How can KSP2 become a greater space program simulator than KSP?

[cubinator]

The following are my thoughts, more or less on what I would do to distinguish KSP2 from KSP and make it a far greater experience if I were making the game. I'm not demanding these things, and understand that the structure and affordances of the game at a basal level may already be set in stone in many respects. Still, now is the time to talk about what can be made, while it's still a bunch of ideas in all our heads.

 

What is KSP2 trying to surpass anyway? What is KSP1?

KSP1 is a rocket simulator at its core, the "challenge" that the game entices the player with are the construction of working vehicles and the piloting of those vehicles to various destinations. There's never been much to "do" at those destinations, except take in the sights, maybe send a rescue mission, or try to build the biggest thing you can there. There didn't need to be more than that - KSP is about spacecraft design and flight, and teaches players about the challenges of spaceflight and the thrill of getting from here to there while trying to avoid blowing up. The science system acts as a simple form of guided progression, and science instruments don't provide much practical purpose except as a source of a currency for unlocking more diverse spaceship parts as a reward for traveling to new destinations with limited technology. The mission system also provides a set of design and flight challenges that act as "suggestions" if you're stumped on where you want to go next.

 

What could KSP2 do that's "more" or "different" from that?

Right now, KSP2 basically has all those things KSP1 does: The rocket simulator, the flight challenges, the unlockable parts, etc. It also has updated graphics to rival the best KSP1 mods, some slight changes to the UI, and an ecosystem of bugs almost as diverse as I'd expect to find by overturning a log in the Amazon. So KSP2 is using KSP1 as a base so far, to hopefully metamorphose into a new and different experience. There are a few main "new" aspects the devs seem to be working towards for KSP2, and while I see the beginnings of some of those inside the 'skeleton' of the game today, there are some things that have been carried over from KSP1 that I think don't help KSP2 grow to the greatest experience it can be and develop its own "personality" if they remain as they are.

KSP1 was a "rocket" simulator. KSP1 helped players answer for themselves "Why should we build rockets?", to the point that the story of KSP players enrolling in aerospace engineering programs because of the game has become somewhat common. For this reason, I consider KSP to be the best game. (I myself graduated as an aerospace engineer last year, though I can't say that KSP inspired it - I was already committed to becoming an astronaut long before I heard of the game. I've had interviews with SpaceX for various positions in recent months, but no offers yet.)

Where KSP1 was a "rocket" simulator, I see KSP2 as trying to be a "space program" simulator. In KSP1, the player could build powerful rockets and touch down on any body in the solar system, but it would occur in isolated missions or voyages. Where KSP1 asked players "Why should we build rockets?", KSP2 seems to want to ask a question more like "What should we USE our rockets for now that we've built them?". The colonies, base-building mechanics, and interstellar destinations seem to point to a goal of letting players create a vibrant ecosystem of space travel. Instead of singular missions and tiny labs in space, we would be creating cities on the planets and trade routes between them, with complex exchanges of resources and technology culminating in the assembly of an interstellar vessel and the opening of the wide frontier. I think KSP2 has an opportunity to teach players not just about how rockets go from here to there, but about how they gather the information while exploring that leads to scientific discoveries and better informed designs of new vessels, and about the realistic challenges of living and building on another planet, and, most importantly, about exactly what makes it worthwhile to go to all that effort of leaving our perfect blue marble behind and actually trying to live there.

 

 

 

To that note, there are a few specific aspects of the game that are presently implemented in a way that I think will be detrimental to those goals (which I just made up in my head) if they continue to build directly off of KSP1 and the simple precursors in the game now. These are the main aspects that I think should be overhauled to make KSP2 a grand step forward from KSP1:

 

Realistic Science

Currently, science in KSP2 functions purely as a currency for unlocking new ship parts. The experiment modules themselves don't provide any useful information, and the game doesn't go out of its way to tell you what was learned from each experiment. The experiments are all packaged together in a mysterious bundle, and the only interaction from the player is a simple reaction to the blinking "science" button, to click and receive science points. This is based directly on science in KSP1, which had the same function as a currency but allowed more direct viewing of the readings from some instruments like thermometers and barometers. I think KSP2 has an opportunity to embrace science in a more realistic way, and bring a taste of actual science for players. The repeated clicking on individual experiments from KSP1 doesn't need to return for this, but perhaps an "experiment manager" window or some other form of more in-depth interaction would be warranted. 

What I mean by this is for the science experiments to act as sensors measuring quantitative qualities of the environment. Examples of this would be a probe dropping into the atmosphere of a planet with a barometer and thermometer and creating graphs of pressure and temperature by altitude for that planet, or a spacecraft orbiting a planet with LIDAR to map its terrain for the first time, while the player would not be able to see the surface detail up close in map view or with probes before doing that. The player could gather actual scientific data, and the game could guide them into understanding why they've learned something about the planet by doing what they've done ("See the spikes in your spectrometer reading? Those prove that there is water on Duna!" "You measured a dip in this star's brightness, that must have been caused by its planet!")  I recall the devs mentioning the idea of not giving the player all the information about planets right away, and players having to "discover" at least some celestial bodies on their own. I think this idea of the player gradually building up their own "discovered world" based on their own measurements helps with that, and I hope science gains a lot more depth and realism in KSP2 in the future.

Some of the science experiments I can think of:
-Magnetometers that can map planets' and stars' magnetic fields over time by orbiting them, and can help forecast solar storms
-Spectrometers that give spectra for stars, planet atmospheres, and surface samples, which the player can look over to characterize composition
-RADAR, LIDAR, and cameras that allow the player to record detailed maps of surface topography
-Telescopes with various specialized instruments and wavelength ranges for observation of deep space objects, exoplanet discovery, and mapping the stellar neighborhood

 

 

 

Player-Driven Exploration

With discovery at the forefront of the game, I think the player will have all the incentive they need to drive the direction of their space program on their own. Want to explore the Sun? Prioritize radiation and magnetic science parts. Made an unexpected fascinating discovery about Jool? Drum up the resources for a planetary probe. Prefer visiting Minmus over the Mun? Focus the game on that destination. Show the player the options, and let them choose their own goals.

A big place where I feel the game falls short of this are the anomalies. Instead of encouraging the player to go to space to learn about their environment and place in the universe, about the natural beauty of the world, the game sets the main goal as learning about the ancient aliens who were in the Kerbol system. I think having those artifacts in the game is no problem at all, and can make for a really cool adventure, but no part of the game should tell us to go seek them out or visit them. I would implement them far more subtly, requiring the player to discover them through actual anomalies in the data they gather as they explore. For instance, mapping out the magnetic environment around the Mun with an orbiting probe and discovering a strong localized magnetic field that reveals the location of the Mun arch. No Keri Kerman telling us that there is an arch, no mission handed to us by the game - all the incentive and excitement can come from a pure "What's THAT?" as the player discovers a tantalizing measurement. Then, visiting the arch (which should probably be covered up to begin with until excavation is possible) could allow discovery of an actual signal, a puzzle which would need to be deciphered by the player. 

Another example would be finding nearby stars and exoplanets. Once the player has the technology to do parallax measurements and light curves of stars, the game shouldn't tell them where to look in the sky. They should just be able to start a sky survey or point their telescope at whichever star they like, and see what they find. They might not know about all the same planets as some other player does, and when the time comes to launch their interstellar vessel they'll choose a different star to point it at, based on what they've discovered.

 

 

 

Resources

As the game progresses into colony-building, I'm sure the focus on material resources will grow, as now it isn't there but I can see the place for it in the game. On extraplanetary bases, it's obvious that there will be a limited budget of raw materials, metals, oxygen, etc. with which to build rockets, buildings, and other machines, with that budget coming from resource extractors and mining of the surface through combing, excavating, and drilling the planets. Other planets would also have alternate materials available like regolith for buildings, roads, and launch pads.

On Kerbin, presumably advanced industry elsewhere on the planet is able to supply KSC with an "allowance" of materials and parts, which don't necessarily need to be limited by cost in money units, but could be limited by quantity available, especially for specialized parts like probe cores and science instruments. For instance, "There are 6 FL-T200 fuel tanks available" or "There are 3 probe cores and 1 capsule available". Part of the player's directive for exploration could be the strategization of prioritizing production/purchase of certain kinds of parts and materials. Probes vs. space station modules, longer range antennas, different types of experiments...These would make every player's "space program" unique and personalized.

 

 

Conclusion

This is basically my outline for what I personally imagine KSP2 could be like in the future. The main aspects I see in this "speculative" version of KSP2 are:

• Science experiments functioning in a realistic way, as sensors that observe the environment, and conclusions about the universe being drawn from those observations, as well as useful information for designing and piloting vehicles in those environments
• Player-driven exploration, with much less direction coming from the mission system as to what to focus on or find important
• A focus on material resources for production of parts, vehicles, buildings, and missions that is adaptable to the player's self-determined goals

There are a few places in the game where I see gameplay mechanics that I think will prevent KSP2 from achieving these aspects if they are left as they are and taken for granted. Mainly these are copied from KSP1:

• The "science point" system and its dynamic with the tech tree
• Exploration being driven by "missions" where the game tells you where you should go and what aspects of space exploration you should consider important

I think those aspects from KSP1, which themselves were added after the core identity and function of the game were fairly well established, should be rethought and reworked to better fit the mission of KSP2. I'm not demanding that they be changed or made to fit what I've described here, my only request is that they not be taken for granted just because they're the status quo.

 

I know this is just my idea, and I'm sure the actual game could turn out very differently from what I've described and still be a very good game. The devs have no doubt been thinking and shooting ideas around about these very topics for years longer than I have, too. 

Developers, thanks for listening to the community, and thanks for your dedication and commitment to trying to make something even greater than the best game ever.

[Jeq]

I would like to see randomness in every planets characteristics, which would only be revealed by using science experiments or observing their different orbits. Suddenly duna might not have atmosphere or ike has oxygen. Minmus has bigger gravity. All this randomness to make every New Game unique and research.

[cubinator]

9 minutes ago, Jeq said:

I would like to see randomness in every planets characteristics, which would only be revealed by using science experiments or observing their different orbits. Suddenly duna might not have atmosphere or ike has oxygen. Minmus has bigger gravity. All this randomness to make every New Game unique and research.

In my opinion it'd be fine to keep the home system mainly consistent, but for a really full interstellar experience I think there'd be so many planets and places that you'd need to make many of them randomly generated or procedural, kind of like in Space Engine. The other thing that could benefit from random placement might be the alien monuments.