Simplicity vs Complexity

[jarmund]

I for one love KSP for its complexitiy. I find that "simple" games bore me after not long. I've heard people giving KSP some flak because of the steep learning curve, but i consider this one of its strengths. Where do you stand on this in KSPs case? Should it be simpler, more complex, or is squad managing to balance this just right for the most part?

EDIT:

By complexity, i don't necessarily mean "Harder" or "More realistic". I mean, i want to be able to choose how much my kerbals weigh and have that count towards the craft mass, I want to have cities nearby that i can crash into to ruin the public opinion of me, i want the HR department to give me tough choices about personell, and i want the engineers to perform sub-par if not provided with coffee. Basically, more stuff that i can (but don't have to) tune and tweak as i please.

Edited March 22, 2015 by jarmund
clarification

[Superfluous J]

That is too broad a question for me with too specific of answers, but I answered "It's just right" because I think it's closer to right than wrong.

Busy work should be more simple. Fun stuff should be more complex. For example, I would like ISRU to be a bit more complex than Karbonite is now, but I don't want to have to drill 18 separate things to make rocket fuel. I also don't want pumping fuel around my ship to involve opening and closing valves manually and/or monitoring gauges lest something blow up.

Complexity for its own sake is as bad as simplicity for its own sake (And realism for its own sake). It's all about what's fun, challenging, and interesting for the player.

[jarmund]

That is too broad a question for me with too specific of answers, but I answered "It's just right" because I think it's closer to right than wrong.

Busy work should be more simple. Fun stuff should be more complex. For example, I would like ISRU to be a bit more complex than Karbonite is now, but I don't want to have to drill 18 separate things to make rocket fuel. I also don't want pumping fuel around my ship to involve opening and closing valves manually and/or monitoring gauges lest something blow up.

Complexity for its own sake is as bad as simplicity for its own sake (And realism for its own sake). It's all about what's fun, challenging, and interesting for the player.

I agree with you. That's why I edited in that short line about having the ability to, but not being required to, do more of the detailed adjustments and tweaks. I've always liked the expression "simplicity works", so tedious things should be made simple, fun stuff should be just as simple, but with the addition of allowing for very low level stuff.

While i do agree with "It's more right than wrong" I'm leaning towards adding complexity.

- Way back when i played it, i liked Anarchy Online for its implant system that could take days to plan and upgrade.

- Hearts of Iron will always be a favourite when it comes to strategy games.

Edited March 22, 2015 by jarmund

[cantab]

I think it's about right. Maybe some of the excessively picky part testing contracts should be simplified. Maybe some more complex science experiments should be added, for example ones requiring multiple craft with the science equipment like a seismometer network or a pair of gravimetry satellites.

[Thomas988]

I like games that make you "think," and although KSP is a great example of this, I would love to see more complexity.

Space Engine is another game that makes me "think." Over the months of playing Space Engine, I've learned every classification of planets and moon that's possible, the physics and interactions between celestial bodies, and even how to do anything in the extremely glitchy spaceflight mode. Really, I take information from the game and use that new knowledge to further infer other events in the game. Want to travel from one side of a distant solar system to the other, and then over there land on a tiny planet's moon? Here I will use everything I know about the spaceflight physics to infer the best path and method of travel.

KSP already does this marvellously. With many parts being unique, you learn how each one of them acts and behaves with physics and gameplay. Much like the previous example, I will what I have learned to build the most steady, flyable, effective, and practical rocket.

I love learning how games work and using that to my advantage because it is such a more rich experience, especially in a game such as KSP where the knowledge you gain is actually useful in real life. Of course, real life spaceflight is more complex than what is possible in KSP. So a more complex KSP (given the complexity would be in the direction of realism, which is what I would like) would provide all the more to learn about real life spaceflight.

Did this essay make sense, guys? I'm not too sure if this is the most well-written thing I've ever jotted down.

[pxi]

I tend towards the 'more complex' end, however I think KSP so far has done a fantastic job making a complex task relatively accessable. Accordingly, I've voted It's just right.

I've watched many newcomers streaming the game. The sense of jubilation I see when they land on the mun for the first time, is something I don't see when someone beats a boss in some other game. They seem to see it as a genuine accomplishment. Were KSP simplified too much, I feel this would be lost.

Where I would want more complexity would be in late to end-game content - there's already enough challenge in the early to mid-game, but once you've mastered docking, landing on other bodies, and interplanetary transfers, the challenge drops off. At this point, for me, it has become a matter of trying to do things in a more modular fashion, trying to do things in a more efficient way, and throwing in as many mods as I can (remotetech, life support etc.) to increase the number of things I need to take care of for a successful mission.

I would want more reasons to revisit a body. I feel science could be expanded in a way that mirrors real life - ie one discovery begats more questions, that need further experiments, which in turn bring further questions which need answers. The current science instruments, while good for what they do, are not really set up for that. Perhaps, a procedural set of 'science packages' that unlock for particular planets / biomes would accomplish some of what I'm describing, without requiring too much work.

[Flixxbeatz]

Needs to be a little complex, but not to the point that even the smallest details matter.

[Azimech]

It doesn't have to be about "need".

But i'd like a game where you start with a very basic, low thrust/low reliability/high mass/high fuel consumption jet engine, that the user can develop by spending time and effort in search of the right geometry, clearances, materials etc. Or just spend A LOT OF money to buy an uprated version. Same with rocket engines.

KSP can be so much more an educational tool than it is now, especially in the engineering department. More and more people are less interested in stacking a rocket engine to a tank.

How about designing turbopumps, valves, bell shapes ... test them and see what kind of ISP/TWR you get out of it. Change a few parameters, test again. If all those kids start with these engineering challenges early, you'll see what kind of wonderful new engines the future will have!

For example, look at my stock turboshaft engines. From the first model, i've increased thrust per blower from 7kN to 27kN, and max rpm from 10rad/s to 33rad/s, in 6 weeks time!

[jarmund]

...

How about designing turbopumps, valves, bell shapes ... test them and see what kind of ISP/TWR you get out of it. Change a few parameters, test again. If all those kids start with these engineering challenges early, you'll see what kind of wonderful new engines the future will have!

...

I was actually thinking of something similar - How awesome it would be to have an engine designer where you could really get into the details with engine design to determine cooling method, bell shape, fuel pressure, fuel mix, and all that good stuff. You get to tweak each individual part to see what it does to thrust, weight, Isp, heat tolerance, and cost real time. Save it, and you get that part in the VAB. But for those not wanting to tamper with this part of the game, you still have the stock engines.

[Azimech]

Yes. Also, hydraulics, generators/alternators, real electric motors, peltier elements, proximity sensors, pressure sensors/switches, fluid computers (you can have transistors working with hydraulics, did you know that?)

[Torquemadus]

I would like ISRU to be a bit more complex than Karbonite is now, but I don't want to have to drill 18 separate things to make rocket fuel.

This is the main area where I'd like a little more complexity for the sake of realism. Karbonite seems to me to be an oversimplification IMO.

IRL plans for missions to the Moon and Mars include utilisation of local resources such as oxygen, water, and carbon dioxide. These would be used to manufacture fuel and other consumables, which saves the cost of having to haul them from Earth. For example, on the Moon, oxygen can be obtained from Lunar rocks, while water is known to exist in shadowed craters at the poles. On Mars, hydrogen feedstock, either imported from Earth or electrolyzed from local water, can be combined with carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere in a Sabatier reactor to produce Methane/Oxygen rocket fuel.

Use of local resources is an interesting aspect of IRL mission planning and would be interesting to depict in KSP. I don't think that it would have to be terribly complex or cumbersome, as long as you're only interested in making propellants.

If life support were added to the game in a future update, then obtaining oxygen and water would be of importance for this purpose too.

[G'th]

More complex, but as others have stated, in one particular area. Science.

The gathering and processing of science should, I think, require a bit more effort than simply clicking buttons in X location. For instance, something along the lines of the geology mod that was in development for a bit, where you actually had to search for surface samples and they'd have certain levels of quality (Which could be further enhanced by having the level of your scientist kerbals play into it). And then it could be further indepth by requiring a certain number of samples of varying quality in a given biome to retrieve the full science value. Samples could also take time to actually process back on Kerbin depending on their quality, which would also be good for giving the Mobile Lab more of a point all around.

But in order to really justify it along those lines, there'd also have to be a reward for overcoming that kind of a hurdle, particularly if X experiment requires a lot of input. What could be done is to have it split where you can do more work for a bigger payoff in the long term (IE, look for higher quality samples to bring back rather than a mix from high to low) or get a smaller short term payoff that will require less work for a more immediate return (IE, a lot of lower quality samples that will be processed more quickly). Both options could be enhanced by the MSL (which would, I think, be a bit higher up on the tech tree), where you'd get more science from the quicker option, and more immediate science from the slower option.

This idea extended to all of the experiment options (also, stockify Dmagic already!) wouldn't be overly complex, and would extend activities like landing on the Mun by a bit without it being arbitrary.

[Daze]

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't have to be about "need".

But i'd like a game where you start with a very basic, low thrust/low reliability/high mass/high fuel consumption jet engine, that the user can develop by spending time and effort in search of the right geometry, clearances, materials etc. Or just spend A LOT OF money to buy an uprated version. Same with rocket engines.

KSP can be so much more an educational tool than it is now, especially in the engineering department. More and more people are less interested in stacking a rocket engine to a tank.

How about designing turbopumps, valves, bell shapes ... test them and see what kind of ISP/TWR you get out of it. Change a few parameters, test again. If all those kids start with these engineering challenges early, you'll see what kind of wonderful new engines the future will have!

For example, look at my stock turboshaft engines. From the first model, i've increased thrust per blower from 7kN to 27kN, and max rpm from 10rad/s to 33rad/s, in 6 weeks time!

If i ever seee this in KSP + geometry of SRB i will be cry of joy

[Tex]

I vote for "Just right" because while the game is quite simple in terms of what you can do in it, the learning curve is still quite steep and encompasses many aspects that are very difficult and challenging to overcome and master. I'm still learning stuff two years in.

[Robotengineer]

I would like to see it become a bit more complex on the building side. IMO, fuels need to be diversified, not quite real fuels, but have LqdHydrogen/Lox analogue, something akin to Kerosene/Lox, something like Aerozine/NTO or UDMH/NTO, and a Hydrazine alike fuel.

--updated--

It doesn't have to be about "need".

But i'd like a game where you start with a very basic, low thrust/low reliability/high mass/high fuel consumption jet engine, that the user can develop by spending time and effort in search of the right geometry, clearances, materials etc. Or just spend A LOT OF money to buy an uprated version. Same with rocket engines.

KSP can be so much more an educational tool than it is now, especially in the engineering department. More and more people are less interested in stacking a rocket engine to a tank.

How about designing turbopumps, valves, bell shapes ... test them and see what kind of ISP/TWR you get out of it. Change a few parameters, test again. If all those kids start with these engineering challenges early, you'll see what kind of wonderful new engines the future will have!

For example, look at my stock turboshaft engines. From the first model, i've increased thrust per blower from 7kN to 27kN, and max rpm from 10rad/s to 33rad/s, in 6 weeks time!

+1 for this idea.

[jarmund]

... (you can have transistors working with hydraulics, did you know that?)

Yup, it's called a butterfly valve, if i'm not mistaken. When i was in the oil and gas industry ages ago, i got the impression that most electronic components has a hydraulic equivalent. Diode -> One way valve. Resistor -> Flow reduction valve. Capacitor -> Accumulator, etc.

[biohazard15]

Considering the upcoming features (atmosphere, reentry heat etc) - it's just about right.

[Dazpoet]

I think the glory of this game is that I can add complexity to my hearts content with mods while the core game maintains a "just right" level, atleast considering the features announced for 1.0.

I think stuff like life support, advanced enginechoices and similar things in the core game might alienate some part of the playerbase and for those advanced users that want it there are mods like TAC-LS, RO with RealFuels etc.

[tater]

I'd like actual exploration. Meaning that I'd like to see the planets aside from Kerbin randomized in orbit, mass, atmosphere, etc. You'd start the game knowing what you should know from Kerbin, nothing else. You'd need to send probes, etc to know what you were dealing with.

That at would be a good layer of complexity that is also good gameplay.

[Van Disaster]

I'm going to substitute "detailed" for "complex", I think. Currently it's not *quite* detailed enough; jet engines are a reasonable example, you can just stuff an engine on what would actually be the tailpipe of the entire jet, drop some intakes randomly and off you go. Smaller planes are generally designed around the engine and large ones have to give some thought to how the engines are mounted, it'd be nice if there was at least a little reflection of that. I have some vague design of a modular system that involves seperate intake/core/output devices which between them can make a jet engine - that sort of thing would fit the tech tree quite well, in fact, you can approximate all sorts of jet engines with surprisingly few different components. Doing the same for rocket engines wouldn't be a big step either.

Science is the same - planting flags & putting a finger in the ground to take a sample is not really entertaining, especially when you've made the effort to get to somewhere. Having experiments that actually *need* a base because they're complicated/multistage and time consuming would drive so much gameplay it'd be another game on top, almost; you'd need ISRU or at least a good logistics chain, ground structures and connections, the works. If you had to pay more attention to the make-up of the planet involved and change your solution to match - perhaps including having to send robot scout probes - rather than just plopping the same science base down everywhere that'd be even better.

I don't want it to be Orbiter though - if I wanted something like that then I'd just play Orbiter.

[FlyingPete]

I want the engineers to perform sub-par if not provided with coffee.

That could be a good option for a simple life-support mechanic. If the crew aren't kept regularly supplied with food, not food, coffee etc they start to lose their experience-based skills. So scientists don't give as good results, engineers are too hungry/tired to fix wheels, and pilots get sloppy and can't keep the ship pointed at the target.

[merendel]

It doesn't have to be about "need".

But i'd like a game where you start with a very basic, low thrust/low reliability/high mass/high fuel consumption jet engine, that the user can develop by spending time and effort in search of the right geometry, clearances, materials etc. Or just spend A LOT OF money to buy an uprated version. Same with rocket engines.

KSP can be so much more an educational tool than it is now, especially in the engineering department. More and more people are less interested in stacking a rocket engine to a tank.

How about designing turbopumps, valves, bell shapes ... test them and see what kind of ISP/TWR you get out of it. Change a few parameters, test again. If all those kids start with these engineering challenges early, you'll see what kind of wonderful new engines the future will have!

For example, look at my stock turboshaft engines. From the first model, i've increased thrust per blower from 7kN to 27kN, and max rpm from 10rad/s to 33rad/s, in 6 weeks time!

Personaly I think thats a bit beyond the scope of what KSP is intended to be at this time. However that would be exelent fodder for an expansion pack. I think KSP is fine as is for what its trying to be, a fun but educational game thats able to teach a fair bit about orbital mechanics. Alot of the construction of the rockets is abstracted because you really dont need to know everything about how a rocket works to slap togeather stock parts and putter around a digital solar system. I could easily see squad makeing a second game that focuses more on the engineering aspects that can mesh seamlessly with KSP however. IF you like designing the rocket moters themselves you can tinker in the new game/expansion and then import your design into KSP and try to fly it. IF someone does not want to futz with all that and just fly starships around and build stations they just stick with the base game.

Personaly I wouldnt mind paying for a game/expansion like that. It would add alot to KSP but I already feel bad about how much I've goten out of the game for such a low pricetag as it is. IT would be far more worthy a concept for a paied expansion/DLC than some of the crap the big studios push on their customers.

[cantab]

Yeah, I agreed the game could stand some more fuels. I'd be happy with

Cryogenic Fuel and Cryogenic Oxidizer. Run efficient engines, but boil off over time. LV-N's use just cryogenic fuel.

Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer. Like what we have now.

Jet fuel. Just for jets.

Monoprop and xenon, of course.

[keeper]

It scares me to think this game could be simpler.

In parts there should be a bit more complexity, i especially like what they did to the VAB in .9, but the administrative building and XP system is a bit lacking.

I am currently doing simple stuff collecting science from the mun, and for some reason having a real hard time in career mode. It is farely simple, but i am making a song and a dance over everything i am making things so damn complicated

[klgraham1013]

Life support in some manner needs to be stock. It represents a real world struggle in space travel and adds necessary time based mechanics which are very much missing from the game as is.