General thoughts on a multiplayer mode for ksp without timewarp

[BadLeo]

Aside from the discussion of whether and how multiplayer is possible and whether or not the devs are going to implement it soon, let's find out what the community thoughts are on how it would be served by such a feature if it had to have timewarp limited to some extent or even outright ditched.

Edited October 17, 2018 by BadLeo

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Well, no time warp means anything outside of Kerbins SOI is pretty much out of the question.

Even a bog standard trip to the Mun would be pretty darn boring. I've never actually done it so idk, it might take hours at real time? Days even?

Speaking of time warp, I play the Warhammer Total War games with a friend sometimes and during battles you can go up to x4 warp or so, it basically works so that you both can see what the other person wants it set at, but it only actually goes up if you both want it set upwards. So if I have x2 warp on and you go to x4, I can see that you want x4 (It's highlighted) but the speed won't increase till I also select it. If you suddenly decide you need real time again you drop it back down and it would go to 1x, although you'd still see the x4 highlighted from me unless I changed it. I could see that working for KSP, but only if the servers were limited to a small group of players; say 4 at most.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[BadLeo]

I would like to formulate your first sentence in another way. No timewarp means missions outside Kerbin are out of question. But you can still hyperedit your stuff anywhere you want. Yes, it is not the same thing, but it is something.

Perfect case scenario is we get a multiplayer KSP just as it is meant to be played. That is out of question, too, due to syncing timewarp problems. Next best thing is we get just what you said: a way to keep timewarp coherent among all players in the server. Alas, if that's not possible, even a multiplayer without timewarp would be something, in my opinion. Better than nothing, and a start for the development of the multiplayer system.

Now, I simply cannot see KSP multiplayer with too many players. I believe that due to the characteristics of the game, it would be complicated to handle several players at the same time if they decide to go crazy on parts. I don't think KSP multiplayer, however it is implemented, if ever, would play as an open world massive online game such as, for instance, Planetside, or Battlefield, which is something some people might expect or want. But it suits well the role of a game to be played in LAN with a few friends. It is not a very "commercial" way to handle multiplayer, if I can say so, hence we don't see the devs talking about it. But, as a token gesture to the long term fanbase that has been asking for some solution to multiplayer, I think they could strap some form of it to some of their updates, or even to a DLC if it takes too much work.

Yes, their solution might not please everyone. But hardly anything does. Making History certainly didn't. Even the part revamp they do from time to time doesn't. That shouldn't discourage devs from presenting what they think is doable in the form that they think better suits the game.

Honestly, to me it looks like people only want to get the thing if it fits their expectations, but resist to get anything different from it and rather get nothing at all. Well, I don't agree with that state of mind, but I cannot tell people to not feel what they feel.

Edited October 17, 2018 by BadLeo

[Rocket In My Pocket]

22 minutes ago, BadLeo said:

I would like to formulate your first sentence in another way. No timewarp means missions outside Kerbin are out of question. But you can still hyperedit your stuff anywhere you want. Yes, it is not the same thing, but it is something.

Well HyperEdit is a mod, and modded multiplayer is a whole 'nother can of worms entirely. (Which kind of leads into the next point.)

22 minutes ago, BadLeo said:

Honestly, to me it looks like people only want to get the thing if it fits their expectations, but resist to get anything different from it and rather get nothing at all. Well, I don't agree with that state of mind, but I cannot tell people to not feel what they feel.

Time and money are finite. Multiplayer would be a huge undertaking; gargantuan even. It's not that we don't "want" multiplayer; we just think it's too much trouble for what it would amount to, which would be a severely limited/handicapped experience of the game at best. If it could be done quickly and cheaply, and not take away from other areas of development, I certainly wouldn't be against that. I'd love to play KSP with some other people, I'm just not sure it's worth the cost.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[BadLeo]

 

4 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Well HyperEdit is a mod, and modded multiplayer is a whole 'nother can of worms entirely.

Well, I didn't mean with the mod, but I certainly didn't expressed myself correctly. I was wondering about some form of feature on the multiplayer that would supplement that  function.

6 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I'm just not sure it's worth the cost.

Yes, well, that is the key point. But to know that and put an end to speculation and endless suggestions, we could use some official wording from the devs exactly about that.

[HebaruSan]

15 minutes ago, BadLeo said:

But you can still hyperedit your stuff anywhere you want.

To me this crosses the line between a workaround and defeating the purpose. Getting to Jool isn't just about making a ship and then taking a screenshot of it in front of Jool. It's about designing a craft that has the capability to actually get there, and then doing it, and finding out about any design flaws along the way to inform your next ship. Maybe you miscalculated its delta V, or underestimated the magnitude of your capture burns; maybe your TWR is too low to complete the burns before your patience gives out. Maybe you don't have enough power generation or comms range, or your incoming trajectory makes it awkward to get to your ultimate destination. If you just open a cheat menu and click "Jool," all of that crunchy gameplay goes up in smoke; you'd never know whether your supposed "Jool ship" can actually do the mission.

Without time warp, doing pretty much anything in space becomes impracticably tedious. Even if you cheat a ship to Jool, orbits there are 14+ hours long. Hence moon-to-moon transfers are on the order of 7+ hours or more. So now you're not just cheating ships to Jool, but then also cheating them from moon to moon, rendering all the challenges and complications of such transfers moot. Performing those maneuvers is what the game is about; your solution to this problem amounts to removing the "jump" button from Super Mario Bros and replacing it with free permanent invincibility---the content of the game just disappears.

[BadLeo]

9 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

To me this crosses the line between a workaround and defeating the purpose. Getting to Jool isn't just about making a ship and then taking a screenshot of it in front of Jool. It's about designing a craft that has the capability to actually get there, and then doing it, and finding out about any design flaws along the way to inform your next ship. Maybe you miscalculated its delta V, or underestimated the magnitude of your capture burns; maybe your TWR is too low to complete the burns before your patience gives out. Maybe you don't have enough power generation or comms range, or your incoming trajectory makes it awkward to get to your ultimate destination. If you just open a cheat menu and click "Jool," all of that crunchy gameplay goes up in smoke; you'd never know whether your supposed "Jool ship" can actually do the mission.

Without time warp, doing pretty much anything in space becomes impracticably tedious. Even if you cheat a ship to Jool, orbits there are 14+ hours long. Hence moon-to-moon transfers are on the order of 7+ hours or more. So now you're not just cheating ships to Jool, but then also cheating them from moon to moon, rendering all the challenges and complications of such transfers moot. Performing those maneuvers is what the game is about; your solution to this problem amounts to removing the "jump" button from Super Mario Bros and replacing it with free permanent invincibility---the content of the game just disappears.

Welp, no, because I don't have the career mode in mind. I have multiplayer mode in mind. Which means you play with friends to do stuff together. Maybe you and your friend want to do Star Wars battles in orbit of Jool. Too bad, because Star Wars don't follow physics rules that KSP is built around, but you get the point. It is a whole different type of gameplay. Of course it would miss some great features, but in the hypothesis that it is the only kind of multiplayer possible, than it is better than nothing. That is the core of my argument.

EDIT: Saying career mode is probably wrong for what I mean. You can transfer from orbits in any game mode you want, but the purpose of multiplayer goes beyond that. I should probably find a better way of saying what I mean.

Edited October 17, 2018 by BadLeo

[HebaruSan]

23 minutes ago, BadLeo said:

but you get the point.

Not really. SQUAD would (rightfully) get the roasting of a lifetime if they released a multiplayer patch for their "space" game where you couldn't do space activities without waiting through multiple hours of nothing. Even just a low Kerbin orbit takes 30 minutes. If I want to transfer from one space station to another, I have to wait 10-20 minutes? No thanks.

23 minutes ago, BadLeo said:

It is a whole different type of gameplay. Of course it would miss some great features, but in the hypothesis that it is the only kind of multiplayer possible, than it is better than nothing. That is the core of my argument.

Make your case, then. To me it sounds like there's no game left to play. Tell us what this game mode would support. I assume that "Star Wars battles in orbit of Jool" wasn't meant seriously.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I think what he's trying to say is that you could still do quite a few fun "mini games" with other players like flying jets, having battles, doing races, etc...

I suppose it's a compliment to KSP that there is so much freedom, that you could have quite a bit of fun and never leave Kerbin. Just designing vehicles and fooling around with friends does in itself have some merit, completely outside the scope of what the game actually is "about" to be fair.

Is it worth development time and resources though? Sort of reminds me of the old school days of N64 where every game had to have that tacked on "me too" split screen multiplayer. Even if the game itself did not lend itself very well to that format in any way at all. Then again; we got just as many weirdly good experiences out of that as weirdly bad. It all comes down to priorities though, and personally I'd rather have more single player content myself.

[Geonovast]

I wouldn't mind very, VERY localized multiplayer.  Timewarp is out of the question, always.  I believe battles and races were mentioned.  I could get into that.  That would be pretty nifty.  Control room style multiplayer would also be neat.  Especially if you launched, and had people controlling individual stages after jettisoning for recovery (Say, Falcon 9).  While that would be fun, for like, 5 minutes, it would get old fast.  I just don't seen enough opportunity there to justify the dev time.  Ever.

[JedTech]

Time is something we have. In fact, things that take time feel the most rewarding. It only takes days to get to Mun. You play one day, come back another day and start exploring and building bases on the Mun with others players who have done the same. There are lots of multiplayer games where time progresses at normal rates if you are there or not. BUT we would definitely need an automated maneuver system.

Do you think real people who control real Mars rovers hate their job because of no time warp?

Edited October 17, 2018 by JedTech

[BadLeo]

1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:

SQUAD would (rightfully) get the roasting of a lifetime if they released a multiplayer patch for their "space" game where you couldn't do space activities without waiting through multiple hours of nothing. Even just a low Kerbin orbit takes 30 minutes. If I want to transfer from one space station to another, I have to wait 10-20 minutes? No thanks.

I got you don't like the waiting. As I said, and it has been understood by other people on this discussion, not everything in this game is about transferring things around orbits. Is Minecraft only about digging? KSP isn't Counter Strike. It isn't limited in scope and design to it's main theme. One could argue that it is limited by design to be single player, or at least to not really work well as a MP game. But not that the only thing to do in it is interplanetary transfer. 

The main theme of a game with such a broad spectrum of possibilities sometimes gets lost when it has a community that shed light on so many other aspects of it. I'm going to repeat myself: if the only type of multiplayer possible is one without timewarp, I would rather have that than none at all. Of course that will not please everyone. But that, alone, is worth very little consideration. People roast the devs for releasing updates that brake mods or revamping parts that they like better the way they were. There always will be roasting, there will always be people that rather prefer to criticize before understanding a point or two. Such is life, nothing can be done about that.

1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:

Make your case, then. To me it sounds like there's no game left to play. Tell us what this game mode would support. I assume that "Star Wars battles in orbit of Jool" wasn't meant seriously.

Take BD Armory and make KSP a physics based flight simulator/shooting game. Take Kerbal Constructs and populate the planet, designing missions between the places. Mix everything together and make a complete war game. Build enormous things, like orbital carriers, that kind of stuff. Cheat the thing into orbit (it would be unflyabe anyways) and pretend its a physics based Star Wars game. All of that with your friends. With the vibrant modding community this game has, you'll not run out of possibilities so soon. Of course, that is also dependent on making multiplayer work with mods, which has already been told to be a new challenge upon the already challenging multiplayer thing. I could agree that the base game, alone, would be of little worth for a multiplayer without timewarp. But with mods that's not the case.

Edited October 17, 2018 by BadLeo

[Geonovast]

1 hour ago, JedTech said:

Do you think real people who control real Mars rovers hate their job because of no time warp?

Of course not.  But you're not separating the game from reality.  That is those people's JOBS.  Do you think they'd do it without being paid?  Some, maybe.  Most?  No.  Pretty sure I'd stop going to my job if they stopped paying me, and I like my job.

Do you think their job is nothing more than "Push W to go forward", "Right click on rocks to get science"?  Every action that rover does will have dozens, if not hundreds of manhours behind it.  They have more than their share of stuff to do.  They most likely have job duties that involve something other than the rovers.  The rovers weren't put on mars by some kid sitting at a computer clicking premade parts together and then just sitting and waiting for months for it to get there.

Because it's their job, it's what they're supposed to be doing at the time.  Lets say you send off a rocket to get to the Mun.  Takes a few hours to get there.  You plan on being at your computer when it gets there.  But what if you're not?  What if your internet or power is out?  What if someone you're playing with is depending on your rocket to do its injection burn and land at the right time, and you're taking out the trash?  (Insert link to youtube clip of Brandon taking out the trash in Galaxy Quest that doesn't seem to exist).  Do you have backup to jump on your computer and do those things if you can't?

You missing your deadline could cause someone else to waste hours, days, or even weeks.  This isn't some matchmade shooter where you can just quit and start a new match when one of your teammates flakes.

Please do not equate real space agency jobs with playing multiplayer in this game.

 

1 hour ago, JedTech said:

You play one day, come back another day and start exploring and building bases on the Mun with others players who have done the same.

This is ignoring the fact that people can be *insert not-nice word of choice here* and you could spend all that time landing and starting your base just for someone else to come along and blow it all up, steal it, kill your kerbals, etc.  And if you say "Well they can't interact with my stuff", then multiplayer would seem pointless if you don't play at the same time.  You'd essentially be passing a save file back and forth with someone you trust, and you can already do that.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love multiplayer, if they could somehow make it tolerable without turning it into a freaking war / shooter base that almost every other multiplayer game out there depends on.  I already play Halo.  I have just never seen an argument for multiplayer that both involves actually going to space and makes sense.

[Tyko]

KSP isn't a space combat game or a fighter combat game or a car racing game. it's a rocket ship game. it's a tribute to it's flexibility that enterprising players have found ways of doing all kinds of cool stuff, but it's not what the game is intended for. There are PLENTY of combat games and race games out there. There are FEW (mostly) accurate physics simulators.

If you want to shoot things or race cars then get one of the hundreds of games designed for that. Don't ask a very small team who's working hard to make the best rocket ship game possible to drop everything and turn KSP into yet another shooty racing game for you.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Tyko

[BadLeo]

32 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

This is ignoring the fact that people can be *insert not-nice word of choice here* and you could spend all that time landing and starting your base just for someone else to come along and blow it all up, steal it, kill your kerbals, etc.  And if you say "Well they can't interact with my stuff", then multiplayer would seem pointless if you don't play at the same time.  You'd essentially be passing a save file back and forth with someone you trust, and you can already do that.

I believe that this is a non problem. There are a-holes everywhere. Every online game will face you with people that want to extract their fun from your suffering. While any type of open multiplayer will most likely have to deal with that problem in some way or another, that alone is not what prevents the creation of a multiplayer system. Grief existis. Moderators and player bans are for that.

22 minutes ago, Tyko said:

KSP isn't a space combat game or a fighter combat game or a car racing game. it's a rocket ship game. it's a tribute to it's flexibility that enterprising players have found ways of doing all kinds of cool stuff, but it's not what the game is intended for. There are PLENTY of combat games and race games out there. There are FEW (mostly) accurate physics simulators.

If you want to shoot things or race cars then get one of the hundreds of games designed for that. Don't ask a very small team who's working hard to make the best rocket ship game possible to drop everything and turn KSP into yet another shooty racing game for you.

Well, I'm sure the devs didn't want us to turn their pure and beautiful creation into some filthy hybrid customized game. That's why they didn't made it moddable and they don't support a modding community, having never hired some of the modders that stood out to work as devs. Yeah. No.

A game isn't just a collection of codding and art. The most valuable thing a developer can gather around its work is a community and it will do stuff to keep that community interested. Multiplayer goes on that direction. Adding multiplayer would be great for the whole game. But IF, and only IF, timewarp isn't doable in ANY WAY, NOT EVEN LIMITED, and IF devs don't add content that make multiplayer worth of the base game, then providing warpless multiplayer still would be worth because of MODS (again, assuming MP will work with mods).

There was a time when texture images weren't on DDS format. There was a time modders had a hard time manipulating resources that weren't shared by other mods. There was a time KSP had no multiplayer. Hopefully we can say that in the future and everyone will be like "HA! I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT!".

Edited October 17, 2018 by BadLeo

[Tyko]

1 hour ago, BadLeo said:

Well, I'm sure the devs didn't want us to turn their pure and beautiful creation into some filthy hybrid customized game. That's why they didn't made it moddable and they don't support a modding community, having never hired some of the modders that stood out to work as devs. Yeah. No.

Sure, mod the heck out of it. Make it any kind of customized hybrid game you want. You're not asking for permission to mod it. You're demanding that the small team of devs reduce their efforts on making the core game better and instead work on your special project.

Go play Elite Dangerous, or EVE Online...there are TONS of games that offer real time multiplayer with magical travel methods

Edited October 18, 2018 by Tyko

[Chel]

2 hours ago, BadLeo said:

Well, I'm sure the devs didn't want us to turn their pure and beautiful creation into some filthy hybrid customized game. That's why they didn't made it moddable and they don't support a modding community, having never hired some of the modders that stood out to work as devs. Yeah. No.

Ever heard of #StarMods? It's a thing where SQUAD highlights mods made by the community. So I don't know what you mean by "not supporting a modding community"

[BadLeo]

1 hour ago, Tyko said:

Sure, mod the heck out of it. Make it any kind of customized hybrid game you want. You're not asking for permission to mod it. You're demanding that the small team of devs reduce their efforts on making the core game better and instead work on your special project.

Go play Elite Dangerous, or EVE Online...there are TONS of games that offer real time multiplayer with magical travel methods

I'm not demanding. I'm suggesting. And discussing it with the community. And listening to people that are against it, seeing that there are really decent reasons to actually not want it, with which I might not agree but that I can see where they are coming from, but calling out the BS reasons. You are welcome to take part in the constructions of good arguments, but why I should swallow bad arguments just because of peer pressure is beyond me.

It is insulting that you have reduced the core argument of the suggestion I made to a straw man for the sake of a little passive-aggressive comment. Once you are really committed to discuss what has been proposed on the terms that have been proposed, I will gladly talk to you again. What I play and how I play it is none of your concern, though. Have a nice one.

1 hour ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Ever heard of #StarMods? It's a thing where SQUAD highlights mods made by the community. So I don't know what you mean by "not supporting a modding community"

It was sarcasm addressing Tyko's argument for purism, dude. xD

[Chel]

23 minutes ago, BadLeo said:

It was sarcasm addressing Tyko's argument for purism, dude. xD

Yeah well it may of been sarcastic to you, but to others it looks like overwhelmingly negative

[BadLeo]

4 minutes ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Yeah well it may of been sarcastic to you, but to others it looks like overwhelmingly negative

I'm sorry that it came out like that, I thought context alone would make it clear.

[Chel]

Just now, BadLeo said:

I'm sorry that it came out like that, I thought context alone would make it clear.

All good, but just be a bit more careful with your wording in the future. 

[Superfluous J]

I do not think KSP without independent time warp is feasible and yes, I read the arguments.

I wouldn't play it anyway though so I've no irons in the fire.

[Tyko]

6 hours ago, BadLeo said:

I'm not demanding. I'm suggesting. And discussing it with the community. And listening to people that are against it, seeing that there are really decent reasons to actually not want it, with which I might not agree but that I can see where they are coming from, but calling out the BS reasons. You are welcome to take part in the constructions of good arguments, but why I should swallow bad arguments just because of peer pressure is beyond me.

It is insulting that you have reduced the core argument of the suggestion I made to a straw man for the sake of a little passive-aggressive comment. Once you are really committed to discuss what has been proposed on the terms that have been proposed, I will gladly talk to you again. What I play and how I play it is none of your concern, though. Have a nice one.

See, this is the challenge. You claim to want a constructive discussion but then demean any opinion you don't agree with. That's not a discussion, that's you randomly attacking people who disagree with you.

My argument is perfectly valid. The game has a theme and it's on a development trajectory which doesn't (as far as we know) include multi-player. You're proposing the team divert resources to accommodate your proposal which would necessarily take away progress on the core game development.

That's not "BS" or "Peer pressure" or "passive aggressive" or a "bad argument" or a "straw man"   - wow, did you realize you attacked my idea in at least 5 ways in just two paragraphs? That's hardly making a logical argument or encouraging a discussion

Edited October 18, 2018 by Tyko

[lrd.Helmet]

10 hours ago, BadLeo said:

Adding multiplayer would be great for the whole game.

No, it wouldn't. There are numerous examples (of games) out there where a multiplayer mode is tacked on to a single player game, where it is completely useless and any time spent by the developers on the mp would be better spent on the core game. 

So far all your arguments about why there should be a multiplayer are better suited for different games. I would suggest you try Garry's mod, you can build stuff, race stuff, shoot stuff, fly stuff, anything really.

I think it is pretty clear what the core of KSP is about and what it should be. And all the other things are not part of that, but if you really want something that is outside of its scope you can mod it in.

[BadLeo]

5 hours ago, Tyko said:

The game has a theme and it's on a development trajectory which doesn't (as far as we know) include multi-player.

Noted. Multiple times. That requires a word of the devs as much as the issue with the cost to benefit relation of including any kind of MP in the game, as Rocket In My Pocket and I discussed. But that much is about the only reasonable part of your entire argument.

5 hours ago, Tyko said:

See, this is the challenge. You claim to want a constructive discussion but then demean any opinion you don't agree with. That's not a discussion, that's you randomly attacking people who disagree with you.

No. Counterargument isn't demeaning. That's when you miss the picture. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't consider what you said to be valid. Except when I point out that I don't consider a valid argument. Saying "you should play something else entirely because you are not allowed to suggest the team to change the game in the way you would like it to go" is as much a BS argument as it goes, it has no substance whatsoever. Even if the entire community disagrees with me, which apparently is the case, that only says the suggestion isn't going to be popular, which by itself may be reason enough for the devs to not implement it, if they ever consider it in the first place, but it says nothing about what I can or cannot propose and talk about. Fine that you consider the suggestion inappropriate for the reason stated above (the assumption it goes against the game theme), HebaruSan also does and stated exactly that, which I countered with reasons of my own. My arguments aren't more valid that yours, but as long as it is an opinion against the other and all that there is to them is numbers in one side or the other (which is exactly what the pool stands for, to count those numbers), there is no reason for me to ask the topic to be locked because of nothing more to add.

5 hours ago, Tyko said:

That's not "BS" or "Peer pressure" or "passive aggressive" or a "bad argument" or a "straw man"   - wow, did you realize you attacked my idea in at least 5 ways in just two paragraphs? That's hardly making a logical argument or encouraging a discussion

Yes, I did attack it for what it is. More precisely, I did attack also how it was presented and its meanings. I did not, however, attack you and your right to argue what you want. But as long as anyone comes to say I can't have a word about something I care about that the devs aren't being crystal clear about, I will call it repurposed bovine waste.

Enough metadebate.

3 hours ago, lrd.Helmet said:

No, it wouldn't. There are numerous examples (of games) out there where a multiplayer mode is tacked on to a single player game, where it is completely useless and any time spent by the developers on the mp would be better spent on the core game.

Would like some of those examples, If you don't mind.

3 hours ago, lrd.Helmet said:

So far all your arguments about why there should be a multiplayer are better suited for different games. I would suggest you try Garry's mod, you can build stuff, race stuff, shoot stuff, fly stuff, anything really.

I think it is pretty clear what the core of KSP is about and what it should be. And all the other things are not part of that, but if you really want something that is outside of its scope you can mod it in.

That is basically the same argument of Tyko, but way more polite. I am aware that there are other games out there. I don't think this is an argument because a) I don't want to play those other games; b) I think KSP is much more than what its surface shows; and c) I don't think the devs themselves would like this argument either, that in essence implies it is better for people that like the base game but want to extract more out of it to look for the competition rather than sticking with their product in what it can offer. The disagreement here is this last part: what KSP can offer, but, again, that needs devs wording for us to either shut this debate entirely or go with it in another direction.

About those phrases "what it should be" and "other things aren't a part of that", I have been seen them, in some way or another, throughout many arguments here. They denote expectations and entitlement (not in a pejorative sense, mind you, please don't take it as that) over KSP that might or might not reasonably come from what devs let out when they communicate, and because I am not as active in the community as most of the people in this discussion, I cannot infer that with the degree of precision I would like to. But, either way, I think it is reasonable that people feel like that, they like KSP as it is and they will resist any changes they believe are counterproductive to their beloved game. I just don't think it is reason enough, on its own, to not discuss something. Again, devs may come and say "yeah, it doesn't fit the game as we envision it", and then it's done, nothing more to add on the issue. But, on something so substantial and that have been asked in many ways and for many reasons since KSP came out, I believe it is important that we hear from them.

Edited October 18, 2018 by BadLeo