Faster Kerbal

[Abel Military Services]

Plz faster Kerbal EVA

[t_v]

This is probably more fit for a suggestion rather than a discussion

I think the gameplay reason for making kerbals so slow is to encourage players to use vehicles everywhere, because kerbals by themselves are not very biologically adept at moving fast. It supports my personal theory that they are plants with no predators who don’t need to hunt or run away from anything. I’m sure it’s fine if they got a minor speed boost, but not enough to make driving a rover around the KSC irrelevant. 

[Gargamel]

Moved to KSP2  suggestions. 

[Ben J. Kerman]

I do think Kerbals should walk a little faster, but not much faster because I like building trucks and cars anyway. Maybe the running speed should be increased to a little under 3 m/s instead of 2 m/s, but not much faster than that because the average male human running speed is ~3.5 m/s. 

[darthgently]

5 minutes ago, Ben J. Kerman said:

I do think Kerbals should walk a little faster, but not much faster because I like building trucks and cars anyway. Maybe the running speed should be increased to a little under 3 m/s instead of 2 m/s, but not much faster than that because the average male human running speed is ~3.5 m/s. 

Combining running with periodic jumping on low grav worlds can have amazing results without using any eva propellant

[Ben J. Kerman]

19 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Combining running with periodic jumping on low grav worlds can have amazing results without using any eva propellant

I am on Kerbin a lot more than any other bodies, testing out cranes and trucks, so I can't use that method. I have been on the Mun a few times and seen how far running and jumping can get me, though!

 

[Vl3d]

I think Kerbals should also have different physical traits. Some stronger for construction, some faster for exploration.

[TLTay]

Kerbal sprinting punctuated by the occasional faceplant or trip. Faster travel the Kerbal way.

[Davi SDF]

Build cars 

Seriously though, some extra running speed is good, but it's completely invalidated by land vehicles (sich should be much better to buid in KSP2)

[DunaManiac]

While I don't really see kerbal running speed increasing ever seriously making a vehicle impractical,  I don't think it's speed will change at all in KSP2. I mean, when was the last time you had to walk 3 kilometers on EVA when you could have used a vehicle?

Spoiler

In fact, that's a good idea - a crew ferry rover to take kerbals back to the central base if their craft landed a few kilometers away...

 

[Vl3d]

32 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

when was the last time you had to walk 3 kilometers on EVA when you could have used a vehicle

When I crashed the vehicle in a huge crater while returning to my lander on the Mun near one of the arches after misplacing the jetpack in storage.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Vl3d

[DunaManiac]

On 4/25/2022 at 12:14 PM, Vl3d said:

When I crashed the vehicle in a huge crater while returning to my lander on the Mun near one of the arches after misplacing the jetpack in storage.

Well, my question was technically asking, "when was the last time you had to walk 3 kilometers on EVA while there was a functional vehicle around," but I suspect that even faster EVA speeds wouldn't help you in that circumstance. 

[LezRowl]

You try running fast in a EVA suit.

[pandaman]

On 4/25/2022 at 4:42 PM, DunaManiac said:

...I mean, when was the last time you had to walk 3 kilometers on EVA when you could have used a vehicle?

Hmm, like when the wheels broke on landing and I didn't have enough repair kits.  

On 4/26/2022 at 7:17 PM, DunaManiac said:

Well, my question was technically asking, "when was the last time you had to walk 3 kilometers on EVA while there was a functional vehicle around," but I suspect that even faster EVA speeds wouldn't help you in that circumstance. 

Ahh, didn't see that one^^

[The Aziz]

What we need is more stable physwarp (or equivalent) so I can turn on 4x and run without risking tripping on a random pixel on the ground and going poof.

[Vl3d]

43 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

What we need is more stable physwarp (or equivalent) so I can turn on 4x and run without risking tripping on a random pixel on the ground and going poof.

I am in principle against physwarp, i think it is a cheat and it breaks game immersion. All other games encourage you to build/earn better/faster vehicles. It's called progression.

[The Aziz]

So I can warp through my Jool mission so it takes few minutes instead of 4 years, but I can't warp my Kerbal so it can run from a lithobraked landing to a base in 5 minutes instead of 20 because that is cheating?

Please.

[DunaManiac]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

I am in principle against physwarp

Oh no, not this discussion again. I mean, this stance makes a small amount of sense in a multiplayer setting, but in a singleplayer setting, no.

I mean, have you ever done a 45 minute long burn before? Or used an ion engine? Or being kilometers away from your base and having to walk there on foot? Or been in any tedious situation at all?

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

It's called progression.

It's not progression to increase the amount of tedium one has to sit through. And again - "build a torchdrive lol" isn't a solution to every problem. The game shouldn't have to make you build a needlessly large rocket just to reduce the amount of tedium when there's physwarp right there. And how is phys-warp cheating, while ordinary timewarp is not?

I mean, this is a classic example of "if you don't like it, don't use it," (although I suspect that will be hard). From what I can tell, the majority of the playerbase is completely fine with it.

But this is not the place for that, so to stay on topic, I'll say that I personally don't think they'll be any speed boost  to EVA at all. It's perfectly fine where it is right now. If there is a slight speed boost, I'll be pleasantly surprised. In the meantime, use a vehicle, use the kerbal jetpack, or even another vessel to collect them, or just turn on 4x warp.

Edited May 2, 2022 by DunaManiac

[Vl3d]

53 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

It's not progression to increase the amount of tedium one has to sit through.

Tedium means: (1) the game has a gameplay rhythm problem it should solve or (2) that it intentionally tries to motivate you to aquire a faster means of transportation.

If (1), using physwarp is equivalent to teleporting or using other solutions for fast-travel. Why not just takeoff from a runway closer to your destination?

If (2), using physwarp means you are cheating. Travel was supposed to take a long time.

By all means do whatever you like in single player.

But having a Mk1 airplane (at X4 physwarp) do the same journey in the same time as a Mk3 (at x1 physwarp) means you are forced to always use physwarp, no matter what plane or rover you use. I think that's terrible gameplay.

And you can see this in the fact that no other games use this artificial physwarp mechanic.

On-rails time warp is a completely different issue I will not address here.

55 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

In the meantime, use a vehicle, use the kerbal jetpack, or even another vessel to collect them, or just turn on 4x warp.

Running at 4x and using a vehicle should not be equivalent. It's a game breaking mechanic.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Vl3d

[t_v]

58 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

And you can see this in the fact that no other games use this artificial physwarp mechanic.

Very untrue. Lots of games allow you to change time to avoid tedium, from games like Outer wilds where you can skip to the time you would like to not have to wait, or games like MSFS2020, where warping up to your friends is common so that you can fly together, instead of having someone (with the same plane) be behind because everyone is at the same speed. This isn’t for everyone, and for example in flight simulator some people wait for their friends to catch up, but when your plane crashes, it helps to get back up to speed to keep participating in the fun. Lots of games use time warp. Also, artificial is a pointless slandering word that you could have chosen not to include and applies to everything in video games. 

 

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

But having a Mk1 airplane (at X4 physwarp) do the same journey in the same time as a Mk3 (at x1 physwarp) means you are forced to always use physwarp, no matter what plane or rover you use. I think that's terrible gameplay

except for a lot of reasons. First, it is only in the same time in certain systems while in others such as subspace bubbles, it is in more time. Second, you are absolutely not forced to use physwarp. I think you greatly overestimate the competitiveness of this community; people love to collaborate on projects in current multiplayer, and competition is in good spirit. Yes, physwarp can move a craft faster and thus reduce real-life time, but people will understand and account for physwarp in competition, either by adjusting for the warp or just not using it in that scenario. Otherwise, it is a useful tool to reduce tedium. 
 

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Running at 4x and using a vehicle should not be equivalent. It's a game breaking mechanic.

Who said they were equivalent? If you have a reasonably fast vehicle, even for the tech level of KSP 1, you can easily outstrip a kerbal running at 4x physwarp, even at normal times. And pressing one button for five minutes without any engaging decision or need to look at the environment is much worse than having to make sure your car doesn’t tip or crash or fly into the air. The reward for developing transportation is not only faster times, but more engaging gameplay than walking. 

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, t_v said:

Also, artificial is a pointless slandering word that you could have chosen not to include and applies to everything in video games. 

It's really not "slandering", it's the opposite of "natural". English is not my first language, I meant "unnatural physwarp mechanic".

Other than this, your opinion is valid. I just feel like tedium should be avoided through other game mechanics instead of controlling time zoom on the planet / in the atmosphere.

In a transportation game, some journeys are supposed to take longer. Personally I don't like gameplay that makes time flow relative and distances inconsequential.

Fast travel and teleportation are just convenience features. We should strive for a little more realism. (Again I'm not talking about on-rails time warp.)

Edited May 2, 2022 by Vl3d

[Bej Kerman]

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

5 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

In the meantime, use a vehicle, use the kerbal jetpack, or even another vessel to collect them, or just turn on 4x warp.

Running at 4x and using a vehicle should not be equivalent. It's a game breaking mechanic.

No it isn't. Walking takes more in-game time regardless of timewarp.

[t_v]

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

It's really not "slandering", it's the opposite of "natural". English is not my first language, I meant "unnatural physwarp mechanic".

The reason I was commenting on that word if because I disagree with the use of the word artificial/unnatural to describe that mechanic in particular. Everything in video games is artificial, because it all had to be designed and implemented by a person. Using the word artificial for that specific mechanic is like insulting it for being a game mechanic, when everything in KSP 2 is artificial. 

[DunaManiac]

8 hours ago, Vl3d said:

If (1), using physwarp is equivalent to teleporting or using other solutions for fast-travel. Why not just takeoff from a runway closer to your destination?

That's not actually true - it's not teleporation. You're still covering the same distance and travelling at the same speed- only the time that it's taken to do so has gone down. It doesn't teleport you anywhere, and it doesn't circumvent a key mechanic that's core to the game like infinite fuel or hack gravity does.

8 hours ago, Vl3d said:

If (2), using physwarp means you are cheating. Travel was supposed to take a long time.

First off, if it was, then physwarp would not be in the game. Secondly, physwarp is not cheating anymore than on-rails timewarp. Where do you see the distinction?

8 hours ago, Vl3d said:

And you can see this in the fact that no other games use this artificial physwarp mechanic.

That's completely untrue. Lots of games let you increase or decrease the rate of time, even pause it.

9 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Running at 4x and using a vehicle should not be equivalent. It's a game breaking mechanic.

A vehicle will always be able to outrun a kerbal. Kerbals can run at about 2-3 m/s, a vehicle can travel at much faster speeds. And my intention with that statement was not to be argumentative, just to suggest a way to reduce the amount of time spent walking without increasing the speed of walking.

[blankets]

There are not many situations in which having faster kerbals is helpful. If your kerbal is 3 km away from the nearest base, a running speed of 2 m/s or 5 m/s are both painfully slow. If the gravity is low enough and there is no atmosphere, using the EVA jetpack can get you up to some serious speed. As amusing as seeing a kerbal waddle-sprinting would be, I think its safe to say KSP2 won't have faster kerbals.

If you were to try to solve it, I would agree physwarp seems the best option.