I say nay to RSS, and here's why.

[LittleBitMore]

EDIT: This was written before the legal fiasco in June in which there was news released of a hostile takeover of Star Theory as well as a delay of well over a year. Though all of my points still remain intact, some information is outdated.

People are talking a lot about wanting RSS integrated into KSP2 in some way as stock. I say "absolutely not for many reasons." I will list these reasons below, and if you reply with any arguments towards KSP2 having RSS, I will show you why that argument probably isn't the best of ideas and add it to the OP (but chances are I probably haven't forgotten something).

I hope the poll worked.

Reasons Why Not

Star Theory already delayed the game. You tell them to put more things in, and yet you don't realize this would cause a major delay of at least 1-2 months. You're talking probably 15 or so celestial bodies that orbit the Sun, most of them with at least one moon, and some with up to 50. Not to mention the parts (see next argument). The estimated release date I have is early June, and postponing it for the minimum month and a half could push it into August. But that's a bare minimum, and we're likely to not see it until fall or, if we're unlucky, winter.

They would need to rebalance all the parts. If Earth were to be the homeplanet, you'd honestly need about 3 times the stages you would normally have on an orbiter. This is because KSP parts are specifically designed to be marginally overpowered on Kerbin, and perfectly balanced in something like JNSQ. This still means they are 1/3 as powerful as real engines and tanks, and getting to orbit would be a hassle, as would actually getting through the tech tree. This would scare off so many players. Which is why you need to build a NEW set of multiple hundred parts, just for RSS. They were planning on keeping KSP1 parts, and then adding a few to fill in gaps and adding a few to fill in future stuff.

It would scare off too many new players. Even if they DID delay it and DID make the hundreds of parts, Earth is TEN TIMES as wide as Kerbin, and it would take a lot longer to do anything meaningful. KSP orbital launches take a short amount of time, and RSS launches take a long time in comparison. Not to mention interplanetary transfers, surface operations, and other such things. Not everyone wants to play in a supersized system that takes multiple days to get to the Moon. And this will certainly also scare off long-time players. I would legitimately consider not getting KSP2 (I don't throw that term around lightly, I have NEVER said that for a single thing) if RSS is the main system, and so would a lot of players.

It doesn't fit in with KSP planets and their size. (This argument specifically for those that think it shouldn't be the home system.) I want all KSP2 planets to be similar in space to the stock KSP1 planets. Otherwise it isn't as silly and fun and new as the Kerbol system. Lightyears should be scaled down, as should stars and other such things. Having one solar system that's unexpectedly larger than the others would dominate the rest of the galaxy with Sol's SOI. It would be real distances from the others and would feel like someone copypasted it into a much different galaxy and it would be annoying to get to.

All signs point to the fact that they didn't do it, and probably won't. They haven't rebalanced parts, and they're keeping stock system intact. They probably didn't add RSS anywhere, and they probably won't. If they do, all of these reasons would drive away players and cause less income. Which is a bad thing for game developers, which rely on income to feed their families and pay the bills. They probably won't, and they probably didn't, and I don't think that'll change.

Reasons Why, Counter-arguments

"For educational purposes!" KSP is already one of the best and most educational space games out there. Making it more educational with RSS would technically add the slightest bit more education in playing KSP, but even if it did, it would never outweigh the cons, and it's too much work for such a small reason.

"It can be DLC!" If I've learned anything, it's that games that release DLC at the same date the game releases are generally garbage and they just want more money than they really need. I trust the KSP2 devs to wait at least a few months for the first DLC. And even then, it would disappoint so many new players that try it, say "bah, I don't like it anymore" due to the increased difficulty (by tenfold) and have wasted their money on something they realized they never should have wanted. A very small percentage of new players would like it and a similar percentage of older players. They would waste their money for no reason after realizing rocket science is harder when you add realism.

"It doesn't have to be the home system!" Doesn't change the fact that the parts will still be massively unbalanced, especially the earlier cheap parts you would obviously start with launching on a new colony. Think: early KSP parts will not be useful, and early KSP parts will be your first choice for building a craft in your colony, due to how cheap they are. And the parts will be severely underpowered. Also, see above in "Reasons Why Not" in the subcategory "It doesn't fit in with KSP planets and their size."

"I don't want to get mods to get RSS!" Tough. Those of you against mods should realize a major part of KSP is how customizable it can be with mods, even if you don't support those mods. When KSP2 comes out, shortly RSS2 will too. Some of you think paying 15 dollars for it is better than paying no money for a free crowd sourced RSS in which no KSP2 game delays occur, and while I'm not saying it's a bad opinion (no opinion is bad), I just don't want Star Theory to make KSP2 RSS because you guys spoke up and we didn't. If one or two of you yell at Star Theory to get RSS louder than the rest of us say politely "no thanks", they're gonna listen to you because you're louder, postpone the entire game for another season, and nobody will be happy (except maybe you, but then again, you won't, because now the game is postponed again).

"I don't want to have to wait for mods to get RSS!" And you'd rather wait the much longer delay that the KSP2 folks will have to delay the game for? They're the game devs, so they have to engineer everything just perfectly, which takes much longer than whipping together a planet pack and a few parts mods as a modder-- in which the entire and only goal is to get it done and eliminate bugs, and perfection doesn't have to be on the to do list. Whereas Star Theory has to get it perfect because if it isn't perfect they lose money.

Edited June 19, 2020 by LittleBitMore
Edit

[Guest]

RSS belongs in mods category, or perhaps a separate expansion pack (not DLC, a proper, old-fashioned expansion). It's just too different from stock. What KSP2 should provide in stock is Kopernicus. That is, planet modding should be straightforward and not require mods built atop more mods.

[RoninFrog]

The second reason is the biggie for me.  By now, I have the stats for nearly all of the engines and most of the fuel tanks memorized, and I would hate to have to relearn everything.

[RealKerbal3x]

@LittleBitMore Agreed on every point. If people want RSS/RO then they can wait for modders. It's too much of a hassle for the developers, especially as an optional feature.

(Also, side note, but getting to orbit in RSS takes 8-10 minutes, so not much longer than stock scale. It's about the same as IRL rockets take).

[LittleBitMore]

1 minute ago, RealKerbal3x said:

(Also, side note, but getting to orbit in RSS takes 8-10 minutes, so not much longer than stock scale. It's about the same as IRL rockets take)

To be completely honest, I had no idea how long real rockets launched. I'll edit that to be more accurate, thanks.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LittleBitMore said:

To be completely honest, I had no idea how long real rockets launched. I'll edit that to be more accurate, thanks.

You know you're making a compelling argument for RSS here?

[LittleBitMore]

12 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

You know you're making a compelling argument for RSS here?

how? KSP orbital launches take a short amount of time, and RSS launches take a super long time in comparison. Similar to interplanetary transfers, surface operations, and other such things.

edit: made it clearer in the OP

Edited April 2, 2020 by LittleBitMore

[Brofessional]

I would prefer a 1:1 scale system, but I don't expect it to happen. Rebalancing the parts and so forth to work with the new scale isn't all that difficult, but there are other issues.

My info may be out of date so correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge new versions of Unity still have the same 32-bit floating point limit that KSP1 has which is only made worse by RSS scaling everything up. The glitches induced by RSS are forgivable for a mod but most would find them unacceptable for a retail game.

 

As explained here:

 

[DStaal]

2 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

RSS belongs in mods category, or perhaps a separate expansion pack (not DLC, a proper, old-fashioned expansion). It's just too different from stock. What KSP2 should provide in stock is Kopernicus. That is, planet modding should be straightforward and not require mods built atop more mods.

This I agree with, and when I sometimes say that it should be DLC I mean as a completely separate pack, specifically for those who want it, and really as a full override of the system.  It wouldn't be a small add-on, and it would be priced (and *had dedicated development resources for*) appropriately.  It should probably also come with a large set of warning labels.

[LittleBitMore]

5 minutes ago, DStaal said:

This I agree with, and when I sometimes say that it should be DLC I mean as a completely separate pack, specifically for those who want it, and really as a full override of the system.  It wouldn't be a small add-on, and it would be priced (and *had dedicated development resources for*) appropriately.  It should probably also come with a large set of warning labels.

People who buy KSP2 will buy that too anyways, and they will be disappointed when they realize it's a bajillion times harder to do anything. And they paid for something they don't even want, and won't ever use. I would see it as a waste of time from Star theory's point of view, and a waste of money from those who bought it and didn't like it, and that's why I have a great dislike for trying to package such a thing in DLC. Not enough people are going to use it, and so this huge pack (revamps literally everything, from parts to planets to the Tech Tree) which probably cost a ton of money to make will go unused. Didn't I already make all these points?

[DStaal]

2 minutes ago, LittleBitMore said:

People who buy KSP2 will buy that too anyways, and they will be disappointed when they realize it's a bajillion times harder to do anything. And they paid for something they don't even want, and won't ever use. I would see it as a waste of time from Star theory's point of view, and a waste of money from those who bought it and didn't like it, and that's why I have a great dislike for trying to package such a thing in DLC. Not enough people are going to use it, and so this huge pack (revamps literally everything, from parts to planets to the Tech Tree) which probably cost a ton of money to make will go unused. Didn't I already make all these points?

You did.  I somewhat disagree on this one point, but I agree on the rest of them. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LittleBitMore said:

how? KSP orbital launches take a short amount of time, and RSS launches take a super long time in comparison. Similar to interplanetary transfers, surface operations, and other such things.

edit: made it clearer in the OP

No, my point was about the "I've had no idea" bit. If everyone actually tried truly realistic gameplay before complaining, there'd be less complaints. RSS is harder than stock, but not for the reason people think. And it very much is fun, as long as you're willing to accept that your first flight won't be manned and probably won't be orbital, either (suborbital flights in general are underappreciated in KSP).

[ArtemisAZ]

Biggest reason I can think of is that Earth sucks and I rely on KSP as my escape from this dreadful mud ball and I don't want to be reminded that I'm on it when I play my electronic distraction software.

[Starwaster]

41 minutes ago, Krulliam said:

Biggest reason I can think of is that Earth sucks and I rely on KSP as my escape from this dreadful mud ball and I don't want to be reminded that I'm on it when I play my electronic distraction software.

^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^
A thousand times this. I have to spend too much time on this rock as it is.  So instead of RSS I play Kerbol x10 (Kopernicus + Sigma Dimensions + Kerbolx10)

(I do keep RSS + RO installed at all times for compatibility testing with DRE, RF et al)

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

If everyone actually tried truly realistic gameplay before complaining, there'd be less complaints.

To be fair, the amount of experience I have with it is directly related to how much I liked it the time I tried it.

Edited April 3, 2020 by 5thHorseman

[wafflemoder]

So first and foremost, I am not advocating for RSS to be included. I have played with RSS before and am of the opinion that a full 1:1 scale solar system would put off players for similar reasons to those in the original post. HOWEVER, I also do not believe that the stock scale kerbol system is the answer either, or at least that it shouldn't be the only answer.

Regarding Gameplay and Balance

KSP2 seems to be adding an assortment of futuristic technologies. This may render the "RSS is too hard" or "RSS takes too long" arguments completely invalid. Fusion, fission, metal hydrogen, or whatever else they put in may make achieving orbit trivial even at RSS scales. Furthermore, some advanced technologies, and even some technologies present in KSP1, can't be fully implemented or appreciated without a larger scale.

This is most apparent with spaceplanes. One of the biggest problems with the stock scale is that, while orbital velocities are ~30% IRL, jet engine speeds are not reduced. This means most of the current/near future jet engine technologies like precooled jet engines, pulse detonation engines, and ramjets will need to be nerfed. In fact, the RAPIER (a precooled jet engine) is already nerfed both in its jet and rocket modes, and is arguably still overpowered for KSP1. More advanced scramjets, shcramjets, or liquid air cycle engines would be far too overpowered to be added as anything but a glorified reskin. A modest mach 10 from a scramjet would be enough to get you on a flyby of Eve if done correctly, and a mach 14 shcramjet could get you to Jool or Eeloo. If stock scales are retained, none of these technologies would work in KSP2.

Rocket powered SSTOs also have problems with the stock scale. Because of the small scales, you can make pretty much anything into an SSTO, sometimes by accident. This is most prominent in early career saves, where it is often difficult to make your 1 or 2 kerbal crew launches anything but an SSTO with a detachable capsule. Of course, part of the reason for this is to make it easier for beginner players to progress. Some wiggle room is nice, but that can already be afforded by adding an extra stage (or boosters, players love boosters). That isn't to say that difficulty is good. As with all things, there's a balance.

Global Part Rebalancing: The 'Easy' Way Out

If RSS is integrated, parts would indeed need to be rebalanced, but I strongly disagree on how difficult this would be. Rebalancing every part, is actually easier than just rebalancing some, as you can just modify everything at once. A lot of stock parts are a lot heavier than they should be, specifically so they are balanced for such a small system. Even something as simple as halving the dry mass of every part goes a long way. Your fuel fraction basically doubles, which gives craft either double or an extra 2000-2400 m/s dV, for low and high initial fuel fractions respectively. This really helps with RSS and basically negates the added difficulty of intermediate scales (more on that later).

SMURFF is a wonderful example of how this can be and has already been achieved for a stock game and modded parts, all without adding new parts or custom tweaking individual parts by hand.

2x, 3.2x, 6.4x, or 10x Kerbal System, Half or Quarter RSS, and Other Scaling Options

The problem of RSS being to difficult and stock being too easy has been around for as long as RSS. Since then, there has been a cornucopia of scales between stock and RSS, for both the kerbol system and the solar system. The orbital velocities for 2x and 3.2x scale are 1000 and 2000 m/s higher than stock respectively, and launch & orbit times are about 1.3 and 1.6 times longer. This is in a similar ballpark to differences from aerodynamic drag or launch profile.

Sigma Dimensions allows for custom scaling, and in my opinion should be how KSP2 handles things. Allowing the player to set the scale in game as a difficulty option would make the most people happy. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe that planet rescaling was actually demoed in KSP2 in real time, but I might be wrong.

There is also nothing saying that Kerbin has to be the same size and mass as Earth in a RSS or kerbal equivalent. The dV requirements for Kerbin is actually extremely similar to Mars, so having a slightly downsized kerbal system in an RSS setting (~6.4x size, but realistic densities) is also an option. From a planetary science perspective, this would even help explain some of the odd planetary properties of the kerbol system, like the large size of moons, the low (relative) density of Jool, the temperature and color of Kerbol, and the lack of a crushing atmosphere on Eve.

Edited April 3, 2020 by wafflemoder

[LittleBitMore]

11 hours ago, wafflemoder said:

KSP2 seems to be adding an assortment of futuristic technologies. This may render the "RSS is too hard" or "RSS takes too long" arguments completely invalid.

Late in the tech tree, sure. But you don't get late in the tech tree if you can't get anywhere with the early tech tree.

11 hours ago, wafflemoder said:

This is most apparent with spaceplanes.

I do agree that KSP1's parts are a little unbalanced, and the future spaceplane parts will probably be really overpowered. I'm sure there's some sort of way it can be done without affecting the previous jet engines TOO much, and even then, I do realize the jets will probably have to be reengineered a lot.

Or, they could just leave out future spaceplane stuff altogether. Which is not ideal, but it's a possibility. They're probably focusing on future vacuum engines anyways.

11 hours ago, wafflemoder said:

Rocket powered SSTOs also have problems with the stock scale.

In my mind, this is part of KSP, and they should not nerf any of the engines to make SSTO stages harder. I'd probably be alright with making them slightly harder, but not anywhere near realism.

11 hours ago, wafflemoder said:

If RSS is integrated, parts would indeed need to be rebalanced, but I strongly disagree on how difficult this would be.

I believe I forgot to specify that if the people wanted RSS, they would probably also want the real engines and fuel tanks and capsules, which is probably harder. But if it were just rebalancing them like that, then it's probably easier than I had said.

11 hours ago, wafflemoder said:

The problem of RSS being to difficult and stock being too easy has been around for as long as RSS.

I don't think the solution to this is upscaling the system for everyone. There are certainly people who think KSP itself is too hard and want it easier, but I do agree a setting to change planetary scales would solve this problem (although I'm sure it would be pretty buggy  )

Forum is being buggy, and not letting me quote anything else, so I'll just leave this post as is with only half of my arguments I guess.

Edited April 3, 2020 by LittleBitMore

[Bill Phil]

I think a scaled down RSS (to Kerbal Scale, or about Kerbal Scale) would be fun. Yes it would be inaccurate since velocities, times, and distances wouldn't be right, but it would still be fun to see real planets without having to rebalance KSP's tech. 

Mods already exist for this, of course. And I'd be just fine with it staying that way for KSP2.

[MechBFP]

The vast majority of people I talk about KSP in real life are like “Oh, so you can fly around the real solar system???”  “No it’s a smaller fictional solar system.” “Oh... well that is stupid.”

Nuff said.

Edited April 3, 2020 by MechBFP

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

I think a scaled down RSS (to Kerbal Scale, or about Kerbal Scale) would be fun. Yes it would be inaccurate since velocities, times, and distances wouldn't be right, but it would still be fun to see real planets without having to rebalance KSP's tech. 

Mods already exist for this, of course. And I'd be just fine with it staying that way for KSP2.

Actually, RSS scaled down to Kerbal Scale would be about as bland and have all the problems of stock KSP solar system. You want do scale it down 64%, and then stock parts becomes almost balanced, without any tuning required.  Of course, you can scale up the Kerbal system to an approximately the same scale, and get similar results. If you do that, pretty it up and add some planets, then you'll get JNSQ, which, while a big jump from stock, plays surprisingly closely to how RSS does, but without the hassle of having to rebalance parts. The biggest difference between JNSQ and RSS, beside absence of RO, is that in JNSQ, you get a perfectly equatorial launch site, the the moon doesn't have a funny inclination.

Stock parts are very OP for stock solar system, which was originally designed with 1m parts in mind. Kerbals were much smaller at first, and a three-Kerbal Apollo-style capsule was 1m, which translates to 25% scale, much closer to 9% of the stock solar system than what we have now (still not balanced, but there wasn't any balance at all back then). Squad scaled everything up massively when they implemented EVA (Unity wasn't very good at handling Kerbals that tiny), except for the planets, which they didn't touch. It wasn't very well planned out, but then, there wasn't a whole lot of planning going on in those days.

Edited April 3, 2020 by Guest

[Bill Phil]

52 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Actually, RSS scaled down to Kerbal Scale would be about as bland and have all the problems of stock KSP solar system. You want do scale it down 64%, and then stock parts becomes almost balanced, without any tuning required.  Of course, you can scale up the Kerbal system to an approximately the same scale, and get similar results. If you do that, pretty it up and add some planets, then you'll get JNSQ, which, while a big jump from stock, plays surprisingly closely to how RSS does, but without the hassle of having to rebalance parts. The biggest difference between JNSQ and RSS, beside absence of RO, is that in JNSQ, you get a perfectly equatorial launch site, the the moon doesn't have a funny inclination.

Stock parts are very OP for stock solar system, which was originally designed with 1m parts in mind. Kerbals were much smaller at first, and a three-Kerbal Apollo-style capsule was 1m, which translates to 25% scale, much closer to 9% of the stock solar system than what we have now (still not balanced, but there wasn't any balance at all back then). Squad scaled everything up massively when they implemented EVA (Unity wasn't very good at handling Kerbals that tiny), except for the planets, which they didn't touch. It wasn't very well planned out, but then, there wasn't a whole lot of planning going on in those days.

Sure, and there are also 2.5x rescales that some players prefer over 6.4x. 

But overpowered parts might actually be good for a scaled down real solar system, considering that many planets are even further than Jool and Eeloo, and the delta-v requirements are also larger for them. 

[Guest]

That's where you start propelling your ship with nuclear and ion engines, and eventually things like nuclear explosions, flow-stabilized fusion and antimatter. Before that, you just have to make big rockets. Overpowered parts are never good. A good selection of balanced parts is what KSP needs.

[jimmymcgoochie]

Let me just check, hmm, thought so, it's called KERBAL Space Program, not Human Space Program. It has already been said pretty clearly that KSP2 will use the same Kerbol system as KSP1 and at the same scale. I tried RSS once and ditched it pretty quickly as it's far more difficult to get into orbit, the RO/RP stuff was bewilderingly complicated and Earth looked abysmal compared to the real thing. Basing anything on a real place is risky because people will see all the ways it doesn't look like the real thing, whereas the Kerbol system is based on the real solar system closely enough that it's obvious what the analogies are (Duna = Mars etc.) but at the same time it's different enough that you can have a Jovian water-world and a Martian moon that's geosynchronous and tidally locked.

The stock scale Kerbol system is more than big enough considering how few people who start playing the game a) make it to orbit, b) get to the Mun and c) land on the Mun (I'm basing that on what I read when there was a KSP2 stand at a games expo a few months ago). Anything that makes it harder to do those three fairly simple things will drastically reduce player retention, and people who try a game and give up because it's too complicated aren't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Another important point is that we haven't visited most of the real solar system to any great extent- a few rovers on Mars, some landers on Venus and a handful of probes to the asteroid belt and the outer planets; we've only ever set foot on the Moon, which in astronomical terms is like going to the bottom of your garden, and that's not likely to change particularly soon. There's hardly any data out there for a great many of the bodies in the solar system, so basing it off a fictional one means you can make things up without being bound by realism and instead are free to make something far more interesting like the binary planets we've already seen in the KSP2 trailers.

I'm currently playing through with JNSQ as the stock planets aren't all that difficult to get around especially with all the mods out there; but then again I've been playing for a while now and chose to try something more challenging. It was either that or waiting the 60 years or so of game time for a probe mission to fly to Neidon- I tried a few stock-scale planet packs too including OPM and XPC, but simply adding more planets doesn't always improve the game. I have no intention of ever installing RSS or any of the realism-related mods at any point in the future, and by the time I'm done with this JNSQ game KSP2 should be out and I'll be unreachable for a few weeks months.

There might be a group of KSP players who like doing everything at real scale and with all the real challenges of doing a real space mission- fine, if you like that then go right ahead, but for the rest of us (and I'm pretty sure it's a significant majority) all the added complications of things like ullage, ignition limits and hypergolic vs cryogenic fuels are completely uninteresting; we don't want or need any of it. Likewise for procedural parts- if it works for you, fine, but don't try and force it on the rest of us. I'd far rather get KSP2 sooner and without any of that stuff than later with a load of features I turn off on day one and leave off forever. KSP's moddability makes it possible to do all the realistic things or none at all and KSP2 will have its own versions of them; don't try and force a rather niche set of requirements on the game because long-term players want it, when it will make things worse for most of the other players and new players in particular.

[wafflemoder]

There seems to be four separate discussions going on:

Kerbin vs Earth, Kerbol System or Solar System

Regardless of scaling, do we want to launch from Kerbin or Earth? As mentioned previously, this is Kerbal Space Program. I'm pretty sure everyone is well aware that we are getting the kerbol system no matter what, but the question remains if we will also get the solar system. With multiple star systems already in the game, and an abundance of height maps and textures of real solar system bodies, adding our solar system into KSP2 would take surprisingly little effort.

Regarding planetary realism, what's realistic doesn't have to be real. No binary planets have ever been found (unless you count Earth-Moon, or Pluto-Charon, or the countless binary asteroids in our solar system), but they are still realistic. Limiting KSP2 to what's physically possible doesn't do much to hamper planetary creativity. A real planet around PSR J1719-1438 is either a white dwarf star that was eroded away into an ultradense diamond world, or a lump of strange quark matter born in the collision of two still hypothetical quark stars. Adding our solar system may even help drive the diversity of the Kerbol system, as it would no longer be bound to being a slightly weird solar system analog, and could do its own thing better.

I honestly don't care one way or the other if the solar system gets added. If it does great, if it doesn't there will be mods.

As for why RSS Earth looks like butts, it's a marvelous combination of dark oversaturated textures, and false expectations. Oceans and Forested areas tend to look too dark in images from space. I'm not sure why that is, but when used in something like RSS, it doesn't look great. Reefs and tropical waters stand out like sore thumbs, because they do, and also the rest of the ocean is too dark.

Gameplay Balance From a Scaled Up System

Simply scaling up or down the kerbol or solar system doesn't really affect difficulty all that much. You need more or less dV, and things take more or less time. Both of these problems can be fairly trivially solved even by less experienced players. This burn or transfer is taking too long, use timewarp. Not enough deltaV, add more rocket. Making a big rocket isn't any more difficult than making a small rocket, especially with parts for various sizes of rocket. A big tank and engine is more capable than a small tank and engine, without using any more parts. For an upscaled system, you need only make the rocket bigger, without also increasing the payload. 

That being said, I do not think it should be upscaled for everyone, and it probably won't be anyways. We already know that for better or worse, stock scale is a thing. That being the case, if people are advocating for a larger scale, why have just one? Adding a difficulty setting to rescale the system would be a great way to let people to play the game how they want to.

Rebalancing parts to match a larger or smaller scale isn't an issue. As I've mentioned previously, SMURFF does a great job at this, and even allows you to change how much it tweaks. If something like SMURFF was added, it would give an additional level of difficulty customization not found in KSP1, especially when alongside a rescale factor. In KSP1, you can't make sandbox easier or harder, but with part rebalance and planet rescaling, you can. 

Gameplay Balance From Added Mechanics

Most of the difficulty in RSS/RO/RP isn't from the added scale. Its things like limited ignitions, ullage, fuel types, life support, and non-magical reaction wheels most of all. Some of these things *cough* ignition limits *cough* are even exaggerated in RO for difficulties sake. While these features *may* add realism, KSP is first and foremost a game. Realism, difficulty, and entertainment are fully independent of one another, as much as having a real scale earth does not mean having ullage and ignition limits. Reaction wheels are overpowered in KSP not because the devs don't know anything about irl reaction wheels, but because it keeps the game easy and entertaining for beginners.

It would be neat if life support was added as an optional thing, especially with the colonies. Every else is meh at best.

Gameplay Balance From Progression

KSP1 can be challenging for some players, and a large part of this is a lack of guidance. KSP1 lacks any real tutorial, and just throws new players into literal actual rocket science with nothing but a few hard to find in-game help resources. This situation has improved slightly with each new release. Maneuver nodes, Offset tools, KSPedia (someone has to have used it by now), and in game delta V and TWR readouts have made things easier, but only for those that already know where to find them and how to use them. Yes there are many tutorials and walkthroughs available online, but how many people have given up on the game before finding them? Missions might be close to a tutorial, if they weren't dlc.

You might say that career mode is a tutorial, but that definitely is not the case. Science isn't explained at all, early parts make achieving orbit harder than it should be, maneuver nodes can't be used until you progress far enough, funding can be an issue for less experienced players,  and contracts can be misleading and/or block progress.

If KSP2 has a proper tutorial and better ingame documentation (people who use the wiki, forums, subreddit, or youtube make up only a fraction of the playerbase), I am confident that everyone would be able to at least make it to orbit. Getting to orbit is the most fundamental thing in KSP, and teaching new players how to do this should not be made harder by limiting them to 1950s era rocket tech. Future technologies may actually help to aid in this, providing an easy way to get to orbit in a tutorial, while allowing for chemical propulsion to be made for difficult for actual career.

 

[Superfluous J]

5 hours ago, MechBFP said:

The vast majority of people I talk about KSP in real life are like “Oh, so you can fly around the real solar system???”  “No it’s a smaller fictional solar system.” “Oh... well that is stupid.”

Nuff said.

Have these people played any other video games ever?

"Oh so it's like real, actual war?" "No if you die you come back a couple minutes later." "Oh well that's stupid."

4 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

You want do scale it down 64%, and then stock parts becomes almost balanced, without any tuning required.  Of course, you can scale up the Kerbal system to an approximately the same scale, and get similar results. If you do that, pretty it up and add some planets, then you'll get JNSQ

Actually JNSQ is 25% of "real," or about 2.3x Stock KSP.

Edited April 4, 2020 by Superfluous J