How complex will Ksp get? (in terms of features and stuff)

[quasarrgames]

Just wondering how complex you think KSP will become, in terms of new features and content for the game? Do you think that we will get a spore-magnitude galaxy to explore, or do you think that the game's expanse will stay as it is forever? Do you think that we will get far-future warp drives, or will ion engines, nukes, and RAPIERs always be the pinnacle of technology? do you think that potato computers will be able to handle 10000-part ships, or will performance and RAM usage always be the same?

What about with mods? Do you think the modding community will ever create a galaxy? I'd guess they will, but i'm not a modder, so i don't know.

Anyways, what do you think?

- - - Updated - - -

OH NO I SUBMITTED IT ALREADY I CANT POST A POLL OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Ringotuna]

There may be new planets and futuristic parts but I doubt they would be nice as system requirements are most likely not going to change. There might be better add-on support for more complex plugins and stuff but then there probably won't be any genuine mod makers left to make them. There could be more realistic aspects to the game but then we wouldn't get them as Squad would have to deduct realism for that specific age group who can't help but use the infiniglider exploit to get spaceplanes into orbit.

So in my opinion I think the game is going to be far from complex. The least intuitive feature we'll get would be atmospheric reentry.

[Kegereneku]

Complexity is a limitless scale so I can't answer "how much".

Also complexity does not represent the quality of a game, it can be invisible to us, user, like quaternion equations used to keep track of a spacecraft vectors while avoiding "divide by zero" error that you didn't knew could happen.

But to give an order of ideas : Technology speaking KSP is taking a rocketpunk approach (70s looking technology efficient like 2100 technology but without the auto-pilot and robotic)

Reentry heat was likely to happen, but it needed first a overhaul aerodynamic that took occlusion into account.

Life-support would be tricky and made "failsafe", KSP is made so you need to timewarp a LOT and it would be badform for another mission to die because you forgot to launch supply and or couldn't bring them back.

More solar system was unlikely to begin because of how little there is to do on each planets aside overcoming their basic few parameters : gravity, size, atmospheric pressure. It mean that there is only so much planet you can make before you start getting bored or go into unrealistic stuff.

Avoiding the boredoom some would think KSP would "naturally evolve" to a RPG/strategy game where you have to install base and colony, mine and sell stuff. Unfortunately such feature would require a completely different game-design and depict a unrealistic economy of space (in short : the only thing worth bringing back are asteroid already coming to you) as well as auto-pilot and overpowered engine to keep it from becoming a painfully tedious space-truck simulator.

As for engine's power, I think the Dev will first try to balance KSP's Career-mode, so the "best engine ever" will likely have the power to do manned mission to Jool's moons or beyond without requiring a painfully big rocket, be it on the launch-pad or assembled in space. Myself I kind of hope for 2.5 fusion engine with heat radiator.

Lastly I would like to call back that KSP WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A SIMULATOR and I kind of wish some guys stopped lying blatantly that "more realistic anything" would make the game easier and more interesting for everyone when they are just catering to what they hope to find interesting.

Although KSP can't be perfect already, you do not add complexity for the sake of complexity, in fact there's a saying : "the best solution to a problem is always the easiest one". Easiest here, being creating intuitive features over realistic ones. (cause I can assure you that reality isn't intuitive).

So in short : "KSP will be as complex as it need to be"

[John FX]

To counter one of your points, it is fairly intuitive that a thin 'rocket shaped' rocket will have less drag than a flat pancake style rocket and that fins at the back, like a dart, would make that rocket more stable.

A realistic aero model enables both of those features and launching in FAR *is* actually easier than in stock. You just set full throttle, stage, and tip over a bit just after launch then let go of the controls and stop thrusting once your Ap is the one you want.

It can't get any easier than that without an autopilot.

Correctly applied ISP won't make the game harder or easier either, it will just change the amount of thrust instead of the amount of fuel used.

Many of the features that make the game more realistic won't change the complexity or difficulty but they will make the game more fun for those who care about that sort of thing and notice the difference.

Obviously reentry heat will make the game harder but that's fine, the game is for people who can handle a little difficulty (and I'm pretty sure there will be an option to either turn it off or turn it down for an 'easy mode')

[Flixxbeatz]

It was actually way too complex already compared to when it was released, and most probably it'll be more complex as time pass by.