Codraroll

Getting around Kerbin is one thing, but getting around the solar system is an order of magnitude more difficult. Say that you, for instance, build a rocket-powered snowmobile, that you want to take across the poles of Duna for some low-gravity, icy hilarity. Or test your boat designs on the seas of Eve or Laythe. Unless you want to cheat or HyperEdit your craft there, you have to build a huge rocket with your little craft on top, spend several minutes going into Kerbin orbit, timewarp for several in-game months while the planets align, execute a transfer burn for several more minutes, then timewarp for in-game months or years until your craft arrives, perform a landing that might also be very difficult, and finally decouple your little craft and do your thing. That's a lot of work, and an hour or so of gameplay, for some minutes of fun activity. Even in sandbox mode, the other planets are woefully far away. But if you could build and launch your craft out of your Duna Polar Base, or your Jebediah Cove Laythe Station, or some purple beach hut on Eve, your wacky hijinks would only need minutes to preparation. The initial set-up - actually establishing the bases - would take hours of gameplay, but it would be a worthwhile gameplay goal. Something to strive for. It would make the rest of the Kerbol system a lot more accessible, encourage interplanetary exploration, and establish a permanent Kerbal presence on ever planet of their system. Truly something to aspire for, for a species so eager to explore space.

With time warp being possible up to 100,000x, temporary limitations aren't much of an issue. Just hit fast forward until it goes away. That being said, I like the concept of your idea. But it might be better to enforce it via the contract system instead.

So... pretty much all the gimbal, then? Or it just might be me building terrible shuttle replicas.

If cutscenes were to be implemented, I'd suggest to do it like the Total War games do. Or, at least Medieval II Total War mostly does it this way: Most cutscenes are not played automatically, but a clickable box (like a letter) appears on the side of the screen. When its window is opened, it displays a message in text, as well as a little video snippet. Don't like the cutscene, just close the window. For KSP, this would be the "milestone message" box. You open it and find the obligatory congratulations, as well as a short video. Those messages could be skipped, ignored, deleted or whatever, and the video stored for posterity at the appropriate facility. Just as long as the cutscenes weren't shoved in our faces, I think most people would tolerate them.

If we're just throwing out ideas: I'd like to see more music. KSP has a pretty epic title screen theme, good music at the Space Center facilities, and... two music tracks for everything space. Visit all the facilities once, and spend a few minutes outside of Kerbin's atmosphere, then - to my knowledge - you'll have heard all the music in the game. What about a little theme for the Mun? Music that only plays around Minmus? Something epic and grand when entering Jool's SOI? Music for the surface of Duna? Eerie music that plays when you are close to anomalies? Something for blazing re-entries? KSP has a lot of dramatic or epic situations that could be underscored by a musical soundtrack. And it has a great fan community that would probably love to aid the composition of these tracks.

This dropped into my head the other day... might be doable with a mod, but can't hurt to throw it out here to gauge the reactions on the idea before approaching any developers with it. Anyway: Practically half the fun of Kerbal Space Program is the Kerbals themselves. Or at least, their presence magnifies the fun spirit of the game. Over-eager, fun-loving, reckless little creatures, with big smiles and expressive faces. Seeing them react to being launched towards space and all the calamities that might ensue is a great little touch, and adds a touch of personality to an otherwise sterile engineering game. But you're not always doing manned launches. Sometimes, or actually quite often, you're launcing a largely autonomous probe, and no hilarious Kerbal portrait can be found in the bottom-right corner. Without any astronauts on board, you miss out on the quirky little reactions to your launches. But who says the Kerbals in the portraits have to be on board the vehicle? A space mission usually involves a lot more ground crew than astronauts, after all. I propose that, whenever your current craft has no crew, a portrait video of a Kerbal in Mission Control is seen instead. This could be achieved with a series of pre-made clips, played to suit the situation at hand (just like Kerbals currently react to situations, only this time there is no IVA). Since the Mission Control Kerbals aren't strapped to their seats like astronauts are, and the clips would be pre-rendered rather than based on a Kerbal model in the craft, they can be a lot more flexible than IVA portraits. You could show a wide range of situations, from the operator watching intently, gaping in awe or falling asleep, to facepalming or toppling his chair and running away in panic. Managers could sometimes be passing by in the background, or the occasional rare gag could unfold, but mostly it would be rather mundane clips so as not to take focus away from the mission. Every clip would have to start and end with the operator in the same position, to ensure smooth transitions. I believe this is done with Kerbals in IVA already. This feature would ensure some level of Kerbal presence in every mission, particularly handy for those mods that start out with unmanned launches, or playthroughs where very few missions are manned at all. The clips could feature the same Kerbal all the time, or a roster of operators that do some missions each, or maybe even switch mid-mission. With pre-rendered clips, a variety of different Kerbals could be featured, and an animation quality previously restricted to the cinematic trailers could be featured in the game. Although, animating them would be a hassle, so it would be a very work-demanding feature if more Kerbals than one were involved. What do you think? Useless suggestion or fun idea? Would it add anything worthwhile to the game, measured against the work required to make it a reality? Could it feasibly be done by modding the game? Please discuss!

Make that "KKKP", then we're talking. ...or maybe not. Silly bedsheet-wearing omniphobes have tarnished 75 % of that letter combination, which is enough that we perhaps should think of something else instead.

I'd call it sufficient for my lifting needs, at least.

This is basically the same idea as a thread I made a few weeks back, so I fully support it. More space centres, missions to transport stuff between them, and the utility they serve by letting you play in all the game's various locations in minutes rather than hours. After you have established connections, that is. You shouldn't be able to launch your first vessel in Career off Eeloo, but once a base is purchased and established, you should have no bigger problems launching from there than from Kerbin. To put it another way: If you have put flags and bases on every planet, launched crewed missions everywhere and returned them, and your stations are orbiting more than half the bodies in the system, racing rocket-powered snowmobiles across the glaciers of Eeloo shouldn't still have to be a complex, hours-long mission out of Kerbin. I think that the parallel Kerbin bases would need a good reason to exist other than "being there just for having an option". Now, the KSC is pretty much in the ideal location on Kerbin, lying perfectly on the equator and next to a large body of water for soft landings, while being easy to spot from orbit. Frankly, you can't beat the KSC for sheer utility. However, if construction and R&D time was a factor, it would be beneficial to have other complexes to launch from. It could also give the KSC the advantage it needs not to be overshadowed by, say, a Minmus shipyard (where gravity is trivial and Kerbin escape velocity can be acieved using RCS alone): Even though you have to fight your way out of a gravity well and an atmosphere to escape it, the fastest research and assembly would always be done on Kerbin, particularly at the KSC.

Good idea. That way, I won't be tempted by the presence of an Omega Penguin in the tech tree, and thinking "I have to use that thing for something now...". A 7x3.5 m vacuum engine is rather impractical after all, so it's better to say "Yes, technically you can build one yourself if you want, but..." rather than "Here it is, now find something to use it for". I'd rather use the adapter plate to build my own little Omega Emu in that case, and be content with the Quad Penguin as the ultimate vacuum engine. Not sure if my computer could even handle the type of spaceship that requires seven 3.5 engines to push itself through interplanetary space.

Save for the colour schemes, I don't think you need much more than what you've got for 10 m stuff in any case. 10 m docking ports or probe cores would be payload, and to send payload of that diameter into space, you'd need an even bigger booster underneath it. At some point, it's natural to ask "what are you going to use to get that thing into orbit?" 10 m parts allow us to send 7.5 m parts up without contrived-looking rigs or spamming radial boosters. They're fine for, say, the Quad Penguin, which is 7.5 m if I recall correctly, but also a vacuum engine that thrives best outside the atmosphere. To get that engine up where it belongs, 10 m boosters are convenient, but there shouldn't be any reason to expand the 10 m tier to include payloads and vacuum-only engines. Unless you for some reason create an "Omega Penguin" or something to that effect. But at that point, you're dangerously close to overkill.

I think that, in the current discussion, we aren't necessarily on the same page with regards to what DLC we would like Squad to stay away from. For myself, I want to differentiate between "Content DLC" and "Feature DLC". "Content DLC" is what mods usually offer. More parts, more planets, more resources, etc, relying on the same code as existing parts, planets, resources or what have you. They basically utilize the framework of the game, creates a new class/category of an existing system, and give it to players. To give a very simple example: Taking the existing LV-909 engine from the game, creating a copy, painting the copy purple and providing it for download. Or taking the LiquidFuel resource, creating a copy called "LiquidFuel2" and making copies of LiquidFuel tanks and engines that only work with LiquidFuel2. Content DLC uses the framework that allows, say, fuel tanks and engines to exist in the game, and simply creating more fuel tanks and engines. "Feature DLC" is heavier, and requires entire new additions to the game code. For instance, allowing players to alter and move around the KSC buildings, or create axial tilt, or binary systems or what have you. "Feature DLC" doesn't just connect to the core game mechanics, it expands on them and creates new connections for mods to work with. I don't know if any of you ever played the Rollercoaster Tycoon (RCT) games, but they illustrate the difference perfectly: RCT2 was a brilliant little game, which received two expansion packs. Both of those were of the "Content" variety. Their gameplay was exactly the same as Vanilla RCT2, they just introduced a bunch more rollercoasters, themeing pieces and shops. Functionally, these new rollercoasters, themeing pieces and shops were identical to those existing in Vanilla, just with a different appearance and some different stats. Expanded RCT2 is practically Vanilla RCT2 with a bigger catalog of stuff. Mods could have done exactly the same. In fact, most mods for RCT2 don't require the expansion packs to be installed, since they make no changes to the game's fundamental code. Now, RCT3, on the other hand, approached expansion packs differently. The two expansion packs introduced water parks and zoo enclosures, respectively. Entirely new mechanics that the base game didn't have. This is reflected in how the modding community works with RCT3. You can mod the base game's mechanics, but there are also countless mods for new water slides, new pool textures, new zoo animals, that sort of thing, which require and enhance the expansion packs. The expansion packs introduced completely new features for the modders to work with. Or look at Cities: Skylines. That game's first expansion pack introduced a day/night cycle, as well as adding on tourism and leisure. Modders responded by making tons of new buildings with day/night textures and lighting, as well as a lot of new buildings utilizing the tourism and leisure mechanics. Those mods couldn't have existed without the expansion pack. You pay for the expansion pack, then a new world of mods open up to you, to create hours and weeks of gameplay fun based on the mechanics changes brought on by the expansion pack. A good KSP expansion pack should add an entire new branch of gameplay that mods can't provide alone. The branches don't need much content of their own, as long as they allow mods to expand on them. I too would heartily protest against paid DLC adding new planets or new parts, since mods could do the exact same for free. The code to support planets and parts is already in the game, so in theory you could create infinitely many parts and planets without doing something new. But paid DLC adding something akin to the waterparks of RCT3, or the day/night cycle of Cities:Skylines? I'd be all on board for that.

Luckily, Porkjet isn't the only person in the world capable of revamping the rocket parts. He might have a unique and beloved style we've all come to know and love, but there has to be artists out there who could take on the same job. No, they wouldn't be Porkjet, but they could probably fulfill the criteria nevertheless. So yes, I think 1.3 will have revamped rocket parts, even though Porkjet won't be the one doing it. Also, the devs have scattered Monoliths all over the place in 1.2. There are new monoliths on Ike, Eeloo, Vall and Laythe now, probably elsewhere too. It could be that they are reviving NovaSilisko's old idea of a "story", where the Monoliths play a crucial part. I could see it happen primarily in an expansion pack, but perhaps 1.3 will expand on it too. Who knows?

Their actual statement says that there would be free expansions in the future. They went on to make and release Asteroid Day and Kerbin Cup for free after saying that, thus fulfilling their obligation. At no point was it said that ALL future expansion packs would be free. At no point did they commit to NOT releasing paid expansion packs. The game has received much free content since the statement was made. As for myself, I'd gladly pay for an expansion pack. This has been a wonderful game I've got a lot of entertainment out of, learnt a lot from, and the community is mostly great. If Squad offers a deal that gives me more fun in exchange for a few more Euros, which would implicitly also expand the modding scene, I'd happily pay them. Overall, this reminds me of Cities: Skylines. It was released with the promise of more free future updates, and future updates did come. Quays and canals, in-game terraforming, cosmetic weather, an entire new building set and a cosmetic day/night cycle were released for free. But th studio also released expansion packs: One introducing day/night mechanics, as well as expanding on tourism and leisure, and one introducing weather mechanics, as well as a new mode of transportation. The core of the expansion packs - day/night and weather - was given to everybody for free in an update, but if you wanted it to really influence gameplay, you had to buy the fairly cheap expansion packs. Modders followed up on this. Custom buildings with wonderful day/night textures. Tons of new tourism and leisure buildings. Better tram intersections and traffic simulation. The expansion packs gave modders more to work with, and people got their money's worth from the expansion pack mods alone. If KSP goes through something similar, I for one would be happy. Sure, it would seem annoying to see many mods with "This requires expansion pack 1 and 2 to work", but with an entirely library of mods available to those who buy the packs, you'd get a lot of value for their price. I think just about everybody would buy the packs unless they were unreasonably expensive.

I'm not sure if we're on the same page with regards to how such contracts end. It's not like the devs write a mail to Squad saying "WE ALL QUIT, TODAY" and march out the door, never to be seen again. I highly doubt their contracts would allow them to quit without giving notice well in advance, and they'd have certain obligations to fulfill. If Squad's NDA is so powerful that people claim in this thread, their terms of resignation probably go along the similar lines. Instead, I think they are contracted on a project basis. People were hired to work on a version, say 1.1, then stayed on board until work was wrapping up. Then Squad would send inquiries to its employees, asking who would like to stay to work on 1.2. Those who say yes begin negotiations for the next term. Those who say no would see their contract end once the version is shipped, probably with a clause or two about staying on board for X amount of time afterwards to fix bugs. Thusly, the people who quit would not have made that decision yesterday. There's no way they could drop their pencils and leave without Squad being in their full rights to withhold payment or deny them references, possibly even seeking other compensation too. If you've ever signed a work contract, you'll know that you're not allowed to just walk when it suits your whim. So here's my theory: After 1.2, KSP is shifting away from the focus on a "next version". Making KSP v. 1.3, as we know a version with a bit of code rewrites and a bit of content, is not the next objective, it's making content packs that work well with KSP 1.2. Many of the people hired for 1.2 were there to fix the engine, to fix bugs, fix behind-the-scenes stuff. Keeping the game up to shape. When asked if they would continue to work under a different model, many of the devs would feel the times changing, and decide to move on. Working on the same project under a different schedule and different goals, or leaving at a good opportunity, with a stable game behind them, solid references and a pocketful of payment? I wouldn't be surprised if many of the mails responding to Squad contained phrases like "Thanks, but I think this is where I'll move on". Okay, so now you have a bunch of developers peacefully quitting. How to you break the news to the community? For certain, you won't let the news drop one by one. Every dev leaving would rock the big boat of the forum community. You would have to let them quit together, to soften the blow. Imagine waking up to the news of Mike (Mu) leaving one morning. At noon Bill (Taniwha) announces his resignation. NathanKell and Sarbian in the afternoon. The next day, absolute chaos on the forums. Then Jim (Romfarer) on the morning of the third day. Brian (Arsonide) in the afternoon. Two more days of the forums howling about five devs leaving. On the fifth day, Chris (Porkjet). At this point there would be absolute carnage, and Squad would find itself in the middle of the worst crapstorm ever. News of the remaining two would kill the community completely. No, dropping one big bomb would be the only logical way to break such news. Also, you can't announce anybody leaving until they have decided not to renew their contracts. That question would have to have been asked rather recently, since only recently did they determine when 1.2 would release (and therefore fulfill the termination condition for their existing contracts). That means, right before a version's release is when they know whether people will continue or quit. Like it or not, such news would have to drop close to the release of a new version. Would you have preferred them to keep their departure under wraps until the version had shipped? That would only work assuming the community would not find out in advance, since if such news leak through unofficial channels, you have a crapstorm of epic proportions coming your way. The resignation of The Eight being posted on Reddit before the forums is what sparked this giant discussion to begin with. And even if you DID keep it secret for a while, then what? "Devnote Tuesday: Still relaxing after 1.2, 1.2.4 is a stable release, also eight of the most well-known staff left us three weeks ago and we didn't tell you". Yeah, that would go well with the community. TL;DR: It makes sense for the devs to leave at this point, assuming they were hired with a similar termination clause in their most recent contract ("contract of employment will have to be renewed following the stable release of version 1.2" or similar). Changes in the direction of KSP's development makes the release of 1.2 a very natural point for a developer to reconsider his employment, and a good opportunity to move on. The devs would be under contract not to leave without sufficient prior notice - they can't leave suddenly in protest without losing BIG in the process, unless Squad's employment contracts are amazingly sloppy. News of their departure would have to be broken in one sitting. News of their departure would have to be broken shortly after they agreed not to renew their contracts, which would coincide with the release of a new version. Squad did make a bit of a blunder in terms of communicating the circumstances of the devs leaving, though. In most software companies, developers quitting would not affect the customers much. For Kerbal Space Program, the developers are known by name and alias by most of the active fan base. Seeing them leave is like seeing a piece fall off the game. Somebody, somewhere, underestimated this connection between the devs and the community, which left us heartbroken, confused and angry. I hope this is cleared up, some of The Eight speaking out, and that the ire dies down soon. Because I think we're far more angry than we have logical reason to be. Happy flights, all The Eight! May your prograde vector align quickly with your nose cones!

In an atmosphere as assuming and biased as has been seen here, you need no bigger element of truth than "some devs are leaving, apparently at the same time". That's more than enough to spin a narrative.

Yeah, colour me skeptical about the recent Reddit "leak". For one, Roverdude seems to disapprove. And secondly, it all smells of "angry fan" in its wording. Judging by how the KSP devs have posted on these boards in the past, I would expect them to be a little more eloquent in their wording. "Devnote full of excrements", "Terrible upper management", "Unbelieveable working conditions" "Don't want anybody to think something's wrong"... it seems far too explicit, something a disgruntled fan would imagine (and has done! Look at this thread...) rather than an employee who's conferred with a team and decided to leave. Thirdly, I've seen people claim all day that threads were deleted, but nobody claims to have posted in them or remember the thread titles (I've also read the forums closely today, so if threads were deleted, it happened super-fast). Lastly, look at the perspective of the post. The guy claims to have inner knowledge of the working conditions and pay of Squad, yet also details of forum moderation (even who did it), as well as what the plans for future releases are. He even finishes up with "the last big update we'll get", as if he is on the receiving end of KSP, primarily a player and forumer. At "best", this is an everyday fan who've read something a developer mentioned in a chat, then extrapolated and headed to Reddit. I'm not buying it until we get more comments from more sources.

"There will be free expansions in the future" *releases two free expansions* There, promise kept. They didn't say that all future expansions would be free of charge, only that there would be some that were. And, wouldn't you know it, there was. I'd say Squad have stuck to their words in that regard.

Whoa, that's what I call a thrust plate! 10 meter parts... would this finally be the excuse needed to add the infamous and long-theorized 5 m O1 "Ostrich" engine? As far as I can recall, the 3.5 m Emu is the largest engine family in SpaceY today, with the 7.5 m "Quad Emu" being the most powerful lifter in the pack. Now you could add another tier, with a 5 m O1 "Ostrich", 7.5 m O2 "Dual Ostrich" and 10 m "Quad Ostrich". I seem to recall you saying that you're saving the name "Ostrich" for when it's really needed, in which case a name like "Cassowary" might be more appropriate, or "Rail" for humourous effect (rails are the smallest flightless birds in the world). Also, sorry for fan-gushing all over your thread, but I wondered if you have ever considered to make radial engines? The stock "Spider", "Twitch" and "Thud" engines haven't been followed up by that many mod authors, and remain tiny and obscure. I recently flew a Mun mission where I was deploying a rover in a 3.5 m SpaceY storage bay, and found the craft's "Thud" engines to be a little too weak to provide a non-annoying amount of thrust without having so many that they'd block the rover bay door. If you want to follow up on the same nomenclature, I'd like to suggest "Chicken" and "Rooster" for a medium- and high-power radial engine, respectively. Anyway, thanks a lot for creating and maintaining these wonderful packs!

As I said in the OP, I'm not sure which way would be the best approach to off-Kerbin bases. I initially believed that KSC-like "structure cities" would be the best, but later I realized that putting together your own base from modules may be the most faithful and "KSP-like" way to do it. Anyway, before that realization, I thought I had figured out a pretty good way to construct a "quest" for building your own base. It is rather similar to what @hms_warrior wrote above, but I might as well write it down here anyway: First step (contract, or achievement, in case a contract isn't accepted): Explore (body), a contract already implemented in the game. Know what, to avoid writing (body) all the time, I'm just going to use the Mun for the remainder of the example. So your first task would be to flyby and land on the Mun. Second step: After data is initially retreived from the Mun, and the M700 Survey Scanner is unlocked, you can be tasked to scan the Mun for possible sites for a new base. You put a scanner in a polar orbit, and watch as markers appear on your map, similar to those "Temperature scan at site ABC" contract markers that already exist. The markers would denote locations where game devs/mod devs have already prepared the ground for a base. For technical reasons, I believe it would be simpler to keep the bases in pre-determined locations than allowing players to choose wildly. Third step: Go to any one of the potential sites and place a beacon (functionally identical to a flag, but only one is available at all times - it will despawn from every Kerbal's inventory once one is placed). The site will be marked with a marker on the map, as well as the yellow "You are now entering/leaving area ____" message known from area-specific contracts. You will also be tasked to retrieve surface samples from the site. Fourth step: Once the beacon is placed, a new part appears in the VAB. This is a large, heavy container simply marked "base supplies". It is "greyed out" similar to parts from part test contracts, meaning you won't be able to create it unless a beacon is placed on a site. Bring it to the chosen site in any way you wish. I'd imagine it to be at least as big and heavy as a full 2.5 m Orange Tank, and cost a whole lot of Funds. Fifth step: Once the base supplies container is safely placed in your chosen site, a button appears where the "recover vessel" button is on Kerbin. It says something like "Build base". Press it, and your vessel is despawned. A rudimentary base, like the Tier 1 KSC, appears in its place. The cost of any remaining parts of your craft is refunded, possibly with interest, and eventual pilots would be placed in that base's Astronaut Complex. This approach would require players to first visit the planets conventionally, and return data to Kerbin before a base can even begin to be built. It's not completely waterproof, but it would expand on the existing exploration/travel mechanics rather than replacing them. Bases aim to provide incentives and convenience for revisiting planets, but the first trip needs to be done conventionally. As for upgrading the base, I'm not sure if it should be done by hauling further supplies to it, or if it could be done with Funds like the KSC. The problem with the former approach is that the base itself would have the capability of spawning parts, meaning that a base would be able to expand itself. This isn't a problem, strictly speaking, since extraplanetary bases should always aim for self-sufficiency, but it would feel a little weird in terms of gameplay. If so, it would feel a lot more convenient to do it through the ol' "Funds sink" method, charging an eye and a limb for upgrades. You have no problem with money late-game in KSP anyway, so one might as well add some really expensive investments. Think upgrading your VAB to Tier 3 is expensive? A similar upgrade on Vall or Eeloo would easily cost ten times as much. Even a late-game player wouldn't be able to fly around making bases willy-nilly. An alternative would be to require that all base supplies containers are made on and shipped from Kerbin, in which case you would be unable to use your existing bases as "stepping stones" to make bases on far-off planets. An aspect I'm still uncertain of: How would you initiate the process of building a base? Would it be through a contract? Should beacons and base supplies containers always be available, so you'd be free to fill out every spot for a base whenever you want (and have the cash)? Should there be a button in the Administrations Building, where you have to declare/submit an application that you're building a new extraplanetary base? For the record, I'd also like for there to be other potential base sites on Kerbin itself. Ideally, and for it to be realistic, the feature would have to require as little re-coding of the game as possible. It should play well with existing features, and ideally not require new ones to be made. Okay, the ability to insert more space centers would be a pretty drastic modification, but I'd rather not be reliant on secondary new features and modifications. Any thoughts on these mad rambles?

I'm not convinced to be all gloomy just yet. It could very well be that those guys were hired on a project basis, basically signed a contract for one KSP version at a time. Hired after 1.0.5 shipped, to work on 1.1 up to and including the subsequent bugfixes and patches (1.1.3). Then everybody's contract is up for renewal. Some sign up for 1.2, others don't. Once that is mostly done and ready for shipping, they ask the question again. The people quitting now might have decided to leave as early as the 1.0 days. "One or two more versions, and then I'll move on to something else". They could have other jobs, or been offered new jobs, they felt they had given their contribution to KSP, they wanted to scale back a little, they may never had planned to stay for very long, there could be all sorts of reasons. 1.2 seems to be a point where Kerbal Space Program is a complete base game. Most bugs are cleared, there is enough content to make a meaningful play experience, the code base seems to work well, it's very mod-friendly... basically, everything from here on out would be expansions rather than base game content. The developers would have been asked to stay on while the game is taken in a new direction, or find it a suitable point to hop off the train. If I were a developer, I could see myself thinking that my work was done, and that other people might be more suited for the new phase of development. I'm not a developer, but a civil engineer, and I can't help but draw parallels to construction projects: After groundworks are done and a building foundation is poured, one contractor will pack up his stuff and leave, then a different contractor will build the building from the foundations up. And when the building is finished, shiny and empty, the interior decorators will take over. If the reason why the devs left was tumultous, I think we would have heard about it already. I choose to remain optimistic for now, and believe they just found themselves at a point where it would be logical to put the game down and start on other projects elsewhere. With 1.2, KSP seems to be at a watershed point in its life cycle, so it's only natural that there will be large changes to the staff.

The problem with randomly generated systems is that community challenges or tutorials fly out of the window. When we all share the same solar system, we share the same design constraints, face the same problems during travel, and can fly to the same places in craft we share with each other. If every solar system was different, we'd get a lot more unique experiences and challenges, but we'd lose the collective understanding of what those challenges actually mean.

I've mentioned this off-topic in so many threads now that I might as well make a new one, where it is actually on topic: Basically, I'd like for the game to allow and encourage permanent settlements beyond Kerbin, with a functionality like the existing Kerbal Space Center. That is, bases that can be the start or end-point of a journey, where ships can be designed, crewed and launched, possibly also recovered. Establishing and upgrading these bases would be a major objective of gameplay, a motivational boost to help people take on the interplanetary hurdle, as well as a way to expand gameplay once interplanetary flight has been mastered. Before suggesting a "how" of colonization, I'd like to elaborate on "why". While there are many legit and feasible ways to approach this issue, in order to find a viable solution the issue itself must be accurately described. So, anyway. It has been established that most KSP players rarely, if ever, leave Kerbin and its moons, for a myriad of reasons. I think the three main ones are the high initial difficulty treshold, the psychological factor, and convenience. Some even whisper that this was the reason why trans-Joolian planets were never implemented: so few people even go beyond Duna that the new content would only benefit a tiny fraction of players. Even after you've mastered landing on and returning from the Mun and Minmus, you have little idea of how to approach interplanetary transfers. You also need an unknown amount of fuel to go there, even more so if you plan on returning, and every attempt requires upwards of a solid hour of play time. Then the psychology: Kerbin is home, if you can make it back to Kerbin you're safe, but there's a large and empty solar system out there, no rescue or return, all civilization is and will remain behind you. Going to the Mun and Minmus is fine, you can look back home right over your shoulder. But when Kerbin ceases to be even a speck in the distance, you don't know how far your fuel will get you, or whether the craft design is up for the task ahead, you truly feel far from the safety and comfort of home, and wonder if you'll ever find your way back. Besides, the game feels like it's giving you things to do, contracts to fulfill, all the time. At the start of the game, you do several missions and make immense progress over the span of a day. When timewarping your way to Minmus and back, you might skip a few weeks. Very little will have elapsed in that time. Going to Duna easily requires a year just to get the planets aligned, half a year of travel time, another year on Duna while the planets align again, and another half-year to return. While you know nothing will ever have changed on Kerbin, you still feel like you're being away for too long, that your in-game time could be better spent progressing your space program further. Even when you overcome your fear and eventually master interplanetary travel, there's also the convenience factor: No matter how far you progress in the game, every flight will start off the KSC launchpad and runway, fighting your way out of Kerbin's atmosphere and gravity well. If your craft has a slight design issue that needs to be corrected, you're back to square one. For more complex journeys, you might even need to go through a multi-launch orbital assembly and fuelling process. Getting anywhere truly takes time. And what lies at the other end of this scary, time-consuming process of interplanetary travel? Basically the same as the Mun, in most cases. It's true that in KSP, the journey matters more than the destination, but the destinations still have very little going for them. Land on the flattest piece of ground you can find, let your Kerbals stretch their legs with an EVA, plant a flag, maybe climb a hill, and then leave them there or begin the return journey. You can return with your ship full of Science and your head full of that tingling sense of achievement, but in terms of gameplay, you haven't really done much. Nothing will have changed. You could get the same Science while grinding the biomes of the Mun or Minmus. The planets look different from orbit, you can take some cinematic shots of certain pretty locations or visit some anomalies, but on the ground there's precious little to do, and few reasons to go. Enter extraplanetary bases. If your journey into the great yonder had a purpose beyond pure exploration, a reward to look forward to, and a permanent effect on gameplay, I believe more players would bother with the interplanetary trips, and do a lot more of them. It would encourage exploration of the other planets, since it would no longer require hours of preparation before your "fun craft" could make it to the "fun place". Late-game would have more diversity, since not every craft would need to be hauled out of Kerbin's gravity well. Why not launch from Minmus, where gravity is lower and air resistance non-existent? Establish a Dres base for your missions to Jool. Build a base on Moho, to make use of its short year and subsequently many launch windows. This could also be used for some fun one-way freight contracts: Move rocks from your Moho base to the one on Tylo. Tourists from the Mun to Duna. The old-fashioned explorer could keep using Kerbin as a base for all operations. At the onset of the game, you would only start from Kerbin anyway, but later expand out to bless the whole solar system with Kerbalkind. The long-term purpose of your space program would be to establish Kerbals as a multi-planetary species, if only by way of small bases on the surface of various planets and moons. As a small bonus: learning to fly between bases on the Mun and Minmus would provide some practise for flying between planets. Now onto the "how": I think this post would be too wishlist-y if I just went too deep into details, so I'll try to be brief: I'm torn on whether "permanent settlement à la KSC in predetermined locations" or "hand-built bases à la space stations anywhere you wish" would be the best approach to colonization. The latter approach is much more hands-on and the smallest deviation from the current system, but the management of crew, contracts and vehicle design would be problematic. Building a gigantic rocket à la Saturn V shouldn't be as cheap and easy (or even doable?) on off-planet bases as it is on Kerbin - at least not initially. There should be a trade-off between convenience and price, so as not to make the KSC completely obsolete. Establishing a base should be a more complex matter than landing one craft the first time you visit a planet. Some data should at least be brought back to Kerbin (or other bases?) from the site before a base could be built. On the other hand, forcing the player to wait out several conventional missions before being able to establish a permanent base might feel too restrictive. Every base should have a convenient and easy way to access the Tracking Station, Mission Control, R&D, Administrations and possibly the Astronaut Complex. In most cases, these buildings would perfectly mirror the ones on Kerbin in functionality, if not in visuals. Upgrading bases to allow construction of larger ships, cheaper fuel, better landing zones(?)/increasing the "recover vessel" radius(???) etc., should be possible. Upgrades would either be Funds-based like the KSC, or done by hauling more/better modules from Kerbin to the relevant base. Lastly, I guess a little disclaimer is in its place: I know that the game currently only allows for one Space Center, and that recovery of vessels is only possible on Kerbin. I think Kerbal Constructs gets around this by some loophole, and that making a "proper" second KSC would be much more difficult - even for the developers - as things currently stand. I'm also aware of Extraplanetary Launchpads, which, even though it is a long step in the right direction, doesn't quite provide what I'm looking for. I'm also aware that this would be a fundamental and very complex addition to the game. It would have an impact on most people's play style, so its implementation ought to be the subject of a lot of debate.This thread is not meant to be a wishlist, but also to hear what other people think. Am I overlooking some important points? Does it clash with the intended gameplay of KSP? Are there any additions or alternatives that should be considered? Is this a wild pipe dream nobody asked for? I'l really like to hear other people's viewpoints on this.

I agree that the game could use a long-term purpose, but I'm not sure if it would fix the "end-game problem". However, that's not important, actually. Mid-game is where I struggle the most. Most KSP players never go interplanetary. Even those who do, usually spend the vast majority of their time inside Kerbin's SOI. In a sense, you spend 95 % of your play time in less than one-fifth of the game's areas (there are three bodies in Kerbin's SOI, and 14 outside it, the Sun included). The game does very little to prepare you for interplanetary play. Nothing indicates transfer windows, or for that matter what they are. You have no way to know how much fuel you need for a round trip to a planet, or for matter one-way trips. If your craft has a deficiency that will cause problems at its destination, you will only know about it at the destination - after spending an hour or more getting there. And of course, the psychological effect: Kerbin is home, Kerbin is easy to return to, it's a very large leap to the next body, there is nothing there but the sense of achievement, and your return is all but certain. A purpose or incentive would provide the little push required to go interplanetary. Going to Duna, Dres or Eve should put you at a new stage of the game, so to speak. In terms of the player's confidence, it actually does, but gameplay-wise, something should be rewarded to the player. It shouldn't be a thing you do for the bragging rights, or for the Science, but for the actual gameplay that comes after it. But as it currently stands, Duna will still be a remote, empty planet after you visit it. Eeloo will forever lurk, cold and desolate, in the dark outskirts of the system. You go there, you come back, nothing has changed. You could leave a satellite there, or even a surface base, but the distance to Kerbin would still be just as far as if you hadn't. No matter how advanced your space program is, every trip starts with a tenuous burn out of the Kerbin gravity well. The solution I like to argue for is permanent planetary bases, functionally identical to the KSC. Multiple contracts asking you to first survey a planet, visit potential sites, plant flags/take ground samples, then ship some huge parts there, and your MSC/ESC/DuSC/DrSC/etc spawns, complete with a vehicle assembly building, astronaut complex and launch pad. A permanent colony mechanic would make the interplanetary distances so much smaller. Want to cruise the seas of Laythe on a jetski? Instead of spending half a dozen in-game years (and possibly an hour or so of real-time play) hauling it from Kerbin, you could build it at your Laythe base and take off within minutes. A rover in the canyons of Eeloo? Roll off the launch pad on your Eeloo base and into the icy yonder, instead of fiddling with 20-minute ion engine burns. Have you conquered Duna, but unsure on how to get to Dres? Then launch from your established Duna base! Want really challenging contracts after you've done everything? Take this rock sample from your Tylo base to your Moho base. Or bring this tourist from Eve to Pol, by way of Moho. As-is, you can achieve much and do much, but not change much. You can build bigger and better craft after a while, but sailing the interplanetary seas remain the same experience with the same start and end point. If the game asked you to establish your presence in the solar system, and bring Kerbalkind to new heights, your space program would feel much more meaningful, and new players would have a clear-cut and concrete goal to aim for beyond the ends of the tech tree.

Hey, take it easy, remember to breathe! You don't have to make your entire post one sentence without commas. It makes it harder to hear what you say... er, read what you write. As for life support, it's a bit of a touchy subject. Some want it in the game, some want the freedom of not having it, some want it as an option and others are happy with the mods that add it. It doesn't look like life support will be a thing for KSP in the immediate future, so if you want it right now I urge you to check those out. TAC LS and Snacks! are the most popular ones, I think. Never used them myself, but those are the two people seem to be talking about all the time.