Kerbal Space Program .23 Features announcement

[Gormador]

HarvesteR wrote a blog post on upcoming features for the .23 KSP update (no release date, of course).

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/con ... pdate-News


First impressions :
- I'm not sold on that portable lab thingy.

- "Yeah! " for further refinements on how we can configure rockets while building them. Seems like a good convenience feature.

- Being able to recover science from ships while in EVA : I like the added possibility to launch a basic satellite with no long term communication capabilities (ie without rechargeable batteries) and having to get to it to recover that precious science but I'm not sure it's relevant as it would seem much easier to relaunch an upgraded version of the satellite than sending a Kerbal to do that. There might be some cases where it would come in handy. Haven't thought of any yet.
Re-reading the transfer Science while in EVA thing, I'm not sure I got it right. Would it apply only to parts/modules of the same vessel?

- I don't get what he means by "(...)won’t be able to max out a subject by just using antennas." Will we have to get things back to Kerbin? Or use two different means of transmission?


I see a lot of "wait and see here".

[FlowerChild]

Actually, the recovering science on EVA is the thing I'm most excited about there :)

I've been tempted to add functionality to BTSM to allow transfer of surface samples between ships in order to get the whole command/landing module thing working right for Mun landings, and now it looks like I won't have to ;)

- I don't get what he means by "(...)won’t be able to max out a subject by just using antennas." Will we have to get things back to Kerbin? Or use two different means of transmission?

Yeah, I think this refers to only a portion of the total science for an experiment being transmittable, and there being a cap on how much you can send. The rest needs you to return stuff to Kerbin, which is a very good thing IMO.

The existing system makes very little sense for some experiments like surface samples, where you would really expect most of the science to be done back on Kerbin with the return of the samples themselves.

I've been getting around that by separating experiments into ones that can be transmitted, and ones that can't, but basically the same idea.

As for the portable lab, I think it's intended to tie into this same thing, so that eventually you get the ability to fully process all the science out of a sample "in the field" without transporting back to Kerbin. Again, soil samples are a good example for this.

[Stormweaver]

tweekables sounds nice; half the fun of KSP is the building of the rockets, so anything that improves that is brilliant.

Nice to see that they're doing away with the clickfest research was. I imagine that it'll be a case of transmitting n% of the data in one go, then taking the rest home. Hopefully they don't do this across the board ("We must see the thermometer ourselves! No amount of reading a number from it can give us all we need!") but for the most part, it's definitely an improvement. And, with how they're talking about the science lab; it looks to me like an encouragement to get one out to where you're going and using it as a mini space station; You get one set up, then any ships sent to that planet and it's moons collect their data and take it all to the lab.

It looks like a clear improvement across the board compared to 0.22.

[Gilberreke]

"We must see the thermometer ourselves! No amount of reading a number from it can give us all we need!"

Meh, if it makes for fun game-play, who cares? Get your realism out of my game :p

[FlowerChild]

Meh, if it makes for fun game-play, who cares? Get your realism out of my game :p

Problem is it's rather counter intuitive and doesn't lend itself to progressive play if you're *always* trying to get your stuff back.

I agree with Storm that a mix of some experiments that require return and some that don't would make for more interesting play, and hopefully that's the direction they're going in.

[Gilberreke]

Problem is it's rather counter intuitive and doesn't lend itself to progressive play if you're *always* trying to get your stuff back.

I agree with Storm that a mix of some experiments that require return and some that don't would make for more interesting play, and hopefully that's the direction they're going in.

Oh yeah, I agree there obviously. I'm just saying that I want to see what makes most sense game-play wise and that's not *necessarily* realism :)

I was thinking the same about having both. Or maybe even more different ways to work with experiments. I'd love if some of it would be sent back completely and some would be n%, with some of them requiring you to send it back to Kerbin and others you would need to go get in orbit through EVA.

That way, launching experiments would require you to: launch, get science, transmit back, return to Kerbin orbit, EVA to the ship, then re-enter atmosphere. Would make for fun and complicated missions if you want to get as much science as possible.

[PatriotBob]

I really like the concept that somethings, Goo for example, being only really effective if returned. Where as something like Gravatoli being pretty effective while just transmitting readings back. This makes intuitive sense and for a good mix of gameplay.

I would love to see a part, or some other mechanic, that requires us to do science in space. A mechanic that would require us to put a permanent (more or less) science station in orbit. Which we then send experiments up, do science in the station, and either transmit or return the experiment.

Something representative of long-term science being done. The idea being that only so much can be learned from instantaneous and finite measurements and readings. To see real, major science gains you have to do long experiments in space or on other planetary surfaces.

KSP has a lot in common with Minecraft in this regard, a major mechanic is building. So the more you can give the player incentives to build things, in this case infrastructure like stations, the game will the better for it. It's for this reason that I really like RemoteTech and to some extent Kethane. They push the player to build and expand for reasons beyond "LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!".

[FlowerChild]

Yeah, I'm really hoping for some long term science as well. Even before space stations, this would provide much more incentive for putting satellites into a stable orbit and such.

The problem is though, is that there's no time dependency in KSP. There's nothing stopping a player from putting a satellite up, then just time accelerating until it's done collecting all the science you want.

I see this also being a problem they need to address once they implement finance, assuming some kind of time-based budget will be involved.

If they do manage to incorporate some form of time dependency into the game, I think it will make it more interesting as then things like launch windows become much more of a consideration, and overall I think it will make it feel much more like a "space program" as it will mean that you'll be more likely to have multiple simultaneous flights going. Rocket and flight plan efficiency would also be more of a concern.

Not sure how they would pull all this off mind you. I've been thinking for awhile that time as a resource is something this game would really benefit from, but despite having many ideas as to how that might be done, I've yet to have one that really shines.

[Tsugumi Henduluin]

I'd imagine a space program would have their funding cut if all they did was twiddle their thumbs whenever they manage to put a satellite or other vehicle into orbit. It's the job of the engineers and whatnot to get stuff up there, after which a separate entity takes care of processing and interpreting the data, no?
At least, that's my limited understanding of the process. I could be wrong here.

[Stormweaver]

Not sure how they would pull all this off mind you. I've been thinking for awhile that time as a resource is something this game would really benefit from, but despite having many ideas as to how that might be done, I've yet to have one that really shines.

The whole 'Time is money' thing aside, I kinda see something developing like nobles from dwarf fortress; a bunch of kerbals that jump up onscreen however often telling you to achieve 'blah' within so many weeks/months/years or else see a temporary drop in funding and research gains. It would add a bit of direction that the career mode really needs, and lets the dev team animate a bunch more kerbals because kerbals are what everyone buys the game for. What with the giant green heads and all.

Not the most shiny idea, but it's kinda what I'm expecting from here.

[FlowerChild]

Yeah, I'm thinking a third value (beyond science and money) might be in order with some kind of prestige value that marks the reliability of your program (frequent mishaps and particularly the loss of Kerbals decreasing it), with bonuses for completing certain milestones like attaining orbit, landing on the Mun, etc., and having that affect funding.

I'm also thinking that having another AI space program running somewhere on the planet to create a space race analogy with prestige bonuses being much higher if you're the first to do something, which brings the time sensitivity into the equation.

I also think Dave was on the right track a little while ago with the idea of a "Doomsday clock" (basically further advances in research having the effect of decreasing the life expectancy of the Kerbal species with the end goal being colonizing other planets before Kerbin goes boom), but I don't think Squad would go for that as they seem to be pretty anti-violence when it comes to Kerbals. Most companies are rather opposed to making those kind of strong statements.

Anyways, like I said, been toying with a few different ideas here and there, just haven't had anything that jumps out and screams at me that it's the way to go. It's definitely not a trivial design problem to get it all working together and while creating the right player incentives for various things.

[Sarudak]

Yeah and if prestige went down over time that you're not making any accomplishments that would provide a definite incentive to not just push the time warp to get more money. Maybe you could even run the risk of your space program getting shut down (game over) if your prestige drops too low.

[FlowerChild]

Yeah and if prestige went down over time that you're not making any accomplishments that would provide a definite incentive to not just push the time warp to get more money. Maybe you could even run the risk of your space program getting shut down (game over) if your prestige drops too low.

Yeah, that's basically what I've been thinking. At some point, I think you need some kind of game over condition in order to give any of this meaning, otherwise time acceleration is always an option.

[PatriotBob]

Understand that completely. To be honest that makes the most sense, they put time acceleration in, why not use it? It wasn't until I started using Kerbal Alarm Clock that I really felt comfortable conducting multiple missions in parallel. I was always too worried about missing a maneuver node while doing something else.

But the problem is time acceleration itself, it's really needed to make things bearable in those vacations to Eeloo. But ideally the player would use that time to do other, more productive things. I think it's a case of there being no clean way to prevent the player from not just time accelerating and getting the science. But I do think that it might work to reward the player for stacking missions.

If a given experiment needs like a week to be conducted if you could get the player to spend that time launching other missions and accomplishing goals that would be a win. Not sure what that carrot would be. But I think it's very dependent on some tools that are currently missing from KSP. (Namely something like Kerbal Alarm Clock).

Also I think the lack of any life support really flips things upside down and forces design decisions like the one you made with solar panels. With out life support you have to push solar so far up the tech tree to prevent "Welp, got solar panel, going to Eeloo." it really can hamstring things.

[FlowerChild]

Also I think the lack of any life support really flips things upside down and forces design decisions like the one you made with solar panels. With out life support you have to push solar so far up the tech tree to prevent "Welp, got solar panel, going to Eeloo." it really can hamstring things.

Well, that's not the only reason I pushed solar up the tech tree as it also gives probes a finite lifespan which I think is sorely missing in order to make some form of efficiency in flight planning a thing :P

Plus, when did NASA actually start commonly using solar panels on missions? My understanding is that they were far too fragile, heavy, and inefficient initially to consider putting on most missions until the late 70's or 80's (just a guestimate there but I really don't remember many missions before then which used them, even if the first usage of them was in 1958), which really isn't where I'm at with my tech tree. I plan tech level 6 to be Mun landing, tech level 7 to be roughly equivalent to Space Shuttle tech, which is when I'll likely be introducing them.

But yes, regardless, life support is a big missing aspect in KSP, and I really hope the current ordering of the vanilla tech tree isn't an indication that they've decided to ditch the idea as too hard or something. Their statement about putting manned missions first to make it simpler has me suspicious as I think life support would make it decidedly more complex than unmanned.

[nmarshall23]

Well, that's not the only reason I pushed solar up the tech tree as it also gives probes a finite lifespan which I think is sorely missing in order to make some form of efficiency in flight planning a thing :P

Plus, when did NASA actually start commonly using solar panels on missions? My understanding is that they were far too fragile, heavy, and inefficient initially to consider putting on most missions until the late 70's or 80's (just a guestimate there but I really don't remember many missions before then which used them, even if the first usage of them was in 1958), which really isn't where I'm at with my tech tree.

The reality is that solar power is only effective when the panels are facing the sun, and that after a while they degrade. I can't see KSP adding solar flares and cosmic radiation that causes your equipment to fail. In real life probes have a finite lifespan because solar panels stop working after awhile..