Random-Generated Planet stats? (different than just New Planets)

[Spraki]

Howdy. Ok, I know I know. New planet mods are one thing.

But how about some roll the dice of RNGsus to change a variety of things, such as planet size, gravity etc. 

Basically stock planets but, uh, RNG flips things around.

Mmh. Ok, planet mods more or less cover that.

But maybe something interesting could come from this?

Or how about some sort of procedurally genetated planets, where the surface also may have unique aspects.

Maybe even have it be a single planet that is loaded with challenges and achievements?

Just some things that came from the top of my head.

 

 

 

Should probably have stayed there lol. Did a search but nothing in topics popped up 

[AlamoVampire]

Something like this could in theory be done, but wont be. It wont be done for the simple reason that Squad wants game play to be as contiguous as possible for everyone. Why? Support honestly. If you have random planets with random stats and I have a different set of random and we run into problems how exactly can support be effective if soo many variables are in play? Honestly it cant, which is why they wont do random planets, well, not with out some way to make play contiguous for all at least.

 

original post 22:42:30

[KSK]

8 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

Something like this could in theory be done, but wont be. It wont be done for the simple reason that Squad wants game play to be as contiguous as possible for everyone. Why? Support honestly. If you have random planets with random stats and I have a different set of random and we run into problems how exactly can support be effective if soo many variables are in play? Honestly it cant, which is why they wont do random planets, well, not with out some way to make play contiguous for all at least.

original post 22:42:30

Couldn't you make that exact same argument against mods? Especially planet pack mods? It doesn't seem to have been a problem for those.

Personally, I think that random planets - or a curated pool of planets which can be shuffled to produce random solar systems would be a great idea. It would be even better if it was combined with some sort of 'fog of discovery' mechanic where you start off with the bare bones orbital data about a given planet (so you can plot a course to it) but have no idea about surface features, atmosphere etc.

Keep the current Kerbol system in as a reference system so that contiguous gameplay is there for those that need or want it and then give players the option of starting a new game in that reference system or in a randomly generated system.

Edited August 15, 2017 by KSK

[AlamoVampire]

@KSK I could NOT make the same argument I made with regards to mods or planet pack mods. Why? Because of the following:

1: Modded install, problem comes up, like say the issue I had once I upgraded to 1.3, game crashed on load. I pulled ALL my mods out, reloaded 1 at a time until problem came back. Issue: bad dll in 1 mod.

2: thats why there is a modded install support section.

3: modded game play is still contiguous across those installs that use them, ie my use of mechjeb and planetary base performs like your set of same.

4:players using mods are familiar enough with KSP to know to start at point 1 when problems start, so at base levels if the problem is contained to say an issue with say Jool being say solid 1/3rd the way down the devs have a solid foundation to poke at. If the issue is on some RNG made planet thats 100% unique to you, finding the root is orders of magnitude harder.

5: Now, if say its NOT 100% random and all planets and what not are a known set of say lego bricks and the only application of chance is what bricks the game picks but the devs made those bricks, that could work as then contiguousness is there.

Did that last one seem coherent? Im a touch sleepy atm long night lol

original post 11:21:30

[KSK]

Yep - that makes sense - thanks.

I'd favour the curated collection of Lego bricks approach myself over a truly random generation system. Easier to make interesting planets and would (or at least could) use existing planet packs as 'bricks'.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I could see doing one randomly generated planet as a DLC.

Bill it is as the "hardest of challenges" because everything about it is unknown, make it the hardest planet to reach so newbs don't get confused by it.

As far as fluff, I can imagine it being a rogue planet that get's captured by the Kerbol system, which explains why everyone gets a different one.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Rocket In My Pocket

[HebaruSan]

Any reason we couldn't extend Kopernicus and/or ModuleManager to support randomized parameters? Something like:

	@Body[Kerbin]
	{
		%Properties
		{
			%radius = #$random(300000,800000)$
		}
	}

I guess you'd need a way to return the same value consistently per save file rather than resizing the planets on every load.

Edited August 15, 2017 by HebaruSan

[Jas0n]

Is there a mod out there for procedurally generated star systems? I could just be understanding it incorrectly tho.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

IIRC Squad considered something like this way back when but they decided it'd be too complicated. IMO it'd be cool to see this as a DLC down the line.

7 minutes ago, Jas0n said:

Is there a mod out there for procedurally generated star systems? I could just be understanding it incorrectly tho.

There is but I forget what it's called. Further Beyond or something like that maybe??

[Jas0n]

38 minutes ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

IIRC Squad considered something like this way back when but they decided it'd be too complicated. IMO it'd be cool to see this as a DLC down the line.

There is but I forget what it's called. Further Beyond or something like that maybe??

Maybe it could be part of a separate part of the game where you can have it randomly generate a system and choose if you use it?

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

22 hours ago, Jas0n said:

Maybe it could be part of a separate part of the game where you can have it randomly generate a system and choose if you use it?

I think that's what they were going to do, but it was never really made clear.

[Snark]

My two cents:

First, I'm skeptical about the concept.  I've had a few experiences with games that generate procedural/random content, and even when it's done very well... it tends to be a bit dull.  The fact that every planet in the stock solar system has had many hours of loving polish by human hands really shows; it gives them character, in a way that randomized generation simply doesn't have.

In my own gameplay, I find that randomized content can be interesting briefly, just for the novelty... but I find that it very quickly palls, and its essential shallowness very quickly shows through.  It becomes boring quickly (for me, anyway).

It's one of those things that sounds amazing when it's done right... but the reality often turns out to be a lot duller than expected.  That was my experience with Spore, and I've heard similar stories about No Man's Sky (although I haven't played it myself).

The latter case was enough to inspire a Penny Arcade strip about it, back in mid-August of last year.  I won't link to it, since the strip contains language inappropriate to the KSP forums ... but I can give the expurgated summary.  It's Tycho as the in-game character, standing on this alien planet and looking grouchy.  He's staring at a bizarre alien creature and musing aloud:

Quote

There is no other planet like this, anywhere in the universe.

And you are a unique creature, unlike anything anyone else has discovered.

I may be the only conscious being to have ever beheld you.

You are my private miracle.

And I don't give two [expletive]s.

Which about sums it up for me.

 

 

On 8/14/2017 at 8:42 PM, AlamoVampire said:

Why? Support honestly. If you have random planets with random stats and I have a different set of random and we run into problems how exactly can support be effective if soo many variables are in play?

Well, I think that problem could be reasonably addressed.  If that were the only issue-- i.e. if this were a great gameplay idea that players would love-- then I think this aspect of it can be straightforwardly overcome.  Just do it like this:

• The solar system is pseudo-randomly generated, from a particular seed value which is just an integer.  Same seed = same solar system, completely consistent and reproducible.  (This is basically the way ore distribution works now.)
• When a player starts a new game, a seed value is randomly chosen for them.  This seed is stored in their .sfs file.
• There's also the ability to specify a seed manually (some setting somewhere).

...so in that case, if a player is having difficulties in a particular situation, they can ask for support just by specifying their seed number, which would allow anyone to reproduce their solar system perfectly.

That said, though:  I agree with you that there's a lot of value in consistency.  Not just for support, but for community.  Think about it:  All these thousands of users posting here on the forums, asking each other for help, offering each other advice.  I think there's huge value in the fact that nearly all of them are playing with the same solar system.  When a player posts "Help, how do I land on Duna?", there are lots of people with experience on Duna.  That's a lot easier to get help than "Help, how do I land on a planet with such-and-such statistics?"

 

On 8/15/2017 at 0:29 PM, HebaruSan said:

Any reason we couldn't extend Kopernicus and/or ModuleManager to support randomized parameters? Something like:

	@Body[Kerbin]
	{
		%Properties
		{
			%radius = #$random(300000,800000)$
		}
	}

 

I think this would be a great mechanic to add to ModuleManager.  Wouldn't be a Kopernicus thing at all, just a MM feature.  Since Kopernicus builds on top of MM, it would automatically get the benefit.

Even though I don't like the idea of random solar systems as a stock feature (per my rationale above)... I like the idea of enabling people to do it, so that folks who want to give it a try, can.  Since it would be a MM feature rather than Kopernicus explicitly, this would also open the door to mod writers who want to have any sort of somewhat-random element in their stuff.

....hmmm.  Well, actually, you'd probably need something more sophisticated than that, if you want to have the ability to generate a random number of random things, rather than just randomly varying the parameters of known bodies.  But it's certainly a good start.

 

On 8/15/2017 at 0:29 PM, HebaruSan said:

I guess you'd need a way to return the same value consistently per save file rather than resizing the planets on every load.

Very important, and easily handled.    You'd define the "random" syntax such that one of the required input parameters would be a seed value.

And then just have the seed itself be a variable that's persisted somewhere.

 

[AlamoVampire]

@Snark I personally have zero idea how to find s seed value. I barely know enough to bring Jeb back from death before a respawn timer does. Its why I think if there was a list of planets and stars for the game to choose from that has the love the current stock set has to be chosen at "random" at start of save like legos - that could be fun because the base is the same for all at a code level i think. Im not a programmer so im guessing.

op 12:25:30

[Snark]

38 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Snark I personally have zero idea how to find s seed value.

No, what I mean is, that's how it would be handled internally.  And the UI would surface it reasonably in some place-- that way, if someone has a problem, and is asking for help, people can say "What's your game seed?  You can find it by going to <menu> and looking at <thing>" or whatever.

But yes, agreed that this would be an extra step that would add to the burden of trying to get technical-support help.  One more thing to have to include.

[Thomas P.]

On 16.8.2017 at 0:43 AM, Jas0n said:

Is there a mod out there for procedurally generated star systems? I could just be understanding it incorrectly tho.

There is also this. Sadly, I never had the time (or the skill) to finish it.

*hides because of shameless self advertisement*

[regex]

KSP's planets are already pseudorandom in a sense. Sure, there's a heightmap but for pretty much all of the planets in the game it's basically just Perlin noise, IIRC. Plus, the PQS mods all use procedural generation, probably with a static seed. Biggest problem for procedurally generated planets in KSP would probably be the biome maps, any well-written generator worth its salt could equal the bland planets we have now. I mean, look at NMS, you wouldn't need a fraction of that for KSP.

On 8/15/2017 at 5:17 AM, KSK said:

a curated pool of planets which can be shuffled to produce random solar systems would be a great idea

This is probably the best way to do it, have a pool of curated planets that get generated into a random solar system. Varying the PQS seed would provide the needed randomness to ensure that visits to the curated planets aren't exactly the same as the last save game. Probably a lot of other randomized enhancements that could be made. Hell, they'd probably end up looking better than the planets we have now.

Edited August 17, 2017 by regex

[Wallygator]

I can't help but reflect on these desires for proceduralness...

Do we want this because;

A) We desperately seek new content

B) We seek content that is not dependent on discrete @SQUAD development and release schedules?

C) We are hoping for a NMS-esque totally open environment?

I recall squad mentioning they were seeking a common user experience regarding 'the celestial map' (my phrase) - frankly from my point of view this is desirable. I do not support randomisation - rather more frequent content updates.

However, if this random/procedural discussion is all just driven from the community sensing 'Squad not prioritising content', then I would highly suggest more/better lobbying of content additions.

 

They are likely to NEVER go random.

[HebaruSan]

2 hours ago, Wallygator said:

Do we want this because;

I'd like to explore and make genuine discoveries. Not just where I don't know, say, the atmospheric pressure of a new planet, but where no one knows. (I always picture this with a mild sort of fog-of-war mechanic.) Probes would provide not just artificial science points, but actual useful information for planning further missions. We can build replicas of the Voyagers or New Horizons, but launching them is always a bit anti-climactic because you're not going to use them to learn things.

2 hours ago, Wallygator said:

They are likely to NEVER go random.

Agreed, there's little likelihood they'll do a rip-and-replace on the core of the game at this point.

[Waterlimon]

Procedural generation would not work because:

• Its easier to create content by hand when its getting as slowly as it is in KSP, especially since players sharing the same environment is nothing but good.
• The actual problem is that youre stuck at KSC. That is what makes the game repetitive. This wont change no matter how much you mess with the outer planets (which the average player will never fully explore anyways, I assume)

The best way to add content is to:

1. Add detail through procedural generation (not scale, not new planets)
2. Manually add a few hundred additional planets and moons. Theres room. At most requires some minor UI improvements.

 

And then fix the real problem and give the player 10 unique space centers spread across the system in completely different conditions/environments, that players get access to when they 'conquer' that celestial body in some way (commnet access, having station there, managing to land there, maybe buying it, whatever). Maybe throw a space center in space for end-game. Thats how you fix the repetitiveness. Promising content in the form of a whole new randomly generated system doesnt help much if half the players get bored while exploring the first one for a few hundred hours.

[Wallygator]

6 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

I'd like to explore and make genuine discoveries. Not just where I don't know, say, the atmospheric pressure of a new planet, but where no one knows. (I always picture this with a mild sort of fog-of-war mechanic.) Probes would provide not just artificial science points, but actual useful information for planning further missions. We can build replicas of the Voyagers or New Horizons, but launching them is always a bit anti-climactic because you're not going to use them to learn things.

A fair point - and I agree with you.

[tseitsei89]

8 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

I'd like to explore and make genuine discoveries. Not just where I don't know, say, the atmospheric pressure of a new planet, but where no one knows. (I always picture this with a mild sort of fog-of-war mechanic.) Probes would provide not just artificial science points, but actual useful information for planning further missions. We can build replicas of the Voyagers or New Horizons, but launching them is always a bit anti-climactic because we are not using them to learn things

This. So much this. It would make KSP so much more awesome.

New procedurally created planets for every save AND a fog-of-war (fog-of-exploration) like mechanic.

First we would only know the approximate orbits of the few bigger planets. 

Then we build (orbital) telescopes to figure out more precise orbits and masses for the planets and to find more celestial bodies (smaller planets and moons).

Then we send probes to interesting bodies to further study their composition/atmosphere/good landing locations/gravity.

And after that we might send kerbals to land on those bodies because we have studied them extensively enough to get all the parameters needed to be able to design a functioning lander for those circumstances.

All this would add that incredible sense of exploring new things and achieving something new to the game and that feeling would remain there from save to save since you can never know what you'll find if you start a new save

 

That is what would make ksp THE game of all time IMHO (dont get me wrong it still is one of the very best games I have ever played).