What is KSP trying to be?

[Tw1]

I do think they could be good features, but I don't think adding procedural solar systems and vessel automation is the solution to solving Career's problems.

,

Randomly generated solar systems could be cool- each game, you'd get unique, never before known planets that you'd really need to investigate before sending anything other than a small probe there. (That is, assuming you aren't given a lot of info, or see much of it before hand.) It would be new challenges, and experiences each time you play.

But it wouldn't address many of the underlying problems KSP already has. Without improvements to science, or new ground exploration features, it would just be a lot more of the same.

Not knowing what's there will give the player a heightened sense of intrigue, but land on that intriguing new planet, and you've still only got a few minutes worth of stuff to do. I personally, would rather see things that are more core to career mode implemented first.

I also think some sort of automation would be useful in the advanced stage of the game. At least, for transporting resources, and maybe crew.

But I don't think it's needed to make the game more about management. You can already have many flights on the go at the same time- though that would be easier if they added something like Kerbal Alarm clock.

Before career came about, I got the idea that career was meant to turn the game from a spaceship construction set, into a space program game.

But really, they just stuck some limits and added collecting points to the spaceship construction set.

It was the possibly the simplest, plainest way they could do it, really.

KSP offers a chance to experience thing few will get to do in real life. Space travel, designing rockets, exploring space, running a space program... except it falls very short when it comes to delivering on the experience of those last two.

To me, it seemed obvious that career should fill the aspects of a space program that fell outside the 'free play' of sandbox- costs, budgets, discoveries, scientific investigation, historic firsts, setting up outpost, exploring.

But apparently, all space programs do is put stuff up in space for other people, and collect rocks.

[tater]

Random solar systems was an idea I threw out to make science/exploration more of a goal (you could not check a wiki for the best altitude to aerobrake, you'd have to experiment, yourself, for example). It would also make replay more exciting (like the first time you say Jool in KSP (note that I personally have never looked at any KSP world past what I can see from a craft I have sent there, ever)). Certainly not required, but it seemed like an easy way to get that sense of exploration, certainly in replay.

I do think what people call automation (though it would also be astronauts) is actually required for a game to actually be management---not that I want a management game, but that semantics matter at some level, and if you say it's management, then I expect to manage, and most management manages labor.

Career is another word that has an implicit meaning. Whose career is it, exactly? What role is the player role-playing? Apparently all of them. Simultaneously. I think it can work without AI, but it requires more thought on the part of the game designers. Again, it's about goals (OP's basic point, IMO).

Goals:

Sandbox: Have fun by doing whatever you like in the solar system. Works pretty well, nothing to add, really.

Science: Have fun by collecting science---and unlocking tech apparently. It does less well at this for a number of reasons we could illuminate, though the goal of fun, For Science!â„¢ seems like a decent goal. I just want it more fun, less grindy. That's subjective, obviously, some might think it's perfect that you need to land on the Mun to unlock a ladder, or you have fly rockets to the other side of Kerbin for the same (even though your staff can apparently get anywhere on the planet to recover you with no effort at all, maybe I should use THAT vehicle to get all the Kerbin science I want?)

Career: Have fun by… ? Grinding for funds? Grinding for funds and science? This is the primary question OP is asking, IMO. I think we all understand it to be a way to place limitations on the player to try and create novel challenges that would not come about in sandbox, or science mode. Functionally it is little different than science, really, other than in the very early game funds can break you. That's a primary design flaw right there in career. Career is hardest for players just starting career. By far. Career has a difficulty path that gets easier, rapidly. That to me is a fundamental flaw in game design, and turns career into a sort of easy leveling game. The longest/hardest early game I have had was 6.4X with stock parts in career mode. Getting to orbit was my "boss battle" given limited parts due to funds/vab/pad, no reverts, etc. Once I got a couple tiers of the tech tree unlocked, I was already on the gravy train, and it became like any other career game I have played in KSP. Late game I don't even notice it is not stock, frankly. I can build anything I like. Heck, if I ever used the "Strategies" building at all (I never use or upgrade it) my biggest challenge would be to spend funds faster.

Tw1 says it well:

But apparently, all space programs do is put stuff up in space for other people, and collect rocks.

Edited April 16, 2015 by tater

[rcp27]

To turn the premise around, I'd like to ask, "what's this thread trying to be?"

Now that KSP is nearly at 1.0, we can see what it is, and the devs have indicated it's pretty much in the state they want to make it. So the simple answer to "what is KSP trying to be?" is "pretty much what it is now". Some posters in this thread are taking the position, "A management sim is X, and KSP is not X so it is not a management sim." More generally, you could say, "a game of genre X has [characteristics]. KSP does not have [characteristics] so it is not genre X." This is a truism. Fine, it's not genre X. But so what? There are three different modes: sandbox, science and career. Some players prefer some modes or others. For me, I play in all three, and each has its benefits and drawbacks. Different modes have different characteristics, and resemble other games to a greater or lesser extent.

If we come up with a definitive genre classification that neatly identifies KSP in a particular pigeon hole, so that we can neatly place a label on it, will that make the game more fun? Sure, it might make it easier to make arbitrary comparisons between it and other games, but so what? Will we have more fun if we can do that?

I get it that different players enjoy different modes of play. Some people find sandbox fun, others find science mode fun, while there are players who enjoy career mode. There are some players who even enjoy all three.

[Kegereneku]

Just to say Tater, in the last page you have been childish.

But since it's because of my post I have to clear thing out : I wasn't patronizing you or anyone, and I never claimed objectivity. You on the other hand...

You act as if your interpretations were facts when they are not (and overreact when called upon it, I don't need to read mind to see that.)

Beyond your fixation on my purely evocative percentage you didn't get that I was agreeing with you : KSP did not "built right" its features, because Career-mode wasn't planned from the ground up like games we would consider "normal" who are. (btw, unfortunately grinding is considered normal those days, you can't blame that KSP even its a bad aspect).

However unlike you Tater I don't consider it is because SQUAD didn't do thing like you would have liked personally. It also doesn't make your suggestion righter/better by default (subjectivity, again). Which made Fel remark about you entirely valid.

Your opinions are not what I critic now, you are entitled to feel KSP is failing at being something (even if it doesn't make you right). I'm criticizing the way you phrased them which was nowhere constructive, no more in any case than I consider this very post to be, and it's not constructive to the topic.

That's all I wanted to clear. And excuse myself if my phrasing feel itself inflammatory (you did get on my nerves).

ps : I don't expect an answer to this, don't feel obligated.

[Vanamonde]

As always, folks, please talk about other people's arguments, but not their personalities. That just makes people angry, and then threads go downhill quickly.

[Papa_Joe]

Back on topic, and to the OP's question, I offer the following:

1. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Career mode feels like the developers came up with some ideas and said this looks cool to do!

Cases in point.

- a. Windows 8. It tried to be too many things, and be a "one size fits all" OS. Microsoft learned a lot during that one.

- b. Google Glass. Google learned the hard way that it was a solution trying to find a problem.

2. The reason that Pixar was so successful, was not because of their great technology. And they have awesome technology. It was their storytelling.

3. As I said earlier, with no disrespect to Harvester and his fine team at Squad, Software engineers are NOT known for their storytelling... Insert an appropriate geek joke here, as I resemble this remark.

4. KSP is a great concept. It has awesome potential. However, the career mode lacks focus. I recommend hiring a good writer, and giving him or her the back story on the kerbals. Let him or her figure out a direction for KSP. Give the Kerbals a rich lore and the depth we all would love to see, and a reason to explore the cosmos. The Kerbals are the Stars

Edited April 17, 2015 by Papa_Joe

[monamipierrot]

This is where RANDOMNESS would help. Yeah, Squad hates it...

What we need is a Kerbol system seed. Default can be what we have, that should keep purists happy, right? The goal should be the possibility of a vast number of unique Kerbol systems to explore. Then, the answer to OP's question is "A game of space exploration!"

I don't play Minecraft that much, but my kids still do. Minecraft as a "game" in the survival mode sense is incredibly boring, particularly once you've done it once clear through. Not even slightly challenging. My kids will still have me come to see some awesome seed they just got, though, and I love to look at a particularly cool landscape, or buried desert temple even now. Looks really cool, and I'll think, "I'd build a cool fortress up there…" when I see a place like that.

KSP needs this, IMO. That won't fix Career mode, IMO, but combined with a way to disable knowing stuff you shouldn't know, the career would be much improved, IMO. Science would then have a purpose, not just for "exploration" completeness, but to allow the player to actually do things in game.

+1

Adding exploration would be a turning point in the developing of KSP.

The most boring thing of KSP is that we already know what's out there.

Think about astronomy achievements in science tech that leads to discovers of new planets and moons...

I'm a huge fun of XXXX games, but the most important X is definitely "eXplore". Also eXpand and eXploit could be worked on in KSP. I doubt eXterminate would add something good, thou

[Bill Phil]

Kerbal Space Program is many things. "Simulator", game, lego-rocket building game, etc.

But I can safely say that building launchers takes quite a bit of time. And is sometimes the most "fun" part of the game.

So, I say it's a puzzle game. The puzzle being the designs in the VAB/SPH, which are then tested and completed like a puzzle.

[rcp27]

I recommend hiring a good writer, and giving him or her the back story on the kerbals. Let him or her figure out a direction for KSP. Give the Kerbals a rich lore and the depth we all would love to see, and a reason to explore the cosmos. The Kerbals are the Stars

I don't think having a fixed story to tell would be a benefit to the game. As an open framework for running your own space program, you are free to create your own stories as you play. If you create a fixed story within the game, it will drive players in a specific direction and stifle creativity. What if the story I want to play through contradicts the built in story?

- - - Updated - - -

+1

Adding exploration would be a turning point in the developing of KSP.

The most boring thing of KSP is that we already know what's out there.

But the only reason we know what's out there is because either we've gone their ourselves in game, or we've found sources online that tell us what's there because someone else has gone there. The game itself only tells us quite a limited amount of information about what's actually out there. There is tons of exploration to be done in KSP. The problem long time players have is that they've already explored most of it.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I dont think its the lack of randomness, its that the surfaces of the worlds haven't yet been fully fleshed out. Traveling out there to find an infinitely variable collection of empty rocks doesn't do much. Finding things like volcanoes and geysers and fossil beds might though.

I also don't personally find sandbox as compelling as career. I like building from scratch and having to challenge myself to do bigger and better things with limited parts and resources. I mean eventually I complete the tech tree and have a million bazillion dollars to do whatever I want but at least I feel like I earned it. I actually think career is really close. I'm hugely interested to see the changes they've made to contracts and the tech tree. Everything I've heard sounds encouraging. The balance pass will be a big deal too. More fundamentally though I think the big two issues that remain are how do kerbal skills and experience get fleshed out, and how do the experiments themselves become challenging and rewarding exercises and not just 'click a thing in a place'. It would also be nice if the results from the experiments were themselves useful to the game--for instance barometer results could allow you to see your descent profile factoring drag. Life support, greenhouses, habitation and happiness would be a nice layer too so there was a real sense of colonization later in the game. At that point I feel like the sense of managing a space program--training recruits, conducting real science, and eventually building off-world colonies would feel really rich and complete.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Wallygator]

Just jumping in on this and to reference the original question...

I feel that KSP is now becoming a reasonable space flight simulator... with a rather simplistic and deterministic game idea stapled to its side.

[DancZer]

If we talk about the vanilla game without any mods. I would make it a sandbox game with tons of game mechanics like: reentry, remote tech(with some simple way to program probes), life system, material fatigue, etc. with mission editor. The difficulty settings should balance these game mechanics(eg. max reentry heat).

I think the whole career branch is waste of time. Of course we need some missions to show the game is what about.

I know that i can do the above with mods, which is good. But this isn't change the fact that the squad move in the wrong direction.

Edit: I left out the most important thing! MULTIPLAYER

Edit2: Currently the game of me is an empty Minecraft world without water, lava, animals, growing nature.

Edited April 20, 2015 by DancZer