Stephanie's Suggestions

[Stephanie the Viking]

Hi guys,

Steph the Viking here, student game designer and big fan of KSP.

Having played the game for some time, got into - and out of various sticky situations - I figured I was in a good place to start thinking about suggestions I could pose, regarding the expansion and subsequent enrichment of this gaming experience.

First of all, hands down this is one of the most promising, imaginative and gloriously rewarding games I have ever had the joy of playing, so keeping that in mind I have some logical things which I believe should be in the game...

suggestion #1 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list

Secondly: intelligent, location-specific scientific expansion with new and varied approaches to the way that research is carried out. Check out the following list and see what you think [it's only a series of examples, the possibilities are endless]...

• Orbit-only (photography, centripetal force of the body being orbited, density or X-ray scans, mass calculations [this could even be confined to a space station/ ship with a science lab part attached] and have specific appropriate targets on the surface, much like biome detection for existing instruments, but would require the generation of a series of special instruments and instrument mounts)
  
• Biome-dependent (humidity, dustiness, local gravity fluctuations, atmospheric molecular makeup)
  
• Above-Biome (magnetic investigations, plate/volcanic analysis, planetary layers [mantle, core etc] depth and composition etc)
  
• Deep Space Observation (telescopes, particle-observation, radiation observation of other bodies / background objects such as distant galaxies etc)
  

suggestion #3 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list

Fourthly, and something I personally would prefer, is the option to toggle realistic orbits; that is to say the probability of orbital decay. In this universe, orbits would have to be monitored much more closely, and would make planning and executing manoeuvres much more realistic and require planning and careful thought. Possibly not to everyone's taste but the option would be very cool [yes I know this would require a total rehash of many things but hey: no ask, no get..]

suggestion #5 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list

Sixth: A means of changing custom number keys on the fly, so that once a ship has been constructed from several docked parts in orbit, it can be given new custom keys that do things only to this new combined craft. They should also have the ability to be reassigned like this indefinitely. This would by logic require GUI elements to display this information in much the same way as the staging is done at present.

Seventh: A means of mapping a planet's biomes from orbit, so that a player can plan their activities instead of going blind.

suggestion #8 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list

suggestion #9 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list

suggestion #10 removed, this is a planned feature

suggestion #11 removed, this is a planned feature

Linked to:

Twelfth: Kerbal Academy: A spacecraft part much like a science lab, but used to train kerbals in zero-gravity and improve various stats. Limited crew: 2

Thirteenth: Kerbal customization: colouring, clothing, hairstyles, facial hair, height, weight etc. Randomly generated or player-invoked are options.

suggestion #14 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list

Fifteenth: more music variety (I love the tunes, but we need more)

suggestion #16 removed, this is a planned feature

Eighteenth: S.E.T.I. ?

suggestion #19 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list

Twentieth: I can't say an awful lot about the contract side of things because I know you guys are already working on it. It will suffice to say I am on the edge of my seat as you introduce an entire new spectrum of activities to the game.

suggestion #21 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list

suggestion #22 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list

Twenty Three: Could we investigate the possibility of laying electrical cable, joining batteries to the items that need power? It could make our spacecraft much more realistic and exciting to build. I propose a series of 'nodes' which are placed by the player between the battery and the powered-item, (raised slightly from any surface clicked), with no regard or worry given to wires passing through any spacecraft part. Wires could go directly from battery to item, though the more artistic would be able to lay them across surfaces, around corners and pass them through other parts at will.

hmm... I think that's actually it so far. As I said before, I love this game and can't really fault much in it (except aerodynamics, drag/lift/thrust all being chaotic inside atmosphere, and making proper aircraft designs impossible because the game physics thinks that asymmetrical designs should always flip, when in actual fact the venturi effect should make asymmetrical aircraft possible when inside atmosphere...) but this is a minor gripe. The main thing I would love to see next, is segregated scientific research which HAS to be carried out attached to, under, on, near or indeed in specific locations.

Edited March 15, 2014 by KasperVld
Removed a lot of things that were on the what-not-to-suggest list

[Accelerando]

Before the inevitable mudstorm of backseat moderators comes in mouthing something about the What Not To Suggest list, I feel you on the SETI thing, even if there aren't aliens proper in-game - we could use our telescope equipment to pick up and research vague and strange signals leadin to buried clues here and there, for instance, among the planets - functionally a lore-expanding easter egg hunt.

If you're interrested in orbital decay, check out Principia in the addon development section. You may want to champion something like that, work out how newtonian N-body physics could build on current gameplay.

[Kasuha]

The game is currently still in alpha phase, i.e. not feature complete. As far as I understand it, developers' position is that if there is a mod for certain feature, it is not necessary to implement that feature to the stock game right away and it is better to concentrate on complex features which are still not added such as the career mode. While I believe at least part of your suggestions will make it to the final game, I don't think it will happen very soon.

[Stephanie the Viking]

As far as SETI goes, you got it spot-on; I'm not talking about actually having aliens in the game, but just another branch of science dedicated to discovering and understanding something about ethereal 'aliens' that are light years away or simply died a long time ago. Either way, it gives us another exciting branch of science to explore.

I understand and expect that many of my suggestions may already be on the drawing board or may even have already been condemned. I simply wanted to list some of the things that I thought about the game and where it could go so that maybe somebody would look at one and say "yeah, actually that's a nice idea". None of these are pie-in-the-sky or naive in their subject matter, they are the product of my semi-professional (academic?) opinion

[unfortunately I am in the middle of my course at university and do not have the time to work on or get involved with additions or modification projects to anything besides my own projects, though the suggestion is well-met]

Edited March 14, 2014 by Stephanie the Viking

[Vanamonde]

Hello Stephanie the Viking, and welcome to the forum. As some people have already mentioned, there is a list of subjects which have been set aside because they've been talked about so many times already, or tend to cause arguments. This is the What Not To Suggest List. We ask that people not bring those subjects up yet again for the sake of keeping the forum organized, friendly, and not as repetitive as it might be. So please feel free to keep offering ideas, but also please look over that list and avoid those subjects. Thank you, and enjoy the forum.

[Stephanie the Viking]

Wow, thanks for the warm welcome, and for pointing that list out to me; it is inspiring to see so many things on that list which have already been addressed by the developers, for better or worse. I am not expecting any credit for this brainstorm, merely proposing tasty gravy for the game experience. Right now there is a rigidity and sense of limitation/repetition which I wish could be quashed by segregating activities to/or creating occurrences in certain circumstances to create a more organic experience. If any of these suggestions help the devs to do that then I consider it a win

[CaptRobau]

I think I spotted one thing in your suggestions that's not on The List and I'd like to discuss it if I may. If I interpreted the list wrong, just let me know. Anyway:

Secondly: intelligent, location-specific scientific expansion with new and varied approaches to the way that research is carried out. Check out the following list and see what you think [it's only a series of examples, the possibilities are endless]...

Orbit-only (photography, centripetal force of the body being orbited, density or X-ray scans, mass calculations [this could even be confined to a space station/ ship with a science lab part attached] and have specific appropriate targets on the surface, much like biome detection for existing instruments, but would require the generation of a series of special instruments and instrument mounts)

Biome-dependent (humidity, dustiness, local gravity fluctuations, atmospheric molecular makeup)

Above-Biome (magnetic investigations, plate/volcanic analysis, planetary layers [mantle, core etc] depth and composition etc)

Deep Space Observation (telescopes, particle-observation, radiation observation of other bodies / background objects such as distant galaxies etc)

I like these ideas. There's not enough variety in the science experiments at the moment and they're all too broadly usable. Once you unlock the Materials Bay for example you can get a truck-load of science using just that. You can use it in on the ground, in the water, in the atmosphere, in deep space, etc. I'd like some special experiments that only work in very limited situations and those would gather you truck-loads of science. The more general experiments would then get you less. Like an ice drill to bore through the surface of bodies like Minmus or Eeloo and search for subterranean oceans. Or an experiment that only works on atmosphereless bodies, like a micrometeorite collector or something.

More importantly I'd like to have science contribute to my in-game knowledge of the Kerbol system. Have me take readings across Duna before you give a 100% accurate value for its average temperature or its gravitational pull. Have me discover details on Laythe's map screen model by pointing a telescope part at it or by sending a mapping probe to it. Even though I can look it up on the wiki, I'd like to discover what the exact atmosphere height for Eve is. It'd be especially great when combined with new planets/moons in the future, but I think it'd work with the old stuff as well.

[Sirrobert]

Fourthly, and something I personally would prefer, is the option to toggle realistic orbits; that is to say the probability of orbital decay. In this universe, orbits would have to be monitored much more closely, and would make planning and executing manoeuvres much more realistic and require planning and careful thought. Possibly not to everyone's taste but the option would be very cool [yes I know this would require a total rehash of many things but hey: no ask, no get..]

Since this would require the game to constantly simulate each craft in every orbit, you'd get a gigantic perfermance hit with just a few reasonably sized crafts in orbit. When you get really started and have a few big stations in orbit around various planets, plus big interplanetary rockets traveling back and forth, the game would become basicly unplayable.

Even if you simulate only stuf near an atmosphere, that'd still make cool space stations impossible.

Not worth it

Twenty Three: Could we investigate the possibility of laying electrical cable, joining batteries to the items that need power? It could make our spacecraft much more realistic and exciting to build. I propose a series of 'nodes' which are placed by the player between the battery and the powered-item, (raised slightly from any surface clicked), with no regard or worry given to wires passing through any spacecraft part. Wires could go directly from battery to item, though the more artistic would be able to lay them across surfaces, around corners and pass them through other parts at will.

How is this anything other than just 'add an extra part if you want this to work'? The inside of all parts has cables in them, the end. Your Kerbal Engineers aren't completetly useless without you, they know how to connect things tougether

Edited March 15, 2014 by KasperVld

[Stephanie the Viking]

Since this would require the game to constantly simulate each craft in every orbit, you'd get a gigantic perfermance hit with just a few reasonably sized crafts in orbit.

Not really, I use Unity and am currently building my third game with it. I know how much you can reasonably throw at Update(), and the modification of orbits wouldn't need to happen on every tick anyway. The real reason this would cause issues is because the entire system they wrote to cleverly turn all impulse into an ellipse by default would have to be rewritten. I didn't honestly expect Squad to bother with anything like this right away ... personally I think you got the wrong end of the stick about my thread, and the negativity confuses me somewhat, obviously you are used to addressing idiots or something.

On the do not suggest list.

Erm yeah thanks...

You didn't notice the fact that Squad has been busy implenting the career mode for the past few updates? Money is a planned feature for that mode. And thus part cost will be utulized than

Erm... yeah I did, as I already stated, this thread was a summing-up of everything I have been meaning to say to Squad, not you. Also, I was hoping for intelligent conversation about some of the suggestions. Clearly you are not the man for that particular job...

Devs have deceided that there will never be random events. Each launch will be exactly the same as the next launch with the same craft and the same user input.

This is a game about skill. How would you feel if you build yourself an epic rocket, send it on it's way to Eloo, and than suddenly it breaks, turning countles hours of work into a pile of debris simply because the Random Number Generator said so?

If you read it again properly, you will see that I was talking of minor malfunctions, not complete losses. 'Never' seems a bit blunt too, and a bit presumptuous on your part - perhaps the idea that the game would become more challenging scares you.

In any game that is being built in stages, few things are ever completely certain. Apollo 13 almost didn't make it back to earth due to a minor malfunction; I don't think it's as outrageous as you seem to think that a game replicating space travel should throw a few curve balls at the player now and then. Space is harsh; obviously you are used to simpler games.

try to keep up with the news

Again, not really too interested in your assault apart from pointing out yet again that it is simply a selection of things I'd like to see in the game, I also pointed out that some of them would probably already be considered or condemned. Learn to read.

Because Kerbals have no gender. Now let's cut of this can of woms before this desolves into the usual flame war it ALWAYS ends in.

The do not suggest list is there for a VERY GOOD REASON

Alright, I did not see the damn list, and since some of my suggestions are NEW, any normal person who isn't itching for a fight would overlook anything that is old. Also, the Kerbals are clearly all dudes. On a side note, I'm not sure what 'Woms' are; I suggest you read more books (those paper things with words in).

How is this anything other than just 'add an extra part if you want this to work'? The inside of all parts has cables in them, the end. Your Kerbal Engineers aren't completetly useless without you, they know how to connect things tougether

In fact it's not really that different to adding fuel tanks to make the engines work, or adding wiring in a circuit to make the bulb come on, laying redstone to power the piston and move the door (minecraft?), though I suppose you probably play with all the cheats on anyway so you never need or run out of fuel.

Actually it's a case of making it more realistic and for the ships and stations to behave differently as you connect them together and build them up, dock them together, split them apart. Unlike some people, I don't throw my rockets together and hope for the best, or use mechJeb, or any mods at all for that matter, I LIKE realism, I like building things and designing rockets to be incredibly dexterous and versatile, not just strapping a load of boosters to a command pod and thinking I'm a genius. I LIKE adding fuel pipes so that fuel gets moved around the ship, I LIKE adding RCS thrusters in the proper places and balancing the center of gravity of my modules. Saying that 'The inside of all parts has cables in them' is a little childish too (not to mention horrible English), I was simply making a suggestion, if you don't like it go have an Eskimo pie or something dude.

I think it's a bit sad that I came in peace with harmless suggestions and your response was to rip it to pieces and try talking down your nose at me. I'm actually used to guys being intimidated by me, but never mind - just remember I make computer games honey, which means I win by default xxx

[Stephanie the Viking]

I think I spotted one thing in your suggestions that's not on The List and I'd like to discuss it if I may. If I interpreted the list wrong, just let me know. Anyway:

I like these ideas. There's not enough variety in the science experiments at the moment and they're all too broadly usable. Once you unlock the Materials Bay for example you can get a truck-load of science using just that. You can use it in on the ground, in the water, in the atmosphere, in deep space, etc. I'd like some special experiments that only work in very limited situations and those would gather you truck-loads of science. The more general experiments would then get you less. Like an ice drill to bore through the surface of bodies like Minmus or Eeloo and search for subterranean oceans. Or an experiment that only works on atmosphereless bodies, like a micrometeorite collector or something.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was thinking, space stations [or other veicles/ships] that actually have a purpose because they carry experiments that can only be done on a station (not sure how to enforce the rule at this point apart from making stations a special object that can't be turned off and on like it can now) but anyway, the suggestion that certain experiments can only be done in certain places, or certain times would add variety to an ever-so-slightly bland activity.

More importantly I'd like to have science contribute to my in-game knowledge of the Kerbol system. Have me take readings across Duna before you give a 100% accurate value for its average temperature or its gravitational pull. Have me discover details on Laythe's map screen model by pointing a telescope part at it or by sending a mapping probe to it. Even though I can look it up on the wiki, I'd like to discover what the exact atmosphere height for Eve is. It'd be especially great when combined with new planets/moons in the future, but I think it'd work with the old stuff as well.

This is actually beyond what I had in mind, but I applaud the imagination! Something like this would really spice up the search for knowledge wouldn't it

[Kruleworld]

Sixth:A means of changing custom number keys on the fly

you mean the custom action groups? yes, i thought it was odd they can't be edited after launch

Eighteenth: S.E.T.I. ?

Is there any point in searching for something you KNOW is not there? (unlike our universe, aliens will never exist unless squad add them, which they said they wont).

Edited March 15, 2014 by KasperVld

[Stephanie the Viking]

haha, no need to quote the reference, I've seen it a dozen times - not yet managed to find the time to read it though, which is a shame.

All points are well put forward, though when I said SETI, I meant more in a theatrical sense than a physical one. Evidence of aliens in some form could be done without the need to actually bring them to life. Simply looking through a telescope, finding an exoplanet and saying:

'There is evidence of life here/ we are picking up faint electromagnetic waves from here / we can see evidence of life here +150 science' would suffice. It's just another thing to add spice, nothing more. Obviously to make it different to other experiments, you'd need a specific telescope/antenna in a specific place to pick up certain evidence. It expands the game significantly, which is what I'm all about.

Yes, I meant Action Groups. When a ship is constructed using more than one section post-launch, I think that the action groups should be available for editing, so that engines can be regrouped if nothing else. Of all my suggestions this is one that I'd especially like to see considered.

Also yeah I tried as I'm sure many people did, to see if parts could be saved from destruction by using chutes. If an economy (major undertaking) was put into the game at some point, there are many things to consider, this is certainly one of them.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Stephanie the Viking

[Green Skull]

Thirteenth: Kerbal customization: colouring, clothing, hairstyles, facial hair, height, weight etc. Randomly generated or player-invoked are options.

See this thread for custom kerbals. Green-Skull-Inc-Custom-Design-Spacesuits-Beta-v0-36

Body shape remains standard. For now... Oh I also have excellent female or kermin heads made by proot. No sexism here at GSI!

Most of the things in your list are all ready in game... There is a couple of good one tho

[z26]

About the SETI thing... I have no objection, but personnally I'd prefer if these signs stay ambiguous. Like, they give hints of intelligent life, but aren't explicit enough to give you the certainty that there is an orange Ewok planet 0.6 light years away at your right. That would keep some era of mystery and keep the game a bit more grounded in reality. Unicellular life, n the other hand...

On the wiring thing, it would be kinda pointless if the in-game electricity only had the function of powering things like it has now. AFAIK the redstone in minecraft is a fun mechanic in the form that it allows to make various logic circuits. There is a mod that was featured recently that gives a glimpse in the idea of automating simple things with parts: Smart parts

Personally, my main two gripes would be to make science more of an intrinsic experience (something you don't feel like you are doing just for the sake of obtaining points out of it) and for the planets to actually be attractive destinations you go to because you want to be here more than just goals to touch and come back from.

Oh, and I guess, making bases and stations interesting to design.

Edited March 15, 2014 by z26

[Sirrobert]

Aaaaaw, are you trying to insult me? That's cute

Erm... yeah I did, as I already stated, this thread was a summing-up of everything I have been meaning to say to Squad, not you. Also, I was hoping for intelligent conversation about some of the suggestions. Clearly you are not the man for that particular job...

Shouldn't you atleast try to hold an intelligent conversation than, instead of trying to insult someone who disagrees with you?

I posted arguments as to why I didn't agree, haven't seen a single one back..

If you read it again properly, you will see that I was talking of minor malfunctions, not complete losses. 'Never' seems a bit blunt too, and a bit presumptuous on your part - perhaps the idea that the game would become more challenging scares you.

In any game that is being built in stages, few things are ever completely certain. Apollo 13 almost didn't make it back to earth due to a minor malfunction; I don't think it's as outrageous as you seem to think that a game replicating space travel should throw a few curve balls at the player now and then. Space is harsh; obviously you are used to simpler games.

Ok let's read that again shall we?

Hmmm, interesting.

Repairing these problems could be item-specific and involve anything, from a mere spacewalk to the affected part [and a right-click on the item], to the necessity of ferrying a replacement part up in another (bespoke?) manned-capsule and then docking [docking completes the mission]. The Crippled ship could even be rendered inoperable until fixed.

Now maybe I'm just a stupid, non game designer, but the way I read this, it would be possible for my ship heading for Eloo to be crippled (further away, higher chance of something going wrong), and than need a replacement part to be fixed.

The result (if my inferior non-game dev brain can understand it) would be that I'd need to send another ship to Eloo (not really something you do in 10 minutes), dock in interplanetery space (because my ship broke on the way, so before I could do circulation burns). Sounds like more than a minor malfunction to me.

This has nothing to do with challanging. This is hoping the RNG doesn't break your ship, because if it does, you might aswel ditch the mission and start anew (it'd be easier to send a new ship to Eloo than it'd take to recover the old one from interplanetery space). And than hope that one doesn't break to.

Alright, I did not see the damn list, and since some of my suggestions are NEW, any normal person who isn't itching for a fight would overlook anything that is old. Also, the Kerbals are clearly all dudes. On a side note, I'm not sure what 'Woms' are; I suggest you read more books (those paper things with words in).

You'd think your super game-dev brain would be able to recognize a tiny typo. I meant the expression 'can of worms'. Something you'd recognize if you'd read more books.

Anyway, every Kerbal gender discussion WILL spiral towards a flame war VERY fast, and thus I will not discuss this further

In fact it's not really that different to adding fuel tanks to make the engines work, or adding wiring in a circuit to make the bulb come on, laying redstone to power the piston and move the door (minecraft?), though I suppose you probably play with all the cheats on anyway so you never need or run out of fuel.

It's very different. Those fuel lines are on the OUTSIDE of the rockets, to facilitate asperagus staging. Through internal parts, fuel already flows.

Minecraft has nothing to do with this game. KSP is about building and flying rockets. Minecraft is about mining and than building things. The reason you need to lay redstone to connect 2 parts, is becasue they are not connected without the redstone. Your engine IS connected to the fueltank. With another fuel tank. Your battery IS connected to whatever it is that uses power. There's an entire rocket in between them. Having to add electrical wires has NOTHING to do with engineering skill, all you'd have to do is drag a wire from point A to point B, over and over and over again. Go buy some bubblewrap if you want such a thing.

Actually it's a case of making it more realistic and for the ships and stations to behave differently as you connect them together and build them up, dock them together, split them apart. Unlike some people, I don't throw my rockets together and hope for the best, or use mechJeb, or any mods at all for that matter, I LIKE realism, I like building things and designing rockets to be incredibly dexterous and versatile, not just strapping a load of boosters to a command pod and thinking I'm a genius. I LIKE adding fuel pipes so that fuel gets moved around the ship, I LIKE adding RCS thrusters in the proper places and balancing the center of gravity of my modules. Saying that 'The inside of all parts has cables in them' is a little childish too (not to mention horrible English), I was simply making a suggestion, if you don't like it go have an Eskimo pie or something dude.

Mechjeb and 'throw my rockets tougether and hope for the best' are mutually exclusive. The entire point of having a deltaV numbers is so you DON'T have to hope for the best.

I like how you diss mods and claim realism though. How do you think they do it in real life? GUESS how much deltaV a rocket has? NASA uses more autopilots than KSP. Plan a manouver node and than click excecute? That's how NASA does it.

See how much deltaV you need for a mission, than design the rocket to have that plus abit extra? That's how NASA does it.

If you don't use Mechjeb or Kerbal engineer, either you have no clue how much deltaV your rocket has (and thus by definition are hoping for the best), or you manually calculate it (in which case you are an idiot. We as a species invented robots to do that for us).

I also like how you claim realism, but don't use FAR. That fixes all your atmospheric complaints

I think it's a bit sad that I came in peace with harmless suggestions and your response was to rip it to pieces and try talking down your nose at me. I'm actually used to guys being intimidated by me, but never mind - just remember I make computer games honey, which means I win by default xxx

Uhu. And I'm astronaut writing this from the ISS. Give me some proof you're a dev. I might even buy one of your games.

Even if, being a game dev doesn't make you 'win by default' in ANY field other than your own game. Unless you made a KSP clone, you are no more a consumer than I am. Except that I am a consumer for longer than you are. That means I have had more experience with this game, and thus I can predict how changes would effect it better than you. The only advantage you have, is knowing how easy something is to code

[Accelerando]

Shouldn't you atleast try to hold an intelligent conversation than, instead of trying to insult someone who disagrees with you?

Anyway, every Kerbal gender discussion WILL spiral towards a flame war VERY fast

In much the way that your chain of posts is quickly proceeding, no?

and thus I will not discuss this further

What absolute tripe.

So far you have contributed absolutely nothing of constructive worth to this thread; only to remind the OP of things which she had already acknowledged before you started posting, and to belittle and pick apart suggestions.

I'll stop here, but really, it's quite obvious the only reason you're here is to play thread gravedigger

[Comrade Jenkens]

Welcome to the forums.

I'm pretty sure that many of the features that you suggested are planned and even things on the what not to suggest list are only there because they are a common suggestion. Random malfunctions and decaying orbits may even become togglable in the future for those who prefer realism. (I won't have them on myself) Just keep in mind that the game is still in Alpha and progress is slow but at least its consistent.

And Sirrobert was the hostile response necessary?

[Red Iron Crown]

Don't mind the references to the "Do Not Suggest" list, I think it's a forum tradition that every thread in suggestions and discussion start with a few posts about it (even when the suggestion is not on the list!). (This is tongue-in-cheek, in future of course you should consult the list before suggesting).

My question for you: Are you open to modding your KSP installation? If you are, a number of the things you suggest are possible. Here's a few of the highlights:

Fourthly, and something I personally would prefer, is the option to toggle realistic orbits

Principia

Sixth: A means of changing custom number keys on the fly

ActionGroupManager

Seventh: A means of mapping a planet's biomes from orbit

SCANsat

Edited March 15, 2014 by KasperVld

[Stephanie the Viking]

To be fair, I didn't even read his most recent post. His response to mine was expected, and his lack of contribution in any small part to the thread has obviously been noted by others. Ah well, some people don't get any satisfaction IRL and need to do things like that. On the plus side, bits and pieces of his rants are tres amusant.

Back to the matters at hand, I am sure that many of the suggestions I made already exist in the form of mods, and that is excellent but I won't be using them on this game at the moment. Later, when the game is more finished and mods can be used in a stable form indefinitely I will probably entertain a few, but for now I just wanted to point some things to the devs in case I gave them something they could use while they attempt to round the game off and expand it to its final form. In the past I have modded games which were still being patched, and just when you really get hooked on something awesome, a patch comes out and makes the mod useless until the creator remakes it; as you know sometimes they never do. Something like that can ruin an experience and I wanted to avoid that with this game if possible.

As for the electricity thing, I see that many people do not agree with it. I'm a builder, I construct things - the more parts I have to work with, the more I enjoy doing it. Laying cables between Battery A and Part B, while keeping Battery Y for Part Z would mean more careful consideration placed on the location and size of batteries. Right now I just stick a bunch of any old battery pretty much anywhere on a ship and bingo, the lights come on. If this is all I need to do to make the light come on (and it requires no deduction, selection or reasoning behind choices and locations) then why bother with batteries at all? The suggestion of wiring was more of a personal requirement if I'm honest, the idea of laying cables behind some of those panels and bulkheads to actually serve a purpose and really bring ship design to life is all it was intended to imply. Some of my ships are large and ostentatious just for the mere pleasure of putting pieces together. If I had a reason to design everything in a particular way it would make the game even more enjoyable - speaking for myself of course. In combination with the hinges I was talking about, if one of my Kerbals had to open one of these panels and repair something that's even better.

Macrobiotic life.... I like that idea. If we did not get aliens or evidence of aliens in the universe, then studies of life (in many wondrous forms) could occur on the planets we already have. This would provide a large new branch of science and give rise to a host of new experiments and parts.. Awesome idea

If something has been discounted as 'never going to happen', there is probably a very good reason for it. Obviously, not being part of the design team, these reasons may not always be clear to the community, but if we discuss ideas properly, sometimes good ideas are collectively accepted and make it (in some form) into the final game. I'm glad that a few people have grasped that concept and taken this thread in the nature it was intended.

[Red Iron Crown]

Back to the matters at hand, I am sure that many of the suggestions I made already exist in the form of mods, and that is excellent but I won't be using them on this game at the moment. Later, when the game is more finished and mods can be used in a stable form indefinitely I will probably entertain a few, but for now I just wanted to point some things to the devs in case I gave them something they could use while they attempt to round the game off and expand it to its final form. In the past I have modded games which were still being patched, and just when you really get hooked on something awesome, a patch comes out and makes the mod useless until the creator remakes it; as you know sometimes they never do. Something like that can ruin an experience and I wanted to avoid that with this game if possible.

I see where you're coming from with this. Though I must say that the modding community here is very good about keeping up with the latest updates, and several projects that were abandoned by their original creators have been maintained and improved by other modders. There is also the fact that some very basic functionality seems to be ruled out by the devs (e.g. no thrust-to-weight or delta-V calculators in a rocket building game!); mods allow that functionality to exist.

If you are a builder, I cannot recommend Editor Extensions highly enough. It adds vertical snap (extremely useful) and additional symmetry modes (up to 50x). If the mod breaks with an update, it will have no effect on craft you've built with it.

I think the devs look at which mods are popular to get an idea of what the community wants, in addition to the Suggestions and Development section of the forums. Though they certainly don't take them all to heart, some have already been incorporated (like C7Studios' spaceplane parts) or are works in progress (Multiplayer).

[Mr. Speed]

As mentioned by somebody else already I hope there will be a more functional side to science and communications equipment and I can imagine Squad will implement that sooner or later (probably later, since there are more important things to take care of first).

I am totally against random malfunction but I do believe there should be something between fully operational and total explosion, some repairable status if you will. If they would ever have reliability as a factor in the game it should be implemented after budget and contract's are properly implemented. That way you could make some sort of distinction between expensive 100% reliable parts and cheaper less reliable parts.

[Sirrobert]

Even repairable stuf would still render your probes worthless if they need to be 'repaired'

[KasperVld]

I've edited the opening post and removed all the things that were on the what-not-to-suggest list. I also request that everyone treats eachother with a basic respect in this thread. We'll be watching

[Mr. Speed]

Even repairable stuf would still render your probes worthless if they need to be 'repaired'

I don't think every part should be damageable though, but if you damage your probe now it is also worthless. I just think some things could be repairable before going poof. something like the rover wheels and landing legs do for example.

[Sirrobert]

I don't think every part should be damageable though, but if you damage your probe now it is also worthless. I just think some things could be repairable before going poof. something like the rover wheels and landing legs do for example.

If I damage my probe, it is because I screwed up somehow. I can prevent it by not screwing up.

If a random event damages my probe, there is NO WAY to prevent it, other than praying to RNGesus.

And that is the entire reason the devs don't want random events. Every event has to be predictable. There has to be a reason for something happening