FlowerChild

As someone who experienced the Minecraft "modder wars" first hand, I think the above pronouncement is entirely premature. I think all that's essentially happened is that the Minecraft community was much larger than KSP's ever has been (KSP's is growing rapidly now though) meaning there were more people with diverse viewpoints interacting, and that one side of that war has already declared victory here before any shots have been fired. Behavior like is being exhibited in this thread is essentially what caused the MC wars in the first place: some people want to do their own thing, and others want to force their view of what modding should be, and thus how those other people should spend their own recreational time, down their throats. So my advice would be: if you don't want that kind of hostility between modders, then don't start it. Let people do their thing and if they want to collaborate, they'll do so, and if they won't, they won't. Otherwise it's only a matter of time before some of us start wearing kilts and shouting "freedom!!!!" There is no one right way to mod, and even if there were, I sincerely doubt it should be up to a single individual or a small group to say what it is. My apologies for the further off-topic silliness Yemo. I just popped by the thread to see how the 1.0 update had gone for you and stumbled into this whole mess.

It's an interesting review, BUT this bit: Seriously? Did this guy even try it?

Well, now you're talking game balance, which is an entirely different matter

If you want to broaden the form of "balance" we're talking about beyond the implied "game balance", then yes, I will agree that if the ISRU parts are placed on opposite sides of a scale to objects of equal mass, they are entirely and well balanced

That would imply that reality itself is inherently balanced as a game system. I suppose that could lead into an interesting philosophical debate about intelligent design and the overall nature of reality, but that's far beyond the scope of these forums. I've also experienced enough un-fun moments in life to take issue with the overall balance if that were the case, think that the pacing sucks, think that the progression is rather messed up in that the longer and harder you work the more quickly your capabilities decline, think that dogs should get better and more diverse dialog as the barking gets old quick, and would like to suggest that my nipples are currently an underutilized and therefore extraneous system that really didn't need to be included in the first place Honestly, I suspect if it were a well balanced game, we wouldn't feel the need to play games in the first place. So no, I disagree with the underlying assertion that realism equates to game balance, and given RoverDude was talking about a game system in that post, I do not think it reasonable to assume he was talking about anything other than game balance.

Ok...so you're not actually talking about stock probe cores being useful in any way on their own, and thus have been making a straw man argument. Good to know. You sure man? I keep seeing you apply it to things that don't really make much sense, not just in this thread, but in others as well. For example, in this thread you have been using it to describe how a part, with no viable use case, is somehow "balanced" vs another that is entirely viable, because it has lower mass and cost. In another thread (I think it was related to the resource system) you said something along the lines of "that feature is 'balanced' because of <insert realism factor>" when balance and realism are entirely separate concepts. My overall impression is that you may think you do, but you really don't have a good understanding of what game balance actually entails. EDIT: And because I hate misquoting or quoting people out of context, I looked up the balance vs realism thing I was thinking of: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117073-Ore-is-Overpowered?p=1880703&viewfull=1#post1880703

Serious question: do you actually play career or does the above just represent how you think it should play out? Because the above makes very little sense to me from an in-game perspective. A player is naturally trying to progress in the game, especially in the early stages. They then choose a command part that allows them to progress *less* per mission than the other options available to them, because they cost/weigh less? Of course they cost/weigh less...you can't do half the stuff with them you'd want to do. I understand you'd *like* to use probes earlier on. Me too Why would you send Jeb (or a probe) on a one way trip to Eeloo? First of all, your science returns would be terrible, meaning that you could be making much more effective use of your time flying a return trip. Second, there's enough science available in Kerbin's SOI to max out the tech tree, maybe many times over, so I think the odds the player will actually make it to Eeloo before the progression is over to be exceedingly slim. As for a mechanic to discourage sending Jeb on that one way trip in the first place: Life support would do that. Of course, you'd also have to be willing to kill Kerbals with it and appropriately penalize the player for that death. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means

Hehe...yeah, I was about to say something similar about preferring the 1.0.3 model Whatever it is, I just hope it at least somewhat stabilizes soon and we get to a point where we know that "foo" is the aero model and will remain that way. From everything I'm seeing on the forums, I'm getting the impression we're not there yet, and the longer the revisions go on to such a fundamental system, the more disruptive it's going to be to the community. Would be cool if people could pass designs around and such without a constant "oh...but that was in the 1.0.7 aero model and might not work anymore". With a lot of new players coming in, that's bound to cause confusion if say a decent tutorial for how to get a rocket to orbit can't be written without it being immediately invalidated. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that things got changed from 1.0 to 1.0.1, I just don't get the impression Squad is done yet, and I hope they get this sorted sooner rather than later.

Lol! Now I want one too

How does the lower cost and mass make any difference if there's no reason to send them anywhere? Sending manned missions nets more science, both in terms of value on the individual experiments and on manned missions having more experiments available to them with the crew and EVA reports. The mass and cost savings are also essentially lost due to the ability of manned missions to reset and store multiple sets of data with only a single instance of an experiment part, whereas a probe would have to carry multiple experiments to gather the same total number of results (if you don't want to lose the bulk of the value in transmission). Granted, there are specific contracts requiring probe cores, buts that's only because they specifically require you to use them. There's no real reason for that other than "we're telling you to...so there". I will also grant that your new resource system provides some small incentive to use them through the broad-scanning part, in that a mission set to a polar orbit is less likely to be one you want to move on to other celestial bodies afterwards, but on the other hand, it's also a good opportunity to send a manned mission and pick up science for any polar biomes you may have previously missed. I don't think cost and mass really serve as viable balancing factors unless two systems are both actually useful for something. "Why do I want to buy this decorative sculpture?" "Because it's cheaper than a car" "But I need a car to get to work..." "But the sculpture is cheaper"

Hehe...no, I did not actually. I seem to have a thing for art analogies for some reason, but I am far from being an artist or having a good understanding of art history For example, and because it's a very amusing aspect of the history of space exploration, I never knew about this until very recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Museum And ever since learning about it, while I didn't much care for his work before then, Andy Warhol is now a hero of mine, and I can't look up at the moon without cracking a smile

Well, it is entirely wrong, so yes, I neither understand or accept it by definition It's all well and good for a designer to have a strong vision man. I'm a big supporter of that. However, if I went to see the Mona Lisa, and it had a mustache on it, I'd say "I think that's a mistake". If I had a line of communication to da Vinci I would ask him "Leo! Why the mustache on Mona??!!" If he were to respond "I wanted to highlight what a real person she is...flaws and all." I would likely say "You may want to reconsider Leo...I really think it's a mistake. That may sound logical on a surface level, but if you analyze it further I think you'll realize it ruins the overall effect" If a year later he still hadn't busted out the paint thinner, I'd probably say "that was a mistake, pure and simple". None of that diminishes da Vinci's genius, implies that I am somehow smarter or more talented, or says that the rest of the painting is not a masterpiece. However, Lisa still has a 'tache, and I'm not going to turn off all form of critical analysis and say it looks good just because I think Leo is a cool and talented guy. We all make mistakes, even the best and brightest amongst us. Our ability to listen to counter arguments and recognize them for what they are however is the important bit. This was a mistake, and to this day it's still undermining KSP having a decent career mode. Hehe...and much to my amusement, I was looking a few things up after writing the above, and it turns out I wasn't the first person with this idea: No, that's just the mod's name. Arguing it drives the entire process or defines the entire design would be as nonsensical as arguing that Kerbals come first because it's called "KERBAL Space Program"

Not sure if I'm willing to argue the sub-points on this man as if small balancing factors somehow equate to large ones. If you find probe cores to be somehow useful or appropriately placed in the tree, more power to you. From my perspective they're currently an utterly useless part of the game that is given some kind of implied fictional value within the tree by placing them later on within it setting the player up with a sense of false hope that they're working towards something worthwhile, while in reality they're working towards a downgrade and inevitable disappointment when they realize it. You say tomato, I say pineapple. Let's call the whole thing off

Realism in games is far from objective. See my earlier point about whether engines shutting down on Eve is realistic or not. It can be argued both ways, and soon as a game has any form of abstraction within it, you begin to see any absolute concept of realism break down. I'd say it's also far from objective outside of games as well, but that's an entirely different debate probably not suited to the KSP forums

And each time the hero defeats the next level of Jawa, then R2D2 rolls in trailing behind. Look, let's put this another way and from a purely game-design perspective: For the sake of this point, consider for a moment Kerbals and their manned capsules as just a part like any other. Same as engines...same as probe cores. What the current career-mode progression has happening is that the more powerful parts (the capsules, which can go anywhere without consuming resources, with maximum control authority, and without any other relevant limitations) are the ones you are freely given at start. Then the rest of the tree has the player working towards unlocking the less powerful parts (the probe cores), which have additional requirements for keeping them operational, which provide diminished science returns, which have reduced control authority, which can't operate several pieces of equipment effectively, etc. Can you make any reasonable argument for why that would be the case, from the "they're all just parts" perspective? Is it any wonder career mode feels largely broken when it's built upon that framework? Thus, whether you view it from a story or game design perspective, I would assert the Kerbals-first concept is just plain broken, and again, all for "because...Kerbals" with no real rationale behind it that can withstand further analysis.

Here, actually, it's not like any of these fundamentals to telling a good story are a new concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure Of particular relevance there is the section on "Rising Action". Essentially, what Kerbals-first has done is completely chop that right out of the story and skipped straight to the climax. I do not think that anyone would argue at this point that career mode isn't the worst received part of the game right now. Seriously, it would do well for Squad to consider the above, as I strongly believe (I'd even go so far as say "I know" which is exceedingly rare for me as I tend to be rather careful about ever presuming knowledge) that this breakdown in the dramatic structure is at the very root of that problem. You've basically created a progression where first scene has Luke Skywalker butchering a Jawa with his lightsaber, and then a half hour into the movie, you throw R2D2 into the mix against Vader and shout "FIGHT!" wondering why no-one is getting enthusiastic about the whole thing. You're essentially breaking the entire game progression with the very first node of the game, and then scrambling to try and fix it with the rest of them, to no avail. For a 10 second Jeb-cameo at the start of the game, you're essentially sacrificing what is potentially hours of compelling gameplay, progression and rising action that will make the Kerbals feel like real heroes instead of Jawa-slayers.

Actually, I don't think you get my stance on it, as I don't disagree with any of that (other than the very first experience bit) Was Yuri Gagarin making it into space diminished by Sputnik making it first, or did it amplify the build up to that event? In other words, I don't think probes doing stuff first de-emphasizes Kerbals in the least. What I think Kerbals-first does is take something away from the "story" aspects of the game by trivializing the struggle that they are facing. Stories are only interesting with some form of conflict involved. Putting a Kerbal on the first rocket you build and having them be totally immune to the dangers of space only diminishes that, and thus decreases the impact of the story overall. The hero slaying the dragon in the first five minutes of a story (especially if the dragon has had its fire-breathing ability surgically removed first) doesn't put more focus on the hero...it just makes for a bad story. But I do entirely disagree on that one

I'm fine with that as well in all cases where I think it actually contributes to gameplay. In this case though, I really don't (and never have). What people tend not to get about the whole "Better Than Starting Manned" thing at first glance is that it really has nothing to do with realism (despite what Manley may have said in his vid ). What it's more about is gameplay progression. Humans use automated systems in space because they're much more suited to that environment than we are. When you make the inverse true, you're left without a reason for probes to exist in the first place. This cuts down on mission diversity. It cuts down on the sense of satisfaction when you do manage to get a Kerbal somewhere, as you didn't have to cautiously explore it with an automated system first. It leaves probes as a dangling loose end in the game where there's next to no valid reason to send them anywhere, or for them to really exist as parts. So to me, using the *name* of a game (which could just as easily be "Bob" and it would still be the same game/rose) as some kind of justification for sacrificing all that gameplay depth and diversity is rather laughable, and frankly leaves me face-palming whenever I see it used as a reason for anything

In order for LS to make sense in stock, they'd really have to ditch this whole "It's called KERBAL space program" non-argument for not starting off with unmanned missions. Somehow, I suspect they're not going to let go of that, and as a result, wind up in a design catch-22 where keeping Kerbals alive in space needs to be less challenging than keeping an automated system going, which is entirely counter-intuitive (and makes for less interesting gameplay to boot IMO). They'd also have to implement proper background processing for resource consumption on unfocused vessels, which they seem to have some strange aversion to as well.

Bang on man. I have my own game design theory on this which I tend to phrase as "constraints breed creativity". As an example, the creativity of an oil painting is largely admired because of the skill it takes to manipulate such a constrained medium. Sure, you can just snap a photo and it will be far more realistic looking than a talented artist painting the same landscape, but does that mean it will be appreciated more as a creative work, or that it took more creativity to produce it? It's a similar concept to "necessity is the mother of invention". Without constraints, there's no need to be creative. Absolute freedom also means the absolute desire to do nothing at all, and I assume this is a big part of why people find creative games like KSP or Minecraft so engaging, and play them instead of going off and playing with CAD software instead. As an aside, this is also why I really dislike it when I see design constraints removed from the game, such as part clipping or what have you. To me, the additional freedom it provides detracts from the gameplay (and player creativity) of KSP rather than contributing to it as most people would seem to argue.

But then you need to find an author who is both technically inclined and who also wants anything to do with old aero. That may be a rather tough individual to find

As others have pointed out here, realism and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive, but I tend to favor gameplay when the two come into conflict. However, that leads to a whole other conversation about whether a person prefers challenge in their gameplay, which also aren't mutually exclusive concepts, and challenge doesn't necessarily equate to realism either I think your question may have been more accurately phrased as "do you like games to be challenging?", in which case, I'd have simply responded "yes" What's actually realistic is often highly ambiguous as well. Take this recent thing about some engines cutting off in Eve's atmosphere for example. Is that more realistic because Eve is a Venus analogue? Is it less realistic because Eve itself doesn't have the atmospheric pressure to warrant that? When you're already dealing with abstractions (such as KSP's small-scale solar system), what qualifies as "realistic" often times becomes rather ambiguous as a result. Personally, I just know that having engines cutoff in high pressure like that makes for more interesting (and challenging) gameplay, so the realism debate becomes secondary to me.

Word! Thanks for that. I immediately defined my own constant and hadn't thought to check for an existing one

They do have control (we assume) over what they decide to call the release version however.

Hehe...no, was just kidding around about arbitrary numerical evaluations. Not implying anything serious or of worth I think you may be over-analyzing my response here. All I meant is that not everyone who is complaining wanted the features in the first place, whatever the "community" wanted as a whole, which is what your OP seemed to be implying with the last couple of sentences. There's no reason to think the people complaining about features also were the same individuals asking for them, and it's not really reasonable to view all the individuals in the "community" as somehow all wanting the same things. Specifically, this: doesn't necessarily make any sense.