Ristse

Would you buy a DLC (or a whole new game) for KSP that was for realism?

Do you want a Realistic DLC or new Game?  

316 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want a Realistic DLC or new Game?



Recommended Posts

...a simulator, not a game.

Again. Two things that are not mutually exclusive.

edit: Regex said it in a more explanative manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any change for realism's sake should first be tested to see if it makes the game less fun before it's put in. That's what people are saying when they say "gameplay over realism".

Very well said. This most closely matches my feelings on the matter.

And this goes beyond realism. EVERY change to the game should be looked at with that metric in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. A lot of the cuts to realism we see in KSP are implemented for a very good reason.

Smaller solar systems don't require so much memory. That's why everything is scaled down so much in the stock game. Larger, more realistic solar systems would also require a thirty minute ascent to orbit, which seems awfully boring to me. I imagine that would be especially so considering a more realistic model would add (and necessitate) autopilot features, too. In addition to introducing even greater performance issues, the larger values for numbers would also accumulate (relatively) greater round-off errors during calculations unless some dramatic changes were made.

Similarly, truly accurate aerodynamic and thermodynamic simulations require too much computational power. The same could be said for simulating orbits using an n-body simulation. What was added in the 1.0 patch already kills performance, and that's pretty far short of what's used in the real world for engineering applications.

And if it's only the engines and other parts that are made more realistic, then all parts would be incredibly overpowered compared to the smaller solar system currently implemented. So the scale of everything else would need to be increased as well, and for reasons already explained I'm not so fond of that idea. This isn't even to mention that if parts were more realistic, our choices of propulsion would be severely limited. Most applications would work best with ion engines with their millinewtons of thrust or absurdly overpowered NERVAs five times the thrust and an additional 50 seconds of isp. That would seriously outperform everything, making all the tough design decisions in the stock game trivial. What (sarcastically expressed) fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EVERY change to the game should be looked at with that metric in mind.
This is where almost all of the contention on these forums come from, different people's ideas of what makes the game fun. "Gameplay over realism" should really just be "gameplay first" (in KSP's case, I guess) because "realism" can be fun. "Gameplay over realism" is too often used as a bludgeon to assault an otherwise reasonable suggestion and that is where the contention comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where almost all of the contention on these forums come from, different people's ideas of what makes the game fun. "Gameplay over realism" should really just be "gameplay first" (in KSP's case, I guess) because "realism" can be fun. "Gameplay over realism" is too often used as a bludgeon to assault an otherwise reasonable suggestion and that is where the contention comes from.

While true, I also see the opposite a lot. Realism suggested simply because "hey it's realistic so it must be better than the garbage we have now, amirite?"

Add to that people who don't actually want realism suggesting realism be added (see: any request for "realistic" entry heating) and we may as well just throw in the towel :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the way I read this question is 'do you want stock KSP to be a significantly different game than it is'.

In short, no.

I truly believe that in KSP right now we have just about the best of everything. The stock game is already an excellent platform for some truly remarkable mods and user-created content, and they are freely available. It's also still being improved all the time to make it faster, less buggy, and to open up new potential opportunities for both mod-creators and gamers.

Squad have found a formula that's working well, that's attracted and nurtured a strong modding community, and that's attracting new players of all ages and backgrounds all the time. I completely agree that more mods and more options are a good idea, but 'realism' is not a huge priority for me.

If anything, I'd say a 'KSP-lite' would be a better investment of Squad's time. This would be an un-realistic version that made the game more fun for kids, newcomers and casual players, that didn't require you to get over the learning-wall that all new players come up against, which I'm sure puts many off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anything, I'd say a 'KSP-lite' would be a better investment of Squad's time. This would be an un-realistic version that made the game more fun for kids, newcomers and casual players, that didn't require you to get over the learning-wall that all new players come up against, which I'm sure puts many off.

My sister had an idea for a "My First Kerbal Space Program," a sort of KSP: Lite.

All planets are 1/2 their stock size and 1/20 their real world size. Instead of mixing and matching fuel tanks and engines, there are prebuilt stages with some tweakable options, such as engine number and type. Jetpacks, which were one of the hardest things for her, would be able to use a positional SAS relative to the target. Planets are closer together. If KSP has a "toy solar system," MFKSP would have a baby toy solar system. Exaggerated proportions and such. Much more heavily stylized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god... I didn't think i would get so many replies in under 24 hours! After reading all of your comments... Remember: This would be an OPTIONAL DLC, not something you HAVE to buy. More of a wink to older players or players so like science and things like that. Yes KSP is a game but it has so much potential!

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. Thats why i said 'Hire the guys who made RSS and RO'

- - - Updated - - -

Thats not the point of this thread. Kids, if they find something too complicated, should do something else. This game isn't meant for kids. yes i do know of KSP EDU where they made a mod for teachers to use KSP in classrooms, but thats a better option then making a new 'Kiddy' version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very interested in a Realism DLC - it feels, to me, like it would make a good "endgame" experience, after the "download all the mods!" phase that a lot of people go through when they feel they have cracked KSP. I considered Realism Overhaul, but after reading the thread was put off by some of the issues people were reporting. (Anyway, I don't think I have got to that stage in my KSP progression.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! Ive seen some people be like 'Id rather have it as an expansion' What i meant by DLC was basically just an Expansion pack or an entire new game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably no on realism, yes on others

Also correct me if I'm wrong but don't user who bought the game before August 2013 get free DLC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realism, simulation, these have become such loaded terms and suffer from lack of definition by the persons using them in many circumstances.

Is KSP realistic? Your mode of travel through the system is modeled on real orbital mechanics. You don't fly like fighter jets would, as in "spaceflight simulators" of an earlier era, like Wing Commander or Tie Fighter etc. For the same reason, it is also a "simulator". It simulates getting a craft to orbit, and again, orbital mechanics using real world physical principles. Is it greatly simplified? Absolutely.

That is why the fun v realism debate is often ridiculous. KSP is fun, because to models realistic (albeit simplified) spaceflight and rocket engineering.

Maybe it should be more accurately described as question of Fun vs Difficulty or Fun vs Challenge. Even that is misleading because it suggests challenge and fun are opposed. They are clearly not. So maybe it should just the Easy vs Hard debate. I don't think the proponents of the "Fun" side of the debate are arguing that KSP should be less realistic, that it be less Orbiter and more Wing Commander (in all cases), just that it should not be so difficult or challenging that it is no longer fun. "Realism" doesn't really come into it.

So what are the "realism" proponents asking for? I'd argue really they are arguing for greater challenge in terms engineering and mission planning, by adding communications, life support and larger celestial bodies/distances.

So, at the end of the long road. Should a Difficulty overhaul become DLC? In a perfect world it should be in sliders, checkboxes at the start of a new game and part of stock. Life support, communications, etc. should all be things which should be opted in/out when you start a new game. Larger celestial bodies/distances, ideally would also be controlled by a slider (ie, Planet sizes 0% - 100%), but still the Kerbal's system (I imagine the technical requirements for Squad to install such a system my make it impractical/impossible with the current program).

Our Solar system however, I think would be perfect for DLC, as well as differently constituted solar systems. I could imagine DLC for instance where the Kerbals begin stranded on a colony on an asteroid, and you need to build ships to get back to a habitable world on the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not the point of this thread. Kids, if they find something too complicated, should do something else. This game isn't meant for kids.

Wow, you'd be a really bad teacher.

Anyway, what I'm talking about is not about making KSP a kids' game, it's about making it accessible to more people who might enjoy it but can't deal with the high learning threshold. That goes for people of all ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But 'dumbing something down' is an awful way to teach kids. KSP is built to be simple. But making it ridiculously easy is just moronic. Even just to teach say, 9 year olds. Kids these days know how to use a computer very well, so putting parts together isn't a challenge.

- - - Updated - - -

Am i an idiot for not realizing your a dev of RSS? XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man. When I was a kid, I was programming, building weird contraptions, and launching miniature rockets. Some kids (myself) would eat up the challenge of KSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Man. When I was a kid, I was programming, building weird contraptions, and launching miniature rockets. Some kids (myself) would eat up the challenge of KSP.

exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say no. I enjoyed KSP most when it was more cartoonish. It was still hard, sure, but it grew on me. It was less annoying, somehow. Of course, airplanes flew nothing like real airplanes. Rockets wobbled and broke apart. No heating, no crew transfer, no fairings, totally unrealistic aeromodel. But it was FUN! It always seemed like there was some solution if one tried hard enough. Now, some things just don't work. A simulator is even more restricted. Thats ok for some things, like competitive gaming, flight simulators, etc. KSP should be a "gamey game", where you beat the game, and it's quirks, not the poor rendition of real life physics that are arbitrarily applied to some aspects of the game. GTA is fun because it is not realistic. KSP is the same kind of sandbox, in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But 'dumbing something down' is an awful way to teach kids. KSP is built to be simple. But making it ridiculously easy is just moronic. Even just to teach say, 9 year olds. Kids these days know how to use a computer very well, so putting parts together isn't a challenge.

There's a hell of a margin between 'dumbing down' and simplifying. Teaching someone a new and unintuitive concept works best when you have an analogy that helps them realise they're already sort of familiar with how its supposed to work. I'm very experienced with flight sims and video-games in general, but KSP is the first time I found myself wishing there was a proper manual I'd read beforehand. I depended really heavily on the wiki every time I hit something I just didn't get, to keep me going thru the first few weeks. In any case, I don't know why everybody assumes that a KSP-lite would be for kids. What about grandparents? I see a lot of older people who were actually kids when Apollo walked on the moon being interested in giving it a go for themselves, and they more than anyone will find the learning phase difficult.

Now you could say KSP is already a simple version of RL space exploration, and I agree, but what it isn't is easy to pick up. Seriously, that learning wall is like learning to cross the road during rush hour, on the motorway, blindfolded. Except less death. Well, less human death. My point is, there's a reason why NASA had one of the biggest non-military budgets in history, and a reason why 'rocket scientist' is still a by-word for 'smart person'. Space exploration is hard - even the experts fail, a lot.

I'm not saying KSP is too hard, but I am saying that it is absolutely not too easy. The game lives and breathes on its ability to attract new players, and for that reason a feed-in system that helped players get to grips with the all complicated stuff would be a much better investment of the developers' time than trying to make the game into a full-real sim for the few people who wish they'd worked for NASA but were born to late/missed their chance/didn't get the opportunity. You can talk about tutorials, and sure they're better than what they were when I started, but if we're literally talking about a DLC/overhaul to make the game different somehow, I'd say it's a much better idea to make it easier and more fun to pick up rather than more like a simulator and less like a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure your question/poll was really good. The problem is, I couldn't care less about RSS/RO. I'm happy playing with the scaled down Kerbol system. I'd pay money for the game to be better looking and bug free, but I have no interest in those mods.

Maybe one day I will look at it, but I've been playing for a while now, and still haven't touched that stuff. I want more to do, not the same to do but on a different looking system, which is why I've looked at new planet mods in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but make it a different game. Part of the appeal of KSP is that its rough "divide by 10" scaling prevents repeated journeys from becoming a chore. Case in point, launching to orbit on Kerbin takes 1-2 minutes, which is a good length to be fun. Scaled up to Earth size every launch takes at least 10-15 minutes not including any rendezvous/docking, which might be interesting the first few times but for many players would quickly lose its appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I don't use realism overhaul and KSP it going to Unity 5 anyways without a DLC. I also don't feel like there's anything a DLC could bring that a mod hasn't done. On top of that I'm against most kinds of DLC, so without knowing more I'm going to have to say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No never I will delete KSP if realism overhaul got implemented

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would kill to have an official RO DLC. The only reason I'm not playing it right now in KSP is because 64-bit isn't here yet, and as such it's too buggy.

Edited by Thomas988

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No never I will delete KSP if realism overhaul got implemented

That isn't even what this thread is about :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I tried Realism Overhaul and didn't enjoy it. In my view it's overcomplicated. Having ten different configs for every engine, having different engines which use the same fuel and oxidizer but in a slightly different ratio, that kind of stuff adds little to gameplay, it's just jumping through more hoops. Abandoning standard part dimensions makes stock builds a mess and makes the base RO feel incomplete and wanting even more mods.

There's room for more realism in KSP and some aspects of RO I like - variety of fuels, limited ignitions, need for ullage. But overall I feel Realism Overhaul is not the way to go about it. There's a difference between attempting to be a realistic game and attempting to simulate the real world, and KSP is better off being the former.

As for paid DLC, I'd pay for high quality planets. Something that's a real leap above what we have now in stock and in mods, something that approaches the visual quality and detail of other games. I'm not so fussed whether it's Earth, Kerbin, or somewhere entirely new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.