What DON'T we want in KSP?

[jwenting]

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.

and "too much" would be warping so you're not looking at the screen for 2 years to get that probe to Eve?

[jwenting]

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.

yes people keep whining and trying to trick those things in anyway. It's good to reiterate that indeed we don't want them.

No weapons, no multiplayer.

Edited November 11, 2013 by shadowsutekh
that last part wasn't really necessary.

[Kerbart]

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

The Zynga model (sell a decent game, get people hooked, and charge them to advance in the game) is despicable, but that doesn't mean the micropayment model is. To be honest, the classic "pay once and you're set for life" is a bit of a ponzi scheme. As long as new buyers flock to the market things will be ok, but once the market is saturated, development of the game will stop as it turns into a loss maker for Squad. There's only so many people you can sell KSP to.

Micropayments, when done properly, allow for continuing development even when sales of the base game taper off. There are good examples of micropay games where paying real world money merely speeds up gameplay instead of allowing gameplay at all. I've never paid a cent for Real Racing, and on the other hand I've donated many dollars to Hitgrab because I really do like playing Mousehunt. In both cases the game just moves along slower if you don't pay.

With KSP, the obvious places for micropayments would be unlocking parts of the science tree, or maybe the ability to make a science transmission count as 100% instead of a limited percentage. An autopilot that charges credits for launch, docking and pinpoint landing (say, 1 credit each at $0.25 per credit). Nothing that cannot be done by players themselves, but for those who can't or don't want to wait it's a good way to overcome those obstacles and it generates some income for Squad as well. I would welcome such a development; as a player I'm more than motivated to see Squad thrive and continue development on the game, as long as the payments are truly optional and not a requirement to get deeper into the game.

[Kerbal007]

I agree, some tycoon features are fun but perhaps have an advanced mode for such play. Keep the sandbox, Keep career mode fun and challenging for all and then perhaps offer a mode for those that like to balance the books or get all scientifical like yeh ?

[Kialar]

I would hate to see weapons in the game.

I stated this and my personal reasons for that elsewhere.

[Dunbaratu]

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.

But what you're defending is the scenario where even BEFORE SpaceX goes to the drawing board, the dimensions were already set by the magical gods of rocketry - even before somebody made the first rocket the dimensions of its parts were pre-set.

It's a bit like inventing the first electric generator and finding out that the specifications for its voltage, oscillation rate, and amps have already been standardized before there even was such a thing as an electric company.

[Dunbaratu]

Let's not forget that there *already* exists a mode to be used by those who don't want to earn points to unlock things over time. It's called "sandbox mode" and the plan is to keep it in existence in the final game. It's not going away. What I don't understand is people who don't want to have to earn points that are called "money' but at the same time seem to still want to have to earn points that are called "science" Either you want to play the level grindy kind of game where you start off with only a few things available you can do and are rewarded for stuff you do by getting access to stuff not previously usable, or... you don't like that and prefer sandbox instead. I don't see what the difference is in gameplay that makes having to earn money points and use them to buy parts somehow a totally different sort of thing from having to earn science points and use them to advance.

[SunJumper]

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.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the procedural wings? It appears to be a different ball-game, what with cutting sheets of metal into different shapes (paraphrasing Winter Owl).

[Wallace]

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

I looks like you're building a rocket

Would you like help?

[Dunbaratu]

I looks like you're building a rocket

Would you like help?

That seems sadly very appropriate for Kerbal technology. Thematically it would be right. But gameplay wise....shudder.

[Paul Kingtiger]

There has been a lot of "I don't want this" followed by "That's exactly what I want" in this thread, which brings me to what I don't want to see:

I love how different people have different ideas about what the game should be and how Kerbal technology works and it's limitations. I love how, via mods, you can make this game fit your vision of what it should be like. I never want the devs to take that away. You should be able to play your KSP in the way you want.

[regex]

Let's not forget that there *already* exists a mode to be used by those who don't want to earn points to unlock things over time. It's called "sandbox mode" and the plan is to keep it in existence in the final game. It's not going away. What I don't understand is people who don't want to have to earn points that are called "money' but at the same time seem to still want to have to earn points that are called "science" Either you want to play the level grindy kind of game where you start off with only a few things available you can do and are rewarded for stuff you do by getting access to stuff not previously usable, or... you don't like that and prefer sandbox instead. I don't see what the difference is in gameplay that makes having to earn money points and use them to buy parts somehow a totally different sort of thing from having to earn science points and use them to advance.

The debate isn't over whether you should have to earn money in order to do stuff, it's over how you earn that money you use to do stuff in career mode. Clearly SQUAD can maintain the sandbox feel of KSP while adding in limiting factors (science) and some of us hope they continue with those sorts of mechanics because we feel talking heads doling out "missions" telling you where to go and what to do is bad gameplay. This is what you're confusing with just wanting to play sandbox mode, which we are well aware will always be a valid style of play.

Edited November 11, 2013 by shadowsutekh
No profanity censored by asterisks or not. See 2.2E of the community rules.

[Dr. Ivo Robotnik]

Well id like to see anything as long it isnt Ridcilously OP. Tough i wouldnt like to see a paperclip kind of deal.... :-/

[AngelLestat]

I would not like to see any fantasy addom who does not follow real physsics.

[konokono]

Micropayments, when done properly, allow for continuing development even when sales of the base game taper off. There are good examples of micropay games where paying real world money merely speeds up gameplay instead of allowing gameplay at all. I've never paid a cent for Real Racing, and on the other hand I've donated many dollars to Hitgrab because I really do like playing Mousehunt. In both cases the game just moves along slower if you don't pay.

Fair enough. I haven't outright hated EVERY game with microtransactions. But I am a bit of a traditionalist here -- instead of paying money to unlock things that are already in the game, I prefer to see companies continue to make money off the game by releasing new content in the form of expansions

[vetrox]

because we feel talking heads doling out "missions" telling you where to go and what to do is bad gameplay.

But this is standard gameplay on almost all of the big popular mega budget games games? COD, HALO, ASSASINS CREED> They are all "Go here and do this" Not all players will want the complete freedom sandbox offers.

Maybe if squad can implement some way of tailoring your career mode before you start it? So you can disable things like this if you dont want them?

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

I'm hoping squad will add a difficulty system. As you or I dont want an annoying helper telling you how to do everything but I'm sure theres a few newbies who would find it extremely helpfull

Edited November 11, 2013 by shadowsutekh
replaced censored word with equally descriptive clean alternative.

[regex]

But this is standard gameplay on almost all of the big popular mega budget games games? COD, HALO, ASSASINS CREED> They are all "Go here and do this" Not all players will want the complete freedom sandbox offers.

Is this sarcasm? KSP is already a wonderful sandbox game and will attract the kinds of players interested in that sort of gameplay; the last thing we want SQUAD to do is turn KSP into some sort of terrible railroaded console experience. Not every game has to appeal to every player.

This is a fine example of what we DON'T want to see in KSP.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Specialist290
Rplaced censored word with equally descriptive clean alternative.

[Tiberion]

But what you're defending is the scenario where even BEFORE SpaceX goes to the drawing board, the dimensions were already set by the magical gods of rocketry - even before somebody made the first rocket the dimensions of its parts were pre-set.

It's a bit like inventing the first electric generator and finding out that the specifications for its voltage, oscillation rate, and amps have already been standardized before there even was such a thing as an electric company.

No, not at all. It's just that part design isn't done by the player, your Kerbal engineers are building launcher parts in that R&D building when you unlock things. They are clearly limited in intelligence though, what comes out is fairly standard.

I said before that I could see a use for procedural design of parts if tied into a much larger economics system. You could design a specific length of tank or some wings or a fairings with juuuust the right dimensions, but it would take TIME and it would be EXPENSIVE, such that you would lose money on it if you just used it for one mission. It would need to be a part you use more than once to make sense in your program to do that, and it would NOT change dimensions. Change the dimensions, the time and cost are incurred again.

Obviously, in sandbox it doesn't matter, but I personally don't use them because it makes building a rocket far more trivial.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the procedural wings? It appears to be a different ball-game, what with cutting sheets of metal into different shapes (paraphrasing Winter Owl).

I feel pretty much the same, the shape of a wing is a complex thing, and it wouldn't be a thing to just change on a whim. Kerbals may not be the type to perform wind tunnel tests and such, but there would at least be some expense and time factors to swapping out a wing. So the same issue applies.

[vetrox]

Is this sarcasm? KSP is already a wonderful sandbox game and will attract the kinds of players interested in that sort of gameplay; the last thing we want SQUAD to do is turn KSP into some sort of terrible railroaded console experience. Not every game has to appeal to every player.

This is a fine example of what we DON'T want to see in KSP.

But..Im confused.

Even with some guy giving you a mission to goto x and do y for a reward of z. You still make the craft, and go there so you still have to do things yourself.

Surley the whole point of a career mode is to earn stuff and make bigger and better ships over time? If not then thats what sandbox is for?

You saying that things like pre generated missions to go do stuff will completley ruin the game and make people leave. But having a goal and a set of missions to achieve a goal is the basis of almost all video games. With sandbox mode, the only difference is you give yourself your own missions and have unlimited parts at your disposal.

I really do struggle with understanding your point of view on career mode sometimes. You want a career mode where you have to do stuff to get further...yet you hate the idea of a career mode where you have to do stuff to get further? I'm confused as to what you want from it!

Edited November 12, 2013 by Specialist290
eplaced censored word in quote with equally descriptive clean alternative.

[Frederf]

There's a difference among the game modes: sandbox, career-as-is, and strictly-directed career.

For those that want a structured environment but not a dictated narrative then career-as-is is desired. Sandbox in that case is not good enough.

[PDCWolf]

Automation.

A career mode based solely on the tech tree linearity (I like to see the real career mode start after you complete the tech tree, with contracts and all that jazz)

DLC

Microtransactions

"less often updates but with more content" because we all know how that's going to work.

[regex]

You want a career mode where you have to do stuff to get further...yet you hate the idea of a career mode where you have to do stuff to get further?

You misunderstand. I want a career mode where I have to do stuff to get further, I just don't want the game to tell me what to do. If I want to colonize/mine Moho, I don't want the game telling me I have to explore Jool. I should get rewarded for doing meaningful things that I want to do, not what some arbitrary talking head wants me to do. KSP deserves so much better than yet another mission system; it should stick with the core sandbox gameplay and add additional challenges through career .

Edited November 11, 2013 by regex

[Stratoroc]

-Overly large emphasis on realism (spontaneous malfunctions, realistic complexity, etc). If I wanted to deal with all the crap that goes into a space programs with all the details, I'd be grinding my way towards a career with NASA. I deal with things that never work enough in real life, when I play KSP I expect things that should work actually work.

If I want to colonize/mine Moho, I don't want the game telling me I have to explore Jool. I should get rewarded for doing meaningful things that I want to do, not what some arbitrary talking head wants me to do.

-snip-

-Anything not this. I consider a major part of KSP's appeal the lack of a guiding hand, thrive and blow up at the pad all on my own.

[Chrisd857]

Anything that removes the free-form sandbox-style play as an option. It may be Kerbal Space Program, but part of the appeal is that, aside from rockets, I can fly planes, race cars, make reciprocating engines, rollercoasters, other theme park rides, catapults, boats, submarines...

Really, it's Kerbal *(here are planets and physics, have fun)* Program

[vetrox]

You misunderstand. I want a career mode where I have to do stuff to get further, I just don't want the game to tell me what to do. If I want to colonize/mine Moho, I don't want the game telling me I have to explore Jool. I should get rewarded for doing meaningful things that I want to do, not what some arbitrary talking head wants me to do. KSP deserves so much better than yet another mission system; it should stick with the core sandbox gameplay and add additional challenges through career .

I was having a think. And maybe not a mission system in the normal sense. But there will need to be some sort of objective based gameplay. Maybe for the less creative amongst us. I still feel some sort of mission system is a good thing but maybe not "go here and do x" maybe something else. Maybe a list of bonus objectives for each body. So you can do whatever you want but when you get there you can actually have a reason to be there.

So going to the MUN or Minmus is pretty simple. However maybe you should get bonus credits for bringing back 2kg of surface soil or for scanning a crater or something. I Really feel there will have to be something to give you direction, from the start at least. Straight out "Orbit MUN, land on Mun, Orbit minmus etc" isnt really what im looking for but something along the lines of "explore kerbins SOI and bring back info. Each piece of data gives you science and credits? I dunno, im still trying to work something out but i'm hopefull squad has an idea.

I think releasing career mode this early might have been a bit of a mistake and should have got the currency system implemented at the same time. Just having science in the career has caused so much negativity on this forum. If i was a dev reading the forum i would have cried at my hard work being shot down by the majority of the forum.

EDIT: Maybe a list of all the orbiting bodies with varying objectives that you can do at your own lesure? Preferably with some whacky objectives like crashing a ship into gilly to try and attemp to alter its orbit. Whacky kerbal objectives are the way to go.

Edited November 11, 2013 by vetrox