Wild Rant has appeared (logic is super effective) - Not everything needs to be realistic

[roguelycan]

After a few frustrating posts on Reddit, and to a lesser extent here, I have ran into some responses from the community that is honestly quite frustrating to many people.

When someone posts a suggestion for a mod or an optional feature (example - something in difficulty settings) and the goal of the mod is not to specifically recreate a realistic situation (FAR, DRE, Life Support) maybe the best first response isnt about whether this is "realistic" or not.

I posted an idea on reddit about a game mode where you could choose to have a limited amount of fuel to start the game with therefore putting a heavy focus on having to mine and recover fuels and ores to keep your space program running and could be a fun Sandbox type game mode. The very first response was about how unrealistic that would be because real LFO can be created using seawater and electricity. HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY IDEA!

Sometimes it is appropriate but most of the time that argument is just frustrating for people who dont care if the idea is realistic. Rant over.

Edited May 14, 2015 by roguelycan

[theend3r]

Sorry but it really doesn't sound like a good idea. Getting fuel from other parts of Kerbin is a work for lesser kerbals and not the space faring elite of kerbalkind. Of course if it is something you really want then you're free to write the mod but I don't think it would be very popular. Dangerously big rockets full of explosive fuel are popular.

[Motokid600]

That's actually not a bad idea. Where DO kerbals get all that fuel and oxidizer? Having to make a fuel depot at the KSC before it goes into your rocket. I like that.

As for the gist of the topic. Uhh... It comes with the genre. KSP just happens to be a type of game where you can actually look at every aspect and judge it off of the real world.

Other then that... Sounds like you got one more reason to stay away from reddit. I personally can't stand the place.

@Theend3r - I don't know if done right it could be petty cool. Because that's a major aspect. And right now LF/O could be kerbal farts for all we know. The most significant aspect that makes rockets work is more or less just a magical substance in this game. I'd welcome something that makes the fuel more hands on and practical.

Additionally... Squad should look into more realistic fuels. Not to the extent of Real Fuels of course, but something more then what we have.

One of the funnest parts of RSS/RO is just that. Playing with different fuels.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Motokid600

[r4pt0r]

Yeah reddit is terrible overall.

Your idea is an interesting one. Realisim aside, that would really change up how you play.

[Jonboy]

I really see this problem more with people disagreeing with the direction Squad takes with the stock game. People seem to have a very stubborn idea of just how realistic KSP should be. I personally like a bit of realism, and in the past I used mods like Deadly Reentry, Remotetech, TAC Life Support, Ferram, and Procedural Fairings to get it. Other people like to use mods that add warp drives and other "unrealistic" elements to the game. Now that Squad is adding some of these "realistic" features to the stock game, it seems like people are getting flustered because something that was previously "opt-in" is now "opt-out" (via mods).

I would not have expected to see that kind of reaction to a mod suggestion, because the huge variety of mods that cater to widely different playstyles is exactly what makes the KSP mod community special. The knee-jerk reactions that people have toward other playstyles are exactly what causes silly cliques that judge other players for the way they play (Mechjeb is cheating, serious players use Ferram, mods are of the devil, etc.). it's unfortunate that others can't see past their own preferences.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Jonboy

[Randazzo]

This will end well.

Edit: That does not mean I disagree with OP.

[lincourtl]

I think you had a good idea. Your mod idea sounds like it'd be fun for people more into the tycoon play style as opposed to the sim aspect. There are jerks everywhere you go. Try not to let it get to you.

As someone who loves the realism mods, I'm nonetheless quite happy overall with the balance Squad has struck in 1.0.x sans some expected tuning and bug squashing. More importantly they've left the game open for serious modding which is what allows the realism mods to exist.

[roguelycan]

Lol was mostly just frustrated because I have had several posts recently get completely sidetracked by people arguing over aspects of my suggestion that didnt even matter. If I said I wanted to make a more realistic aerodynamics mod then absolutely realism is a major aspect of the suggestion. Its right there in the name. But if I am talking about a GAME feature, for example the limited fuel idea, then whether it is realistic is inconsequential because the idea isnt to make anything more realistic. It is about adding objectives to game modes.

It doesnt bother me if people disagree with my idea or don't like it. Thats why I post these to get peoples opinion. What does annoy me is when they argue something that has nothing to do with the idea itself.

"Hey guys I want to add a new engine into the game"

"OH YEAH WELL I DONT LIKE THE COLOR BLUE SO THAT IDEAS STUPID"

[Renegrade]

Actually that's not that much of an unrealistic concept anyhow - the exact nature of the fuel is unknown, but it's density clearly rules out anything like hydrogen, so it's NOT made out of water (and even if you did, hydrolysis is actually very, very costly and very, very inefficient. Almost all of the hydrogen on the market today is derived from fossil fuels). Kerbals may not even have a fuel infrastructure to begin with. Is there any evidence that any of their vehicles are anything other than electric? So assuming that they might not have unlimited fuel available isn't actually that implausible. Here's a real world example: try building your own RTG. How much Pu-238 is on the market right now?

Anyhow, there's an expectation that KSP is going to be semi-realistic (or 'authentic' as Harv puts it) - most of the systems in KSP exist in real life as actual flying hardware, or at least advanced, semi-tested prototypes, and loosely follow the rules of said systems (with a degree of abstraction). So it's not unexpected that people will consider the realism implications of things (although they do get carried away from time to time).

The only thing you really have to watch out for is that some people bust out the realism thing because they don't want to do something or suck too much to do said thing ("I'm too much of a scrub-failure to mine my own fuel, so I'll claim this is unrealistic to make it go away!").

'

Anyhow, limited fuel might make for some interesting gameplay. Making a mod of it would probably be the best way to determine whether or not it would be enjoyable or not.

[roguelycan]

Good points Renegade. If I knew how to mod myself I would have already started on it. Unfortunately my job in IT doesnt give me as much free time right now as I would like and I would have to quit playing the game in order to learn to code for it lol. Mostly just hoping someone else likes my idea enough to decide to make it themselves. If that doesnt happen then oh well.

[Superfluous J]

The problem isn't so much realism vs fun, it's that everybody seems to think that "I don't like that" == "That's stupid and you're stupid and you should feel bad for being so stupid." And that's not a problem with KSP, but with the Internet and with Humanity as a whole.

EDIT:

(I reread this and saw it could come off wrong. I didn't mean that you were reading into what others said. I mean that others, instead of saying that they didn't like it but good luck with your endeavors, instead tried to trash talk you into oblivion)

[KatzOhki]

The problem isn't so much realism vs fun, it's that everybody seems to think that "I don't like that" == "That's stupid and you're stupid and you should feel bad for being so stupid." And that's not a problem with KSP, but with the Internet and with Humanity as a whole.

EDIT:

(I reread this and saw it could come off wrong. I didn't mean that you were reading into what others said. I mean that others, instead of saying that they didn't like it but good luck with your endeavors, instead tried to trash talk you into oblivion)

Agree. Also see a lot of attitude towards "developer needs to fix X" when really it's not necessarily broken, just something they would prefer.

OP: What was your other idea besides the fuel thing?

[Jonboy]

Another way to force people to think about how much fuel they're using in career mode would be to increase its cost, or to have the cost of fuel increase over time (perhaps the Kerbals are trying to get off their planet because they're using up its natural resources). It's interesting to think about.

[Alshain]

I agree with the idea that it does not need to be perfectly realistic, but there is also a balancing point. It needs to be at least somewhat believable. Now, I didn't see anything unbelievable about that situation, but some people post some rather sci-fi stuff, others want so much realism the game would become tedious and no longer fun. There is a fine line there and I think for the most part KSP has walked it pretty well.

Both Sci-Fi and extreme realism should stay with the mods.

[sal_vager]

People forget that KSP is not intended to be realistic, but balanced with fun, with fun taking priority, even the games creator, HarvesteR, has said as much.

Here's one example from Squad regarding realism.

Q: Are you going to make KSP more realistic?

A: That depends. Does that added realism make KSP more fun? The key point to keep in mind here is that KSP is a game first, a simulator second. We want to add realism in places where we feel those additions will make the game more enjoyable, but we aren’t just going to add realism features just for the sake of being realistic.

Edited May 13, 2015 by sal_vager

[KatzOhki]

The whole realism debate has been a bit of a hot-button topic. At least lately. I lean towards fun and approachable over realism, personally.

[Motokid600]

The whole realism debate has been a bit of a hot-button topic. At least lately. I lean towards fun and approachable over realism, personally.

But the thing is realism can be fun and approachable. Realistic explosions for instance. Realistic smoke and sound. All very fun and very approachable. And before I cut into a rant ill stop myself and say that its a complete sea of strawmen arguments such as that. The subject can go on for pages... and pages and pages. Next thing you know theres 80 pages. Its happened before. So as everyone has essentially said and Squad themselves. Theres a balance that needs to be found for the stock game.

Anyway. To the OP. Thankyou. You gave me a hell of an idea for my next play though.

In my next career im going to try and strictly fuel my rockets with fuel I mined myself. It can be done with only modding the tech tree. What dictates the cost of fuel per unit? Why am I paying for this magical.. stuff that goes boom which comes from nowhere? I will make LF/O myself. And it will probably get old very quick. But im interested. If I can accumulate enough fuel around Kerbin to fill a Moon rocket then this is viable. Atleast if it can be done in a decent amount of time. I don't know how rich the area is around the KSC, but if I can get atleast enough fuel for flights to hot spots and back...

Edited May 13, 2015 by Motokid600

[StrandedonEarth]

Why stop at fuel? Go for metals, too. As a purely opt-in system, of course.

Tier 0 R&D: Be able to build small, semi-mobile ore and fuel extractors, with a built-in, limited range scanner. Go around KSC, scan for resources, and permanently plant your extractor on it. Profit!

Tier 1: Orbital scanners, land the small extractors for profit

Tier 2/3: Large extractors for ore and fuel.

Refine the concept (and resources) as necessary.

[Xacktar]

The problem isn't so much realism vs fun, it's that everybody seems to think that "I don't like that" == "That's stupid and you're stupid and you should feel bad for being so stupid." And that's not a problem with KSP, but with the Internet and with Humanity as a whole.

Exactly this. There are so many people who have their own idea of what KSP should be... and when other suggest or discuss items that don't fit that dream they make it a point(often multiple times) to declare how much they don't like what other people want or think.

Squad has built an awesome vehicle that takes us places most games haven't dared and then gave us plenty of tools to modify said vehicle any way we want. Why do so many of us sit by the side of the road yelling at other people because their vehicle isn't the same color as yours?

Edited May 13, 2015 by Xacktar

[MacroNova]

Note To The Community!

"note to the community posts" are condescending and arrogant. It implies you know better than others, instead of having a different opinion from others. Some people think having the most amount of realism possible is more fun and best for the game.

I basically agree with the content of the OP though - you can say why you don't like a particular suggestion without totally poo-pooing it. Now if only there was a way to get that idea across in a title that didn't sound like it was coming from on high...

::cough:: "Rant about people who shoot down mod ideas on realism grounds" ::cough::

[KAP1985]

I disagree to a point

personally I would have prefered KSP going as realistic as possible (you know, exept smaller for memory reasons)

[Lord Aurelius]

I agree with the OP, and with HarvesteR's comments. Above all, KSP is meant to be fun.

Realism should definitely be maintained where appropriate (and fun), but I have no problem with certain liberties being taken for the sake of gameplay. If I want it to be more realistic, there are mods to do that. If I feel like just having fun, there's plenty of silly mods for that too.

Also, like the OP said, complaining about other people's mods is just silly.

[r_rolo1]

As usual with this discussions, the issue is that every one of us has it's own definition of fun and mine definition of fun most likely is not your definition of fun and also not likely to be the devs definition of fun. And OFC , fun and realism have most likely no kind of correlation, as there is people that would not find unrealistic stuff fun and others that any smell of realism makes them to cry boring .

That said, and as my personal opinion, the devs TBH sometimes underestimate the players of the game and think they are less tolerant to realism than they are. And also more resistant to useful information, but that is another discussion

[Xavven]

As for the realism argument itself, part of the appeal of KSP (to me at least) is that it has elements of realism. Not that games have to be realistic to be fun (the whole Mario franchise makes no sense at all when you think about it), but KSP is just realistic enough that my expectations are set accordingly. It has a physics engine that makes things behave the way they would (for the most part) in the real world, so my expectation is that other aspects should work in a similar way.

Maybe the underlying argument isn't about realism itself but rather about whether the proposed addition, mod, feature, etc. seems to fit in with the franchise. Example: Super Mario World isn't realistic at all, but if you gave Mario a plasma cannon (equally unrealistic) it would just feel... wrong. (edit: I mean, he shoots fireballs out of his hands, but a plasma cannon makes no sense in the Mario universe. Crazy)

[Fel]

Note To The Community!

"note to the community posts" are condescending and arrogant. It implies you know better than others, instead of having a different opinion from others. Some people think having the most amount of realism possible is more fun and best for the game.

I second this notion... but then again, it's often the only way to get the attention you deserve. Big and flashy, is very eye catching; small and polite tends to be buried quickly.

When someone posts a suggestion for a mod or an optional feature (example - something in difficulty settings) and the goal of the mod is not to specifically recreate a realistic situation (FAR, DRE, Life Support) maybe the best first response isnt about whether this is "realistic" or not.

Welcome to my world. I've sat around the suggestions forum for a long time and I see it time and again, people just like to shoot down suggestions or "agree like drones" with the "unofficially agreed upon requests that everyone must agree upon." Gaming communities are the worst, you know.

I posted an idea on reddit about a game mode where you could choose to have a limited amount of fuel to start the game with therefore putting a heavy focus on having to mine and recover fuels and ores to keep your space program running and could be a fun Sandbox type game mode. The very first response was about how unrealistic that would be because real LFO can be created using seawater and electricity. HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY IDEA!

You know, this is like a 3 hour mod, right? Right now, I'm really bloody lazy and surprisingly haven't bothered even looking over the new documentation yet; but all you're doing is checking to see if the total fuel is equal to the quantity in the reserves "at launch" (or rather, when on the pad / runway).

Drain the tanks if it isn't and throw a message for the user to interact with.

Either use a hook for when fuel gets collected via recovery, or a hook to check how the vehicle gets 'destroyed' or etc... and then increase a few doubles.

*Now of course, space oil isn't realistic in the slightest, but as a mod request it is fine.