What DON'T we want in KSP?

[Deathsoul097]

I have seen a lot of threads going on about what they want to see in the next update, or even the final version. But I have never seen anyone create a thread about what people don't want to see in the game.

Simply put, what do we want to NEVER be implemented in the game, or removed?

Personally, I want to see that no warp drives or similar OP systems are ever officially added.

[Whirligig Girl]

anything on the do not suggest list with a *.

[Deathsoul097]

Gregox, I'm talking about stuff like SABRE engines, Warp drives, new solar systems etc...

[astropapi1]

SABRE engines...

Well, they're not unrealistic at all. The brits are (hopefully) gonna start researching them soon.

Then we don't want the NERVA either.

[SuperWeegee4000]

I think new stars would detract from the game. It'd take so long to get there, it wouldn't be worth it.

[regex]

Some talking head telling me where to go and what to do in career mode, yearly or monthly budgets, anything time-based where I have to wait to do something in-game (as opposed to working towards it), passive gameplay, etc...

[Kegereneku]

Should be short and straightforward.

What I wouldn't like :

- Grinding endlessly for money/science to finance our missions.

- A disregard for realistic evolution of the Tech-tree (I wouldn't mind needing to upgrade the parts themselves)

Edit : - a disregard for FTL very late implementation as a balanced gameplay mechanism (if necessary why not ?).

Edited December 16, 2013 by Kegereneku
just in case...

[Tiberion]

Procedural anything (parts)

There is room for it in modded gameplay (to a certain extent) but I think that a great deal of the gameplay in KSP is picking the right parts for the job, and being able to push a button and get a part exactly how you need it sort of defeats the purpose. Fairings make sense, but going to an engineer and asking him to make that tank 2 meters longer for extra fuel is a bit silly, it would be expensive and require lots of testing on the new parts.

[Dunbaratu]

anything on the do not suggest list with a *.

I don't think the OP was about what SQUAD has already said they won't do. It was about what forum participants want to not be in the game.

[konokono]

I'm on the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I would LOVE to see things like warp drive and interstellar travel, as long as they adhere somewhat to what we know about the physics of those things, to the extent that we know them. I think KSP is a good platform to explore that kind of stuff in a way that typical science-fiction glosses over...

What I wouldn't like to see: too much emphasis on the economic aspect of the game. I want to build spaceships and crash them, not play space tycoon

[Dunbaratu]

Procedural anything (parts)

There is room for it in modded gameplay (to a certain extent) but I think that a great deal of the gameplay in KSP is picking the right parts for the job, and being able to push a button and get a part exactly how you need it sort of defeats the purpose. Fairings make sense, but going to an engineer and asking him to make that tank 2 meters longer for extra fuel is a bit silly, it would be expensive and require lots of testing on the new parts.

If you complain for gameplay story reasons that makes sense, because of how the Kerbal science is portrayed as "finding stuff by the side of the road" - seeming to imply that a lot of their rocket parts were not of their own deliberate careful design.

But if you complain for realism reasons that doesn't make sense at all. Take the diameter of a fuel tank part, for example. Presumably the timeline doesn't go in this order:

step 1 - A company designs a rocket fuel tank.

step 2 - Then they wait around for a space agency to exist so they'll have a customer that will buy it.

It's not like NASA was sitting around going "Wow, there sure are a lot of different rocket parts available on the market to buy, Maybe we should, you know, try putting them together." Granted, this is exactly how it's portrayed in KSP, and that is part of what makes it a bit cartoony and funny. So if you say that picking the size of your parts shouldn't be allowed because it's contrary to the Kerbal story presented, then I'd totally agree with you. But when you say it's because they're unrealistic, I'm not buying that.

Realistically, the rocket parts wouldn't exist until after the rocket design that uses them existed. So the parts would be built to match the spec, not the other way around.

[Dunbaratu]

I think new stars would detract from the game. It'd take so long to get there, it wouldn't be worth it.

I think it's really important the the following two suggestions be treated as the utterly distinct suggestions they are, and be dealt with separately:

1 - A new star system that is reachable from Kerbin.

2 - A new star system that can be played as a campaign you start from scratch elsewhere.

They are not even close to being the same suggestion and yet #2 is often rejected for the FTL reason that is only applicable to #1.

I would hate to see #1 as well, but would love to see #2.

[Deathsoul097]

On playing KSP, and hearing what the devs say about KSP, I have come to this conclusion. Kerbals mass produce everything in standardized sizes, and the starting tech is probably the remenants of a bankrupt, old space agency that has been taken over by a few rocket enthusiasts and their scientist friend. (Jeb, Bill, Bob and Werhner von kerman) AS their agency grows and ulocks more tech they begin recruiting a build up a new space program. So instead of each rocket being constructed after it is designed, each rocket is constructed with what is left and what is newly unlocked or bought. Plus, the modular design to everything allows for ease of building, and less for jeb to screw up when he builds the rockets at first, assuming they don't start with a dedicated builder.

EDIT: Or all of what I said is just wishful thinking, and this is just a game.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Deathsoul097

[Superfluous J]

Parts upgrading over time or needing to be upgraded. I want the ship I built on tech node 0 to work the exact same way it did when I've unlock the final tech node.

Parts should remain as they are now: Different, not better. The NERVA isn't BETTER than the Mainsail, it's just for a different purpose.

Now, if they're CHEAPER over time, that's perfectly fine by me. Though I'd like to see how the game will implement money before I decide on anything like that.

[Kegereneku]

Parts upgrading over time or needing to be upgraded. I want the ship I built on tech node 0 to work the exact same way it did when I've unlock the final tech node.

Parts should remain as they are now: Different, not better. The NERVA isn't BETTER than the Mainsail, it's just for a different purpose.

Now, if they're CHEAPER over time, that's perfectly fine by me. Though I'd like to see how the game will implement money before I decide on anything like that.

You can't know how much I disagree with you.

Unless I misunderstood you and you meant it in a specific way (like : spec upgrade going from 50% to 100%, or/and against 100% to 200% ?).

My view on the "upgrade-idea" is that real engine tech DO get better and better, but as I doubt the Developers would create parts only meant to become obsolete an efficient solution is to reuse the model and upgrade their stat from -say- 50% to 100%, at which point they reach "physical limitation" and you'll need an entirely new technology.

This, to avoid the following :

- The real Mercury program already had micro liquid-engine and decoupler.

- In KSP, as you can't unlock micro liquid-engine and decoupler until way later, it force you to attach a small and light capsule to a big 100% efficient LV-T30.

[Tw1]

I would not want set missions that give you the entire details of a flight, and make you do it to earn something.

Little things you can do as part of missions you plan on your own would be good fun thought.

The other things that could ruin it:

An overzealous helper/ advisor that pops up and tells you how to do everything. Bleah.

"Contractors" who will do something for you if you pay real life money to the game, Zynga style. Yuck yuck yuck.

yearly or monthly budgets, anything time-based where I have to wait to do something in-game (as opposed to working towards it),

I am a fan of the idea of monthly or weekly budgets, as that system makes the most sense. Who would pay you to land somewhere the 506th time? And if it's budget per launch, but as many launches as you want, why couldn't we just get straight access to this infinite pool of money?

But it will have to be well balanced, and have a system to limit the amount you can save up just by time warping.

You'd earn increases to the budget as you go.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Tw1

[konokono]

"Contractors" who will do something for you if you pay real life money to the game, Zynga style. Yuck yuck yuck.

LOL... I was having a bit of a hard time thinking about what I wouldn't want, until you brought up micro transactions. If the ultimate game has microtransactions I'm going to uninstall it and not touch it with a 10-ft stick. Thankfully I don't see that happening

[Tiberion]

Realistically, the rocket parts wouldn't exist until after the rocket design that uses them existed. So the parts would be built to match the spec, not the other way around.

That is precisely my point, there would not be an infnite amount of tank lengths and diameters that a builder could pick and choose one. A rocket is designed and those parts are built. Those parts STAY THE SAME unless there is a major revision, the manufacturing process is updated and the whole rocket is retested to make sure the calculations all work.

SpaceX didn't go into their engineers "okay we need Falcon9 1.1 to be X meters longer" and then the next week out comes a longer tank. They can't adapt the part size or capabilities per mission and they DID create a rocket and then sell flights of it to companies.

You could make procedural parts realistic if it was part of a MUCH larger and more complex manufacturing system, where you have to have the expertise and money to engineer custom-sized parts (and it wouldn't be instantly available)

But going into the VAB and being able to set up a tank (or anything really) with the exact dimensions you want each and every flight is in no way realistic, and as far as gameplay goes, fairly shallow. It's COOL tech as far as the game engineering goes, but if its abused, I only see it as a bad thing.

[Tw1]

But going into the VAB and being able to set up a tank (or anything really) with the exact dimensions you want each and every flight is in no way realistic, and as far as gameplay goes, fairly shallow. It's COOL tech as far as the game engineering goes, but if its abused, I only see it as a bad thing.

I see the limited set parts of parts as a good in universe reason why the kerbals can build and design so fast. If you only use mass produced, standard parts, you can store a lot of them, assemble new creations fairly rapidly.

Rocket parts are very complex, pretty much everything we build in KSC is simple by comparison. Redesigning them, and resetting your manufacturing plant takes time and money.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Tw1

[RSwordsman]

Personally I'd LOVE warp drives and other 90% fictitious parts, as long as they are physically plausible and balanced in some way. Not to mention space travel won't be really interesting until we find a way to go faster than light (and it might go against the grain of KSP's focus on orbital motion, but there are lots of little hacks proposed to get around Newtonian behavior). But, as always, there are mods for that I suppose.

What I don't want? The possibility of permanently screwing yourself over. If budget is implemented, there has to be a periodic "federal grant" that gives you X Kredits per time period no matter how little success you have. The ability to go totally broke from failures ups the ante, but overall would be the cause of save-scumming.

Edited November 11, 2013 by RSwordsman

[regex]

I am a fan of the idea of monthly or weekly budgets, as that system makes the most sense. Who would pay you to land somewhere the 506th time? And if it's budget per launch, but as many launches as you want, why couldn't we just get straight access to this infinite pool of money?

But it will have to be well balanced, and have a system to limit the amount you can save up just by time warping.

You'd earn increases to the budget as you go.

Ugh, that sounds incredibly tedious. I do anywhere from one to twenty launches per game month, I'd hate to be limited to one or two launches then ~timewarp~ for cash. That's boring gameplay. Let's hope SQUAD makes KSP an active game where you get rewarded for actually doing things.

[Tw1]

Ugh, that sounds incredibly tedious. I do anywhere from one to twenty launches per game month, I'd hate to be limited to one or two launches then ~timewarp~ for cash. That's boring gameplay. Let's hope SQUAD makes KSP an active game where you get rewarded for actually doing things.

I'd hope to soon build up budget for 10-50, but to me, money is no reward.

Science points and money are just numbers, and any thrill from making a number grow pales in comparison to touring a solar system in highly functioning things you made yourself.

I often feel a little less weird time warping up to windows- after three weeks of rocket launches every few hours, there's nothing happening at KSC for two months.

But if I was saving up my kerb-bucks in those periods, they'd be a bit of a better in universe reason for that to happen.

Though I definitely agree the game should get you to be active. With the current science system, you can spend months traveling, land, spend a short time doing things before all the science points are fully collected. Then it's more waiting/timewarping till the next window, then more waiting in orbit 'till you get home.

I'd like to see more activities you can to repeatedly, yet get slightly varied results, but this is the wrong thread to go into detail about that.

One thing that is for this thread though:

I really don't want this game to be about earning points. There are internet flash games for that. I hope they focus on making it an experience.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Tw1

[regex]

I'd hope to soon build up budget for 10-50, but too me, money is no reward. Science points and money are just numbers, and any thrill from making a number larger pales in comparison to touring a solar system in highly functioning things you made yourself.

That's the point: money isn't a reward, it's a means to an end. That's why I'd hate to end up being limited by timewarping for cash.

[Superfluous J]

Ugh, that sounds incredibly tedious. I do anywhere from one to twenty launches per game month, I'd hate to be limited to one or two launches then ~timewarp~ for cash. That's boring gameplay. Let's hope SQUAD makes KSP an active game where you get rewarded for actually doing things.

Actually what I want is the opposite: You get money for doing stuff, so if you time warp a lot you run out of cash

[Tw1]

That's the point: money isn't a reward, it's a means to an end. That's why I'd hate to end up being limited by timewarping for cash.

Yes, but that would just be a base load, and your funders would stop paying if you warped too much. You'd earn their financial support, and bonus payments by actually doing things.