 

Like in Satisfactory. 

Eventually you have a fairly complex resource extraction, base support and fuel delivery system feeding some gigantic space VAB that allows you to get to the nearest system - where you discover something new that gives you a new fuel for bigger / faster ships for the next. 

[shdwlrd]

What you're describing is the game play loop that was hinted by Intercept for a long time. Nothing new, but details how each step works can make or break the game.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

What you're describing is the game play loop that was hinted by Intercept for a long time. Nothing new, but details how each step works can make or break the game.

Agree - it's a fairly obvious guess on my part... But I keep seeing people complain about KSP2 and why it's not like a better KSP - but we are not talking about the implication that they didn't want to build a merely better KSP. 

They seem to want a very different experience for KSP2 - and a lot of us are not seeing that. 

Edited May 15, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[shdwlrd]

6 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Agree - it's a fairly obvious guess on my part... But I keep seeing people complain about KSP2 and why it's not like a better KSP - but we are not talking about the implication that they didn't want to build a merely better KSP. 

They seem to want a very different experience for KSP2 - and a lot of us are not seeing that. 

I can see why people think Intercept has failed KSP. Even the most "basic" of functions are not working properly. (Think functional, but not ready for release.) I think most players would have a different opinion if the most "basic" functionality was in a better state. (Less major core systems bugs)

Intercept has a plan KSP2. It's hard to see with the lack of reminders or updates to the point where Intercept wants to go with KSP2. Basically KSP2 has an "endgame" if you want to pursue it. It's just hard to see at the moment with nothing but a basic yet broken sandbox version the players have now.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

I can see why people think Intercept has failed KSP. Even the most "basic" of functions are not working properly. (Think functional, but not ready for release.) I think most players would have a different opinion if the most "basic" functionality was in a better state. (Less major core systems bugs)

Intercept has a plan KSP2. It's hard to see with the lack of reminders or updates to the point where Intercept wants to go with KSP2. Basically KSP2 has an "endgame" if you want to pursue it. It's just hard to see at the moment with nothing but a basic yet broken sandbox version the players have now.

I'm with you.  Been pretty disappointed with the game so far, especially since it did not release in what I would consider an EA state.  More like "Tech Demo" or "Alpha" than a true EA.

Thing is - we all have this history from KSP and many are voicing ('Past me' among us) the hope that Science will prove to be a 'game changer' / savior to the KSP2 title.  We are bringing our KSP experience to bear hoping that Science will make the Sandbox interesting.

It's in that vein I began rethinking what "Science" will mean to us.  And - as stated - I don't think its gonna mean what we hope it will.  It won't 'save' the game - because it's not really the 'purpose' of the game.  Instead it looks to me that Science is merely a sideline feature that will be required for players to utilize to actually play the game as intended.

Kind of like a more complicated "Resource Scanner" in Satisfactory.  That thing lets players scan for nodes.  It's not really the purpose of Satisfactory - just a tool to help players who don't know the maps.

That's what I think "Science" in KSP will be / become.  A tool to help players find nodes.

Edited May 15, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[shdwlrd]

30 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Thing is - we all have this history from KSP and many are voicing ('Past me' among us) the hope that Science will prove to be a 'game changer' / savior to the KSP2 title.  We are bringing our KSP experience to bear hoping that Science will make the Sandbox interesting.

It's in that vein I began rethinking what "Science" will mean to us.  And - as stated - I don't think its gonna mean what we hope it will.  It won't 'save' the game - because it's not really the 'purpose' of the game.  Instead it looks to me that Science is merely a sideline feature that will be required for players to utilize to actually play the game as intended.

Kind of like a more complicated "Resource Scanner" in Satisfactory.  That thing lets players scan for nodes.  It's not really the purpose of Satisfactory - just a tool to help players who don't know the maps.

That's what I think "Science" in KSP will be / become.  A tool to help players find nodes.

Agreed, science at this point won't turn KSP2 into the vision that Intercept wants. As someone that never played science mode in KSP1, even I recognize the fact that science in KSP2 is just a step in the long-term game loop the developers are envisioning.

Science isn't going to be the savior for KSP2. It's just going to be a tool for the features that haven't been released yet. When science is released, I can see a bunch of disappointed players because it will be a bunch of "toys" with no real purpose at the moment. Once resources is released, then science will become useful.

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

I would love to be proven wrong but as time passed from launch, I’m more and more convinced the gameplay and its feature complexity will be simplified to what can be built around Multiplayer and it won’t be a deeper simulation than KSP1, which is what I was hoping for and I think others do.

I think it will be just a fun casual multiplayer experience (maybe RTS like), that is great for newer players (or people that didn’t necessarily have to like KSP1) and that don’t want to get too technical and instead watch some stuff fail for the lolz with their pals.

In the end I don’t think long time power users of KSP1 will find a game here that will make them never play KSP1 again. 

Again, I would love to be proven wrong, and I would gladly eat my words. 

However, if it does turn out as I fear, I would be less upset if they do the wise thing and use the profit to fund a proper remaster of KSP1 and they keep that single player.  

Edited May 15, 2023 by GGG-GoodGuyGreg

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

14 minutes ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

Multiplayer

is the most likely explanation for the FUBAR up to this point.

Shrug.

That ship has sailed.  Some Marketing type won an argument and those of us looking for a great SP experience lost.

That said... There are a few people who seem to like to play Satisfactory with other people.  Maybe that's the Intercept team's goal.

Edited May 15, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Alexoff]

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

But Science won't be a core feature.

At this stage of the game, science is more of a marker of whether IG has its own vision of the game or whether they decided to assemble somehow  KSP1 + graphic mods + a couple of star systems + DSP elements. If science is going to be the same boring grind as in KSP1, with a redesign of the window, then we should not count on something worth further.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Alexoff

[RocketRockington]

I don't think science can save the game either. I'm not sure how many people really think that.  What I think is that science, depending on how/how well it's done - and I'm not sure if your version is the intended one or not - could keep KSP2 on life support until they get to other features to actually generate interest. 

Or if it sucks too much, it could be the last real nail in the coffin, as people can no longer hide behind fan theories of how long Intercept actually had to build KSP2, but see for a fact how long it took to build whatever they release. It will also demo the actual first example of game play design in the game - so we'll get a view on whether Intercept is any good at that or not.

[Wetzelrad]

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Player builds and drives a rover to one of the Resource Nodes

I don't know where you got "Resource Nodes" from, but I think it's a good idea. My expectation is that resource availability will vary by biome like KSP1.

I question whether your description of building rovers and separate mining sites will be a necessary part of colonies. I expect resource extraction and conversion to mostly come in the form of colony buildings, to be completed entirely on the site of the colony. This would be more simple, perhaps in a way that's less interesting, but also less tedious.

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Player initially likely only has small to medium parts which will be a limiting factor.

I bet we unlock large parts by or before we get colony parts. Or maybe they will be on entirely separate branches on the science tree. But more importantly, the best engines regardless of size will depend on mid- to late-game science unlocks and on resources extracted from colonies.

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

• The Player then gets to visit the other systems.
• Rinse, Repeat.

That's basically how Nate described it, yes. The first time colonizing a new star system will undoubtedly be the most interesting part of KSP2. Will it be sufficient just to plop a colony module down on the first planet you see? Or is it better for the player to send out probes and scanners to find ideal conditions? Can colonization be brute forced merely by producing hydralox? Or will it be necessary to manage resources carefully? How difficult should it be? Many questions for Intercept to consider.

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I wanted to run a Space Program where my Kerbals would not just build rockets and zip around, but also observatories and labs where with each new tech unlock and visit to a CB I'd be learning something more about the Kerbolar Universe... and I wanted it grounded in very real science / science-like gameplay.

I can feel that, and it's probably too late to speculate and make suggestions, but how would that work? Maybe I can imagine recovering samples from the oceans of Eve, bringing them back to Kerbin, and making an exciting discovery that enables the construction of new pressurized parts. There could even be a text blurb or cutscene to talk about the chemical makeup of the ocean and how it led to the discovery. Is that how visiting each body should work? There might be something interesting to that, it might even be educational, but would it be grounded or realistic? In the real world, I think improvements in space technology come more by trial and error than by observing celestial bodies. KSP1 concedes on realism there and I don't see how or why KSP2 should do any different. Ultimately whatever the player discovers about the universe is going to be logically disconnected from the part unlocks that he gains by those discoveries, no matter how talented the writing team is.

Beside that, the type of science that you're imagining would risk harming gameplay. To my mind it would look like a rigid checklist of tasks for the player to complete. Probably no one wants that. KSP1 is fun because it is open ended.

I would like to see a new vision of science as much as anyone, but the more time I spend thinking about it, the more I feel that Squad got it right the first time. KSP1 science never forces the player into narrow gameplay constraints, and it rewards the player for milestones, for missions, and for direct science gathering while hopping from biome to biome. It is far and away better than any implementation of research gameplay that I've seen in other games or in any of the suggestions that I've read on this forum.

[TheSaint]

When I think of science in KSP 1, this is what comes to mind:

"We didn't go to the Moon to develop better rockets. We developed better rockets to go to the Moon."

I don't see that changing in KSP 2. And that is my biggest disappointment.

[MarcAbaddon]

1 hour ago, TheSaint said:

When I think of science in KSP 1, this is what comes to mind:

"We didn't go to the Moon to develop better rockets. We developed better rockets to go to the Moon."

I don't see that changing in KSP 2. And that is my biggest disappointment.

That's not convincing to me, as it mixes the why and the how. Even if we ultimately wanted to go to the moon by developing better rockets, testing and flying previous rockets in new conditions was an important step on the road map. Likewise, if we want to go to the Mars it makes a lot of sense to land on the moon again as an intermediate step.

Getting science for getting to new things is fine for me as a gameplay loop. And while in real spaceflights it is more about learning how parts, rockets designs and astronaut perform in those conditions than in getting insights from the Moon itself, I think having to do a number of experiments gives the player something active to do, which is a nice thing. If that's still not convincing just replace science points with inspiration points in your head - then it can be seen more as Kerbal scientist being inspired by success.

This being said, the implementation is KSP 1 was not very satisfying, with biome hopping being the most effective way to collect science and simply having to click your instruments once to get results. That's where I hoped we would see improvements, but I feel they have revealed very little about any of the not implemented gameplay loops yet: how colonies work, how science works and timewarp in multiplayer are still not talked about it. Looking at burning while in time warp as one of the few examples of already existing new systems, it seems likely that the systems are going to be pretty basic.

[Alexoff]

2 hours ago, TheSaint said:

"We didn't go to the Moon to develop better rockets. We developed better rockets to go to the Moon."

In KSP1, if you measure the temperature and look at the goo in different places of the space center, you can open quite a lot of technologies. You don't even need to fly to Mun!

Too bad it doesn't work that way IRL...

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 hours ago, Wetzelrad said:

your description of building rovers and separate mining sites will be a necessary part of colonies

Comes directly from Nate.  It's his talk about automating routes that gives off the Satisfactory vibes. 

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

In KSP1, if you measure the temperature and look at the goo in different places of the space center, you can open quite a lot of technologies. You don't even need to fly to Mun!

Too bad it doesn't work that way IRL...

I totally abused that one playthrough.  Wasn't proud of it - but I did it to get over a hump. 

After that - I really liked the need to get my Kerbal outside and set up stuff on the surface. Gave me a reason to have the critter on board at all. 

OKTO could do everything except drop stuff off. 

[Lyneira]

@JoeSchmuckatelli Your description in the OP is pretty much how I had the gameplay loop for KSP2 in mind for the Colony and resources part of the game. It resembles Factorio (going to reference the original here ) in that you'll be setting up steady streams of raw and refined resources, though I think the gameplay loop itself will feel quite a bit different from Factorio.

This model, along with science, allows for a progression of unlock, explore, expand, exploit and repeat which is tried and true for many other games. Challenges to overcome, goals to achieve and to be rewarded with progression of your available tools is what differentiates a game from a pure simulator. There's nothing bad I see about this, and it doesn't have to preclude showing the science side of things that you highlighted well in your quote:

On 5/15/2023 at 6:46 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

a game that would be tied to how actual scientists and space agencies get us out to space, discover new worlds and one that would introduce all the cool, real-world extraterrestrial exploration and science humans do to a new generation of gamers.  I wanted to run a Space Program where my Kerbals would not just build rockets and zip around, but also observatories and labs where with each new tech unlock and visit to a CB I'd be learning something more about the Kerbolar Universe... and I wanted it grounded in very real science / science-like gameplay.

I for one would absolutely like to see observatories and labs be a part of colonies and taking a role in the science progression side of things as well as giving real life-inspired context for how, what and why the Kerbals are learning.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

I’m not going to panic just yet.  We can infer what we want from the not terribly detailed comments IG have made so far, and… “anti-hype” ourselves into a frenzy, but the only people who really know what Science is going to look like are all NDAed.

We’re going to get the KSP2 that we’re going to get.  Given how much KSP’s Science mode improved between 0.22 (I think that’s when Science was added - please correct me if I’m wrong) and 1.12, we should also expect some delta between Science in KSP2 EA and KSP2 1.0.  I’m also expecting KSP2 EA Science to be about as far beyond KSP 0.22 Science as the rest of the EA is beyond early KSP.  So I’m optimistic that what we get initially will be partial and a bit janky but in the end will be fun.

Will it be different?  Sure.  That’s not a bad thing, either.  KSP Science had some fundamental design issues that we’re all very familiar with :).

[AtomicTech]

2 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

We’re going to get the KSP2 that we’re going to get.

What do you mean by this?

[Wheehaw Kerman]

1 hour ago, AtomicTech said:

What do you mean by this?

That version 1.0 will happen, and that those of us not employed by IG have very little idea of what it will actually look like, less idea of when we’re going to get it, and no influence over its creative direction or quality.

So there’s little point in expensing much mental energy on it, and getting all bent out of shape over it is just pointless unhappiness for the sake of unhappiness.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Wheehaw Kerman

[AtomicTech]

2 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

That version 1.0 will happen, and that those of us not employed by IG have very little idea of what it will actually look like, less idea of when we’re going to get it, and no influence over its creative direction or quality.

So there’s little point in expensing much mental energy on it, and getting all bent out of shape over it is just pointless unhappiness for the sake of unhappiness.

Thank you for the clarification

[asmi]

On 5/15/2023 at 2:05 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

It's in that vein I began rethinking what "Science" will mean to us.  And - as stated - I don't think its gonna mean what we hope it will.  It won't 'save' the game - because it's not really the 'purpose' of the game.  Instead it looks to me that Science is merely a sideline feature that will be required for players to utilize to actually play the game as intended.

Kind of like a more complicated "Resource Scanner" in Satisfactory.  That thing lets players scan for nodes.  It's not really the purpose of Satisfactory - just a tool to help players who don't know the maps.

That's what I think "Science" in KSP will be / become.  A tool to help players find nodes.

That's what science is supposed to be, even in the real life - a tool to achieve some goals, and not the goal by itself.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:56 AM, TheSaint said:

When I think of science in KSP 1, this is what comes to mind:

"We didn't go to the Moon to develop better rockets. We developed better rockets to go to the Moon."

I don't see that changing in KSP 2. And that is my biggest disappointment.

There may be a spark of hope in Nate’s post (the science package design) and something in the intro video to the EA.  Your quote is absolutely bang on in how the science/tech relationship during the Space Race worked.  We had very little idea of what the conditions were up there, but we lobbed instruments into space so the scientists could observe them (remember the discovery of the Van Allen belts?  I don’t - not that old, but radiation protection has been a big deal since).  The engineers took the science, designed the hardware to do what the program leaders wanted, we went farther, learned more, lather, rinse, repeat.  There was a heck of a lot of testing, too, which is something that KSP Career mode frankly made a hash of.

Expanding on something I wrote earlier, I could see the Adventure Mode Science/parts loop involving the player picking exploration or policy goals - launching a rocket, zooming around in planes, making it to orbit, Münar exploration, going interplanetary, etc.  The game would then unlock tech allowing you to reach that policy goal based on the missions flown: if you’ve managed to get an instrument package into space, it’ll unlock early capsules.  If you’ve managed to cobble together enough small tanks to hit a milestone (a certain altitude, into space, etc.) it’ll unlock larger tanks.  And some sort of test flight mechanism for new parts might be appropriate too.

Science would also reveal resources, which would in turn unlock early extraction and colonization parts, if your exploration goals were set that way.  Building early colonies and ISRU would then unlock more and better colony and extraction parts once you discovered newer deposits and types of resources in new environments.

So in short, you’d pick policy (as the new leader of the Kerbal Space Program as per the intro vid), and fly stepping stone missions to get the science and experience needed to develop the hardware needed to hit your policy goals.

This would be compatible with the gameplay @JoeSchmuckatelli sketched out, be a little truer  to the Human Space Program model, and would get away from some of the issues people raised with science in KSP.

[Alexoff]

20 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Your quote is absolutely bang on in how the science/tech relationship during the Space Race worked.

What technologies were obtained due to the delivery of lunar soil to Earth? I seriously doubt that if you measure the pressure in all the biomes of the moon, you can develop a nuclear engine.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

9 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

What technologies were obtained due to the delivery of lunar soil to Earth? I seriously doubt that if you measure the pressure in all the biomes of the moon, you can develop a nuclear engine.

Well, that’s exactly the point - we didn’t go to the Moon (almost spelled it with a ü) to learn how to make bigger rockets.  We made a series of bigger rockets in order to get to the Moon.  We also did a lot of science in order to learn how to build the bigger rockets and not die along the way.   And then we did some science when we got there, and we’re using some of that science to get better at not dying and doing stuff up there, which in turn is going to drive us to develop better parts, etc…