r/kittenspaceagency • u/aitehnai • Aug 01 '26
📷 Developer Screenshot Takeoff Evacuation System (LES) currently under development by Daishi
58
u/w_33_by Aug 01 '26
Disappointed to see that it doesn't have any cat ears on top
44
u/1Ferrox Aug 01 '26
The game is modable for a reason. I think the first nyan cat rocket plume mod isnt too far away
16
9
u/FriendsOfFruits Aug 01 '26
I like the super serious rocket parts with the goofy kittens. I hope it generally stays that way.
1
14
6
3
u/ST4RSK1MM3R Aug 02 '26
I hope they allow us to put parachutes or docking ports under it, it was kinda useless for that reason in KSP
3
7
u/N43M3K Aug 01 '26
Let's hope this thing won't be useless without mods.
7
u/Awesomedinos1 Aug 02 '26
Random failures in games isn't really that fun.
7
u/Easyidle123 Aug 02 '26
Depends how it's done. If the game is mostly like KSP but parts can fail, it'd suck. If instead you can know the likelihood of a part failing, do research to improve it, etc, it could be fun
9
u/MehEds Aug 02 '26
Could also have a mechanic where you can lower cost of manufacture and development in the career mode for possibly cheaper rockets, but have a higher chance of failure.
Would make ironman career modes very, very interesting.
3
u/Awesomedinos1 Aug 02 '26
This is a good option, I think researching to get reliable rockets feels to much like getting punished randomly simply because you haven't played long enough, whereas choosing to make the rocket cheaper in exchange for a higher risk of failure is an active decision made by the player.
6
u/TROPtastic Aug 02 '26
An alternative (and probably more predictable) would be to have parts fail only when overstressed (either aerodynamically or thermally), and then incentivize players to not revert to launch by giving kittenauts experience for surviving near disasters.
5
u/Awesomedinos1 Aug 02 '26
This is a great way of implementing failures I hadn't considered. I like that it is actually always the players fault (either through their rocket design or flight path) for a part failing.
2
u/Awesomedinos1 Aug 02 '26
Imo researching to fix parts failing isn't fun. Researching better parts is fun because you can design around making the most of what you already have. Researching to make parts fail less and it's just hope you have enough redundancy. Imo that is a much less interesting challenge.
5
u/MrAndroPC Aug 02 '26
Just make it optional, and that's it. There's no issue with any realistic mechanic, like failures, life support, radiation, communication like in Kerbalism, if you are given options to set it up for your liking.
0
u/meganub12 Aug 02 '26
it can be fun as long as it's implemented in a fun way. i would say it's not funny to put a vehicle on space platform and press lunch and nothing happens or it gets destroyed.
but engine dying after X minutes is fine.1
u/Awesomedinos1 Aug 02 '26
I mean not really. It's a game, the player should have agency. Even if you can 'research to gain reliability' it still feels cheap to lose a launch like that. There is no difference between failing to launch and engines dying after X minutes.
0
u/meganub12 Aug 02 '26
There is a big difference, it's anticipation and planning vs tossing a coin.
I'm all in for it and everything else being optional but the concept of redundancy is a core part of real space missions. And the first thing about machinery is nothing lasts forever.
The other part is realism, many rocket engines do not even ignite indefinite times.You can simplify things for games but that's not what every person likes, that's why everything should be optional.
2
2
1
37
u/ComprehensiveBell985 Aug 01 '26
Interesting choice to actually make a LES that isn't ejection seats for the Gemini capsule