KSP2 AMA Series - Chris "Nertea" Adderley - Answers/Transcript

[Stoup]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

And while crew and EVA reports got pretty repetitive Id still like if only Kerbals could perform some tasks like collecting surface samples. Maybe probe based sample return could be possible but much later in the tech tree. This is the kind of thing I think makes more sense for non-punishing  LS bonuses, that you could still go do everything without it but happy, fed kerbals collect more valuable samples and are better at mining and prospecting. 

Yeah, I like the idea of balancing LS around being, not a binary "feed them or they die" kinda mechanic, but that maybe if LS was going to have some implementation, it would be for maximizing the resources you get out of using your kerbals. Better science returns and other bonuses like what you mention, rather than being outright punishing if you don't establish proper supply lines

[Infinite Aerospace]

Thank you for revisiting some of the questions @Nertea You'd be surprised just how much of a difference that will make to people's opinions and optimism regarding the future of the project.

 

I will totally be looking forward to your developer blog - video on the upcoming science and progression. There's a few things in those answers that sound very interesting. Thank you again. 

[NovaRaptorTV]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:59 PM, Nertea said:

Will the team add RCS to the space shuttle front cockpit section eventually?

 

This is not planned.

I still think that this should be something for the dev team to look into. It would save a ton of time on shuttle replicas. A good alternative would be to place markings on the MK3 cockpit to show us where to put these thrusters, or maybe a sideways firing vernier engine that compliments the MK3 cockpit. Though I think placing markings on the cockpit or animating RCS for the shuttle cockpit would be the more beneficial options. But that's just me.

[Rothryn]

Not just on shuttle replicas, it would be beneficial for everything that uses the Mk3 cockpit. Heck, I'd probably use it more often if it had them. Also, since the RCS are modeled on the part, player expectations will be that they will be functional, given that all other pods that have modeled RCS thrusters have them be functional as well. There is also no option for aerodynamic RCS (even if it's just for looks) and the other RCS thrusters just kinda look like warts sticking out from the sides on the Mk3 cockpit's nose.
On that note, an "aerodynamic shroud" option for RCS thrusters would be a really cool idea in general as a part toggle or an additional variant, even if they're physicsless parts. Could even integrate with the research system so you can unlock regular RCS early on but on some aerodynamics research tier you get the sleek, cool RCS ports and can even upgrade some old craft with those.

[Dakitess]

I don't like when they cluster multiple parts together, especially when it's functional ones. I've never used the Apollo-ish pod that embed the RCS thrusters, the tanks, etc, for that reason, it does not feel KSP at all.

That's all personal of course. It helps dealing with part counts by a lazy way. When I see the whole gravity ring that has been advertised, I really hope we won't get more and more "all-in-one parts" like this. It will kill creativity, thinking out of the box, emergent gameplay, etc.

[Periple]

3 hours ago, Dakitess said:

I don't like when they cluster multiple parts together, especially when it's functional ones. I've never used the Apollo-ish pod that embed the RCS thrusters, the tanks, etc, for that reason, it does not feel KSP at all.

That's all personal of course. It helps dealing with part counts by a lazy way. When I see the whole gravity ring that has been advertised, I really hope we won't get more and more "all-in-one parts" like this. It will kill creativity, thinking out of the box, emergent gameplay, etc.

Hear hear! While I'm not a complete purist about it, I think parts ought to be multi-function only if there's a really good reason. If it was up to me, I'd even decompose probe cores so that they wouldn't have integrated batteries or reaction wheels, and the integrated antenna should be much weaker than it is. 

 

[Stoup]

Yeah, I definitely agree with that idea as well! I wish there wasn't such an issue with mitigation of part count though cause if we had to worry about needing a designated part for every function we quickly run into that snag 

[Periple]

1 hour ago, Stoup said:

Yeah, I definitely agree with that idea as well! I wish there wasn't such an issue with mitigation of part count though cause if we had to worry about needing a designated part for every function we quickly run into that snag 

I think it should be possible to raise the part count cap high enough that it shouldn't be an issue, they need to do that anyway to support interstellar-scale behemoths. Basically, if we the players need to be thinking about optimising part counts then there's already a problem that needs addressing there. Multi-function parts are a poor way to mitigate it!

[Vortygont]

Spoiler

On 9/8/2023 at 8:59 PM, Nertea said:

Considering its possible uses on the automated logistics network, long missions, and just straight up anything that only requires time to pass, how do you balance not timewarping versus just letting things happen in ultra-fast time?

These are the best questions because they’re the hard ones. Often we trend towards supporting a player path that doesn’t reward excessive timewarping, but doesn’t exclude it either. A good case study is resource extraction and deposit concentrations. There’s definitely fun in seeking out and finding the best deposit for mining. Obviously though timewarp makes that kinda moot in timing. You could just start mining a hypothetically low-grade deposit and warp for 50 days. That tells us that time and rate -based mechanics need to have more to work well. A specific example here is that a newly accessible resource should be constrained differently – challenging location, resource transport limitations, etc.

 We try to move the real player decisions to things that are interesting with and without time as a mechanic. Mostly hypothetical examples, but here’s a few ways of thinking of these things on top of my head:

• Put a locational constraint on something. If you need to do something in orbit over a specific part of a planet, make it take longer than the average orbital cycle. This might encourage a player to put a satellite in GEO orbit over that place. If you do the work to put it in GEO, you get the benefit of being able to timewarp.
• Use binaries instead of gradients. Does ore concentration really benefit from a really detailed gradient from 0.0001% to 100%, or can you look at it as a yes/no? Trade that, see if you’re damaging player stories with that simplification.
• Use supporting systems. Sure, you could mine that deposit at high timewarp. But the deposit is on a planet with a day length of 200 days, and you need power, and the area has no fissionables. How are you going to power it? If you solve this problem, it is satisfying and you get a cookie. You did the work, enjoy your timewarpable extraction!

These are really big problems we look at for all of the more complex systems because hey, an interstellar transfer could be 100 years. Players will timewarp that and that’s… the whole length of a KSP1 campaign. Fun with and without timewarping like this is essential.

I think there are legal ways to not incentivize the overuse of time warping

Timewarp in Kerbol's system can be restricted by physics limitations. Of course during interstellar flight timewarp will be much faster, but if player's crafts are in Kerbol's system player must to wait 1 - 3 hours every time when he wants to launch advanced high tech spaceship for example because there are not enough resources. So instead of waiting player will choose another activity which is more interesting than waiting and will decrease time of future waiting

Also you can add  random time events in game, like very fast interstellar objects flying through the Kerbol's system, like unusual comets and asteroids. They will have complex orbital parameters and need much dV to intercept it. This dV is predominantly available only with high technology, and technology is avaliable if you have enough resources in certain period of time. These objects will give you reward like more science points or others. And because player can't predict where and when it will be, he must keep enough resources at the ready at all times

Another way which I like less is to set the minimum resource flow required to maintain a certain technological level of the colony. That is simply you just make some technology unavaliable if player extract few resources. But this is very straightforward way

[Mushylog]

On 9/9/2023 at 3:24 AM, Vl3d said:

Added later: My conclusion can only be that the fundamental issue of lack of differential incentives for using probes and kerbals for exploration is unsolved. If kerbals are immortal in space, why ever send probes? Why ever value kerbals?

The kerbals are immortal but they are not invincible and they, themselves, value their lives. They would rather send a probe than go and risk to die in space for a simple EVA report around a moon. However, the player can choose to make them risk their lives as the player has the final word, always!

Should sending kerbals be more rewarding? Yes, I think it should, so that it is worth the risks.

[Ruedii]

A few more questions:
Do you have any consideration for adding a slow draw, fast discharge HV-Charge resource w/ Super Capacitors?
Additionally do you have plans to implement heat from fast electric charge transfers (obviously treating slow ones as moot for efficiency.)

Additionally, if you need some ideas on how to reduce physics load, and error drift I can give some minor tips.   Most of them involve creating a tree to disable physics on stuff, cutting collider and physics object count to a minute fraction of what they are.