What do you guys/gals really want from this game?

[treejoe4]

a working re entry system

[sal_vager]

I better say something before we just get demands for realistic science, which would just be a dull grind of interest to a select few in my opinion.

Kerbal science should be fun, there should be cool things to find using the science gizmos, such as easter eggs.

The science gizmos themselves should be 3D widgets with knobs and buttons so you can play with them to get a result.

There would still need to be a mechanic to unlock tech tree nodes, but rather than just numbers, nodes could also have some experiment pre-requisites such as an atmosphere scan of Duna before being able to unlock a higher tier aircraft parts node.

I do however feel this thread has strayed from the wording of the title, it's become just another shopping list of feature players want to see in KSP, not what players want from KSP.

What I want from KSP is a cartoony game with a nod to real physics, so I can have fun and learn a bit about orbital mechanics, and KSP does that well enough already.

Re-entry systems and other things are just extras, not really needed.

Edited May 12, 2015 by sal_vager

[adinfinitum]

Very interesting perspective Razark

... Or just a simple discovery system where you know jack squat about a planet until you actually conduct experiments on it (although i think this would still require clicky incrementation) ? Or maybe something i haven't thought of? I'd like to know.

I'm not sure how he'd like it, but I would definitely like it more discovery based. I think they've taken a step in the right direction with the resource mechanics, where you get general and then more precise information after running the scanners. Something I'd really like to see would be aerobraking/aerocapture predictions, where using the barometer on a planet lets you get a rough prediction, using the thermometer refines it, and then finally using the atmosphere analyzer makes it exact.

[problemecium]

I'm just gonna chime in here and say "fun".

'Nuff said? KSP is fun. I love KSP because it is fun, and really all I want out of it is fun.

[EnDSchultz]

Would it be too crass of me to say I want 64 bit before anything else? As of 1.0, the game's memory footprint has become so large that it doesn't take very many mods at all to make it crash frequently from OOM. Before we talk about adding new stuff (especially beautification like detailed planets to make surface exploration more interesting) this elephant in the room needs to be addressed. Sooner or later.

[Brotoro]

What I want from Kerbal Space Program is to experience the dream of exploring outer space...where real-life failed me.

Most important for me is that KSP does rocketry and orbital mechanics right. It's OK to simplify things to make it easier for people to play (it's a game, you know). KSP does well here...the rockets follow the rocket equation, orbits work well (albeit with patched conics instead of n-body). AND I get to be creative building spacecraft and aircraft and rovers to solve the engineering problems encountered in real space exploration. I'd like it if KSP did other science as realistically as possible...but I understand that there will be simplifications of reality for reasons of gameplay.

[razark]

However, i've heard this argument time and time again, but i've never seen any real ideas as to how to make science good. What is it that would make science everything you wanted it to be?

I don't know. The minigame idea isn't the answer, though. I think that sort of mechanic would pull the player too far out of what KSP is, a building and flying game. It doesn't need a completely different game added to it. See Sid Meir's "Covert Action Rule".

There are two mods that I think might point out some good directions to investigate.

Station Science

and

TestFlight

The common factors I see between them are time and replayability.

Time:

In Station Science, you launch an experiment, and start it running. After a while, the experiment is completed, and you can return it for the science gain. For TestFlight, the time factor is the time taken to fly missions. In both of them, it's not a "get there, click a button, get back, science done" experience. It captures the idea that effort goes into gaining the science, even after you've gotten the experiment to it's location.

Replayability:

Station Science gives you multiple experiments. If you build a station, you can launch an experiment, and return it. Later, you can launch a different experiment, and get science from that one. While you can launch all the experiments at once, it spreads out the available experiments in the Tech Tree, as well as the modules needed to run them. This lets you expand a station and gives it some purpose to keep it around beyond fulfilling a contract or getting all the science at once and forget about the biome from now on.

TestFlight gives parts a chance to fail. Each flight collects data on active parts, which leads to a lessened chance of failure for those parts on later flights. The more you use engine type A, the more confidence you have that engine type A will work on later flights. Failure leads to knowledge, which leads to better chance of success. It also means that you might have to modify your plans, and consider contingency options for each mission. Mun Landing Mission 5 isn't going to be an exact carbon-copy of Missions 1-4. Each mission can vary from the others. Gemini 8 and Apollo 13 had some valuable lessons.

Another commonality I've thought of is that they both involve player interaction. You have to deal with failure and think about what parts are viable with TestFlight. With Station Science, you need to build a station, bring the experiments, and then expand the station as new science modules become available.

I know that these aren't going to be everyone's preferred methods of playing the game. I'm just trying to think of some way that I'd like to see the science system improved without turning it into a minigame that doesn't fit into the KSP concept. As was said earlier, opening up the game to allow mods more options would be the best way for all of us to see the KSP we want.

[OddFunction]

Wants that are achieveable:

-Incentives to build and mantain manned space stations. Big ones.

-More varied terrain

Wants that are not achieveable:

-Oxygen generation and management for kerbalnauts

-Food and water management for kerbalnauts

-More kerbalnaut animations including things for kerbals to do

Thats my dreamlist

[tntristan12]

The number one thing I want these days is a science system overhaul! It bothers me so, so very much that I can take a "mystery goo" reading in LKO, then return my sample for maximum science which involves de-orbiting it, subjecting the sample to high G, heat, temperature, and a changing atmospheric composition, only to have the sample remain in the exact same condition it was in when I had it in orbit. *shudder* Seriously, the science system could be so much better than it is without necessarily being grindy (which is another problem the game already has that totally needs to be addressed).

After that, I want immersion! I want little quality of life and aesthetic fixes that allow things like clouds, kerbals that can experience acceleration from rotating rings, persistent rotation rate during timewarp, sound that tapers off as you jet off into the atmosphere, things like that. This game has so much potential to be a mind-blowing, life-altering experience, and to some degree it is, but little things like that make the game feel a lot more like a hodge-podge collection of disparate parts than a gelling, cohesive whole.

[Thomas988]

Interesting . Might i ask why? for the sake of making the game harder or more realistic?

Both, but more realistic. I find getting into orbit way too easy now, and I'd like the option to up the scale of the solar system. Plus, realistic terrain would make for much more rich exploration. In Space Engine, with the best terrain you will ever see in any video game ever, every little bit of land could be explored for hours on end.

[Sky_walker]

• Interesting terrain features - canyons, volcanoes, geysers, caves etc. - also different types of terrain should affect your spacecraft. For example ice should be slippery, moon dust could add bit of additional resistance when driving, minimus plains could shimmer when looking towards the sun, surface of Gilly could create a clouds of dust when thrust from engines would it it, etc. etc.
  
• Interesting atmospheric features - some planets should be hot causing issues with heat management, some planets should have acidic atmosphere, slowly damaging your ship until it explodes if you won't get out from there, some planets should have sand storms, some planets should have lightning storms, auroras, etc.
  
• Science that actually requires you to do something, not just click few times in one biome (eg. impactors, drilling, long-term monitoring, taking rocks (with mass) and returning them home, make some samples very fragile (maximum G force of 3 or it's destroyed), make other experiments require heavy rockets (eg. space telescopes or deep underground drills), etc. etc. don't be afraid of adding experiments with contrary requirements to each other and don't be afraid of adding experiments where Kerbal has to do something, or your vehicle has to fly on a specific trajectory for specific amount of time). Science should be a part of the challenge in both: your actions and designing spacecrafts specifically for experiments. Game shouldn't actively encourage you to stack as many scientific modules at the same time as possible, it should give you a mission with a purpose and challenge.
  
• Every existing type of vehicle in the game should have a role to fulfill. Right now you can do everything with a single ship, that never should be the case. If we have rovers - there should be an experiments and equipment designed specifically for them. If we have bases - they should be an important part of exploring other worlds. If we have satellites - they should fulfill some role in the game, such as passing signal from other planets back to KSC or be used as a space telescopes. And so on, and so on.
  
• Life support. Absolutely mandatory addition IMHO to make any sense out of multiple elements in the game that don't really "tick". We have unmanned probes, but sending them to interplanetary missions has by far more disadvantages than advantages. We have bases and no reason to use them while they could be a great place for farming offworld food. We are sending gigantic interplanetary missions and our only real concern is fuel... etc. etc.
  
• Research tree should be rebalanced to include more nodes, split in more logical order. I'm fine with starting manned, but we really could use some more varied paths. Researching an entire tree should require more science - or you should get less science from doing stuff on Kerbin and it's orbit - in general game should strongly encourage players to go visit both moons and make an interplanetary flight. Also earlier suggestion with making science an actual activity would really help in making it feel less like a grind and more like a rewarding progress encouraging you to move further and push the frontier.
  
• KSP is supposed to be a teaching tool so it should have few things fixed not to teach children a wrong science:
  
  • I_sp should affect thrust, not fuel consumption
    
  • Jet engines are totally screwed in a current state of things. They require major overhaul to make them even remotely close to making sense and not teaching people things like building rockets with jet engines. Farram already went through describing various issues with KSP implementation of them, so feel free to contact him if needed.
    
  • Nuclear engines need to have some of their real flaws implemented, I'd especially suggest adding permanent radioactive contamination when crashing engine into the ground (I could live with a green glow, and I guess it wouldn't have to kill kerbals (there's a lot of opposition against that) - if you want something funny you could make them turn brown or start glowing themselves)
    
  • Reentry heating should be a real danger, as of 1.0.2 it could be not there at all and few people could actually tell the difference
    
  • Heat management should be a thing - add radiators, make me account for heat in large space stations of manned crafts going closer to the sun, make me waste more energy on heating the crew while in a shadow of the planet, or going far away from the sun, etc. Sending kerbals into extreme envoirements should be extraordinary challenge, not just "remember to take more fuel than when landing on a Mun" like it is now. Remark: there should be tools showing you predicted radiator requirements, and flying manned should have higher requirements than unmanned.
    
  • Lack of life support. I can't stress enough how big game-changer adding it would be in a terms of what people learn about difficulties of space travel. Added difficulty curve can be offsetted by putting enough supplies on a manned pods to easily make a trip to Minimus and back without being worried about food. We also should have a display with estimated supply of food in days (much like we should have a display with estimated Delta-v).
    

  [*]Not a wrong science, but other things that would greatly contribute to the learning factor of a game:

  • Add axial tilt for at least few planets.
    
  • Add second KSC at a different latitude (let people choose it at the beginning of a game?) to teach people what difficulties are involved in launching from locations like Plesetsk Cosmodrome
    
  • Add some more space objects in. Eg. Trojans, Greeks, Comets (including these on highly elliptical orbits similar to Halley's Comet), few Oort cloud asteroids, or asteroids with highly elliptical orbits... possibly also a Sedna equivalent - extremely challenging orbit, but you could add some very unique and exotic terrain features there to make visiting it very rewarding. Also note that not all of the asteroids need to have the same density - they actually should vary a lot and provide some unique challenges. This entire point would both: teach people about existing objects in the solar system and provide lots of additional challenges for long-time players.
    
  • Add Kerbal engineer. It will teach people some fundamental terms, such as Delta-v, but also help learning the game (as you can instantly observe how additional fuel tanks affect your TWR and ÃŽâ€v)
    

  [*]Some optional, less important additions:

  • Upsize Kerbin to more realistic size (perhaps not 1:1 earth, but, say, 80% or so would start making sense) - it'd help resolving some of the issues like soapy atmosphere, lacking dangers of reentry heating, etc. etc. Why devs are struggling with many things related to game balance is precisely because fundamentals are wrong, so simply taking realistic values and putting them into the game isn't even an option. Currently Kerbin has higher density than any known element, this really doesn't help with anything.
    
  • Make chutes more realistic. Key suggestions: Gradual deployment - not only more realistic, but also helps limiting shock when deployed; make it impossible for chutes to overlap - this should not be a thing; half-deployed normal chutes should be different from drag chutes; chutes shouldn't randomly disappear
    
  • Limiting throttling on some engines (eg. RS-25 can throttle between 67% and 109%) it would add an interesting factor into the game without being as painful as limited ignitions
    
  • Add cryogenic fuel, rebalance engines to make it Solid < Liquid < Cryogenic in terms of I_sp. Make cryogenic fuel tanks drop ice particle effect and have some inherited flaws, like loosing fuel over time. It'd also help rebalancing research tree and making progress along with rocket design decisions much more interesting
    
  • Add radiation as a factor into the game. So you would never build rockets with LV-N in pull configuration, or you'd never send Mk1 Command Pod into the interplanetary mission. Two additional parts would be great - radiation sensor and radiation shield (with very high density), pretty much required when making missions to Kerbol, Moho, or low Jool orbit. Or if you'd want to make it even more realistic - add radiation belts to the planetary bodies... And as I said earlier on - I know there are many opponents of killing Kerbals. so I would suggest either making them glow or turn brown due to radiation.
    
  • Shape (the looks) of exhaust plumes should change depending on atmospheric pressure. I'd love to see that behind my KSP Ariane 5:
    
    

Well, that came out longer than expected.... but I hope you'll like the list - feel free to share it with others And I know many people wouldn't agree with one point or the other, or even most of them - but consider this: before 0.9 we had a strong opposition on a forum against making aerodynamics more realistic, and now when we got them - even though they still got plenty of flaws - people in general very much like them and wouldn't want to go back.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Sky_walker

[Tw1]

What I want from Kerbal Space Program is to experience the dream of exploring outer space...where real-life failed me.

I agree. I'd like it to be a lot more of a space exploration experience.

I've played orbiter, but that's just flight. KSP lets you get out of your ship and on EVA, and you can build rovers and stuff. But currently, the experience of actually exploring the planets is underdeveloped.

The other thing I'd like from it is a simulated experience of running a space program. It's showing signs it might move away from this a bit, but now it's still mostly about you running missions for points. I'd like to see more reasons to set up and maintain bases and stations, like needing them as destinations for tourists, or to run run long term research contracts for money and science. This aversion to game mechanics that take time so far has hindered the game's ability to move into something like this.

I would like to see procedurally generated points of interest, similar to what was suggested here,.

I better say something before we just get demands for realistic science, which would just be a dull grind of interest to a select few in my opinion.

Kerbal science should be fun, there should be cool things to find using the science gizmos, such as easter eggs.

This is true, it would not be for everyone. If you just want to fly and crash, stopping and measuring the atmosphere is going to be a chore. But for others, that's why they want to go to the planets in the first place, to explore and discover. The trick is to balance it so both ways of playing the game work.

One thing to consider- a more flight focused player will probably be more likely to do more short missions in the same time an exploration focused player will do a few through ones, making it possible to earn the same amount of science in the same play time, by investing your effort differently. Another thought would be to make the science point gain quite low, and making it more about the fun of finding things than earning points.

The science gizmos themselves should be 3D widgets with knobs and buttons so you can play with them to get a result.

Not sure about needing to play around with buttons to get a result, could be fun, could get tedious if you need to do it often, and what you're doing doesn't seem meaningful.

I agree with razark, it shouldn't be vastly different than what we can do already in the flight scene. At most, data should come up in pop-up windows, like scansat or graphotron does.

This needs to expand upon what we can do while flying our ships, and driving our rovers.

There would still need to be a mechanic to unlock tech tree nodes, but rather than just numbers, nodes could also have some experiment pre-requisites such as an atmosphere scan of Duna before being able to unlock a higher tier aircraft parts node.

Idk, about needing that specific set of data, but it does make sense to study atmospheres to improve your space-grade wings. Perhaps the idea of splitting science into several fields could do something similar.

-snip-

I generally agree with almost all of these- though not sure another type of fuel is needed. I also aren't convinced scaling up the planets is necessary, either.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Tw1

[Krevsin]

[tater]

Broadly speaking, I want to be able to explore in replay. That means that I want better worlds, obviously, but also that they should be randomized so I have to actually see what is out there myself.

[Sky_walker]

Wow, that's a lot of negativism. But let me just address a few misconceptions:

Perhaps if added in a toggleable mode.

Every suggestion I mentioned could be added as toggleable, I never said they must be mandatory on every difficulty level. I thought that this was quite obvious and not needing a reminder seeing that pretty much everything that devs add is a new difficulty setting .

most of these aesthetic additions would also require a lot of computer power (...) Again, takes a lot of computer power.

That's not true. We already have mods adding some of these, and they don't require any magically huge amount of computing power.

Also note that these are not just an aesthetic additions. These are an additions that add exploration into the game, and some additional challenges, as tater put it:

Broadly speaking, I want to be able to explore in replay. That means that I want better worlds, obviously, but also that they should be randomized so I have to actually see what is out there myself.

^ this was my goal with both: terrain features and atmospheric features. For you it might be just aesthetic additions, for others it's everything but!

Not to mention that any engineer designing a ship that could fly to an unknown planet would probably remember to cover it with an acid-resistant coating. I agree that the heat management should be upped for some of the inner planets.

In general an idea behind it was similar to Huygens / Venera / Vega probes - destroyed after certain time on a surface posing a specific and unique challenges to the gameplay. I'm just throwing some ideas here, doesn't have to be specifically acid if you prefer to assume that all of the KSP hardware can be made acid-resistant (but even then - I'm hugely against giving people stuff for free, so every acid cover should have mass associated with it).

In general the goal is that at least one or two of more challenging planets/moons to reach should be more than just an equation of gravity + atmosphere, they could add some unique environments with unique factors, some of which might mean nearly inevitable destruction of your vehicle if you stay for too long (so no more years long rescue missions, if you will fail - you fail - again: interesting mechanic and a challenge presented to players that they can easily avoid by going to other planets as there's still plenty available).

Any game mechanic designed to be repeated multiple times is going to get stale after a while.

That's precisely what I'm addressing in my point. Science should affect the design and pose new challenge, not be boring repetitive clickfest that you are sick of after going through 1/3 of first career playthrough. Or at least I and many others were. But there are always people that dislike change.

They already do have specific niches to fill, rovers are safer (well, less risky at any rate) and less mass-intensive than kerbals, same for probes and satellites.

They really don't and craft you gave as an examples only enforce my statements. Rovers are by far more risky then doing powered jumps or having a spaceplane, the only minor benefit they offer is energy efficiency, but they do not really have any role to fulfill. Even in campagin - everything can be done by a single spacecraft, there's no reason to build rovers (other than fun factor, obviously). Probes and satellites don't have anything distinguishing them from each other, it's the same thing right now - unmanned core with an engines - there should be some role made for them to distinguish one from another.

Setting up a comms network, while it would add an interesting challenge for experienced players (...) Again, interesting challenge for experienced players but it would make the game harder for new players.

It wouldn't be anything that new would encounter players. Things like that should come in play by the time you leave Kerbin and go for an interplanetary flight. By that moment you aren't new any more.

I will admit that I don't really have a clue about the inner workings of jet engines

Inner workings of the jet engines absolutely do not need to be simulated. What matters is the behavior of an engine as a whole that might teach people wrong things. For that look up some jet engine mods, such as this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/70008-0-90-Advanced-Jet-Engine-v2-0-4-Apr-10

Nuclear engines in 1.0.2 already have some serious heat buildup issues which makes them significantly less attractive for anything but interplanetary stages.

I'm not talking about making them more or less attractive, I'm talking about making them more realistic. Heat buildup is not realistic, as it was discussed in other threads already. Use search function, there's been a dozens of discussions about LV-Ns and their flaws.

NERVA (the real life engine the KSP one was based on) does not have nearly the amount of nuclear fallout usually associated with nuclear engines

Got enough to make it a concern.

Not to mention the fact that radiation as a mechanic is very difficult to portray in a videogame in an easily-readable

Re-read my post. I already gave an idea how to portrait it. Even if the cinematic way of visualization is not realistic - it's by far better than not having it at all. Goods overweight the bads, etc. Alternative would be to present it in a way similar to Fallout games - which is an easy way to portray it in a video game that's also easily readable. I'm not looking for a realistic simulation of radiation, I'm looking for making it a factor in the game.

Would only frustrate beginners and is generally something for the experienced crowd.

Beginners wouldn't start in alternative KSC. Equally well you could complain that the Hard mode would only frustrate beginners. Sure it does, but beginners do not play in a hard mode.

Trojans and greeks are a direct result of N-body graphics which KSP does not support

There are ways to resolve that. Either you can place asteroids on an orbits nearly identical to the orbit of a target planet and add asteroids around calculated L₄ and L₅ location, what should keep them in relatively decent location for a few years (in case of Jool it would be dozens of Kerbin years), or you add small SoI in L₄ and L₅ with easter egg asteroid in a very center that cannot be moved from it's location.

It bombards the new player with far too much information, making them less likely to even try KSP.

From my experience new players who start with KER learn game by far quicker than those who don't have it. But I already posted some suggestions how it could be integrated without popping large window with tons of numbers that might confuse very-first-time players. That said though - I'm interested in giving people access to information, not specifically integrating this one mod into the game.

This is done for entirely gamey reasons.

I know the reasons, I disagree with them. IMHO it brings more problems than it solves.

designed around making the game fun to play.

We're back again to "realism is not fun" reasoning? I'll pass getting into that discussion for yet another time.

Making the chutes impossible to overlap would require immense amounts of computing power

Again the same false argument? It's very simple calculation on very basic collision meshes that you don't even have to do every physics tick.

and a to-the-bone rewrite of the rendering system. KSP has game engine limits.

I never asked for a perfectly realistic, physics-based parachutes system. It seems like you are reading things from my post I never said. And I have no idea how did you came up with thinking that it'd require rewriting the rendering system, that's a total nonsense.

Fun challenge for experienced players, annoying and frustrating for new players

That should obviously be a difficulty setting limited to hard and moderate as it might affect early-game difficulty (keep in mind though that it very much depends on how you design your rockets - many people wouldn't have any bigger inconvenience out of that - key factor in that would be to make people use engines in appropriate size and thrust to the mission instead of using one engine and throttling it down to near-minimum levels).

Like I already said numerous times, frustrating for the new players,

Like I said numerous times - by the time you could have a problems with it - you wouldn't be a new player any more. People have plenty of experience by the time they boost their rocket outside of Kerbin SoI. And if reentry heating is a difficulty setting - radiation would be one as well.

This change wouldn't be nearly as frustrating as you try to picture it - you didn't read carefully - I pointed out that we wouldn't kill Kerbals, just add a visual change to them. I know there's a lot of opposition against killing Kerbals with radiation, for many more reasons than just frustration, this topic was discussed more than once over the years and I think the implementation I suggested is by far most balanced and fitting the game world while still adding a lot to the gameplay and educational value of the game.

Also let me add something I didn't mention before - presenting information. If player would be said that a Mk1 Command Pod doesn't have a shielding required for interplanetary flight - he wouldn't use it. If player would be said that LV-Ns have radiation shielding only above - he wouldn't put his crew below it. A lot of frustrations and issues can be resolved by properly informing players. I know some might find it surprising considering that right now KSP does very little to inform players about anything, but that's a truth that works in pretty much every other game.

Graphical limitations of the engine and would require additional computing power.

By now I'm quite sure you simply don't understand when the "additional computing power" is a factor to consider. In that case - it's meaningless, and there's absolutely no limitations in the engine that would affect it. RealPlume mod is doing just that (only with a different particle effect than the one I pictured).

Also KSP is a game, not a simulator. Making it a simulator

Nothing nor everything together of what I suggested would make it even remotely close to the simulator.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Sky_walker

[WinkAllKerb'']

I just want too have fun playin' like if i'm playin' an opera with an orchestra. For now thing goes better updates after updates ; ) May be someone like piano in the dev team who know ; )

(sometime i really feel like many miss trust booster and and thrust faith with the squad artitistic touch and choices on the long term ... some time stamp choice always have to be foreseen long term ... really.)

So most of the time all you need is moaaaarrrr trust xDr

Edited May 14, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''
i cannot not edit a post i believe ; )

[gmiddlemass]

Plain and simple really... Fun.

That's pretty much what i want from any game, I don't want it to be too realistic but at the same time I don't want it to be too simplistic either. Thankfully (in my opinion) Squad seem to have got the balance just right and Kerbal is pretty much the only game I play these days.

[Jouni]

I want a good balance between casual gameplay and realism.

Casual gameplay means a lot of things. It means manually piloted spacecraft with throttleable and reignitable engines. It means information displays (such as those provided by MechJeb and Docking Port Alignment Indicator) that provide precise and useful information to the player, reducing the mental load of the player. It means a solar system that is small enough and spacecraft that are easy enough to build, so that a simple interplanetary mission can be designed and executed in a single evening.

With realism I mean a game that makes sense. The game should encourage me to learn how things work in the real world. Once I have learned something about a phenomenon, the way the game implements the same phenomenon should still feel reasonable.

[youkofoxy]

a 'simulator' where I can spend hours building a spacecraft that could fly in the real world with some modifications and adjustments.

in other words, something that an engineer like Dave Jones from EEvblog, look and say, maybe this works.

and then travel in a fictional solar system, but plausible (nothing breaks the physical rules) and enjoy planets that have one or other interesting thing to look at, or may change over time.

this would be a mix of several games ...

such as No Man Sky, orbiter, Space ENGINERS

a guy can dream, can not he?

PS: I do not mind spending 10 hours putting hundreds of meters in cables on a plane, just to be able to travel on a planet full of things to see ..

[Ehco Corrallo]

On 5/16/2015 at 7:54 PM, youkofoxy said:

this would be a mix of several games ...

such as No Man Sky, orbiter, Space ENGINERS

An engineering mechanic in No Man's Sky...would add too much clutter. Procedural generation in KSP though... *salivates*

I've got to say though, KSP is exactly what I want it to be. I feel that it's the perfect mix of game and simulator. I only wish I was better at it.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Ehco Corrallo

[Gojira1000]

Pretty much just what it is - though if you could procedurally generate a couple of neighboring systems, make a life-support system stock, allow for building off-world VABs and let me make massive generation ships to colonize the neighbors...

Also, I want a pony.

[Wjolcz]

On 5/12/2015 at 11:45 PM, foxkill2342 said:

I want to have a career save where I am running a cargo operation traveling from planet to planet having random adventures.

Same.

I'm actually pretty happy with the game as it is, though I would still like to see implementation of some of the real-ish aspects of space flight. Talking here about things like KIS/KAS, a fun to play with LS and maybe some more procedural parts like the pWings.

I'm not a hardcore (please don't yell at me, regex!) RSS guy (though I might try out that 2x scaled Kerbol system), but I think there's still some room for realistic aspects mentioned before. Other than that I find the game to be very enjoyable and think that the realism/kerbalism ratio is being balanced pretty well. At least for me.

The career though... It still needs work.

[regex]

17 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I'm not a hardcore (please don't yell at me, regex!) RSS guy

Why would I yell at you?  Or anyone else for that matter?  Regardless of what I would personally like to see out of the game, it is what it is.  Thankfully 1.0.x really upped its game and made a lot of concessions to realism; I actually have as much fun playing stock now as I did back in 0.20 when I got into it.  That also made it easier for the Realism Overhaul suite to make the game even better.  Can't complain here.

Well, except for career mode.  I don't play career mode anymore.

[Wjolcz]

15 minutes ago, regex said:

Why would I yell at you?  Or anyone else for that matter?

For spreading the misinformation about RSS being harder than stock :<

[Waxing_Kibbous]

IMO the game is pretty well balanced in terms of difficulty and creative fun. What I want is a game where I could reasonably figure out everything I need to know in game, without the need to consult a wiki or outside tutorial. To me the most vexing thing in this case is not the lack of a dV or TWR readout, but going interplanetary. This seems especially tough to figure out without outside tools.

  So, what I want is the challenge to still be there, but good methods to point the way a bit without being too specific, which I think is a core philosophy of KSP. Does this answer the OP? More fun stuff? Pepe Kermin in my roster?