Thoughts on stock communication system in ksp 1.1

[klgraham1013]

Playing in the sand is fun until you realize that you are just playing in sand.

Don't disregard those of us who have no problem creating our own missions and storylines.

[Geschosskopf]

Don't disregard those of us who have no problem creating our own missions and storylines.

Amen.

For the record, I use the AntennaRange mod in all my career games (it, unlike RT, was specifically designed for career mode). It's no great hardship, at least if you don't opt for WW2-vintage, bone-stupid, marionette probes, and instead just rely on it to send science around space. Then it adds a modicum of extra challenge/work/expense to your gameplay, at least as long as the tech tree lasts. AntennaRange has no bearing at all, really, on sandbox games so in those, I PRETEND I need it and festoon space with fake, decorative commsats without actually installing the mod.

And that brings me to my real gripe about all the added stock "realism" features we've been getting lately. WHY? There are, and have been since forever, mods that do all these things. And do them better, whether you define that as more "realistic" or just more stable and/or balanced. This is because if somebody wants to make a "realism" mod as opposed to a stock feature, he doesn't have to cater to the lowest common denominator but can go totally hardcore because the mod is optional. And most of these mods have been in rather intense development, with scads of audience feedback, for years. They are thus better products than whatever watered-down, bug-ridden version of the same feature that Squad throws into the stock game.

So, without any "realism" features, KSP is all things to all people. If you want Feature X in your game, you can get the mod for it. Everybody can play however they want so the game is more attractive to a wider audience, which equals sales. Once you start putting "realism" features, especially unavoidable ones, into the stock game, you start narrowing the target audience. Plus, because the new feature is watered-down, those players who wanted this feature in the game are dissatisfied with it and keep using the corresponding mod anyway. The net result is that nobody is happy with the result. Especially because the new features come with many new bugs, and due to time spent working on the new feature, the pre-existing bugs weren't fixed, so the game is noticeably less stable over all.

[klgraham1013]

snip

As far as adding more realism goes, I feel these features (including life support) should have been included in the "alpha". KSP has an amazing ability to teach people about the trials and tribulations of actual space flight in a simplified form. This should include communications, life support, and re-entry heat. Re-entering Kerbin should be dangerous. True, the toy solar system would, in reality, make re-entry much safer. This is a problem with Squad's insistence on a miniature scale. That shouldn't eliminate the need to teach young players the actual dangers of re-entry. Again, KSP could (and should) be a tool to teach people what space travel is actually like in a simplified form.

In my opinion, Kerbals and explosions should be the way in, not the focus.

[regex]

Again, KSP could (and should) be a tool to teach people what space travel is actually like in a simplified form.

In my opinion, Kerbals and explosions should be the way in, not the focus.

Well said. That puts mods in the position of adding new details, not filling in the blanks that should never have been blank. It looks like the devs are going for the complete spaceflight package that was outlined by the community based on dev comments when I first started playing (that chart was pretty awesome). I hope we see life support soon.

[juanml82]

Well said. That puts mods in the position of adding new details, not filling in the blanks that should never have been blank. It looks like the devs are going for the complete spaceflight package that was outlined by the community based on dev comments when I first started playing (that chart was pretty awesome). I hope we see life support soon.

Does your idea of "life support" include the need to have extra space for long flights and, for longer flights, centrifugal rings to simulate gravity?

[regex]

Does your idea of "life support" include the need to have extra space for long flights and, for longer flights, centrifugal rings to simulate gravity?

Does that sound like a simple introduction to the concept of life support? Look at the ISRU system for inspiration.

[juanml82]

Does that sound like a simple introduction to the concept of life support? Look at the ISRU system for inspiration.

It sounds rather basic: put a kerbal in a mission to Eeloo in an MK1 landing can, and you take a serious reputation hit, for instance. Add a centrifugal ring part and, should not use it for a long mission, kerbals can't go on EVA.

What rubs me the wrong way about these discussions is that they are about players going "I love this gameplay mod. Let's shove it through everyone else's throats!"

[Alshain]

I hope we never see life support in stock. People call RemoteTech tedious, I feel like those people have never tried the life support mods.

[regex]

What rubs me the wrong way about these discussions is that they are about players going "I love this gameplay mod. Let's shove it through everyone else's throats!"

If people find something compelling and make an argument for it to be stock, it is up to the developers to decide whether to include it in their game. You have no one to blame but the developers if you don't like a stock feature.

[marce]

I'm a little on the edge if I like this addition or not.

On the one hand, RT functionality was missing in stock, so it's nice they finally add it.

On the other hand, they continue with the process of taking perfectly fine mods and dumbing them down to the point where I consider them to be so big that they are in the way while lacking enough essential features to be actually enjoyable (insta-resource scan ).

Which leads me to my next fear: since nerfed probes in combination with much too easy manned missions are nonsense, a dumbed down version of TAC LS has to be inbound already.

Plus even if the stock features can be disabled it’s quite possible the original authors won’t continue their work once it got stocked, so we lose the good stuff and get the not good enough replacements.

I really hope they prove me wrong, rework the existing systems and rethink the upcoming ones. Or at least make them so modable that sanity can easily be restored.

Anyway, I’m glad I kept a version of 0.24 with all the good mods which I can play, because I don’t like the way KSP is going since then. So whatever happens, I’m fine

Best of luck, though, SQUAD – just make sure to compensate the guys who had the idea first and did the reference implementation you are trying to copy...

[Alshain]

I'm a little on the edge if I like this addition or not.

On the one hand, RT functionality was missing in stock, so it's nice they finally add it.

On the other hand, they continue with the process of taking perfectly fine mods and dumbing them down to the point where I consider them to be so big that they are in the way while lacking enough essential features to be actually enjoyable (insta-resource scan ).

Which leads me to my next fear: since nerfed probes in combination with much too easy manned missions are nonsense, a dumbed down version of TAC LS has to be inbound already.

Plus even if the stock features can be disabled it’s quite possible the original authors won’t continue their work once it got stocked, so we lose the good stuff and get the not good enough replacements.

I really hope they prove me wrong, rework the existing systems and rethink the upcoming ones. Or at least make them so modable that sanity can easily be restored.

Anyway, I’m glad I kept a version of 0.24 with all the good mods which I can play, because I don’t like the way KSP is going since then. So whatever happens, I’m fine

Best of luck, though, SQUAD – just make sure to compensate the guys who had the idea first and did the reference implementation you are trying to copy...

I disagree, cost of Kerbals is the offset, Life support isn't needed to do that. When Kerbals got so expensive everyone asked "why send Kerbals, just send probes" so I think this may be what they had in mind to offset it. I just don't like them doing it half way.

[LostOblivion]

What this feature seems to be doing is continuing a trend by squad of introducing 'features' that address/represent genuine RL considerations, but in a simplified form.

eg. reentry heat, aero and thermal stuff is there, but not as complex or critical/deadly as RL. The same for ISRU.

And I think it's a good thing. It increases the educational aspect by at least making players aware that such issues and potential problems exist IRL and need to be considered, even if 'in game' it may not matter too much if you forget a radiator for a simple space station or a heat shield for a LKO capsule reentry.

The 'stock' game needs to remain playable for a wide range of different players so many of these things need to be simplified for that reason.

Space flight is hard, and there are lots of things to consider, and this game is in a prime position to at least introduce these concepts, if not cover them in detail or completely accurately.

On that note, I would not be surprised to see a crude life support feature too at some point as this fits the same theme.

I'm looking forward to seeing it in action.

My opinion is that the 'difficulty' argument and 'mainstream' argument is silly now that they have difficulty options. I think these haven't been used at all what they could. Realistic usually means hard, and I think Squad should do A LOT more with the difficulty options.

[tater]

My opinion is that the 'difficulty' argument and 'mainstream' argument is silly now that they have difficulty options. I think these haven't been used at all what they could. Realistic usually means hard, and I think Squad should do A LOT more with the difficulty options.

Realistic and hard have exactly nothing to do with each other, they are not at all related.

If Kerbin were realistic, it would have lower gravity, and less atmosphere, making getting to orbit trivial, for example. For many, that would be easier, no? Having the antennas even matter is it being made harder contrary to realism, as the farthest possible transmission in KSP is about the typical close approach distance of Earth to Mars. Any transmission from a world inside the aphelion of Eeloo becomes pretty much trivial, the antenna combos are not much of an issue. So this is made artificially harder by being unrealistic, so that the gameplay is more like the real solar system.

[LostOblivion]

I said usually. And realism and difficulty are indeed usually related. If KSP was realistic, it would be completely tedious, a lot of hard work, and not well suited for a game. But I do believe that most, if not everyone, that plays KSP and keeps playing it do that on a common ground, and that reason is realism, more so realism than what most other games can offer.

However, there are obviously many different types of players and everyone want different levels of realism. That is usually what these discussions boil down to, people uttering their own desire for the direction of the game, and hence my point, which doesn't speak for neither realism or arcade, but for what I think could solve many of these disagreements, not with so much compromise, but with having the difficulty options become a much bigger part of the game by having significantly more variety, and with much more impact.

[Hcube]

On one hand i like that we will have to build a DSN ourselves and use it, since it had been missing forever in KSP. It's a nice addition. Also, new and useful antennas !

On the other hand...

1/i thought the game was feature-complete in 0.90.0 ? Oh, and what have we here since ... (cough* aero, isru, heat, now comms system...??!! and life support pretty much confirmed.) Err... that cost the game a lot of bugs with every update, that should have been fixed in beta. Not fond of this myself.

2/The kerbin-DSN looks very overpowered. It looks like the comms system we shall put up will only be useful when planetary occultations happen (-almost never.). I hope that there will be a lot of difficulty options.

3/Yay, as if the probes were not nerfed enough yet ! it's basically better to put a kerbal in any situation/mission. 0.6ton landing can with a kerbal weighs nothing, gives you crew reports, costs nothing, no electricity charge issues... why use a probe anyway ? You can get kerbals for free with rescues. Hopefully a life support will come pretty soon to balance that out.

[tater]

I said usually. And realism and difficulty are indeed usually related. If KSP was realistic, it would be completely tedious, a lot of hard work, and not well suited for a game. But I do believe that most, if not everyone, that plays KSP and keeps playing it do that on a common ground, and that reason is realism, more so realism than what most other games can offer.

Realism is not even "usually" harder. People throw around "tedious" as if realism would require every single man-minute of work be modeled. In fact, we need only concern ourselves with what KSP bothers to model at all, and within that, what fidelity is possible. To the extent there is any correlation at all, I'd not be surprised if more realism within what stock KSP does would be easier, not harder. At 1:1 scale (set kerbin to some reasonable size for a small, earth like planet). All the parts are scaled in lockstep, so similar looking craft behave the same. The atmosphere would scale less, since stock is too deep anyway. Distances are a non-issue because of time warp, the only change is launch/reentry given limited time warp under acceleration. Docking is easier in many ways since you'll have more daylight if you plan properly.

Planets could have some bigger, some the current size to make various difficulties. Minmus stays small, the Mun gets scaled up to the point that 1-stage vs 2-stage landers both have rationales.

I'd argue that most of the difficulty in stock KSP is added in after the fact because of the tiny scale used, yet trying to make it feel realistic. Look at reentry, if kerbin acts like earth, nasty things happen at other worlds.

On topic, this new feature creates balance issues as mentioned above for the simple reason that the game is not realistic about life support (that's sort of understating it since KSP is infinitely unrealistic WRT life support since it has none at all ).

It's a peeve of mine to see difficulty stated as a function of realism with zero data to support it. Whenever anyone tries, they build a straw man on the order of "if you don't have to explicitly feed, sleep, and excrete with your kerbals, it's not realistic, so why bother at all?"

[Superfluous J]

I can't speak for others, but I personally would have quit the game long ago if launch times were realistic. Frankly I'm getting to the point now where the current abbreviated launch time is more than I'm willing to suffer.

[juanml82]

I said usually. And realism and difficulty are indeed usually related. If KSP was realistic, it would be completely tedious, a lot of hard work, and not well suited for a game. But I do believe that most, if not everyone, that plays KSP and keeps playing it do that on a common ground, and that reason is realism, more so realism than what most other games can offer.

However, there are obviously many different types of players and everyone want different levels of realism. That is usually what these discussions boil down to, people uttering their own desire for the direction of the game, and hence my point, which doesn't speak for neither realism or arcade, but for what I think could solve many of these disagreements, not with so much compromise, but with having the difficulty options become a much bigger part of the game by having significantly more variety, and with much more impact.

As I understand the current system, if you send an unmanned ship to orbit the Mun and you need to do the circularization burn while you are over the Mun's far side, you won't be able to do it unless there is a comm sat somewhere.

This is not realistic, so realism is not the issue of this particular feature.

[Windspren]

life support pretty much confirmed

Wait, we're getting life support? USI LS, Yay!!!

[Alshain]

1/i thought the game was feature-complete in 0.90.0 ? Oh, and what have we here since ... (cough* aero, isru, heat, now comms system...??!! and life support pretty much confirmed.) Err... that cost the game a lot of bugs with every update, that should have been fixed in beta. Not fond of this myself.

It was feature complete in 1.0 not 0.90 and that just meant the original vision of the game was complete, not that new stuff wouldn't be added.

(I'm using the word "new" very liberally since we haven't really had any new game mechanics since 0.23.5.)

[Sandworm]

There is no way Squad can pull the a support rabbit out of its hat. Proper life support, anything deserving of that name, means Kerbals die if X or Y resources are depleted over time. That means for life support you need some means of calculating trip time. Stock KSP has absolutely none of the tools for calculating such things. Even with mods it isn't exactly easy.

I predict something silly. I predict something like "If Jeb runs out of donuts, he stops wanting to hold prograde", or "scientists stop reseting experiments when snacks run low".

OR imagine the cluster if they tie "life support" to the stock heat system.

[pincushionman]

There is no way Squad can pull the a support rabbit out of its hat. Proper life support, anything deserving of that name, means Kerbals die if X or Y resources are depleted over time…

Not necessarily. TAC Life Support does it this way as the "hardcore" life support mod but Snacks! applies reputation penalties for running out of…well, "snacks," and Roverdude's USI Life Support turns all your crew members into Tourists (who can't do anything) until you can provide them with more of the generic life support resource. I think these are fabulous concepts.

…That means for life support you need some means of calculating trip time. Stock KSP has absolutely none of the tools for calculating such things. Even with mods it isn't exactly easy…

Have you used the encounter/periapsis/etc. nodes in the map view? These provide ETA data that can be used to plan future missions by sending probes first and just writing these transfer times down. Determining this before you launch your craft is harder, but that's only because the lack of life support makes it unnecessary. Such a planner is necessary for a proper life support implementation, but a current lack of it shouldn't be seen as a reason not to make one.

…I predict something silly. I predict something like "If Jeb runs out of donuts, he stops wanting to hold prograde", or "scientists stop reseting experiments when snacks run low"…

Again check out the USILS. Very much like this.

[klgraham1013]

Running out of life support with Snacks or USI-LS is very much the same as running out of liquid fuel. In both cases, your mission is, most likely, a failure. Proper planning is needed with both, and if the proper tools aren't available, they should be provided.

Edited July 27, 2015 by klgraham1013

[mikegarrison]

I disagree, cost of Kerbals is the offset, Life support isn't needed to do that. When Kerbals got so expensive everyone asked "why send Kerbals, just send probes" so I think this may be what they had in mind to offset it. I just don't like them doing it half way.

What "cost of kerbals"? The game pays me to add kerbals, as long as I go about 80km up to get them. I think the only time I have hired a new kerbal in 2015 was when I really, really needed a scientist for a mission.

[Alshain]

Not necessarily. TAC Life Support does it this way as the "hardcore" life support mod but Snacks! applies reputation penalties for running out of…well, "snacks," and Roverdude's USI Life Support turns all your crew members into Tourists (who can't do anything) until you can provide them with more of the generic life support resource. I think these are fabulous concepts.

Except then you can't really call it life support, because you aren't supporting life, you are supporting not being silly.

No. Life Support does not belong in a game where you can timewarp while on another ship. It's bad enough we don't have a stock alarm clock for encounters and maneuvers without a mod, now you want to add life support to that. Life Support is a mod concept and should stay a mod concept.

- - - Updated - - -

What "cost of kerbals"? The game pays me to add kerbals, as long as I go about 80km up to get them. I think the only time I have hired a new kerbal in 2015 was when I really, really needed a scientist for a mission.

In that case you are paying with time. Launching that many rescue missions is tedious to me. A few, sure, but without probes I'd have to run 30-40 rescue missions to do everything I do in a game. That is assuming I only take 1 kerbal per craft.