What DON'T we want in KSP?

[allmhuran]

Your posts are, at least, always amusing.

[TheGeoninja]

I think interstellar is a cool idea but warp drive would be a bit too much. If you want that their are plenty of mods that provide that kind of stuff a few aren't OP too.

[MR4Y]

Picking mod mechanics, implementing them in the game and calling it a brand new feature.

[Lazareyes]

I really would hate to see missions in Career mode that are forced upon you, and would much rather see a system like this:

You want toland on Gilly, but the missions, although holding a widespread amount of different locations, happens to not have any misssion on Gilly. After Orbiting it, the game realizes that you want to do Gilly-Related Mission, and gives you missions, such as landing and returning a manned pod, orbit and return without NERVAs, or mabey some more creative challenges.

Nor would I like to see new star systems, as even with KSP's scaled-down bodies, and buring a Mainsail with infnite fuel ang only a QBE and a radio-thermoscope thingy for power, it would still take the game running for a couple days, and would indefinetly shoot up to multiple months without cheating, and trillions of (Kerbits?) out of pocket.

[Superfluous J]

I really would hate to see missions in Career mode that are forced upon you, and would much rather see a system like this:

You want toland on Gilly, but the missions, although holding a widespread amount of different locations, happens to not have any misssion on Gilly. After Orbiting it, the game realizes that you want to do Gilly-Related Mission, and gives you missions, such as landing and returning a manned pod, orbit and return without NERVAs, or mabey some more creative challenges.

I really like this idea with a twist.

What if the first few missions were standard ones. Get this into orbit. Take this to Mun. Take this rich guy on a suborbital flight. "Easy" type missions just to get cash to do what you want.

Then, once you have a space station, suddenly you get a mission "Take that rich guy to your space station" or "Attach this device to your space station." These missions would not have come up unless you had a space station. If instead you start building planes, you may get a contract to deliver critical equipment to the North Pole, or a mountaintop or something. When you land on Mun, a couple missions to do something specific there come up.

That way, you can do whatever you want and the game doesn't just pat you on the head and congratulate you for being creative by handing you more money, but it DOES tailor the missions available to what you are actually doing and not asking you to bring back a sample from Laythe when you're concentrating on setting up your Duna base.

[Lazareyes]

I really like this idea with a twist.

What if the first few missions were standard ones. Get this into orbit. Take this to Mun. Take this rich guy on a suborbital flight. "Easy" type missions just to get cash to do what you want.

Then, once you have a space station, suddenly you get a mission "Take that rich guy to your space station" or "Attach this device to your space station." These missions would not have come up unless you had a space station. If instead you start building planes, you may get a contract to deliver critical equipment to the North Pole, or a mountaintop or something. When you land on Mun, a couple missions to do something specific there come up.

That way, you can do whatever you want and the game doesn't just pat you on the head and congratulate you for being creative by handing you more money, but it DOES tailor the missions available to what you are actually doing and not asking you to bring back a sample from Laythe when you're concentrating on setting up your Duna base.

Mabey also, after doing a certain amount of missions about a certain thing, the game starts offering less of those, and offers missions to where the game thinks you would go next. For example, after your 3rd Mun Landing, the game would suggest going to Minmus, but dosen't yet think you're capable of going interplanetary yet. The game also may focus on parts you just got from the R&D lab. Say, you just unlocked Advanced Electrics, and have recently landed on Duna. The game would offer a mission to launch a sattelite into a Geostationary Orbit around Duna, but it must have some weird unique part only for the mission (You cannot buy it, and get one in stock when accepting the mission) that requires a lot of electric Charge, making you test out your new parts, along woth doing what the game thinks you are currently intrested in.

B.O.T., I would HATE to see a real autopilot in-game. It's not that I hate the concept, but I think autopilots take the fun out of the game. I bought the game to build and fly ships, not to build ships and watch the game fly it for me. If they do that, they might as well cut out the actuall flying stage, as everybody is going to use it, and not actually fly the craft. Though that is my personal opinion, I HAVE landed on both Duna and Eve without any kind of Autopilot. Although that really dosen't seem very impressive to the expirenced pilot, if you use things like MechJeb alot, just try and land on Eve without it (Especially without the optimal time window). It's a LOT harder than it looks.

[Deathsoul097]

So what you're saying 5thHorseman, is that you want a Storyteller/Director AI to hand out missions and goals relevant to your current situation. Which, TBH, sounds freaking amazing!

EDIT: I only EVER use autopilots when my craft practically kills my computer, and turns ksp into a slideshow. That way I don't have to sit and watch for five minutes before I can start my gravity turn.

[Superfluous J]

So what you're saying 5thHorseman, is that you want a Storyteller/Director AI to hand out missions and goals relevant to your current situation. Which, TBH, sounds freaking amazing!

Yup. That is what I would love.

Though to be honest I just want some missions to do. Kinda like how I just wanted science to research and didn't care much the details. I got what I wanted and the game easily doubled in gameplay possibilities for me. Any form of mission generator for me will be better than what we have now.

But we're getting into "stuff we want" territory and away from "stuff we don't want"

[Deathsoul097]

True, true. lol.

So, to turn this thread back in the right direction, another thing I never want to see is any hyper-realism stuff, like life support, mental health monitoring etc...

[Wormhol3]

EA would ruin this game.

[peadar1987]

True, true. lol.

So, to turn this thread back in the right direction, another thing I never want to see is any hyper-realism stuff, like life support, mental health monitoring etc...

I'd love to see life support actually, provided it was relatively simple, and implemented in a non-annoying manner (So you wouldn't need extra life support for a Munar landing and return, or even one to Minmus, but if you were going to be in orbit more than 7 days, you'd have to put in life support modules. It would have to be combined with an intuitive UI, so you could see how long your Kerbals were going to survive in space, and how long they had left, because having your Kerbals die because of the life support Kraken would be incredibly annoying!)

[thereaverofdarkness]

I'm not against having other star systems and I think they could totally be reachable with real existing technology, or maybe technology that has the base ideas worked out but has't been put into actual production yet. There is no need to invoke warp drive or other magic engines to get to stars if they are one tenth the distance from Kerbol as other stars are from Sol. Wouldn't be too absurd to reach a star 0.44 light years away. And maybe Kerbol has a red or brown dwarf or two even closer. Maybe a Wolf-359 analogue, except instead of 0.8 light years away, it would be 0.15 light years away.

Anyway, I really don't want to see warp drive in the game unless real scientists have actually figured out how to make it on paper. Teleporting a proton isn't quite the same as writing up an engine schematic. I'd be fine with the 600,000 ISP fission fragment rocket in KSP because though never successfully built, we know it works in theory. We can actually write up models of engine size, mass, efficiency, and thrust on these. So fission fragment rockets are real technology, they are just a few steps ahead of our current technology. Warp drive has not been proven to work as a source of spacecraft propulsion.

[Wahgineer]

Anyway, I really don't want to see warp drive in the game unless real scientists have actually figured out how to make it on paper.

Try looking up NASA warp drive and alcubbiere drive: they are figuring out how to get it to work on paper. The main reason a warp drive would be nice in KSP is that it drastically cuts down the part count compared to a 'conventional' star ship and that it can have nerfs placed on it to keep you from turning a tiny 130 part ship into the TARDIS.

[andrew2343]

turning it into a free to play game: so now rockets take time to build, and you only have the parts from the demo on start also you only have ksc area (10km area around ksc) to fly in. BUT WAIT! if you dont want to wait 3 days for the rocket ending being built then pay 5 euros and you are good to go! your rocket is ****? no refunds. AND WAIT! you can buy one part for 2 euros or you can buy them all for 200! WHOHOOOO! ALSO dont forget our planets pack wich adds all the planets for only 100 euros! the mun costs 20, the whole kerbin costs 40, duna costs 35, other muns cost 25 each, eve costs 45, jool costs 10 (cuz you cant land in it). also you require the planets first before you can buy the muns! also you have an energy bar with 100 of it. each rocket launch costs 20. every 2 hours one energy is replaced. it takes amost 5 days for it to be fully replaced. dont want to wait? pay 5 euros! AND WAIT! dont forget, the sph acess only costs 50 euros! (parts not included).ALSO AND LAST! if you want 1 extra energy just whatch this videos from our sponsors! blu buall, da best energy drink evaa!!!: blablabla. HAVE FUN!

NO. JUST NO.

[peadar1987]

Try looking up NASA warp drive and alcubbiere drive: they are figuring out how to get it to work on paper. The main reason a warp drive would be nice in KSP is that it drastically cuts down the part count compared to a 'conventional' star ship and that it can have nerfs placed on it to keep you from turning a tiny 130 part ship into the TARDIS.

The Albubierre Drive is science fiction. Mathematically, it might be possible, according to our current, incomplete knowledge of general and special relativity, for a "bubble" of spacetime to travel through the rest of spacetime faster than the speed of light. It might lead to something practical in the very distant future, it might prove impractical for moving anything above the subatomic scale, or it might prove to be something akin to the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and be rendered obsolete by a better understanding of the universe. In any case, it is not close to being something that will be practically implemented in any of our lifetimes, and so I don't think it belongs in KSP.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

turning it into a free to play game: so now rockets take time to build, and you only have the parts from the demo on start also you only have ksc area (10km area around ksc) to fly in. BUT WAIT! if you dont want to wait 3 days for the rocket ending being built then pay 5 euros and you are good to go! your rocket is ****? no refunds. AND WAIT! you can buy one part for 2 euros or you can buy them all for 200! WHOHOOOO! ALSO dont forget our planets pack wich adds all the planets for only 100 euros! the mun costs 20, the whole kerbin costs 40, duna costs 35, other muns cost 25 each, eve costs 45, jool costs 10 (cuz you cant land in it). also you require the planets first before you can buy the muns! also you have an energy bar with 100 of it. each rocket launch costs 20. every 2 hours one energy is replaced. it takes amost 5 days for it to be fully replaced. dont want to wait? pay 5 euros! AND WAIT! dont forget, the sph acess only costs 50 euros! (parts not included).ALSO AND LAST! if you want 1 extra energy just whatch this videos from our sponsors! blu buall, da best energy drink evaa!!!: blablabla. HAVE FUN!

NO. JUST NO.

This, no, please NO.

Or even worse, you have to unlock realistic orbital mechanics

[Wahgineer]

The Albubierre Drive is science fiction. Mathematically, it might be possible...

If it is mathematically possible, then it is technically plausible.

Also:

1: its a game

2: you can nerf the drive so that it can, and I quote myself, keep you from turning a tiny 130 part ship into the TARDIS.

3: also, harve did make a warp drive that functioned like the Alcubierre drive and implied that something like it might appear in the game eventually. Also, he did describe a lot of the nerfs that would keep the warp drive from becoming OP.

[peadar1987]

If it is mathematically possible, then it is technically plausible.

Also:

1: its a game

2: you can nerf the drive so that it can, and I quote myself, keep you from turning a tiny 130 part ship into the TARDIS.

3: also, harve did make a warp drive that functioned like the Alcubierre drive and implied that something like it might appear in the game eventually. Also, he did describe a lot of the nerfs that would keep the warp drive from becoming OP.

What's mathematically possible is that a small region of spacetime can move faster than the speed of light. However, it would require the object to have negative mass, which would require exotic types of matter we don't know are possible yet. Putting it alongside chemical rockets and radiosotope thermal generators just doesn't fit, in my opinion. If a civilisation could build an Alcubierre drive, they would be running everything on minituarised nuclear fusion and antimatter, not bipropellant and jet fuel.

I know it's a game, but for me, it's a game in which way-out-there-probably-never-going-to-happen technologies don't belong.

[The Jedi Master]

I do NOT want life support! It's just going to be really tiring. I think that fun should ultimately come before realism, even in a game like this. Think: Would a game about medieval knights depict the smelly streets, or the chamberpot pooping?

Also, no radioactive Laythe. See life support argument: Fun before realism.

This, no, please NO.

Or even worse, you have to unlock realistic orbital mechanics

I seriously doubt they would add something like that. They've been having a rough time lately, yes, but they aren't EA.

[John FX]

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.

I totally disagree. Especially if you say fairings are a special case but nothing else is. Your reasoning doesn`t stand up to scrutiny

If it is silly to go to an engineer to ask him to make a tank 2m longer then it is even more silly to imagine bolting a 2m tank on top of another one (with all the testing on BOTH parts AND the connection method which would be extra to normal meaning less work to just make a custom part) if you need more fuel for a mission instead of making a custom part that is 2m longer (you are having the part custom made for this flight after all). I currently use stretchy tanks and procedural fairings and I have some standard lifters with stock engines that I reuse for different missions because it is a pain to refix all the engines, struts and so forth. In what way is that different from what you describe?

If having a fuel tank the right size for your needs defeats the purpose of the game then you have reduced the game to `how can I bolt pre-existing fuel tanks together to get the size I need` and I want the game to be more than that. I want to make rockets, not unrealistic bundles of fuel tanks.

You wouldn`t have to use them you know...

[Wahgineer]

I totally disagree. Especially if you say fairings are a special case but nothing else is. Your reasoning doesn`t stand up to scrutiny

If it is silly to go to an engineer to ask him to make a tank 2m longer then it is even more silly to imagine bolting a 2m tank on top of another one (with all the testing on BOTH parts AND the connection method which would be extra to normal meaning less work to just make a custom part) if you need more fuel for a mission instead of making a custom part that is 2m longer (you are having the part custom made for this flight after all). I currently use stretchy tanks and procedural fairings and I have some standard lifters with stock engines that I reuse for different missions because it is a pain to refix all the engines, struts and so forth. In what way is that different from what you describe?

If having a fuel tank the right size for your needs defeats the purpose of the game then you have reduced the game to `how can I bolt pre-existing fuel tanks together to get the size I need` and I want the game to be more than that. I want to make rockets, not unrealistic bundles of fuel tanks.

You wouldn`t have to use them you know...

That is the real world, where there is n-body physics, planets 10-times as large as the ones in KSP, and tall, pink fleshed humans.

This is a game where n-body physics is of no concern, planets are 1/10th the size, the dominant intelligent race is green humanoids called Kerbals, and rockets are constructed by clicking and dragging massive parts and attaching them to each other.

To replace all of the parts in the game with procedural ones would eliminate the challenge: to do as well as you can with what you've got. While procedural wings and fairings are ok, procedural everything would make the game too easy.

And if you don't like the fact that kerbals don't have realistic rocket construction standards, then don't play KSP.

[AngelLestat]

How many times I read the same silly excuse...

People always use the same invalid examples like argument against reality.

Why invalid?

-n-body physsics would take more process time. So their no choose the actual system becouse is less real and more fun.. UNDERSTAND?

-If the scales are 1/10 is to avoid wait 15 min just to reach orbit.. But if squad would find a better warp system maybe this would not be necesary.

-Being 1/10 they can not use the earth like model. For that reason they choose to use another hipothetical alien system.

-The actual drag system is not on purpose. They want improve it to fix maximun reality posible.. But they dont know how.

The game follows real physsics rules, with some good modeled and others poor modeled. But is the thing that the game pursues.

Is a game in process, so they can not had all the perfect models, systems, parts, from the begining. They need to start with the basic to test the game and add other things.

Why procedual would make the game too easy? Why? is really difficult stack different tanks?

So we are playing tetris or a space program?

[Wahgineer]

the point of having set tank sizes is to challenge you. If everything is procedural you can basically just go: "need a hlv? herpaderpA i'll just make a 7.5 meter tank and stick 8 mainsails on the bottom!". With set part sizes, you actually have to think about the size and structural stability of your rocket. For example, if I have to build a 7.5 meter wide rocket with 8 mainsails on the bottom, maybe I should split they payload up instead or try and make it smaller. If its something like wings and fairings, which are an absolute pain when you just use a set part, it is all right for them to be procedural. Procedural tanks, engines, etc, would make the game too easy.

And also, your rant against realism basically mirrored mine: I said that ksp doesn't have n-body physics, that everything is 1/10th the size, and that our astronauts are little green men.

[Wheffle]

I wouldn't want any important aspect of career mode to be tied to time. To elaborate, I'd like to be able to focus on my 2-year tour of the Kerbol system in my self-reliant kethane-refueling tour pod without having to worry about my space program running out of money or crumbling while I'm time warping from planet to planet. I don't think Squad would do this anyway.

I'm not that interested in having technology in the game that is too theoretical to be confidently plausible, like warp drives and stuff like that. I like the whole 1970's feel that the current stock KSP gives you.

I would be a little put-off if they added overly specific missions in career mode. I wouldn't mind so much if there was a standing list of requests from different Kerbin countries or entities for money/science "bounties" for doing certain things, a list that changes every now and then. You could browse the list at your whim and choose one that sounded fun or that was already in your plans, like "Rockomax Industries looking to contract out for a returned surface sample from the Mun, willing to pay XXXX monies".

I WOULDN'T mind money (as long as it wasn't possible to time-warp a bunch of money in" and I would really enjoy life support, actually. Money would serve to limit *part count*, in the same way that science currently limits part options, and would add a lot to the challenge and make it a lot harder to do things like unlock the whole science tree on your first flight. I currently play with TAC life support and I love it, again it adds an extra layer of challenge and planning requirement without any hard limitations.

[Skyler4856]

Build time for space craft