More bang for your buck - What would you like next for KSP?

[blurrr 2]

What I would like to see would be more realism.

For unmanned craft, information packets should have to be sent via antennae to the craft, and executed on a time delay. The instructions themselves can contain delays.

The only information you should be able to see from an unmanned craft should come from sensors and/or cameras.

You would play as a Kerbal, and only be able to see IVA and camera views, and views from any unmanned craft that you were controlling.

Kerbals need resources to survive, via life support.

Also, reaction wheels should be taken out of command pods, and SAS/ASAS wheels should only provide control along the axis which they were placed.

Reentry heat should be deadly.

[Scotius]

What I would like to see would be more realism.

For unmanned craft, information packets should have to be sent via antennae to the craft, and executed on a time delay. The instructions themselves can contain delays.

The only information you should be able to see from an unmanned craft should come from sensors and/or cameras.

You would play as a Kerbal, and only be able to see IVA and camera views, and views from any unmanned craft that you were controlling.

Kerbals need resources to survive, via life support.

Also, reaction wheels should be taken out of command pods, and SAS/ASAS wheels should only provide control along the axis which they were placed.

Reentry heat should be deadly.

Oh, please...You want realism? Then let's remove time warp - now that's a feature unrealistic as all heck. I'm sure you will have a heap of fun running Minmus mission for three days straight. Oh, and no pause too - it's unrealistic. Sheesh! KSP is a game, but not a realistic simulator.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

I'm pretty sure NASA has the information available to them at hand and also the fact that their staff are all highly trained, compared to the layman like us who needs to look up the tables and references. Also, NASA never gambles with their space program or voluntarily leaves anything to chance.

That's not really what I meant. When NASA started out, they had to find out everything by themselves. I want that same atmosphere in KSP. If a DeltaV map would be present in the game, the whole unknown factor would be limited by: look at the map. NASA didn't have such map; they needed to calculate it and test whether they were right or not.

[Scotius]

You are wrong. NASA started from a foundation built by generation of astronomers, chemists, physicist, biologists and other scientists.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

You are wrong. NASA started from a foundation built by generation of astronomers, chemists, physicist, biologists and other scientists.

Exactly my point. But they didn't have Google just to look up an answer.

[hobbsyoyo]

NASA didn't have to guess deltaV values to get places. They developed tables and programs to do that. They have tons and tons of tables for all kinds of information. I have no idea why anyone would think they just 'wing it'.

I can't see the harm in having a deltaV calculator. It is simply a convenience because if you really want to, you can do it via spreadsheet. But that is a bit of a hassle and takes time away from playing the game. The notion that you have to 'figure out' deltaV values by sending out probes first (as some seem to suggest) is just awful.

Edit: Why have manuever nodes? You should all just figure it out.

Sheesh

Edited October 24, 2013 by hobbsyoyo

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

NASA didn't have to guess deltaV values to get places. They developed tables and programs to do that. They have tons and tons of tables for all kinds of information. I have no idea why anyone would think they just 'wing it'.

I can't see the harm in having a deltaV calculator. It is simply a convenience because if you really want to, you can do it via spreadsheet. But that is a bit of a hassle and takes time away from playing the game. The notion that you have to 'figure out' deltaV values by sending out probes first (as some seem to suggest) is just awful.

Edit: Why have manuever nodes? You should all just figure it out.

Sheesh

I never said NASA guessed their way in space. Like you said yourself: they use tables, but who created these tables!? Right... THEY did. And that's my whole point.

I also never said I see any harm in a DeltaV calculator; in fact, I suggested in my earlier post that it should be part of the game.

I just don't want a road map. It's not extremely hard to find out for yourself how much DeltaV is needed to reach a destination, even if you would just do it by trail and error. If you put a map like that in the game, you might as well put in the easter egg coordinates as well... what's the point of finding anything out for yourself?

Sheesh

[hobbsyoyo]

Why do you need maneuver nodes? Can't you just learn how to fly correctly yourself through trial and error?

Who cares if there is a map you don't have to use? Some of us would really like the realism of a mission planner where you can plan out things in-game. That doesn't mean it does the work for you, it's just a tool you use to help you. Similarly, a maneuver node doesn't really do work for you, you still have to program it correctly but it helps take out the tedium so you can just play. A mission planner/mission control system would be the same.

And again, no one would make you use it, just like you don't have to use maneuver nodes. So why do you care?

And um:

That's not really what I meant. When NASA started out, they had to find out everything by themselves. I want that same atmosphere in KSP. If a DeltaV map would be present in the game, the whole unknown factor would be limited by: look at the map. NASA didn't have such map; they needed to calculate it and test whether they were right or not.

Yeah, NASA didn't have to make deltaV tables, they were already worked out a long time ago. NASA also didn't have to 'test' their deltaV tables, that's the great thing about mathematics, you can prove formulas works mathematically without building hardware.

Edited October 24, 2013 by hobbsyoyo

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

Why do you need maneuver nodes? Can't you just learn how to fly correctly yourself through trial and error?

Who cares if there is a map you don't have to use? Some of us would really like the realism of a mission planner where you can plan out things in-game. That doesn't mean it does the work for you, it's just a tool you use to help you. Similarly, a maneuver node doesn't really do work for you, you still have to program it correctly but it helps take out the tedium so you can just play. A mission planner/mission control system would be the same.

And again, no one would make you use it, just like you don't have to use maneuver nodes. So why do you care?

I suppose that is half true. I look at KSP as an exploration game. I knew very little about rocketry and KSP forced me to learn new stuff. That is the game's prerogative if you ask me and I would be sad if that is taken out. Not for myself, but for new players.

And um:

Yeah, NASA didn't have to make deltaV tables, they were already worked out a long time ago. NASA also didn't have to 'test' their deltaV tables, that's the great thing about mathematics, you can prove formulas works mathematically without building hardware.

Sure, you can calculate everything. But how many times calculations have been wrong or revised? I'm sure the DeltaV tables were at hand before they started. I'm also quite sure they recalculated the whole thing a millions times to see if they were right. And after that, I'm 100% sure they crossed their fingers the moment they pushed that button.

You can calculate all you want, but it is not the real definition of science which is: information gathered by observation that can be reproduced at any time. Anything beyond that is an axiom.

[lazarus1024]

The next couple of things I'd love to see are (in order of importance to me)

Adding money/economy to career mode. Research and science were huge (it allowed career mode), but I think to round out the career mode experience, having to budget for your builds and a method to earn/get/accumulate money I think is also important. Adding that in I think will flesh out career mode significantly and likely would also "put a stop" to things that feel kind of cheaty on how to amass tons of science in short order.

Moar parts. I do like most of what we have, but I do feel like some important parts are missing, especially once money/economy is added in and balancing/tweaking science. We need some 2.5m science parts and we need the option of some .725m probe science parts. I am thinking things like a soil scoop/analyzer for probes would be neat/cool/should be there and things like orbital research bays as 2.5m parts. Some more advanced parts, such as 2.5m NERVAs and nuclear reactors would be cool. Especially if other things like more powerful Ion drives or VASMIR is added in to go with nuke reactors (scaled roughly to in game ion drive standards...so something like a 1.5m ion drive/NERVA might use 10x the power of a probe based one, but also produces something like 10-20 thrust and a 2.5m one that uses 50x the power of the probe ion drive, but produces something like 40 thrust). To go with later suggestions, radiators too.

Heat. Engines in space and some things like nuclear power plants and RTGs should produce heat that accumulates (even if very slowly, but dissipates super slowly unless you have working radiators). Radiators will radiate it away.

Life support. Especially with career mode, I think it is time in the next couple of updates to consider implementing life support. 1.5m and 2.5m life support modules and small (monopropellant sized) radial life support modules would be nice. They use a small amount of power (very small) and have a finite amount of "life support gas" in them. Make it not uber challenging, so something like a small radial tank might be enough to last 4-7 days for a single kerbal and uses 1 unit of energy per minute or something. Probe sized provides double that, 1.5m gives 2 weeks for a single kerbal and a 2.5m gives a month for a single kerbal. Then also provide things like 2.5m hydroponics/aeroponics modules (hydroponics costs less, but weighs more and is unlocked before aeroponics in tech tree). Those hydroponics/aeroponics can provide unlimited life support gases for 3 kerbals, or recharge life support gases at the appropriate rate if there are fewer than 3. Great reason for space stations now too. Stick a hydroponics module or two on it, send it out to Duna and you can tank up missions being sent out there. You can also have "atmosphere reprocessor" units in radial size maybe, that use a lot of power, but also recharge life support gases on planets that have an atmosphere (can be used as an atmosphere scoop too, but the lower the air pressure, the slower the recharge).

Deadly re-entry heat and heat shields/coatings. I honestly don't want this to be super difficult. However, if you are going fast enough to cause a heat trail, that should be fast enough to damage parts that aren't protected by a heat shield or tiles/coatings. Allow any part to be coated/tiled, but have the protection be a lot weaker than a heat shield (IE could withstand moderate aerobraking or gentle re-entry, but it isn't going to withstand a plunge straight in from orbital speeds. Heat shields can generally protect anything at nearly any speed...so long as not really ridiculous).

Biomes for all planets and have them remapped (a la Kerbin and the Mun in .21). Possibly adjusting which planets there are and their setups like SQUAD things is closer to a final layout of the planetary system would be nice too.

That's all I can think of for stuff I'd really like to see in the next few updates (say within the next 3-4 updates). There are many other things, but I feel like they'd add more after all of this stuff was done.

[Rage097]

The next thing I'd like to see....wait for it.

Resources!

and more sciency flavor text~

[Lord_Demon]

I don't think that's a great idea. Sorry for not having a reference, but I believe the developers said they didn't want to allow science to be gained by simply time-warping a crazy amount.

That sounds like a better idea. If you can complete one orbit around Kerbin you gain a certain amount of money. You wouldn't gain more for more orbits though, because usually if you can make it once around Kerbin you can also make it around 10 billion times (because there is no orbital decay).

Sounds great!

The difference is that science is a limited use resource: Once you have researched tech tree completely, it is of no use. Therefore it makes sense that you can't earn endlessly science from a single orbiting satellite.

Credits on the other hand are unlimited use resource: There will always be new rockets you can build and launch, even if they are identical copies of one another. Therefore there needs to be a unlimited amount of credits players can earn. However, this should most likely have a limit on how much one single flight can earn.

Credits also are the opposite of science: More science is earned the further you go. But to go further, you need bigger rockets, which cost more. If you would only get more credits by going further players could bankrupt themselves by a single failed launch. This is why IMO the game economics model will need to have some sort of "easy" credit making method. Satellites would fit this perfectly. At the very least they should provide you with enough credit income so you can build bigger ships, which carry mun rocks to sell to people for big credits.

But overall my point was that there could be two type of missions: One which rewards credits instantly when certain parameters are met, and another that will operate for certain period of time, and earn credits slowly up to a certain limit (hence the time/data limits in my original post).

My ideas are mostly similar, just the payment method is different (one is all or nothing, one has partial payment for partial success).

Interesting idea might be if the kerbin was divided into different geographical areas. Then players could for example be rewarded only for time the satellite is transmitting over the area in question. (in real world example, imagine BBC paying a space agency for time a TV satellite transmits while above UK.) NOt perfect, but would require more work to the satellite track planning, and player could not use a single satellite for all the missions.

Actually, I think satellites and Kerbal orbit flights for "scientists" (extra kerbals in specail module) could make the best example of early game income missions.

[lazarus1024]

Another option instead of simply earning an unlimited amount of credits and being able to spend it to your hearts desire, is having a credit limit PER LAUNCH.

You can unlock higher funding by achieving certain goals in the game. For example, orbiting Kerbin once. Succesfully launching and recovering a flight. Landing a probe on the Mun. EVA'ing a Kerbal on the Mun. Returning a soil sample from the Mun. Orbiting the Mun, etc. I don't think it would be that difficult to add in achievements that would benefit your budget.

Then, instead of simply accumulating money through a time based mechanic, you get limited funding per launch. That also prevents penalties from getting bad just testing out rocket designs (and possibly having to dabble in sandbox mode to get a good design and then create it in career).

So, maybe you start with Tech tree 1, zero science and a budget of 2,000cr per launch. You successfully launch a rocket and earn some science AND since you managed to recover the pod, the Kerbals celebrate and you get awarded a higher budget of 2,500cr per launch. You get in to orbit on this one and now you've had your budget bumped to 3,000cr per launch.

Or some such thing as that. It prevents you from having any mechanic where you can simply time warp your way to an unlimited budget and it also prevents failure from being a really bad penalty (though you could also have your budget limited if you have too many missions that get blown up or something).

It would be my prefered method of economy rather than earning set amounts of money and would likely provide more flexibility in game play.

[Torham234]

Exactly my point. But they didn't have Google just to look up an answer.

Nope. Google was called a Library back then. I am pretty sure they consulted every book in existence on the subject before they even began the planing of the rocket. If you want to spend half a day measuring distances between orbits, working out the masses of planets and orbital periods, and than working out the optimal launch windows and working out the hohmann transfer nodes, its up to you. I am not even sure that KSP gives you all the necessary information ingame. I would rather look up on the deltaV map and plan my mission from there. Right now its fairly easy, since you can massively overcompensate and bring tons of fuel with any probe you send out, but once the economy kicks in, that would be a luxury you may not be able to afford. Careful planing of every probe will be a cornerstone of a successful mission.

[Jean Deaux]

I like the economy, but I'd like it in a way that doesn't simply end like the tech tree does. I like the idea of a job board that issued tasks to be completed (land here, take samples, leave a comsat in high orbit, etc) and completing provided the payout. Would also love to see two types of funding in career mode. Allow the player to select Government Branch or Private Sector development. If the space program was government funded, you would get steady (yet fixed) funding but would allow for a faster start as it would start you off with a higher budget than the Private Sector option. Missions would also be required to be achieved within a specified time line else face some sort of penalty or budget cut (not to be allowed to go below a specific amount).

The Private Sector option basically starts out with a smaller budget (the paultry $4000 in your pocket) making startup harder, but successful missions have better payouts and you get to select which missions you wish to complete and ignore/refuse the rest. Too many failures and your business drops.

Both could be linked with the tech tree, completing science missions alongside economic missions in order to accomodate the funding of both the science and the parts.

Once the science is done, the job board still exists so that players don't suffer from the "what do I do now that I've done everything" syndrome. Players can use their saved earnings to run their own private/desired missions of explorations.

[Lord_Demon]

Another option instead of simply earning an unlimited amount of credits and being able to spend it to your hearts desire, is having a credit limit PER LAUNCH.

You can unlock higher funding by achieving certain goals in the game. For example, orbiting Kerbin once. Succesfully launching and recovering a flight. Landing a probe on the Mun. EVA'ing a Kerbal on the Mun. Returning a soil sample from the Mun. Orbiting the Mun, etc. I don't think it would be that difficult to add in achievements that would benefit your budget.

Then, instead of simply accumulating money through a time based mechanic, you get limited funding per launch. That also prevents penalties from getting bad just testing out rocket designs (and possibly having to dabble in sandbox mode to get a good design and then create it in career).

So, maybe you start with Tech tree 1, zero science and a budget of 2,000cr per launch. You successfully launch a rocket and earn some science AND since you managed to recover the pod, the Kerbals celebrate and you get awarded a higher budget of 2,500cr per launch. You get in to orbit on this one and now you've had your budget bumped to 3,000cr per launch.

Or some such thing as that. It prevents you from having any mechanic where you can simply time warp your way to an unlimited budget and it also prevents failure from being a really bad penalty (though you could also have your budget limited if you have too many missions that get blown up or something).

It would be my prefered method of economy rather than earning set amounts of money and would likely provide more flexibility in game play.

As noted by lazarus that would lead to players running out of things to do in the economics once they got to certain level. It would effectively only be another techtree, which would be overlapping the current one.

In any case, some form of fixed income must be available: Either small scale goverment funding monthly (or whatever time period), or some limited parts that can be used for free so player can complete missions even if they are running out of credits. I'd prefer to see fixed goverment funding, which was enough to do small scale stuff so players could use that to boost up the economics with the missions. If we ended with free parts people would just build huge rockets from those parts.

Or maybe goverment subsidiary, which pays for the first xxx credits of a rocket cost? That way making rockets that cost less then the subsidiary would be free. Goverment could of course deduct that provided cost from any profit from mission.

[hobbsyoyo]

What if you could build a rocket when funds are good and save if for when funding is bad so you can do a successful mission to get your funding back?

[Highlad]

I think they should add a difficulty meter. Then later (when they add resources, weather, money etc) they can tie features to each difficulty level.

Easy:

• Op parts
  
• Easy to reach tech-tree goals
  
• Good wether everywhere
  
• no damage upon re-entry
  
• high starting budget (for when money is implemented)
  
• low crash damage
  

Medium:

• Normal parts
  
• Normal tech-tree goals
  
• medium weather (occasional storm etc)
  
• some damage after a few seconds of re-entry effects
  
• average starting budget
  
• normal crash damage
  

Hard:

• Inefficient parts
  
• expensive parts
  
• hard to reach tech-tree goals
  
• lots of wind, cloud cover etc
  
• low starting budget
  
• high crash damage
  

'Realistic':

• Really inefficient parts (You can buy efficiency for a high cost)
  
• parts cost tonnes to research and buy
  
• super-hard tech-tree goals
  
• almost always stormy or windy everywhere
  
• no starting budget (you go into debt)
  
• Go too far into debt: GAME OVER
  
• Kill a kerbal: GAME OVER
  
• Realistic re-entry heat
  
• costs money to train kerbals
  
• different levels of training: you have to hire kerbals to train other kerbals (eg. pay jebidiah 2000kerbucks to train john to level 5)
  
• Badly trained kerbals will lose control of the spacecraft now and again.
  

[Godot]

I think they should add a difficulty meter. Then later (when they add resources, weather, money etc) they can tie features to each difficulty level.

...

'Realistic':

...

• Kill a kerbal: GAME OVER
  

Definitely not realistic ...

both, NASA as well as their russian equivalent had a few fatal accidents, without any of them having too many negative affects on the space program ...

in fact the only fatal accident that that had any longer lasting effects seems to be the Columbia desaster, which led to the premature ending of the space shuttle program.

Also killing a Kerbal (or even a whole capsule crew) as condition for GAME OVER could make the game rather short

[hobbsyoyo]

I wouldn't say that the Apollo 1/Challenger/Columbia accidents didn't have too many negative effects....the later two in particular set back the program by years and while you note some of what happened after Columbia, Challenger really changed what the Shuttles were allowed to do, the kinds of payloads they could carry and other negative things. All the accidents also kicked off debates about whether or not manned space flight should be a thing as well.

[Tsuki]

only this two wishes:

* droping stock unity's physX for a better physics engine...

* aerodynamics

and a little dream i know it will never happen:

dropping patched conics orbit calculation to something more Newtonian (ex: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/49121-On-Newtonian-trajectories-vs-patched-conics)

[Kerbart]

Ability to transfer surface samples to other vessels. Right now there's no reason to use lander cans in career mode unless you accept them as feasible atmospheric return vessels.

[Xyd]

Further fleshing out the science of the game including more scientific instruments and improved feedback from that.

Make probes more useful along with space stations such as conducting ongoing research.

Implement the economics within the game so that we now have currency to manage.

Biomes for the other planets.

Further enhancements made to career mode including optional missions and perhaps Kerbal public perception that could affect what missions you get along with your funding.

[M5000]

I like the parts that modders offer, as well as the stock parts, so I can't say I'd wish for more parts as a priority.

Personally, my favorite things I like to see implemented are things that improve performance/engine upgrades. Those, as well as functionality upgrades to the game itself. Little tweaks that make the game run faster, or generally offer more options to play with. I'm not as keen on huge things being added, rather, I tend to take joy in a lot of little things that add up to a lot of content. Especially any and all performance increases, I love when the game runs creamy smooth.

[Wice]

A better, not tree-based construction system and tweakables