What DON'T we want in KSP?

[crazyewok]

I'm going to throw "A huge options screen with dozens of game-changing toggles in it" into the DO NOT WANT list. Core gameplay should be core. Life Support, re-entry effects, and the way aerodynamics works is core gameplay and you should NEED a mod to change it.

So basicaly youdont have the attension span to sit through 2 minutes to set up a game? Instead you wanna forcr your game style on other players? Hoe does a options menue hurt you? Tell me? How? Cause you can toggle the options off you dont like and play your way. I dont see what the problem is with a menu unless you enjoy forceing people to play in your style?

Its lazy attituded like this im getting fed up with in the gameing industry " i want it my way no options ot inbetweens".

[crazyewok]

Very this.

I can handle some basic pre-launch config in games, the Civ series tended to have this (size of game world, number of opponents, etc), but there's no need for that in a moddable game like KSP. The core game can have a standard set of features, and the community can provide alternatives through the mod system.

As abe dont you have the attenson span to spend 2 minutes setting up a game? Why would options hurt you? If you dont like it you toggle it off! You dont have play a style you dont want as you can customise it, saying you dont want options is like saying you want eeryone to be forced to lay in your own style when theres no damed need too!

Edited December 30, 2013 by crazyewok

[Vahal]

Well, if those kind of panels can be easily read and not flood you with zillion of esoteric options (not everybody is an astronaut or astrophysicist), and don't cripple the game why not. With mods like FAR, deadly reentry, Life support, etc, implemented in core game by Squad would be assurance that they are optimized for the game and uptaded as same time the game is. But with the active and skilled community of moders I'm not that's a real need. Those kind of mods are nicely coded and they're updated in the following hours of an official patch release. If a mod is discontinued by a its moder, usually there is someone else to take over.

[Superfluous J]

So basicaly youdont have the attension span to sit through 2 minutes to set up a game? Instead you wanna forcr your game style on other players? Hoe does a options menue hurt you? Tell me? How? Cause you can toggle the options off you dont like and play your way. I dont see what the problem is with a menu unless you enjoy forceing people to play in your style?

Its lazy attituded like this im getting fed up with in the gameing industry " i want it my way no options ot inbetweens".

Watch out, treating people who don't share your opinions like they're stupid or lazy is not a good way to get your point across.

It's not dumbness or laziness. It's a balance issue. Balancing science and resources and cost and the tech tree and aerodynamics and thrust to weight ratios of engines and all that is HARD. Not for me, for Squad. Balancing a game can take months and if you don't do it, your game WILL suck. It's hard to balance one set of parameters. It's IMPOSSIBLE to balance all combinations of them. So what you're going to end up with is a ton of unbalanced game modes that everybody will complain about. You, for instance, will probably call Squad lazy for not balancing your own personal preference of settings.

There should be a way that Aerodynamics works. There should be a way Science works. There should be a way that every major part of the game works. If you don't like that, you should mod the game to your liking, knowing that by doing so you'll likely be unbalancing the game.

[crazyewok]

Watch out, treating people who don't share your opinions like they're stupid or lazy is not a good way to get your point across.

It's not dumbness or laziness. It's a balance issue. Balancing science and resources and cost and the tech tree and aerodynamics and thrust to weight ratios of engines and all that is HARD. Not for me, for Squad. Balancing a game can take months and if you don't do it, your game WILL suck. It's hard to balance one set of parameters. It's IMPOSSIBLE to balance all combinations of them. So what you're going to end up with is a ton of unbalanced game modes that everybody will complain about. You, for instance, will probably call Squad lazy for not balancing your own personal preference of settings.

There should be a way that Aerodynamics works. There should be a way Science works. There should be a way that every major part of the game works. If you don't like that, you should mod the game to your liking, knowing that by doing so you'll likely be unbalancing the game.

Well the civ games have manged. No readon we should be forced to play in one rigid play style.

[Superfluous J]

Well the civ games have manged. No readon we should be forced to play in one rigid play style.

I can't speak with any authority on Civilization, as I never found the game fun enough to explore any settings. Or even complete a single campaign. However, competitive multiplayer (or you-against-multiple-computer-player) games auto-balance because if something is hard or easy for you, it's the same difficulty level for everybody else.

KSP is not a Multiplayer game. When it's added it'll be a special mode in addition to the actual game. The core game is single player.

It makes sense to allow the user to modify the physics in a death match FPS. Sure allow unlimited ammo, or super-limited ammo, or one-shot-kills, or low gravity, or whatever you want. Everybody's got the same challenges and bonuses so it's fair. The same thing can't happen in a game like Tomb Raider where everything has to be set up just so to make a compelling experience for a single player.

Feel free to get the final word. I'm done with this topic and won't reply any more.

[Daze]

Other stars.

[Ravenchant]

So basicaly youdont have the attension span to sit through 2 minutes to set up a game? Instead you wanna forcr your game style on other players? Hoe does a options menue hurt you? Tell me? How? Cause you can toggle the options off you dont like and play your way. I dont see what the problem is with a menu unless you enjoy forceing people to play in your style?

Its lazy attituded like this im getting fed up with in the gameing industry " i want it my way no options ot inbetweens".

One of the main reasons procedural planets/solar systems won't happen is because Squad want the difficulty of achieving "milestones" be the same across the playerbase. With one or two toggleable options estimating the difficulty someone plays at would be manageable, but with dozens or hundreds of possible combinations? Hardly.

I'd write something about the irony of you criticizing others' attention spans and then not taking the time to keep your grammar at a reasonable level, but flamewars lead nowhere.

On topic: I wouldn't like to see the player being forced to complete contracts all the time to advance in career mode. They should help with progression and money issues, but missions from own initiative should be viable as well.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Ravenchant

[Comrade Jenkens]

I can't really think of anything that I don't want in the game. any new stuff is nice as long as it doesn't damage other things to be added and the priorities are right.

[Seret]

As abe dont you have the attenson span to spend 2 minutes setting up a game? Why would options hurt you? If you dont like it you toggle it off! You dont have play a style you dont want as you can customise it, saying you dont want options is like saying you want eeryone to be forced to lay in your own style when theres no damed need too!

I think you might have missed the point. Nobody is trying to force anybody to do anything. What we're suggesting is that the game comes pre-set with sensible defaults, so that people who are new to the game can get stuck in without having to try and guess what settings they might want to enable in a game they've never played. Sensible defaults are a good thing, they help people.

We have a huge and healthy mod ecosystem for people who decide they don't like the defaults and want to try something else. This is the way the devs have decided to set the game up. That's reasonable, as they only have to provide balance and bugfixes for one core game, rather than a million interlocking permutations of gameplay. If you don't like the way Squad seem to be building their game, angsting at us folks on the forum who have no influence over these things isn't going to bring you happiness.

[Skyler4856]

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 alcubierre drive doesn't necacarily require negative mass. In relativity gravity is contingent on mass distance and PRESSURE. In alcubierre's work he cites a casamir vacuum as being able to provide the negative pressure required for the drive. I personally wouldn't like to see a warp drive implemented for obvious reasons. I wouldn't mind a solar sail or antimatter rocket, as long as the antimatter rocket would have an incredibly low impact tolerance (like 0.1-3 m/s low)

Edited December 30, 2013 by Skyler4856

[crazyewok]

I can't speak with any authority on Civilization, as I never found the game fun enough to explore any settings. Or even complete a single campaign. However, competitive multiplayer (or you-against-multiple-computer-player) games auto-balance because if something is hard or easy for you, it's the same difficulty level for everybody else.

KSP is not a Multiplayer game. When it's added it'll be a special mode in addition to the actual game. The core game is single player.

It makes sense to allow the user to modify the physics in a death match FPS. Sure allow unlimited ammo, or super-limited ammo, or one-shot-kills, or low gravity, or whatever you want. Everybody's got the same challenges and bonuses so it's fair. The same thing can't happen in a game like Tomb Raider where everything has to be set up just so to make a compelling experience for a single player.

Feel free to get the final word. I'm done with this topic and won't reply any more.

All I see here are lame excuses for wanting make sure everyone has the same games style forced on everyone when it doesnt need to be.

Waa waa waaa I want it my way and only my way waaa waaaa waaaaa

Edited December 30, 2013 by crazyewok

[crazyewok]

One of the main reasons procedural planets/solar systems won't happen is because Squad want the difficulty of achieving "milestones" be the same across the playerbase. With one or two toggleable options estimating the difficulty someone plays at would be manageable, but with dozens or hundreds of possible combinations? Hardly.

So what your saying leads to a game with very short playiblity, games that provide the most playbility have the most option and can last for decades!

I'd write something about the irony of you criticizing others' attention spans and then not taking the time to keep your grammar at a reasonable level, but flamewars lead nowhere.

Its called dyslexia! Deal with it!

[crazyewok]

I think you might have missed the point. Nobody is trying to force anybody to do anything. What we're suggesting is that the game comes pre-set with sensible defaults, so that people who are new to the game can get stuck in without having to try and guess what settings they might want to enable in a game they've never played. Sensible defaults are a good thing, they help people.

O I agree with that. Sensible defult setting make sense and on most games were you can set options its starts you on defualt setting or has quick start options that just makes common sense. But its always nice to adjust options. Game with that style have the longest playblity.

[TexRob]

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

To play devil's advocate, your last line is what the sandbox is for. Career mode is intended to be space tycoon basically, afaik. Sure, I don't want to have to grind money to finance every little thing, but there should be a need for it, and consequences for not having it.

[crazyewok]

To play devil's advocate, your last line is what the sandbox is for. Career mode is intended to be space tycoon basically, afaik. Sure, I don't want to have to grind money to finance every little thing, but there should be a need for it, and consequences for not having it.

Agree with you 100% Career mode is meant ti be space tycoon. OR whats the point of career mode?

[crazyewok]

To play devil's advocate, your last line is what the sandbox is for. Career mode is intended to be space tycoon basically, afaik. Sure, I don't want to have to grind money to finance every little thing, but there should be a need for it, and consequences for not having it.

Agree with you 100% Career mode is meant to be space tycoon. OR whats the point of career mode?

[Artikae]

Perfect solution to FTL vs. STL Argument!

Just jump into a black hole!

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/black-hole-caught-blasting-heavy-metal-in-jets/

[Wahgineer]

Perfect solution to FTL vs. STL Argument!

Just jump into a black hole!

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/black-hole-caught-blasting-heavy-metal-in-jets/

Ftl and Stl people: NO!!!

Here is what I feel is a comprehensive list of the Ftl and Stl view on things

What Ftl and Stl see eye-to-eye on:

Interstellar travel should be difficult to an extent.

What Ftl people agree on:

No instant stargate things.

Warp drive (since it is the only other realistic option) must be nerfed so as to be balanced

What Stl people agree on:

higher time warp

higher physics warp

realistic Stl propulsion

don't listen to Ftl people

As an Ftl person, I finally think I found the major fault with the Stl way: realistic Interstellar propulsion

The reason being: almost all forms of Stl propulsion can easily and totally replace every other engine in the game: Example: Orion drive can easily launch, orbit, transfer and land stuff on any other planet. An Ftl engine, properly balanced of course, fills only the niche it was meant to fill: that of an interstellar engine.

[NotCoach]

Perhaps instead of thinking what we don't want we think about ease of manipulation of the tech tree and parts allowed. That way everyone can tailor the game to suit their desires. And with multi-player now an official goal this concept would fit right in as people tailor their multi-player servers to fit what those playing on it want. We need variety and manipulation, not restriction. Another very popular sandbox game we all know of is very popular because people can create the kind of world they want to play in, not because it restricts how people may play. KSP needs to go down the same path.

[MR4Y]

1:1 scale. Simple as that. You want uber realism, go play Orbiter.

[Djolox]

FTL will be fine if we take fact that there will be lot of science to do enormous tech tree lot's of hard work and then at the last node :FTL but not overpowered i mean FTL after Quantum science node, Atomic science Antimatter node FTL That needs to take lots of expensive resources to run and Orion VASIMR Pulse Inductive Thruster before it

You are satisfied when you do extremely hard work to get FTL that will need lots of hard work to run it.

Then Game Remains challenging and fun.

[Jasonjason]

What if they added wormholes to jump to different star systems?

[guest91111]

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

We already have a SABRE engine, it's called the R.A.P.I.E.R.

What if they added wormholes to jump to different star systems?

You know how much energy you need to make a wormhole. Realisticly, Kerbol won't give off enough energy for a wormhole, not a big enough one for even 1 part anyway.

[Kodiak42]

No procedural tanks (procedural fairings/wings make sense/are ok). The whole point of having set tank sizes is to challenge you.

How do set-in-stone tank sizes challenge me, the things are easy enough to mix to hold any amount of fuel I need and be any size I need.