Xenon and On

[Wheehaw Kerman]

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

The problem comes when the added realism comes just for its own sake, without any consideration for what it means for the gameplay overall. I've seen and played dozen of games and sims getting lost in ever more complex simulations of realistic features only to lose the focus and just become random messes of things happening for entirely realistic reasons that are out of the control of the player.

As an engineering game (before being a simulation), in KSP every error must come from the player, it's not realistic, I know, IRL crap out of the control of the pilot or lead engineer happens all the time, but it's crucial.

If KSP were some realistic spaceflight simulator with realistic planets and realistic rockets it would have died half a decade ago, the key aspect of the game is not replicating what happened IRL, is coming up with your own space program and, with that, your own mistakes. Learning how to overcome those, how to make a better iteration for your next launch is the core gameplay element, and whatever new realism element is introduced must be designed around not changing that.

So, question: did you enjoy watching Apollo 13?

Because bringing Jeb, Bob, and Bill from something like that would be an amazing KSP moment.

My second fave KSP moment after my first successful Mün landing was during a no-reaction-wheel/RCS-only Soviet-style Münshot.  The lander ran out of RCS fuel in that big canyon that runs north-south and started tumbling.  I used a series of full-throttle descent burns every time prograde ran in the right direction to get the LK-Alike into something resembling an equatorial orbit (I wasn’t thrilled with the infinite restarts thing), rendezvoused the LOK-Alike with it, spacewalked the LK pilot to (relative) safety (being somewhat unthrilled with the OP jet pack), and got them home on fumes.

The whole mess was an unmitigated blast, far more memorable than any of the many, many hitch-free Münshots I’ve run.

And I built the next iteration with more monoprop, picked a more conservative landing site for it, and pulled it off.

I don’t really think it matters what causes the sudden adversity leading to the sudden need to go into Failure Is Not An Option mode.  I’ll take a heroic scramble to save the mission over a milk run every time, even if most of them result in a round of posthumous Hero of the Koviet Union medals.  And I can only wonder why people don’t find that fun.  Adversity makes for greater challenge, which makes for more learning, and sweeter success.  Over-easy overpredictable games are boring.

I do agree that KSP shouldn’t be turned into a perfect simulation.  What I am saying that there are still some areas where it could benefit from its trademark cartoony approach to simulation, and that glaring absence of that Cartoony Realism(tm) in certain areas detracts from the game and gameplay.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

So, question: did you enjoy watching Apollo 13?

I know the story well enough to have read the transcripts of the mission before watching the movie, and to know that Lovell made a cameo in the movie as the captain of the recovery ship.

Does that makes me good enough for this discussion or not being fixated with simming and extreme realism makes me not "hardcore" enough?

 

BTW "Apollo 13" and "The Martian" (don't worry, I know the second one is a fictional setting) as inspiring as they are for playing KSP are entirely and 100% not reproducible in KSP. Almost if not all of what matters in those two movies happened on the ground or IVA, a side of spaceflight that, regardless of realism, is not even covered by either KSP1 or 2.

For that kind of feeling and gameplay built around rescuing stranded kerbals realism would only act as a dampener, making it either just a weight tax (X part can fail, bring 3 of them) or an impossible rescue (if X fails everyone is dead regardless) in most cases unless you're actively acting it out. Additional realism would only reduce the range of situations in which you can act creatively to save the day.

 

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

My second fave KSP moment after my first successful Mün landing was during a no-reaction-wheel/RCS-only Soviet-style Münshot.

That never happened, the Mün doesn´t exist, it's not realistic. Your best moment is a 0/10 on the realism scale.

 

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

he lander ran out of RCS fuel in that big canyon that runs north-south and started tumbling.

If you survived at all it's not realistic, 0/10 on the realism scale.

 

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

(I wasn’t thrilled with the infinite restarts thing)

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

(relative) safety (being somewhat unthrilled with the OP jet pack),

 

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

The whole mess was an unmitigated blast, far more memorable than any of the many, many hitch-free Münshots I’ve run.

Turns out in a more realistic game that would have either ended up in a flop or in a "Revert to VAB" situation.

Are you trying to tell me that realism would have ruined your favorite KSP moment ever? Because that's what this sounds like.

 

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

And I built the next iteration with more monoprop, picked a more conservative landing site for it, and pulled it off.

And, on that mission the additional monoprop tank exploded because you rolled a 1 on an hidden dice, taking the engine with it. Everyone dies, no lesson to be learned, not in your control. Why? Because it's more realistic that way.

The description of the accident is going to tell you that some unnamed technician dropped the tank (a 5cm fall) and that damaged the insulation of some heating element, causing a short circuit igniting the content. You smile the first time, but after 100 hours in the game that same text happened to you 230 times already. By that time the immersion is gone and you only see a D20 falling on 1 on a table, deciding that that mission had to fail.

 

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I don’t really think it matters what causes the sudden adversity leading to the sudden need to go into Failure Is Not An Option mode.  I’ll take a heroic scramble to save the mission over a milk run every time, even if most of them result in a round of posthumous Hero of the Koviet Union medals.  And I can only wonder why people don’t find that fun.  Adversity makes for greater challenge, which makes for more learning, and sweeter success.  Over-easy overpredictable games are boring.

Here you are 100% talking about gameplay, not realism.

Realism would dictate that you almost never fly manually and, unless you have a real team of engineers playing with you and you write yourself your own flight control computer, all of that comes already done out of the box, with a 200 pages manual on how to do a specific set missions that turns out to be actually easier than playing KSP as it is (that is if you have the patience to flow the written instructions and said manuals).

 

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I do agree that KSP shouldn’t be turned into a perfect simulation.  What I am saying that there are still some areas where it could benefit from its trademark cartoony approach to simulation, and that glaring absence of that Cartoony Realism(tm) in certain areas detracts from the game and gameplay.

"The realism I personally like is OK while what doesn't conform to my tastes is too much" is such a roundabout way to say that, in the end, gameplay is more important than realism.

 

[Bej Kerman]

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

23 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Indeed

I don't recall anyone complaining about Squad making the atmosphere not a soup, and I don't think people would complain if Intercept went full FAR with KSP 2's aero model.

KSP2 chasing realism without considerations for gameplay, would also realistically mean that most if not all manual piloting to be removed from the game and replaced with the player learning how to program an autopilot from scratch.

Still, I don't remember people complaining about the Mk2 parts acting like lifting bodies for once, or right-angle turns at Mach Plaid causing wings to shear off.

[darthgently]

I get weary of the "but gameplay" and "balance" arguments.  Much of that implies a reality where grade school martial arts leagues for some reason would be required to compete under the same rules as UFC.   There is a reason there are different rules for different ages and skill levels.  In computer games we call this "difficulty level" and is easily solved with this thing called "difficulty settings".  There is no more reason for high level KSP players to be limited to a "gameplay fair and balanced" aero model any more than pro athletes should be forced to play on peewee league sized playing fields.  Advanced players need increasing realism/challenge 

Edited January 6, 2023 by darthgently

[Guest]

4 hours ago, darthgently said:

I get weary of the "but gameplay" and "balance" arguments.  Much of that implies a reality where grade school martial arts leagues for some reason would be required to complete under the same rules as UFC.   There is a reason there are different rules for different ages and skill levels.  In computer games we call this "difficulty level" and is easily solved with this thing called "difficulty settings".  There is no more reason for high level KSP players to be limited to a "gameplay fair and balanced" aero model any more than pro athletes should be forced to play on peewee league sized playing fields.  Advanced players need increasing realism/challenge 

You're starting from the assumption that "Gameplay" and "balance" are easier than "realism" where in reality a ton of realism features move the game away from manually piloting (making the game actually easier) or make complicate the flight scene in a way that would just cut off a lot of things removing ways to play the game instead of providing any new challenge.

Realism ≠ difficulty or challenge.

 

The challenge, the difficulty and the possibility of changing it in a game are a matter of game design, that's exactly what balance and gameplay are about.

Chasing realism is the opposite of making a game, you're just making a simulation, which in itself it's not a game, it's part of the idea of one.

 

In KSP most of the difficulty and the challenge comes from manual piloting everything, which is also one of the most unrealistic elements of the game.

[darthgently]

6 hours ago, Master39 said:

You're starting from the assumption that "Gameplay" and "balance" are easier than "realism" where in reality a ton of realism features move the game away from manually piloting (making the game actually easier) or make complicate the flight scene in a way that would just cut off a lot of things removing ways to play the game instead of providing any new challenge.

Realism ≠ difficulty or challenge.

 

The challenge, the difficulty and the possibility of changing it in a game are a matter of game design, that's exactly what balance and gameplay are about.

Chasing realism is the opposite of making a game, you're just making a simulation, which in itself it's not a game, it's part of the idea of one.

 

In KSP most of the difficulty and the challenge comes from manual piloting everything, which is also one of the most unrealistic elements of the game.

I do 96% of my rocketing with kOS and very little manual stuff except when debugging scripts, so you make a good point in that regard.  I didn't want to post a dissertation so cut some corners a bit but I imagine most got the gist fairly well.   I'm not sure we are on the same page with regards to terminology, but think I understand your points. 

But the point that somehow difficulty settings can't manage all this, no matter different perspectives, seems to have gone a bit unappreciated.  I'm hurt

Edited January 6, 2023 by darthgently

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 1/5/2023 at 8:28 AM, Master39 said:

I know the story well enough to have read the transcripts of the mission before watching the movie, and to know that Lovell made a cameo in the movie as the captain of the recovery ship.

Does that makes me good enough for this discussion or not being fixated with simming and extreme realism makes me not "hardcore" enough?

Sorry if I inadvertently insulted you.  That was not my intent.  You play the way you want to.  I’m not arguing, nor implying, that you need to “man up” when playing a video game or do anything else of the sort.  Beyond recommending  Apollo 13, of course.  It’s about as Kerbal as you can get in a movie about real life spaceflight. Great stuff.

What I am saying is that I hope KSP2 does is use its trade-mark “Cartoony Realism(tm)” to fix the gaps in KSP1.  In other words, apply more of the same winning formula.

Realism matters to a point in KSP, and you’re absolutely right that some lack of realism is essential.  None of us can afford to hire NASA levels of admin staff to help with the paperwork that comes with a real space program, but that’s not the kind of realism that anybody wants. The sort of realism that I want to see is stuff like life support, comms delays, and radiation, that any six year old with internet access knows about be addressed in the same manner the game does the rest of its subject-matter. 

Electricity is a great example: it’s on the same level of importance to mission success in real life as life support.  Would you be able to enjoy playing the game with the infinite electricity cheat turned on?  Sure, to a lesser extent.  Could all the arguments of the folks who don’t want life support be made against electricity?  Absolutely yes.  It adds complexity.  You need to slap a few extra parts on each vessel.  You have to manage it in some cases. It increases risk that you’ll lose a long term mission.  It isn’t critically essential to however you want to define “the core game” or “gameplay”, or whatever (unless you’re an electrical engineer).

Do you play with infinite electricity always turned on, and no batteries, panels, or RTGs?  I’m betting not, and I’m going to accuse you of actually enjoying the electricity system .  I expect that taking a rough guess at battery needs and spamming a few panels is as much part of your design process as it is almost everybody else’s. 

This is what I am getting at when I say that realism makes the game better.  More Cartoony Realism, not strawman hyperrealism.  Enough points of failure to make us learn from failed missions, enough gameplay to make us scramble memorably, a bit more fun in the VAB, and better Cartoony Verisimilitude(tm).  More of what made KSP1 great.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Wheehaw Kerman

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Sorry if I inadvertently insulted you.  That was not my intent.  You play the way you want to.  I’m not arguing, nor implying, that you need to “man up” when playing a video game or do anything else of the sort.  Beyond recommending  Apollo 13, of course.  It’s about as Kerbal as you can get in a movie about real life spaceflight. Great stuff.

What I am saying is that I hope KSP2 does is use its trade-mark “Cartoony Realism(tm)” to fix the gaps in KSP1.  In other words, apply more of the same winning formula.

Realism matters to a point in KSP, and you’re absolutely right that some lack of realism is essential.  None of us can afford to hire NASA levels of admin staff to help with the paperwork that comes with a real space program, but that’s not the kind of realism that anybody wants. The sort of realism that I want to see is stuff like life support, comms delays, and radiation, that any six year old with internet access knows about be addressed in the same manner the game does the rest of its subject-matter. 

Electricity is a great example: it’s on the same level of importance to mission success in real life as life support.  Would you be able to enjoy playing the game with the infinite electricity cheat turned on?  Sure, to a lesser extent.  Could all the arguments of the folks who don’t want life support be made against electricity?  Absolutely yes.  It adds complexity.  You need to slap a few extra parts on each vessel.  You have to manage it in some cases. It increases risk that you’ll lose a long term mission.  It isn’t critically essential to however you want to define “the core game” or “gameplay”, or whatever (unless you’re an electrical engineer).

Do you play with infinite electricity always turned on, and no batteries, panels, or RTGs?  I’m betting not, and I’m going to accuse you of actually enjoying the electricity system .  I expect that taking a rough guess at battery needs and spamming a few panels is as much part of your design process as it is almost everybody else’s. 

This is what I am getting at when I say that realism makes the game better.  More Cartoony Realism, not strawman hyperrealism.  Enough points of failure to make us learn from failed missions, enough gameplay to make us scramble memorably, a bit more fun in the VAB, and better Cartoony Verisimilitude(tm).  More of what made KSP1 great.

I can't disagree with this, but it's a far cry from the "more realism is always good" blanket statement you started with.

I think that KSP2 needs a way to bring failure back on the table, making it part of the gameplay, along with contingency plans, rescues and launch escape systems.

What I disagree with is that "realism" is a solution.

Bringing up one of the examples you made, life support, I love complex resource systems. My problem with life support is that if the fail condition is killing the crew you are effectively removing the whole "rescuing stranded Kerbals" from the gameplay. At the same time having them just not working with no LS would just mean starving them for most of the time and having presupplies waiting for them at their destinations where you need the crew to actually do something.

You can't solve that without looking outside of the idea that realism is the only possible source of gameplay and challenge.

 

Want a random, crazy, and completely unrealistic idea that would make players put down that revert button and start planning some contingencies in case things don't go to plan?

Every time you press the "revert" button you get an option to choose if you want the resources, the time or the crew/payload back, and you always get a (bigger) reputation hit (if that's still a thing).

Completely unrealistic, you waste time and resources for a flight that technically never happened, but still a solution that would probably make more people start to consider to play through failures and make them feel more like a part of the loop and less a "fade to black, Shadowzone's voice saying 'AGAIN!'" game-over screen.

[Snafu225]

56 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Bringing up one of the examples you made, life support, I love complex resource systems. My problem with life support is that if the fail condition is killing the crew you are effectively removing the whole "rescuing stranded Kerbals" from the gameplay. At the same time having them just not working with no LS would just mean starving them for most of the time and having presupplies waiting for them at their destinations where you need the crew to actually do something.

Yes and no, I'd say most will realize that when the supplies won't suffice anymore because a return orbit didn't work out as planned or something other unexpected happened (I placed part of my supplies on sections that got staged once) and now you're in a time crunch to save those kerbals. There's still a rescue mission to be done, only with the added challenge that you can't wait around to get bigger/better capsules/rockets but you have to make do with what you have at that very moment. 
And if those kerbals are stuck on a far away planet and there's no suitable craft close that's part of the learning experience, the mistakes we keep doing until we figure it out and that's something Nate talked about a lot. Next Eve Mission will be planned different/more carefully/more redudancy/etc so you won't loose the kerbals anymore.
 

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

Every time you press the "revert" button you get an option to choose if you want the resources, the time or the crew/payload back, and you always get a (bigger) reputation hit (if that's still a thing).

Taking this and sticking with LS for now: The mod Snacks can be set up in a way that as soon as you run out of supplies, you will stay in control of your craft, nobody dies but you loose money and rep every day they aren't resupplied. Which as you said isn't realistic but makes for some good gameplay.
And in case that's not realistic enough you can choose to have Kerbals faint from time to time or die when they run out and if a mod maker is able to provide different settings like this I'm confident the devs can do that too allowing everybody to dial the realism/difficulty/gameplay loops to their delight.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Snafu225 said:

Yes and no, I'd say most will realize that when the supplies won't suffice anymore because a return orbit didn't work out as planned or something other unexpected happened (I placed part of my supplies on sections that got staged once) and now you're in a time crunch to save those kerbals.

There's a huge range of settings and difficulties you could put in the system to change things around, I know it's not just "lethal" vs "non lethal", I simplified the whole argument to make a point.

 

2 hours ago, Snafu225 said:

Taking this and sticking with LS for now: The mod Snacks can be set up in a way that as soon as you run out of supplies, you will stay in control of your craft, nobody dies but you loose money and rep every day they aren't resupplied. Which as you said isn't realistic but makes for some good gameplay.

And that was my point. Oftentimes the good gameplay comes from tweaking the realism you add or glossing over it.

Another solution to the same I've thrown around is the non-resettable emergency cryogenic sleep. Once the LS stops working the whole crew gets to sleep and you have to bring them back to the nearest top-tier colony (or the KSC) to revive them. That way you also get the additional "failure state" of not being able to resume the mission as if nothing happened.

[Snafu225]

40 minutes ago, Master39 said:

And that was my point. Oftentimes the good gameplay comes from tweaking the realism you add or glossing over it.

Oh, and I agree. I just wanted to pad that point of view with some gameplay mechanics that exist right now and can be tried out as we speak. 

[tstein]

On 1/7/2023 at 10:12 AM, Master39 said:

I can't disagree with this, but it's a far cry from the "more realism is always good" blanket statement you started with.

I think that KSP2 needs a way to bring failure back on the table, making it part of the gameplay, along with contingency plans, rescues and launch escape systems.

What I disagree with is that "realism" is a solution.

Bringing up one of the examples you made, life support, I love complex resource systems. My problem with life support is that if the fail condition is killing the crew you are effectively removing the whole "rescuing stranded Kerbals" from the gameplay. At the same time having them just not working with no LS would just mean starving them for most of the time and having presupplies waiting for them at their destinations where you need the crew to actually do something.

You can't solve that without looking outside of the idea that realism is the only possible source of gameplay and challenge.

 

Want a random, crazy, and completely unrealistic idea that would make players put down that revert button and start planning some contingencies in case things don't go to plan?

Every time you press the "revert" button you get an option to choose if you want the resources, the time or the crew/payload back, and you always get a (bigger) reputation hit (if that's still a thing).

Completely unrealistic, you waste time and resources for a flight that technically never happened, but still a solution that would probably make more people start to consider to play through failures and make them feel more like a part of the loop and less a "fade to black, Shadowzone's voice saying 'AGAIN!'" game-over screen.

 

 

We need an "YOU DIED" fade to black from  dark souls

[darthgently]

32 minutes ago, tstein said:

We need an "YOU DIED" fade to black from  dark souls

As an "Oregon Trail" game fan, I like this

[Gargamel]

Some off topic material has been removed.