For me the simpler these reward mechanics can be and the less time I spend fiddling with them the better. There are lots of very real things NASA administrators do that I don’t have much interest in. For me it doesn’t really matter what you call it so long as it doesn’t make the game Kerbal Bookkeeping Simulator. For some reason “Hey I did an experiment and got a magic currency called “science” makes less sense to people than “Hey I did an experiment and I got a magic currency called “Funds”. ![]() I hear what you’re saying and to some degree I wonder if people would like science more if you just renamed it “money”, that folks feel somewhat dependent on this idea. Its just a game mechanic like fulfilling a contract. It makes no sense to have resources out in Jool that would be required to develop some engine that has already been engineered by humans, when we haven't been to Jupiter, or anywhere further a few lunar soil samples, and so we aren't reliant on elements from other celestial bodies to produce anything (and as far as we know, all elements there are known and available here anyway).Īnd if your response is to tell me that they will be using invasive DRM that monitors exactly what I'm doing in game, I won't even buy the game. So why should we sacrifice realism in the game progression system, and in the fact that every space agency in existence has to account for its spending, either to government or a CEO? They’ll be able to see for instance how how much in-game time its taking us to get out and colonize Jool and how much fuel the average player is using for interstellar vessels and loosely project what resource availabilities and harvest rates should look like. That way they’ll know the fundamentals are all functioning as soon as possible, and can balance resource costs and production to suit. We think the reason is that they’d like to see us stretch our wings as quickly as possible and push vessels and colonies to the limit before adding in complex resource chains. With things like colonies its a bit chicken and egg because you need resources to build colonies and colonies to process resources. So you might get what are essentially contracts tied directly to unlocking things like building upgrades, kerbal skill upgrades, etc.Ī number of us questioned adding resources so late in the process. ![]() Science and progression are being added in the first update which may include boom events and other curated goals depending on what the rewards are. The latest reveal is that the "career-equivalent mode" will be called exploration mode ( source) and seems likely to be added during the exploration update on the roadmap, one of the last. Once the tree is fully fleshed out, and money is no longer much of a concern, that is when I start losing interest in the game. It is the slow advancement, the working to achieve incremental results that is the draw for me. I am not from the "push button get cheese" generation, I don't believe in an "end game". I know a lot of folks see science and money in the career path as a grind, but I see it as the game itself. Looking forward to seeing all of that and how it all ties in. Not also that the tech tree in KSP2 will be much deeper. So scanning for them and landing to take samples will be important. One interesting thing about the new science system is that abnormalities is important for science, they are stuff like say an weird meteorite or an huge crystal so mostly geological but Stromatolites on Laythe was an biological. One downside is that this could slow down gameplay as you keep doing contract inside Kerbin SOI who make it take forever in real time to reach other planets. ![]() One benefit of carrier is that it gives you clear goals.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |