Ruinsage

The point of decaying reputation is that you can't just fast forward without a penalty, negating any exploit. And balancing would not be that hard, diminished returns from several research stations near a given celestial object would fix that.

So, as we now have reputation, could we use this to get a mechanic that provides science over time? Be it from stations, bases or just scientists at base being paid each day?

You manipulated my quote, and I refuse to argue with someone who would resort to such cheap tricks.

Manipulating gravity will not allow you to move faster than the speed of light. Gravity slows down the speed of light, it doesn't speed it up. I don't know where you got this from, but it seems rather ridiculous.

"Mommy, i don't like the other kids having fun in other ways than i do" grow up

It's experience that is making it easier for you. Sure, ARM and joint stabilization made an impact, but that only really removed some problems that you had to work around, and made it more profitable to make intuitive rockets.

Also known as contracts

Maybe putting a limit on how much fuel one tank can give/receive, and making stacked tanks count as a single tank (so that a single engine can only receive so much extra fuel at a time). This would mean that asparagus would still be useful with smaller rockets, but less useful with lifting stages, making it better to use parallel staging with boosters.

Except that can't land with 10km/s of delta-V left, which is what the challenge really is. Of course you can make something with a huge delta-V, that's just slapping fuel to the atomic engine, the problem is making something with 10km/s of delta-V, capable of getting off kerbin, and then lifting that off of kerbin, with 5.5 km/s of delta-V to spare.

So, having just build a rocket capable of the criteria I stated above as the minimal demand for an interstellar round trip, I'd say my own argument is looking a little thin right about now. Then again, i did have to use an hour long ion burn for the return trip.. without which, it simply wouldn't be possible. (I used the ARM parts, and even they were struggling) I'm sure you could build an elaborate asparagus design to get the whole thing off the ground if you didn't choose to make the last stage a painfully long ion burn, but really, if the devs are going to make interstellar travel a thing, they are going to have to make new parts. That, or we will have to make some serious orbital construction to get there.

If we assume a planet identical to Kerbin, it comes out to 19.960 Km/s of delta-V, which is considerably less than what i said, i admit, but still quite insane. It's equal to lifting something into orbit, then building something that will get that into orbit, then again, and again. Have you seen the build wackjob did to get four orange fueltanks into LKO?

We already have timewarp for this. The problem with FTL is that it completely removes one of the major mechanics of the game, which is just dull.

Let's get one thing very clear You do not tell me i'm wrong about what my own point is You do not tell me that I am lying if I don't agree with you Now let me explain my point, from the start, as you quite clearly do not get it A return trip from kerbin to a different star system, if we assume you land anywhere when you get there, would require roughly 400.000 km/s of delta-V. That is an unfeasible amount. And yes, this is assuming there isn't FTL, which is a good assumption, as having FTL in ksp would be the single most misplaced and boring mechanic I could imagine. Which is why I only mentioned this in my first post. It is not my main argument. The rest is true, regardless of whether or not you have FTl. My argument is that once you go outside the solar system, what you do becomes a colonization effort, which is not within the scope of this game. Remember the old game "spore"? In the end, you had to colonize and manage the entire galaxy with a single ship, which was simply ridiculous. The entire game led up to the point where you would lead you species to colonize the galaxy, and it was a huge letdown, because the end was simply so much crap. Unless we get ships that can fly by themselves, colonization simply isn't a suitable mechanic for ksp. And this is my argument: Interstellar travel is not within the scope of KSP Now for other reasons you would want to have procedural systems (of which, I have only found one): Other campaigns Which is exactly what SQUAD has stated that they don't want, because it would divide the community. Which I agree with, and don't really see any reason to continue debating. If you want to play in another system, get a mod. And this point had not been made in this thread before my first post, so holding it against me that you have had a similar discussion about that instead of what I was trying to discuss, is moronic.

My point was not that should it be done is the same as could it be done, but rather that because there is no real reason to do it in the vanilla game, the discussion as to how to do it is pointless. I missed that the discussion had veered off to mainly discussing how one might implement a procedural solar system/galaxy, and instead made my comment based on the title of the discussion (the problem with a procedural galaxy). I still maintain that SQUAD should not make a procedural solar system with a single seed that is used in vanilla, because there would be no reason to, other than to make it easier for modders. They would not be able to modify the solar system without having to do some rather complicated calculations (as opposed to simply changing the object in question), which would slow progress considerably whenever they worked on biomes, landscape, new objects, new science parts and so on. Not worth it for making it easier to mod.

How is that a separate issue? That's like saying we should be able to mine for diamonds on the bottom of the ocean, without anything to use the diamonds for? Sure, being able to say "I mined diamonds on the bottom of the ocean" might be nice, but if you have nothing to use them for, then what is the point? Interstellar travel is such a vast step up from interplanetary travel that they simply don't belong in the same game. Saying that the system could be used for enabling people to make a procedural starting solar system is nice and all, but if SQUAD wants people to play in the same system, as to not divide the community, then why would you need it? People that want to play in other solar systems can install mods because that is exactly what mods are for, people who wants to play the game in a non-vanilla way.

The problem with interstellar travel is that it's unfeasible to do a return trip, which would make it the kerbal colonizing program instead of the kerbal space program. And once you reach that scale, piloting everything by yourself becomes impractical.

This is becoming one person insisting that their suggestion is good, and a bunch of people trying to convince him that he is wrong. The horse is dead and beaten, and I wash my hands of this But let this be said: I am all in favor of a much more complicated KSP, but I don't want that to come at the expense of new players who haven't played orbiter before they played this. If parts should be upgradeable, it should come in a very different way than what is presented here

And this is essentially what this suggestion boils down to: Ways to make career more tedious for experienced players. And that's why I don't support it. Kegereneku, if you really think career doesn't progress in the right tempo, ask yourself this: When you learned the game for the first time, did you go from achieving low kerbin orbit to landing on the moon, or did you fly around in the kerbin SOI a few times before you attempted to land on the moon? Did you go from landing at the moon to landing at minmus, or did you go straight for a laythe return trip? I'm betting you took everything in little steps, even if you had everything available to you in sandbox (I did, and i expect that most others did as well), so making it harder to skip those steps makes no sense, as the knowledge of how to do it is the only real barrier, which is how it should be. The only thing that would result from your suggestion as it is right now, is that the game would be annoying when you started a new career, because the grind would be even worse, and even more tedious, without really adding anything to new players

The reason why the larger parts are better is that you would only need to use the small parts to get to places within the SOI of kerbin. As soon as you attempt to go to another planet, you need large parts, simply because you need so much delta-V. And yes, it's possible to use asparagus designs with small parts and still get to duna, but the game is not going to be balanced for asparagus. How so? You start with a small and somewhat inefficient engine, then you unlock parachutes, electricity and the like. Then you get more efficient and complicated parts. That's pretty much how technology evolves (or at close to it as we can get without making the game too complicated for new players) Just because there is a tutorial doesn't mean that you should throw new players into the deep end immediately after they complete it. The whole point of a tech tree is to introduce new parts a few at a time as they become necessary. Not true, and if this is another "the new parts are too OP thread, then go whine somewhere else. The more efficient parts will be more expensive, and that will balance for efficiency. That's a load of crap. You don't get stuck with the current tech tree, and if you do then you need to improve. Just because you want docking ports earlier isn't the same as not getting the parts you need. And yes, you can skip the steps of the actual space programs, if you know how to do it, but new players are unlikely to, as they are slowly learning how to do things. Of course starting with the knowledge to get to duna will make it easy to skip some steps, you can't balance for that, and trying to is moronic. Which is why probes get's much less science. Giving the new player access to a lot more technology with the addition of labeling them with efficiency upgrades will make the game a lot more complex and overwhelming for new players, not "barely increase the difficulty" I also don't see a problem with that. if you want to balance the early game for experienced players, then you are the one that is a moron.

Making procedural planets would just be the exact same as the planets we have right now, as the skills you need to get there and land would be the same as what you have right now. Sure, you would see more different planets, but getting back would be crap. You would have to calculate how much delta-V you would need every time instead of looking it up, including drag from the atmosphere, along with the best time to do interplanetary transfers, both ways. The learning slope would be too high for most players, and would alienate them from the game. Those who want to do it this way can use mods.

I just achieved orbit (landed it too) with nothing unlocked, so if you are really struggling with this, you need to play some of the tutorials.

So you your suggestion for it being too hard to reach orbit early career is to make the parts worse at first.. I can't figure out of you want to make the game harder or easier. You say it's hard to send "meaningful cargo*" into orbit early career, but want to implement something that in your own words means that "Reaching orbit would be slightly harder at first". If you can reach laythe with a manned mission in sandbox but can't reach orbit in career, then you have been spending too much time over-engineering every launch. And you have completely misunderstood difficulty curves. 1: they should not be linear, that would be overwhelming at first and boring at the end. 2: they go the other way, things are not the most difficult at first (again, you seem to have spend too much time over-engineering in sandbox, and now struggle with somewhat basic trials as you are used to throw mainsail asparagus at the problem), but are at the end. Like this: * I'd like to see what "meaningful cargo" is to you, I don't really send massive ships in orbit early in the game. Maybe you reach too high, the game is meant to take you through the "space program" with roughly the same steps as in real life. A.k.a. do a flyby before you land on the moon.

So you're saying that achieving orbit in the career mode is harder than doing a return mission to laythe in sandbox? That's just plain wrong. I agree that the tech tree should be overhauled, but not the way you suggest

I hear he likes duna bars

Contracts are next on squads to do list, and Are basically going to be like this, so no need for a new playmode