Klapaucius Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 According to this article, https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-2-dev-reveals-how-baby-kerbals-are-made/ there will be population expansion for successful colonies. If we have baby Kerbals, this implies that we also have mortal Kerbals to keep the population in check. So, this probably means the developers are thinking about death--and not just from explosions. How long does a Kerbal live? If you send Jeb and Valentina out on an interstellar mission, is it their great grandchildren who ultimately arrive at the destination? Will Jeb go grey? Will Valentina need assistance climbing the ladder into her spaceplane? Food for thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danilo Coelho Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 They said that interstellar travells would take year with the new engines. But, i think that for gameplay reasons, the distance between star's systems will be shorter than real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 11 minutes ago, Klapaucius said: According to this article, https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-2-dev-reveals-how-baby-kerbals-are-made/ there will be population expansion for successful colonies. If we have baby Kerbals, this implies that we also have mortal Kerbals to keep the population in check. So, this probably means the developers are thinking about death--and not just from explosions. How long does a Kerbal live? If you send Jeb and Valentina out on an interstellar mission, is it their great grandchildren who ultimately arrive at the destination? Will Jeb go grey? Will Valentina need assistance climbing the ladder into her spaceplane? Food for thought... The main four are probably immortal, but all other kerbals have a time limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geschosskopf Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 (edited) Hmmm, interesting question..... I'm thinking that colony population will probably be abstract NPCs. It would function in the game more like a resource, just a number on the screen. The fluctuation of the number incorporates both births and deaths. Have enough and playable recruits start showing up there. As to the aging of playable Kerbals, I dunno. Most folks' games ain't gonna last long enough for that to matter. But if they do, I'm sure the players can either accept it or deal with it in some way of their own choosing. Edited August 24, 2019 by Geschosskopf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fulgur Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 Although I think it would be very cool if you could have Kerbals born on Laythe, who had never seen Kerbin, be the first to do... something. Definitely a boon for mission reports. I believe that Kerbals are self-repairing and do not die of senesence (aging). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos_forge Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 Kerbals don't die of old age, they die of rocket crashes. Their drive to pilot incredibly dangerous contraptions is how the population is kept in check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikokespprfan Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 The article mentioned in the OP says explicitly that kerbals mutiply not in a time based system, but based on the status of their colony. This was done to remove time from the equation. In my opinion, this means that this stuff is entirely irrelevant. You don't need kerbals constantly replenishing a dying population over time. Kerbals that don't die naturally fits with kerbals only multiplying by colony growth. Still fun to speculate though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klapaucius Posted August 24, 2019 Author Share Posted August 24, 2019 5 hours ago, nikokespprfan said: The article mentioned in the OP says explicitly that kerbals mutiply not in a time based system, but based on the status of their colony. This was done to remove time from the equation. In my opinion, this means that this stuff is entirely irrelevant. You don't need kerbals constantly replenishing a dying population over time. Kerbals that don't die naturally fits with kerbals only multiplying by colony growth. Still fun to speculate though. Good point, but I was interpreting it to mean that time alone will not automatically lead to population growth, but that certain pre-conditions need to be met. Once those pre-conditions are met, you have new Kerbals. So, do they grow up? Do they just appear fully formed and ready to go? Perhaps Kerbals only breed via petri dishes and test tubes... Having said that, your point about Kerbals not dying fitting in naturally with only multiplying by colony growth is quite logical. My hunch is your are right about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakenred65 Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 If the theory that kerbals are genetically modified plants is true then they may be kind of immortal . Combine genetic memory with extreme environmental adaptation and boom. The kerbals that you and other space programs have dumped Willy nilly on moons and planets are the ones who show up at your colonys to populate them. After all there are lots of abandoned launch facility's on kerbin for some reason.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikokespprfan Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Klapaucius said: Having said that, your point about Kerbals not dying fitting in naturally with only multiplying by colony growth is quite logical. My hunch is your are right about this. lets go a step deeper. What does it mean for me to be right about this? We observe this aging behaviour in KSP 1. The kerbals do not die of natural causes. We might very well observe this in KSP 2. My earlier logic implies that this might well be the case, but does that actually mean that kerbals don't die naturally? Am I right for the right reasons. (yes I'm having fun with this.) Let me ask another question to explain: does the kerbal universe have more than one star. It does, but it doesn't, but it does. It does (KSP2 shows more than one), but it doesn't (KSP1 only stars 1 star; kerbol), but it does (the kerbal universe has multiple stars, but they were approximated away in the first game). I bet you'll find many other examples of things in the KSP universe that game 1 approximated away, and is this yet another thing that is there, but just not visible for gameplay reasons. Surely KSP2 will not contain the entire kerbal universe. Now some people might argue that there is actually no such thing as a kerbal universe, and that instead we have a multiverse of kerbal universes, one for each game, some of which have phenomena that others do not. That this is the real answer to the paradox of differnece in observation we can see between the games. But those people would obviously be foolish in their presumptions. Edited August 24, 2019 by nikokespprfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakenred65 Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 Ok technically only the one other abandoned facility. Sorry .fogor some of the others were mod added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captinjoehenry Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 Considering how they said that you can just completely forget about a colony and move on and the colony will still be perfectly fine when you come back to it I assume that means the population only goes up and never down. Which also makes sense with how they have the population increase due to you doing cool / impressive things in and around the colony from that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 kerbals that age would make the game more complex and most likely in the game if ever applied could be enabled or disabled. You don't want to be in the middle of your burn and get a message that Jeb died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargamel Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 17 minutes ago, The Doodling Astronaut said: You don't want to be in the middle of your burn and get a message that Jeb died. I already get that message, right after the ship goes RUD. I don't think I'm ok with this. One of the things that makes KSP cool is the cute little rubbery green bouncy guys that love to explode randomly. Making them mortal on a clock is kinda disturbing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lajoswinkler Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 I'd make them live for 100 years, without getting decrepid, but I'd implement a raycast ionizing radiation model and a lifelong absorbed dose that would determine their lifespan. This would be simplified realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, lajoswinkler said: I'd make them live for 100 years, without getting decrepid, but I'd implement a raycast ionizing radiation model and a lifelong absorbed dose that would determine their lifespan. This would be simplified realism. I demand Jeb be made immune to radiation! Kerbals with BadS traits doesn't care. Edited August 25, 2019 by Xd the great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikokespprfan Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 That would be a sensible method of aging, when it is radiation-induced. Given the engines we're getting, I think it's likely that radiation will affect the kerbals in some way. This is just the stretched out consequence of such a system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts