Kegereneku

Not interested and I'm not sorry. You keep forgetting thing I said as it arrange you, you put word in my mouth that I never said, you answer part clearly addressed to other person that of course you can't get right. I won't even bother to explain you because you are not here to discuss the point, just trying hard to make me "bow to you righteousness" to prove that you were right (regardless of what you think you are even discussing anymore).

Call that lazy if you want Sirrobert but I'm done answering someone who forget what I said earlier and use double standard to "win" argument. You attacked me as a "moron who don't know there's contract coming" although I specifically addressed the current state of the game and the incoming money angle from in my very first post. Then if you can't grasp by yourself that I was obviously talking of KSP's sandbox as a Sandbox MODE (using your own definition) then you are not worth the trouble. It's clear that you are now in a "let's mock him" spirit and I can only answer that by attacking you personally. Regex, doesn't your mod require the Real-Solar-System ? I did my search and the parallel to our situation is that you are criticizing my suggestion as "not taking other into account" although your are yourself proposing a features that come with another one (harder) that is not-necessarily-wanted. Me, I'm merely suggesting a upgrade-style tech-tree that allow more balance possibility. regardless if you make the early-game longer or shorter. I know my own reference to your mods can be seen as the same, but please do not mix-up a entirely different suggestion I did about a completely different game mechanic. NOTHING in the concept of an UPGRADE-SYSTEM force in any way players to actually emulate the Mercury flight, free to you to just overengineer your way, I'm even suggesting to give the LV-909 earlier which which would definitely allow that even with reduced specs. In case it's still not clear enough : I never suggested for upgrade to be based over linear mission reproducing historical flight. By the way, I expect money/budget to inevitably enrage all those won't don't understand the concept of "progression" and only see Career-mode as a sandbox that should reward their ego. Next, I tried to address this subtly but you didn't caught that the ones setting up impossible expectation over new player are people like YOU. You are the one insisting that the game should be centered around the mentality that "3 flights to orbit is a perfectly normal game progression". Insisting that only 3/4 parts at first is to help new players is like considering them "mentally deficient" when their difficulty to learn the game have to do with trying to reach orbit at all cost before being given the possibility to learn better way. If the game is Grindy, Break saves everytime, maybe this is because it's all a work in progress a not an actual feature, don't you think ? Meaning that you criticizing upgrade because it would "be horrible for those restarting career for the 10th time" is like criticizing any game with a progression longer than 30 minutes as if all game wiped their own save-file regularly. Furthermore, the career-mode as it is now, compensate it's lack of feature (like money, reputation... upgrade?) by grinding point, didn't you wondered if it was why it's so slow ? once again, for you : Nothing in the idea of a upgrade augmented tech-tree can even "stifle experienced-player". If anything it would be used late-game to also access more parts without being coerced into grinding. (remember when I say that as of now only tech-tree is any progression ?) Thank you for that constructive comment. I am also for a wider diversity of part, however I fear that it wouldn't be that easy (mods have problem of RAM when there's too many part), also it would leave behind "obsolete part" in the Assembly (as you'd use the newer one) meaning a lot of new useless part. That's the two problems I tried to address. About my picture, I take notes, I seem to have overlooked some interpretation (about making it harder/easier) If I understand you right, you think we should wait for SQUAD to implement more of their planned features before going into balance ? There's indeed people who prefer more flying than me designing, but can't we satisfy both ? Technological progression might not be everything there is to enjoy, but on you get the game mechanism and the only way to succeed is to have the right part it can be frustrating. And I fully agree, however I wonder who killed the horse ? Me who kept trying to limit the discussion over the core-principle ? Or a bunch of people burying the horse alive because it looked sick ? (yes I love metaphor) What I mean is that the current order of the tech-tree encourage you to progress very fast, too fast, if you want more part to actually play with. Orbiting is certainly the whole point of the game yes, but designing is also a fundamental part of the game and while we can look at it in an utilitarian way : "They can reach orbit if they learn no ?", I think beginners might be better served if we ALSO allow them to learn using the right part. The LV-T30 is great as a ascent engine, yes, but not as a secondary stage and certainly not as a space engine, yet that's the only you get. New player who don't conform to that said text-book "confused by two engines" don't get the part that not only would fit, but that they want to learn with. And this isn't just a question of early game, you also can't get the part you need later because the tech-tree is rigid. that's why I'm suggesting a way to propose more part while staying balanced. The Dev do whatever they want with it, if they are half the professional I think they are, they'll get the point just by reading the topic name. So far : the real problems addressed were the following : - Would upgrade make it impossible to help newcomer on the forum ? - Would upgrade be truly too complicated for newcomer ? (even once proper tutorial get made) - Would more parts be truly too confusing for newcomer ? (even if those are straightforward similar part) If you are interested to discuss that, I'm in. Else I will let the thread die.

I like the idea as well. The whole science-point gathering need a rebalance anyway.

So many posts to answer... Regarding the skills, don't exaggerate what I said : there's not that much difference between new and experimented player. And I'm NOT counting as experimented people like Scott Manley (I would have said GODLY). I mean "experimented = already learned a way to land on the moon" which include roughly 100% of what you need to know until you start using DeltaV naturally. Sure, sure, you don't know the TERM prograde, retrograde, DeltaV at first, it doesn't mean you won't figure out that orbiting mean both reaching space and having a high horizontal speed. Anyway my suggestion of an upgrade system is still to make career-mode smoother for both new and for experimented players. Because NO, new player won't have a seizure seeing TWO engines at the start and TWO capsule, one manned, the other a probes. While experime...godly player like me are frustrated not being able to build a mercury-like capsule to make early-game funny. Why are you also all insisting the Devs wouldn't recalibrate point correctly (aside that currently it is horribly grindy) ? More than 2 flights before entering main game is too much ? Oh god, cancel all games ever ! In fact it would do any player a GREAT service to give them more occasions & ways to learn without telling them "what are you doing ? orbit already ! Don't you know you are a slackers if you can't orbit with the part you have ?" That's actually something I expect my suggestion to help with. The learning curve is a cliff because the game -and apparently the community- insist that you have to learn to orbit before you even learned to design and pilot. Plus : most problem newbies face come that you are not given parts that would simplify your design because they would be overpowered for experimented player. Example with the LV-T30, it's clearly too powerful to be used on a last stage with one small fuel tank, what new player do ? Make the last stage too heavy and crash or don't control anything. Mad ? No, you are just being melodramatic and maybe even hypocritical. Aren't you developing right know a mod that make KSP 10x as big and complex with necessarily longer launch, and a turn-over for multiple launch pad just to satisfy your wish for "more realism" ? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78895-regex-s-Campaign-System-KSC-Switcher-6-4-1-Kerbin-and-whatever-else-WIP-thread I know you are going to say "but it's a mod it's not the same, it's optional", but do you see me asking you to take out real-solar-system to help new player who only want your campaign system ? You act like as if the mere fact of not orbiting right away was an untold torture. Why the hell would you even put a launch pad then ? Idea : Let's make a system that automatically put you in orbit after the first lauch ! (that's a jokes) When I said to Sirrobert : "How do you think KSP even started ?" the implied answer was : by launching huge rocket for the fun before you even wanted to orbit and back then it was harder to orbit until the engine boost when more planets were added ! I don't know all the reasons you can find to create a new career save but something tell me it's because its still (as of now) so limited, short and unfulfilling that some player keep trying to relive the "challenge of the beginning", you know that part I'm trying to make longer and more fulfilling ? Let's humor my points from the perspective of an "experimented players". In short : If you want an actual CAREER you have to accept an actual progression, so regardless if you want more challenge (at first) or less challenge (later) my suggestion is merely to use upgrade so you can use more parts in a balanced way. The tempo have nothing to do with that. I might have insisted over "difficulty" but the motive was a better technological evolution. Also you are loosing you time trying to shape my experience into a argument for you. I learned most mechanic with the simulator ORBITER, what I was glad to discover KSP for was to design and didn't mind the slightest it was hard. And yet when I started KSP there was no nuclear engine, no mainsail, engines were weaker, rocket woobled. And I went to the only place available : the Mun and Minmus, without maneuver node (or Mechjeb). Anyway, are you getting that we are talking of CAREER mode ? a Career is by definition a progression and since KSP is a game it have to be fun regardless of the tempo. Right now : because of the way the proto career-mode work (minus budget/reputation?), the tempo make you NOT have the part you need unless you grind point for it on the furthest celestial body you can reach. Why ? Because until a few version no form of progression even existed aside skills in Sandbox where everything is static. And that's probably why you can't grasp your head around the idea of technology being upgraded as a game mechanic. How is that different ? The current trend of exaggeration may be as if I wanted to forced even pro-player on >2 suborbital flight but the basic of "making part upgradeable so that you have more parts available without ruining balance" is still the same. Regardless if you want to make the whole game easier or harder. What would it be if I said the upgrade system would improve engine at 120% ? That is a good concern. However I disagree that the actual specs evolution would amount to much complication considering : - sandbox won't have upgradeable part and career must be considered as something different, not a limited-sandbox. - most question concern the "how to do" rather than "what to use" - the only reason you ask "which part is best" is because the game actually made some superior to other. When you tell a newbies "Nuclear Engine are best", he'll just overengineer his rocket with it and fail because he tried to accelerate toward the mun until he reached it. Lastly, I wonder if because of that fear of "shacking" player used to starwars-like gameplay KSP isn't becoming in fact easier to handle than most strategy game, MMORPG, Arcade Air-Combat game, Racing Game...etc. Even Mechjeb make it easy to learn in easy-mode.

It might have been, but that's more the reason to suggest better because it certainly doesn't need to. I don't see it at making it "more difficult". As I said the idea is that you would have engine like the LV909 earlier which would be a better last stage engine even "at 50%". ALSO : I don't think there's really much difference between "experienced players" and "new players". The "piloting skills" needed to reach orbit isn't very hard to get and the "design skills" needed is straightforward enough that if "more fuel" don't work player will inevitably try the good way. Ideally the game would actually teach (while having fun) player to navigate efficiently in space. Yes, i think that I might have missed my first post. I will try correcting it. Thank you for the rewording. Sirrobert, you should know the game is incomplete, barely a beta if we look at the version number, it must and will change. What you just said two time is : "it shouldn't change because if it's that way it's because it's that way", a circular argument. Furthermore you pointed out the grindy nature of science-point as it is now, my suggestion would actually help solving that. So to make the same sort of biaised question as you : What sound more fulfilling ? Knowing you'll have to revisit all biome several time because strangely we couldn't built both a stupid thermometer and barometer, plus a ladder for your kerbun to take sample ? Or getting more science-point in a coherent manner ? As you were told earlier by Comrade Jenkins I'm not suggesting to frustrate the player by giving them useless technology. The way I see it player wouldn't mind doing suborbital flight for many reasons : 1) they would be ecstatic just BUILDING rocket and getting each time a new altitude record (how do you think KSP even started ?) 2) they would be learning about "Biome" and "Science Point" and thus trying to reach as much as possible. (thus making suborbital flight more interesting) 3) hopefully the finished game would have a budget (and a "reputation") mechanic, people would be rewarded for suborbital flight and not treated as "moron who can't orbit". 4) during this time they would be upgrading parts and testing them. Having fun. 5) by the time they actually reach orbit they WILL have both sufficiently upgraded engine and the parts to do it fairly easily. 6) finally, since at least one probe would be accessible they COULD orbit it without risking of stranding/killing a Kerbonaut. I don't know when you started playing KSP but I have to tell you that after new planets were introduced ALL engines were boosted so players could reach them... in SANDBOX where there is no progression. Now we have a Career modes and a proto tech-tree, we have a progression system and upgrade would make it better in my opinion.

As I said in my very post, defining progression or difficulty is more complicated than we can think. Especially since the whole community is full of talented players posting dozen of Mun-base and probes on Laythe. People not only think "it's not complicated to reach orbit" but "it shouldn't be" However we are talking of a Career mode where your space agency will evolve with technology and hopefully emulate a real space agency (in better). What's this mean is that we need a slower-but-more-fulfilling progression. Achieving orbit at the 2nd flight and the Mun in 3/4 isn't what I would call fulfilling. But slowing the progression doesn't mean depriving the player from actually useful technology or engines and asking them to grind science-point. And that's why I suggesting all this : Let's have the engines and tech ! Just make them less efficient at first (for the same price). For your question : Duna gravity being way lower than Kerbin you can get away with a multi-stage ascent-return stage fairly easily. Fortunately a mission budget is unlikely to allow that. I once took and returned a Kerbun out of Laythe before we had docking. I used two ship and transfered the crew. So yes, docking is more or less the ultimate invention that truly allow everything that's why it come late in fact, but it shouldn't have to historically docking was possible very soon. So put aside the tech-tree (way to rigid for me) the creation of a budget gameplay mechanic also have a very important role to play to keep player from launching infinite amount of tanker.

I support this suggestion. I remember being told that a "pause button" wasn't possible because Unity can't render without a flow, but a Timewarp x1 is a good alternative.

The part you put in BOLD isn't the problem, the problem is that by the time you unlocked 10% of all tech you are likely to be able to reach any planet, do any challenge, regardless of the skills necessary. My "the skills is the same" is here to highlight that once the player know how to do basic orbital maneuver like an Hohmann Transfert, he isn't challenged by the "difficulty to pilot" but the "difficulty to design", something I feel the tech-tree doesn't address well. For a Game that is emulating the difficulty of actual space agency to send any gram on another planet, being able to plan a Duna(orbit)-Manned-Return before the Mun doesn't "feel right". But then, people can like incomplete game if they want and refuse any change. It's all subjective. Indeed, it was slightly over called for, however I think you got to tell them. About the difficulty jump, yes it can be seen like that. I prefer to say that it increase the number of "step" and might require you to start with probes before you send a manned mission. (the game is unjust against probes but that's something else) The idea is that rather than "unlocking 100% efficient parts" in a near-sequentially manner, with HUGE progression step, you would be able to "upgrade in parallel 50% efficients parts" in a less-sequentially manner, with more reason to switch between parts as their efficiency change. And the whole thing would make the design process less frustrating. An example is that you would be able to obtain a 50% efficient micro-engine for your Mercury-like flight. - Without being forced to use a ridiculously powerful, heavy and unrealistic LV-T30 because you had nothing else. - Without the developers risking to give you an engine too efficient allowing you to waltz on any orbit at the point of the game. Talking of "sequential unlocking" my drawing also tried to suggest that while you can unlock [Part A at 50%] earlier, you need [Part A at 75%] to unlock [Part B]. Are you sure you really understand the relationship between thrust, specific impulse, the mass of the engines and the resulting Delta-V ? Bigger engine are usually for ascent stage as they "give more thrust", but 8x LVT-30/45 can be more efficient than one Mainsail. And once you are in orbit small high-ISP smaller engine rules. Which mean that to go to another planet you actually need "weight efficient engine" regardless of size. The game HAVE to be balanced for asparagus. By that I mean that even if the Devs consider Asparagus "not the way it should be played", they'll have to make sure a well made Asparagus won't allow too much more than linear staging. Last I know you start with a 100% efficient LVT-30, an engine that stay weight-efficient until you gain access to a 100% efficient Skipper. The whole problem of a bundle-centered tech-tree in an incomplete game is that it can be maladjusted, unbalanced and not as fun as alternatives (like a part-centered tech-tree + upgrade). On the other hand, the mere ability to upgrade both a LV-T30 and a LV-909 allow a player to build an interesting rocket while keeping the early game challenging. Some people might consider New-players as idiot with attention-deficit disorder that need to be carefully guided to orbit without distracting them with "too many parts". Me, I KNOW that new players aren't moron, that if they see (OH MY GOD !) two engines, they'll get it that the smaller one should be used on later stage. (or have fun testing) And I THINK that new players would prefer to have more part to play with even if the game make it slightly more challenging to reach orbit. (so they don't skip step accidentally) And the same way, if you tell player that you can upgrade the engine 2 or 3 times, it won't be anywhere more difficult than understanding DeltaV which is a requirement to appreciate the game. Kerbal Space Program may look cartoon, it may be voluntarily easier than Orbiter but it still aim player who like that sort of complexity. No, no, here that's just you trying to discredit me. Yes the more efficient parts will be more expensive, but if you need a small engines but the game frustratingly (against common sense) don't let you develop one, this is NOT balanced. Once Again : The addition of money and budget in Career-mode will balance the SIZE of the rocket. However it won't balance it's usefulness. There's a misunderstanding. You don't get "stuck" as much as you get "frustrated" of not being able to develop a smaller (engine or structural) part that would totally fit on your rocket, and are stuck into building a big machine that explode on the launch pad. You can actually balance for the skill of the player, but what matter more to me is to make the game progression more interesting. The way I see it : - If you only balance using money, the skilled player will still be able to do anything because the parts are given at 100% efficiency, and the new player will still be trying to make up for the lack of parts. - If you balance using both money and upgrade, the skilled player will have more challenge trying to "outrun" the game, but the new player will get parts more adapted to what he is trying to do (ex: an unmanned probes to scout the Mun). Said another way, right now you need to use glitchs or exploits in the game to build the rocket you need. On the long run there is no actual difference between players and my suggestion is STILL for Developers to make a tools more suited to technological progression. Some games abuse upgrade mechanism to artificially inflate their longevity, but I think KSP is not using it enough (yet ?). Actually that's because they are realistically superior to manned mission. But talking of game-design some players (like me) asked for Antenna to be used to limit the range of probes, so it doesn't need to be nerfed illogically. We have suggestion thread because the way the game is NOW isn't necessarily the best way it could be. For example the grindy nature of science now. Many players would prefer a game more centered around millstones than around farming science-point.

Sorry everybody for taking so long to answer. FIRST, I say it once and for ALL : this is NOT because the game is "too hard" or "too easy" that I'm suggesting this. I'm suggesting this because as it is now the Tech-tree of early Career-mode wouldn't make for an enjoyable "in-game progression". Plus, the parts available at first and the way they are unlocked is fundamentally unlike how technology evolve. Some might point out that proposing very few parts is necessary to simplify things for newcomer at first. But as it is now it went way to far. There's a specific Tutorial to teach the player how to fly up to orbit, but the challenge is to learn how to design. So I think Career-mode would profit of incremental evolution in the engines/technology available that would allow player's design to really "progress". example : as of now we lack basic micro-rocket for a Mercury-like capsule, because without "upgrade" system the ones available are too efficient to be given too early in the game. The addition of a Budget-mechanic to career-mode can limit the SIZE of rockets. But not balance the efficiency of its parts. This is why I'm suggesting "Upgrade" for parts. It's not so much a question of changing the difficulty than making the game more incremental in its progression, using technology upgrade. Let's take your graphic : This is common in video-game to give player's equipment/upgrade during their progression that make earlier challenge easier so they can go on progressively harder challenge without staying stuck. But in our case the player is both (1) not allowed to research parts he need (2) is given the means to actually skip the the "real step of a space program". If I represented the Career-mode as it is now on your graphic the curve would in fact start "as high challenge" then decrease as soon as you get the right part to actually accomplish the challenge and get the skills. You asked what I meant by "meaningful cargo" : Any mass sufficient to accomplish the mission. At first it is hard for new player, because they don't know "how to orbit", but later it's so easy that most player just over-engineer for the joy of over-engineering their over-engineered rocket rather than by actual challenge. I don't think we are on the same page. It is exact that increasing your range in space can only require "a little more Dv", but this "little more Dv" require a Substantially bigger launcher and as of now this isn't a problem even with LV-T30 and before learning about asparagus staging you can send probes anywhere. That's another subject but to me a "time limit" wouldn't be an appropriate solution, probes are eternal and by the time you get it (because of the sequential unlock) you get them at a point where (budget aside) good use of what you have would get you anywhere anyway. My suggestion (upgrading parts mostly) wouldn't punish the new player as I suggest giving access to more technology (albeit less efficient), the only increase in difficulty would be barely in term of complexity. That's actually the problem. You get right from the start the technology to do about anything. Sir, you are a moron with all the respect you did not give to other. Regardless of the change in Science-point (and again the absence of budget limitation) it is a clear demonstration that it is possible to go anywhere. Do not twist what I said, the skills required for THAT stunt were high, but the skills needed to plot a mission to Duna is no different than for Eeloo and is perfectly possible using early tech. As for the last phrase I quoted from you, I disagree. Yes your skills will get better, but the tech-tree doesn't encourage that as the part needed for an actually skillful&efficient (at the opposite of clumsy&inadequate) are not possible to unlock when you need them. That sound very interesting. More than just giving access to unmanned rocket (following a coherent evolution) it actually try to make the challenge gradual to the technology developed. It really sound like the direction I would want KSP to take. Though it might actually get too hard for some players (life support & reentry).

I understand the concern, maybe a color-code or a number of strip on the icon could do the differentiation easily You understood it the wrong way. I only used "achieving orbit" as an example typical for new players. But it is harder to launch meaningful amount of cargo to orbit UNTIL you get better technology. The problem is that for each new part you get, your ability to do thing increase NON-Linearly. Meaning that getting the technology to land on the Mun give you more than enough to land and Return from Duna. By the time you plan go to Laythe, MOST technology accessible to you should make it EASY to design a 2 part (lander and orbital transfer ship) to do the job. Formulating it another way, I want technological limit to be more used to shape game progression. Reaching orbit would be slightly harder at first but the challenge would make the (example) "Mun to Duna" transition more interesting. If the requirement to upgrade part allow to keep overachieving players challenged, it would allow the developer to give access to docking ring faster without fearing to unbalance the "progression" (as in : what you can achieve).

I have been informed that this first post isn't as explicit about what I'm actually suggesting than it could be. I'm thinking about rewriting it and redoing the picture entirely, but for now know that the 3 firsts pages of discussion are more constructive. "Game progression" is an abstract notion in this game, Progression in career mode (as of now) can only correlate to your advancement in the tech-tree and how much science you recovered. It doesn't matter if you explored every single bïomes and planets/moon, built thousand of small satellites or a dozen manned mission. Furthermore, talking of "difficulty" in the game is also challenging as some players demonstrated that it was possible to max-out the tech tree on their VERY FIRST LAUNCH. But as we know the game is not finished. Some critical features needed to balance career mode are still absent (money, and "reputation" have been mentioned). Tomorrow, progression could depend on your Reputation, how much you explored a planet or how much budget you are given. However, I fell that regardless of money and reputation, if the developers keep the tech-tree as it is now we might not fully appreciate the "progression". What's my problem ? - The technological progression doesn't feel natural (probes should come early but be limited in range by battery and comm array coming late). - There's parts we should have right at the start, that we only get too late (I think new players would learn more easily with those available). - The parts themselves never evolve, they are frozen in time as if they were the best right from the start. My suggestion : - Giving early access to more parts, that have to be upgraded (from v1 to v4). - Thinking the order of unlocking so that "game changing" parts doesn't come too early (docking ring, RCS). - Not fearing to make it HARD to reach orbit in career modes (Tutorial are here to simplify things). The goodside : With evolving part can have 3 parts in one, reducing memory charge. The downside : With evolving part all design efficiency would change over time. But, is it really a bad things to rethink our design regularly ? Everything I said in a picture :

This is a suggestion that come really often "Should SQUAD make it possible for players to start in a different solar system (if possible) ?". Now some obtuse proponent pseudorandom-procedural-generation might jump on the feasibility ("It's possible I swear, look at my unrelated examples !") without considering the actual question. Myself I say : "Not worth it" For starter it Would "break the community", how would new players even ask about how to land on a planet/moon if nothing they can describe will make sense to other ? If you got bored navigating a solar system with custom-made diversity, you'll get bored even faster with automated generation of not-so-random relief. This game isn't like Minecraft, you don't shape your environment until it suit you, you face it and take it for what it's worth. Lastly it might not be possible at all or without huge sacrifice. (pro-tips : procedural generation is used best to fill the void, not create content)

I have no problem with the idea of building our own fuel-truck and moving it around but as I don't want to build and align a stupid dock, or use the grappler to "make contact", it could be more appreciable to have a new part that allow undocked fuel transfert while on the ground. Basically a deployable fuel hose. Then come the question of refuelling thefuel-truck. If budget is implemented would it be alright to recover/rebuild over and over the tanker ? if not then a refueling zone will be needed Plus of course the fact that we cannot change cargo/crew outside as of now.

There's interesting ideas here... Camera vibration and various effect on the player's interface based on the acceleration and some criteria. For example : With an acceleration of 5G, the interface would shake or not depending of what part is controlling the ship (probes don't suffer of acceleration but Kerbal do) Later you could mix that with "upgrade" for Kerbal that reduce the acceleration effect on various capsule. (this way I expect amusing tales of Old-as-hell spaceship still in service late in the game)

A last post from me, some people misunderstood me. Before, people were talking of Procedural Generation based on "seed", which implied different universe based on "parameter" and as argued before, pose numerous problem, from planet with less attention to detail (low memory = lesser texture), requiring powerful computer just to generate a planet and also the whole "break the community" thingy with unrelatable game experience. NOW, if you want a UNIQUE solar system Procedurally Generated By your own computer, just know that procedural generation of small asteroid is EASY, big planet not so much. Plus that's not the key to galaxy sized universe (supposing it's even fun to navigate between stars without FTL gameplay) Also : The game Elite was repetitive as hell and didn't have much of a physics engines, aerodynamic, or anything too complicated. You might believe everything can scale up proportionally in term of Virtual World feature but no, some things follow the cube law when computer follow mostly square augmentation.

Changing the parameter is no different from generating unlimited amount of custom/random planet, and the problem isn't in the number (although it's an aggravating factor) it's in the fact that players would be playing different system. They can't be in the "same" Universe/Galaxy/System. Unlike KSP which is/was Firstly about designing and navigating SpaceEngine exist for the purpose of sight-seeing and playing with orbital mechanics, it do not compute anything the same way and is not suitable for a KSP-like gameplay (there was a thread about that with technical explanation). I don't want to sound like I know better than everybody but procedural generation can only do so much without human input, as of now there's not much to do on planet, that's probably why people wish they could generate themselves hollow asteroid, Land of Water and Magma, low gravity moon with insane pressure, gaz giant with one solid landing zone...etc. But random generation don't guaranty interesting planet. Statistically it should be averagely boring. Then, there's also only so much you can do with input from player who don't know how procedural generation work and what is best (or how long it take to generate a planet). About my mention of efficiency, what I mean is that there is players who like to build complete infrastructure (satellite and all) and would be frustrated to know they devoted hours of work for a solar system that isn't the best the devs could make. We cannot consider the KSP BETA's save-breaking to be a normal. All the problem with unrelatable game experience still apply too.

Unlimited number of Fixed Seed doesn't solve the problem of unrelatable game experience in any way. Except maybe if it become a running jokes that nobody except a few hardcore fan will play on more than the "standard seed" because everybody else are satisfied with it. I would prefer to have more thing to do on a few token planet, that having nothing to do but land on an infinite number of planet. Remember : KSP =/= Minecraft. Random seed in Minecraft was a necessity because the whole interest lies in being creative with your surrounding. A non-randomly made unique solar system in KSP is a necessity because the interest lies in creating increasingly efficient design for given parameter, the risk of finding randomly boring seed defeat this. Furthermore, the completed game is expected to have a career mode with budget limitation and a long playtime. Unlike Minecraft you cannot just "move on" once you get bored somewhere. So in term of game-design you either go with an infinite number of barely-interesting planet, or you make sure the one solar system is choke full of everything you want to do. People asking for that usually don't realize how boring non-FTL flight would be, even in a video game. Especially if you keep withing the classic all-contained spaceship design (as opposed to, say, solar-sail impossible in game for other reasons) What would you even do with such possibility ? Build even bigger rocket made of 99,99% FUEL, timewarp for eternity to get slingshot opportunities, then rage-quit because on arrival you see that you forgot a piece on the tiny probe you managed to launch. Better go with a carefully balanced fictional FTL. It would at least be interesting to play. Both game rely on the feature for other reason than KSP. Elite is Pioneers IN SPACE, SpaceEngine is centered around a stellar scale, and in both you don't design your rocket up to the very control system.

I will answer around the trend shown here. Realism, yes but never too much. If you want actual physic you don't play KSP, you play Orbiter. Ah it doesn't allow you to design expensive firewo...rockets and have fun you say ? Well that's why it's realist. If you had fun you would be doing rocket-science wrong. So my point is that KSP shouldn't go in term of realism but of feature, emulation. Have the rocket part look as realist as the modular design allow it, but keep the physics and gameplay on the fun side. Challenge is good, but needless difficulty is bad. I want a Mechjeb Dv calculator as a stock item (even if to be unlocked), I even want autopilot (be it by training a Kerbun or through electronic) because regardless of what think a few Hardcore moron, automation is part of Space Exploration and when I want to land somewhere (for the 20th time), I want to land on that somewhere to the millimeter. About pseudo-random Procedural Generation Won't continue the discussion up there about what is random because it's not the point. The GREAT interest about pseudo-random procedural generation is the ability to create environment that don't look to have been made by human hand. And this create huge scenery cheaply. Saw what word I used ? Scenery, because it's not important. What Games Developers should be working on is what the player can actually do on a planet and what challenge he will face. That's good Design. Bad design would be to generate planets RANDOMLY and then wonder why players are frustrated to have to play HOURS before finding out their Solar System have "****ty boring planet" unlike that other guy who fell on Pandora, then a dark gravity hell and a white paradise on his first try. Don't get it wrong, Minecraft is OUTSTANDING with random Seed because the game is about a static-value (player) exploiting an unknown but forgiving adjustable-environment. But KSP is about a ever evolving-value (player's rocket) built to survive a unknown AND unforgiving static-environment. But worse the community really wouldn't be able to relate with each others because whatever you accomplish won't be impressive unless you painfully describe the mission's parameter with guess-word like "...then I slingshot around a relatively medium gaz giant to reach a low gravity Kerbin-like planet's moon (which is 30% bigger than the Moon but with 10% more gravity) and aerobreaked in a gravity that was 70% of Eve before landing on a Minmus like ice-sheet but without a lot of relief". You tell me when that lines start being fun to read for the 30rd time. Not to mention new players seeking help, or people being unable to propose challenge unless they have the exact same planet. So in what direction do I would love KSP to take ? - Point of Interest on planets where there is more to do than grind science-point. - Remake the tech-tree for a more coherent and realistic-looking evolution. With engine upgrade if needed so we can research practical part early but never go too far with in their low-efficiency state. - A Money/Budget system that do not ask the player to earn/grind but to reach successive millstone/mission to be allowed more budget / parts to use. - Reason to build extensive space infrastructure, from basic communication satellite network, to manned fuel-extracting base going by space-only transfer vessels. - Oh yes, I WANT the ability to make fuel from In-Situe resources. (Don't want anything like trade though, that's grindy and boring)

I find that this would be an interesting design solution to start implementing reentry or at least a control over reentry aerodynamic. however I don't know how we would place such things on most lander. My landers typically use their own thruster to deorbit themselves, but if the inflatable shield is under the engine I wouldn't be able to fire it. sure it can be fixed with tractor-rocket but KSP don't recognise them well.

I don't want to be harsh but many people here couldn't fly without an autopilot (which is just a lot of automation), which isn't standard in the game. Myself I see no reason to not propose a sort of simplified Mechjeb in the late game, not because I can't do anything manually (I am a Orbiter player) but because it's boring on the long. Furthermore, in the gameplay, probes serve the important purpose of being an cheap, easy and dispensable way of acquiring Science-point which would be extremely hard and slow if we had to send a Kerbal everywhere. Automated probes is a fundamental part of Space Exploration regardless we like it or not, and there's no interest for a probes that land at randoms locations, just as there's no reason to keep a probes from being able to send the result of its experiment from place where you couldn't land and retrieve Kerbun (like Eve).

I don't think you understand what a black hole is, so before the thread get locked : A black hole is exactly like a star : a huge mass As Einstein described it, mass bend the space-time matrix and that attract things. So Black-hole doesn't "suck" things, theoretically they are as safe to orbit than anything else. Problem arise when you meet their "surface" the Event Horizon from which nothing get out. That plus space-time distortion that will rip your ship in particle way before you get close. What it mean is that you are basically asking the devs to put another "star" around Kerbol which, unless you put it absurdly far, would break all planet's orbit. That aside, KSP physics can't deal with "n-body physics" and use a (planet > moon) simplification.

If we where in the real world with multi-body physics I know there's the "Interplanetary Transport Network", a set of orbital parameter making use of Lagrange points for extremely economical transfer. There's just a catch, using it going from Earth to Moon could take something like 10 month. But in KSP where there's only patched conic I don't think there's better than Hohmann transfer

I think you got my point, but you still exaggerated most of this, plus accidental misconception. Misconception like : - The Hollywoodian engineer/scientist being able to "work" anywhere, alone with any tools available. - Robot being self-contained gizmo inherently inferior to human, rather than being part of the entire infrastructure allowing human to be remotely efficient, like life-support and security-system telling them when there's a problem and where. - Astronaut somehow having supernatural capacity making them vital, regardless of the task. Yes, there is scientist up there, working on their own little project. But they developed those on the ground with help and tools. In space they are merely operating them, not creating new theoretical model and testing it on the fly, that's both impossible and a misuse of their time (playing guitars isn't of course). As I said earlier the experience done up there are most often related to studying if organism can live up there. Because for all those others experiences that MUST be kept aside from human, their fluid and all that's oxygen. You build a self-contained device that is likely to have more automation in them than human can deal with. No, I'm not saying we won't continue to build pressurized-can for monkey to work/be studied up there, what I'm saying is that tools like robonauts are in the future likely to do the actual work, regardless of how much is left to the few astronaut and the thousand person at ground control. You should know that human sight is quite ill-adapted to space. Barely capable of making out distance outside of their natural environment, distracted by anything, not capable of surviving direct sunlight, not capable of seeing infrared or invisible leak. Furthermore the human body is full of reflex that are downright dangerous in space. Yes, we still rely on Astronaut to solve practical problem that require an hand-on approach, but that's because we couldn't build robot before. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/r2_first_work.html#.UubzJbRKEdU I quote : "It's not exactly a job that requires a rocket scientist – or astronaut – to accomplish, but there are a few things that make it difficult. For one, the gauge has to be held very steady – a challenge for a human being bobbing up and down in microgravity. And the samples can be misleading if there's another source of air flow in the area – such as a human being's breath." All to say that this citation from you, is -in this context- wrong. On the ground yes, we need scientist. Up there ? Operator. HIGHLY EDUCATED Operator yes (because why would we send morons ?), but they are not doing theoretical work. In any case, KSP is a video game using a rocketpunk approach where crewed mission must stay "the best". Jebediah, Bill & Bob were clearly the Apollo's typical USAF people, the one who piloted the rocket until unmanned core appeared. It's up to SQUAD to decide if they want "scientist", "Mission Specialist", both, none or why not a Kerobonaut (joking here).

While an interesting video, it doesn't change my point. We don't really send scientist up there you know, more like extremely highly-trained operator so... - They don't screw up in the unforgiving environment of space - They can report problems better - And to do maintenance work until we develop better robot (Robonaut 2). Their profile tend to be scientists rather than the USAF pilot's of the 70th mostly because we automated piloting (See ATV), but as such, they are not the one "making the research" since everything is prepared entirely on Earth. The correct therm is Mission Specialist (thanks for reminding it to me), a person trained to do the last few thing we couldn't make failsafe through automation. Actually they do over 9000 time more. Why do you think we've only sent probes until now (aside from cost) ? That's because we don't need human in a bulky space suit to shovel dirt into the robot's sensor. I didn't even used the word "remote controlled drone" which would be more accurate (See "Robonaut 2"). Not going to contradict you, that's the more or less the reason I suggested it the way I did (with hitchhiker's module). As said, I did not forget to squeeze in Kerbonaut exchange, I just simplified to its more important elements. It certainly won't "solve all the problem" though, you are being over-confident. The rest is just me reminding you that reality is harsher than fiction. KSP depict his Kerbunaut as the pilot/astronaut of 1968, not the operator/scientist or today, neither the remote controlled bots of tomorrow (time-lag being the only reason we might still send their operator up there). What do you think was my "new resource" in the little suggestion ? Tools and Experiment from Kerbin, my suggestion doesn't ask any new part and is self-balanced, which is great I ought to make it its own thread.

Right... It force you to add deltaV to get into orbit, force you to separate landing probe from orbiting probe, ask you more consideration to your timing, may make you miss a launch windows. ...yet it's no different ? FOR THE SAKE OF CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION : PLEASE LISTEN TO YOURSELF !!! What the hell do you think gameplay is made of ? golden-eggs that hatch into sublime game mechanic ? NO ! It's make of ton of little ideas that may not look like that different but are actually at step in the right direction, if not a world-breaking emergent gameplay like the skiing bug was to the game "Tribes" ! That part of my post was a rhetoric argument based around a defined hypothesis to make a point. It was meant to highlight the possibility that by dismissing "time-based experiment" (or should I say "nitpicking") as a possible gameplay mechanism, you may actually hurt the replayability of Career-mode. ...you missed all of it. Indeed.