Why I don't want interstellar travel

[Drakenred65]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I've expressed my opinion on the subject in the past. KSP is not 1 game, it's 5 in 1:

A: Interstellar (mod)

B: Realism (mod)

C: Warfare (mod

D: Roleplay (mod multiplayer parts abd contract mods)

E: Grand strategy / city builder (kind of more so with mods)

The OP likes game B. Each flavor has it's followers. I want all of them to flourish with the addition of multiplayer.

So you play KSP with mods…..to be fair I have to wonder how many other people do, heck  I have to keep a list of mods just in case I need to reinstall again in a separate document.

 

in fact I’m deliberately playing ksp unmodded right now and it’s weird, I’m looking for parts that were from mods and building a jet rover sucks.

[obney kerman]

22 hours ago, regex said:

Pewee actually ran (in atmosphere) and offered much better performance than KSP1's LV-N (around 940s). Look up Project NERVA sometime.

I do in fact know what NERVA is, thanks. Just saying that it's not something that exists IRL at the moment, although that's not really a fair standard to hold it to, so I'll give you that one.

Also, everyone saying that warfare doesn't exist in KSP without mods: surely I wasn't the only one who watched Spiritwolf? Kethane Station? Read Kerbfleet? Return to your roots, and start building I-beam missiles again.

[AtomicTech]

11 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I've expressed my opinion on the subject in the past. KSP is not 1 game, it's 5 in 1:

...

C: Warfare

Let's relegate the C to just fireworks.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

12 hours ago, tstein said:

But that is  KSP in a nutshell. KSP  is engineering with seasoning of  unrealistic optimism . The unrealistic strength of struts, the infinitely magical  reaction wheels, the portable hole where kerbals store their food, the infinite stupidity of a kerbal accepting to travel in an external seat between kerbin and Duna,  faster than light communication,  engines can that be pushed from 0% to 100% and back in 1/10th of a second and nothing bad happens.

 

A bit of wishful thinking on an Orion engine or a Metallic Hydrogen one is just a bit more of salt in the ocean... it changes nothing the taste..

And those unrealistically optimistic breaks with reality detract from the game, IMHO.  Some you can address through design (I like having 3 seats per Kerbal worth of living space on anything going farther than Minmus) and play style (not using throttle settings below approx 80%, using RCS in lieu of reaction wheels), but there are still a few things in the game that just don’t work the way they do in reality, and they  kind of grate on my nerves.

[The Aziz]

21 minutes ago, obney kerman said:

Also, everyone saying that warfare doesn't exist in KSP without mods: surely I wasn't the only one who watched Spiritwolf? Kethane Station? Read Kerbfleet? Return to your roots, and start building I-beam missiles again.

No idea what these are. There's no warfare if there's nobody to have a war with. And, A, B, D and E have something dedicated to their existence in the game, be it parts, mechanics, you name it. C doesn't. 

[obney kerman]

Just now, The Aziz said:

No idea what these are.

(To give an actual answer, a pair of old cinematic series and a webcomic, all involving elements of stock combat in ksp, and all of which have been inactive for about 4-7 years now. I feel old...)

Regardless, yeah warfare, while not incompatible with the stock game is definitely not a core priority. A, B, D, and E are all good elements of the game, though.

[Vl3d]

It's beyond the scope of this discussion, but KSP Warfare will always be a flavor of the game when the right mods are added. It's an important part of the community that should not be frowned upon or ignored. There are mods, cinematics, competitions for KSP Warfare Mode / Flavor. Even Scott Manley is supporting it.

Some of us play stock, some RO, some prefer Interstellar and planet packs, others use IVA Mode and VR or want to fill the K system with bases and stations. Some even want to build weapons and go to war. We are all different, we like flavors of the game, we mix it up. The point is that stock should have SANE DEFAULTS and difficulty options to add a few missing features to the game for balance reasons. Excepting the visual improvements which I won't list here, who can really argue against the concepts of these mods being stock with difficulty toggles? They can make the game a lot better for whoever wants to use them - and we should not go searching in CKAN to find these features.

Spoiler

Interface improvements: BetterBurnTime / Tracking Station Evolved / PlanetInfoPlus / Part Commander Continued / Wernher Checker Continued / Space Age - ship logs
Parts: ReStock / PicoPort / Smart Parts / Utility Weight
Exploration: SCANsat / ResearchBodies / CactEye-2 Orbital Telescope Refocused
Accurate landing: Trajectories
Better tech progression: Un Kerballed Start
SIMPLEX Kerbalism - better interactive science, basic life support to differentiate between probes and crewed missions, part wear or failure to encourage design redundancy and improvisation

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Vl3d

[GoldForest]

19 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

It's beyond the scope of this discussion, but KSP Warfare will always be a flavor of the game when the right mods are added. It's an important part of the community that should not be frowned upon or ignored. There are mods, cinematics, competitions for KSP Warfare Mode / Flavor. Even Scott Manley is supporting it.

Some of us play stock, some RO, some prefer Interstellar and planet packs, others use IVA Mode and VR or want to fill the K system with bases and stations. We are all different, we like flavors of the game, we mix it up. The point is that stock should have SANE DEFAULTS and difficulty options to add a few missing features to the game for balance reasons. Excepting the visual improvements which I won't list here, who can really argue against the concepts of these mods being stock with difficulty toggles? They can make the game a lot better for whoever wants to use them - and we should not go searching in CKAN to find these features.

  Reveal hidden contents

Interface improvements: BetterBurnTime / Tracking Station Evolved / PlanetInfoPlus / Part Commander Continued / Wernher Checker Continued / Space Age - ship logs
Parts: ReStock / PicoPort / Smart Parts / Utility Weight
Exploration: SCANsat / ResearchBodies / CactEye-2 Orbital Telescope Refocused
Accurate landing: Trajectories
Better tech progression: Un Kerballed Start
SIMPLEX Kerbalism - better interactive science, basic life support to differentiate between probes and crewed missions, part wear or failure to encourage design redundancy and improvisation

 

Warfare is not important part of the community. Imo, it's a small niche that a low percentage of KSP players enjoy. Just because it's supported by a widely known youtuber, doesn't mean it should be put into the base game. 

I will admit, some mods do deserve to be put into the base game, but those mods are ones that focus on Kerbal SPACE Program. Mods like Nertea's Near Future Tech mods, or his Far Future Technologies mod. Mods that allow interstellar travel.

Interstellar has been the KSP mod scene go to for some time now, ever since planet packs and solar system packs became a thing. Intercept saw that people loved interstellar and decided to make it stock in KSP 2, something that focuses on the fun and PEACEFUL exploration of Space and Space Science. Warfare will never be stock in KSP because it doesn't focus on space, nor is it peaceful. It will remain a mod, forever. There is little to no chance of it getting put into KSP or getting made into a spin-off game based off KSP. 

I will reiterate: Mods do not make a game. Mods add to a game. 

It's fine that you like Warfare mods, heck, I like some of them too! But I understand that they are just mods and don't really fit the scope of KSP, and never will. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by GoldForest

[KerikBalm]

20 hours ago, Luriss said:

What else were they meant to do? If they were to stay within the bounds of near future technology you'd at absolute most be able to plonk an inflatable colony on Duna; in other words, you be stuck remaking KSP 1 with little to no new features.

I disagree, KSP 1 lacks an entire outer solar system. Look at OPM, that's already a huge addition, but it lacks a kuiper belt analogue. What of a mission to a Sedna analogue?

We could have HiPEP engines, project Timberwind engines, nuclear lightbulbs, air augmented rockets, nuclear reactors for powering colonies, etc.

There's still a lot to be done without going interstellar, and IMO the colony mechanics wouldn't violate near future technology. The technology to make building like we have on earth, but airtight, is not far-future. The issue with colonies is the scale, the sheer mass of what you'd need to send, before it could bootstrap itself.

Of course, we have to define what near-future is. I like to take a broader definition: technology we could have soon if there was the political will to have a concerted push to develop it - as opposed to technology that we likely will have soon.

One would include nuclear engines like those proposed by the Timberwind project, or even nuclear lightbulds.

The other may not even include a flight ready HiPEP propulsion system.

20 hours ago, Luriss said:

Besides, what's the harm in interstellar travel and more far future technologies? You're going to be getting all the KSP 1 features (eventually, probably) anyway so it's not like you're being forced to play with the interstellar features.

Agreed.

Interstellar allows for exploring different worlds without cluttering the Kerbin system. An alternative would be an option to start in different systems (currently something offered in KSP through mods like JNSQ)

19 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I've expressed my opinion on the subject in the past. KSP is not 1 game, it's 5 in 1:

A: Interstellar

B: Realism

C: Warfare

D: Roleplay

E: Grand strategy / city builder

I would simplify, its a simulator of something like our "local" environment and ways which we can move around and interact with it (vehicles).

This allows for all of the above. People can build rovers and trek across Kerbin, boat across kerbin, dive down to the depths of its oceans, set land speed record on ice shelves, do aerobatics, make VTOLs and land on high mountain peaks, and go to space and do the previous stuff on other worlds.

All the rest emerges from the core simulator aspect.

Although KSP1 really isn't A, not without heavy modding. its just Interplanetary

And its rather poor at E

[Vl3d]

Like I mentioned before, there are FLAVORS of KSP 1, so called spin-offs created through mod packs. I never said warfare should be stock, that's just a theory @GoldForest came up with. As I wrote above:

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Some of us play stock, some RO, some prefer Interstellar and planet packs, others use IVA Mode and VR or want to fill the K system with bases and stations. Some even want to build weapons and go to war. We are all different, we like flavors of the game, we mix it up.

There are 5 ways to experience the simulation, each could be (and actually is) its own game.

A: Interstellar / B: Realism / C: Warfare / D: Roleplay / E: Grand strategy and city builder

KSP2 is extending the concept of stock KSP1 with A+E flavors (and I hope they add a little bit of B also).

B is probably going to be left to the modders.

There's a chance D will be a new game Intercept will make or is making.

C should definitely be a standalone game.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Vl3d

[GoldForest]

6 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Like I mentioned before, there are FLAVORS of KSP 1, so called spin-offs created through mod packs. I never said warfare should be stock, that's just a theory @GoldForest came up with. As I wrote above:

There are 5 ways to experience the simulation, each could be (and actually is) its own game.

A: Interstellar / B: Realism / C: Warfare / D: Roleplay / E: Grand strategy and city builder

KSP2 is extending the concept of stock KSP1 with A+E flavors (and I hope they add a little bit of B also).

B is probably going to be left to the modders.

There's a chance D will be a new game Intercept will make or is making.

C should definitely be a standalone game.

Apologizes, then. It came off to me as if you did want warfare in KSP 2 as stock.

As for these 'experiences' being their own game, no, they can't. They are tied together. Except Warfare. You can't really have Interstellar without realism. You can't really have city builder without roleplay or realism. 

Warfare will never be a standalone game, as I mentioned before. Not an official spin-off game made by Intercept, Private Division or Take-Two at least. If a Kerbal Warfare Program game does get made, it will more than likely be by someone of the community. It doesn't fit the scope of KSP. 

[The Aziz]

Roleplay is such a wide concept, in theory, even competing/cooperating agencies are part of roleplay - but I wouldn't expect more from it than what's already been said. You can interact with people and pick roles - be it a station constructor or a saboteur. The talks about Kerbals being avatars, yeah, your ship pilot or the one that goes out on EVA to interact with something, or just simply one Kerbal chosen at the start of the save for agency leader.

[Vl3d]

36 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Roleplay is such a wide concept, in theory, even competing/cooperating agencies are part of roleplay - but I wouldn't expect more from it than what's already been said. You can interact with people and pick roles - be it a station constructor or a saboteur. The talks about Kerbals being avatars, yeah, your ship pilot or the one that goes out on EVA to interact with something, or just simply one Kerbal chosen at the start of the save for agency leader.

I was thinking about D: Roleplay more along the lines of an RPG: controlling a kerbal avatar (third person), experiencing the game IVA/EVA and VR (first person), having diverse roles (actual pilot, scientist, engineer, medic, remote probe pilot, flight controller), interacting with other characters, having a campaign with missions, living in the Kerbal world, with a focus on lore.

It could be a spin-off game.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Vl3d

[SolarAdmiral]

2 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

Warfare and roleplay would add more value to the stock game than interstellar, which seems more like something to justify colonies, as these would be needed for the large orbital construction yards that make the new sci-fi engines.

But wouldn't interstellar and colonies also add so much value to any possible warfare and roleplay game play? Like, colonies would give you something to fight over, something to build to get resources and construct units at, the new interstellar ship scale and engines would let you build real space warships like the expanse, space carriers to deliver your warplanes. For role-playing, it's the same, colonies to trade and get work at, do missions for, interstellar ships and engines to go to so many more locations.

It seems to me like interstellar, colonies, and orbital construction would also make those styles of gameplay much more interesting. To say nothing of having multiplayer added in too.

I have zero interest in warfare in KSP1. But, with the colonies, off world construction, and new scale of ships and multiplayer, I could see having fun with a warfare mod.

It kind of baffles me the attitude, well I don't want interstellar or colonies so therefore no one else wants them either.

[regex]

15 hours ago, obney kerman said:

I do in fact know what NERVA is, thanks.

When you say "magic '70s nuclear engines" when referring to something that actually existed and worked (much better than depicted in-game) I assume you don't know what you're talking about. My apologies.

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

Warfare and roleplay would add more value to the stock game than interstellar

Warfare, as it is in real life, is a pointless endeavor supported by only the most primitive life forms that are still categorized as Homo Sapiens, ones that somehow find themselves in positions of leadership against all logic. What does KSP have to gain with warfare? If you want warfare, Children of a Dead Earth exists and has far more realistic radiation and weapon physics than KSP 2 will see in mods. I don't want KSP's proverbial bucket of apples ruined by a drop of sewage such as warfare.

Interstellar builds on the game, anyway. As GoldForest said, people've been enjoying Interstellar for the better part of KSP 1's life span now; a lot more people will enjoy having torch drives and interstellar megaships than throwing missiles at each other in an attempt to emulate the human race's brutality and short-sightedness.

3 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

which seems more like something to justify colonies, as these would be needed for the large orbital construction yards that make the new sci-fi engines.

We've wanted to place launch pads down for years now. The several mods we have right now that exist specifically for this are a testament to that.

3 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

I think that if you don't race to go interstellar, you won't see much need for colonies either, since it will be much easier to launch everything from Kerbin, the same as I found in KSP compared to setting up fuel infrastructure.

Humans...

Why does everything need to be done with a competitive mindset? Does the idea of Pol being easier to launch from than Kerbin not give you enough reason to place a colony there?

3 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

If rockets don't cost money to launch, why bother with all of that?

If you need capitalism in order to bother exploring, then I'm truly lost for words.

[obney kerman]

39 minutes ago, regex said:

When you say "magic '70s nuclear engines" when referring to something that actually existed and worked (much better than depicted in-game) I assume you don't know what you're talking about. My apologies.

I already said you were right on that one, jeez. No need to rub it in.

[GoldForest]

25 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Warfare, as it is in real life, is a pointless endeavor supported by only the most primitive life forms that are still categorized as Homo Sapiens, ones that somehow find themselves in positions of leadership against all logic. What does KSP have to gain with warfare? If you want warfare, Children of a Dead Earth exists and has far more realistic radiation and weapon physics than KSP 2 will see in mods. I don't want KSP's proverbial bucket of apples ruined by a drop of sewage such as warfare.

Interstellar builds on the game, anyway. As GoldForest said, people've been enjoying Interstellar for the better part of KSP 1's life span now; a lot more people will enjoy having torch drives and interstellar megaships than throwing missiles at each other in an attempt to emulate the human race's brutality and short-sightedness.

We've wanted to place launch pads down for years now. The several mods we have right now that exist specifically for this are a testament to that.

Humans...

Why does everything need to be done with a competitive mindset? Does the idea of Pol being easier to launch from than Kerbin not give you enough reason to place a colony there?

If you need capitalism in order to bother exploring, then I'm truly lost for words.

Just going to leave this here. I think it fits the discussion very well:

 

[SolarAdmiral]

There's also this one. 

https://youtu.be/6gEGi8FL43k

[obney kerman]

8 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

There's also this one. 

https://youtu.be/6gEGi8FL43k

"Gendered language and Christian calendar aside, I want to put this plaque on Mars, and I want us to mean it. I want to sit on a red rock and watch the blue-gray Martian sunset. I want to put a plaque on Callisto, and hammer one into the ice on Europa. I want to fly through the geysers of Enceladus in person. But most importantly, I want all of you to come with me! Freely! If you’d like to!

I want to get helium-3 from asteroids. I want to build generation ships. Here humans from Sol-3 first set foot on New Terra, in the year 1 of the Planetary Era. I want to go farther than this. I want our great^100 grandchildren to be born under the reddish light of TRAPPIST-1, in peace.

(...) Because the alternative is that our species lives and dies on one small rock. We’ll be stuck here, staring at our feet, until we blip out of existence. We’ll be consigned to a universe that is achingly, painfully small. We’ve got to get out of here.

In peace, for all of us." -LiterallyMechanical, 2021.

[The Aziz]

Maybe KSP2 is not for you then. It's perfectly fine. And maybe you'd be better off with Mars Horizon. It has a lot more of the "running a space agency" features than KSP franchise ever had.

[Bej Kerman]

34 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

If you need capitalism in order to bother exploring, then I'm truly lost for words.

The exploration genre in games never interested me

Well KSP's 4 pillars according to Intercept are engineering, exploration, realism and goals. KSP 2 is only going to be extending those 4 pillars and not getting into such human things as finance and warfare. If you like warfare and finance and not engineering and exploration, then it's no surprise you don't like the idea of KSP 2. But you don't need to waste your time trying to explain why you think focusing solely on exploration is bad when you can just look at other games to play. That's my advice. You're not going to sway people that enjoy exploration and colonization into thinking interstellar travel and colonies are bad.

[SolarAdmiral]

52 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

I think you would like to exclude anyone other than "men," based on this quote.

Other people also exist, and have an interest in space, maybe in different directions than men do. But since you only want to talk to men and allow them to talk to you, I'll leave you boys to it.

That's a pretty disingenuous argument to leap directly to. Just because the 60s and 70s weren't as forward thinking, just because terms like mankind and man were widely used common phrases to refer to humanity. Obviously humanity would have been a better word to use, but it obviously wasn't brought up in this case intending to be exclusionary. NASA and the men who walked on the moon were only human, using the day to day language they grew up with. It was just a product of common language at the time. We're now striving to be better and more inclusive. But maybe we could listen a little more to the intention and the meaning behind the words spoken half a century ago. Rather than argue the summantics, ah he said "man", obviously that means only men to the exclusion of all else.

 

Also, just to check, is the current argument that we want this to be a man only echo chamber because we want a space game that focuses on unity and peaceful exploration without the petty divides of capitalism and warfare?

[obney kerman]

1 hour ago, Laikanaut said:

Financial limits are also the key restriction in exploring space right now, since humanity has had the technology to travel to the Moon (at least) for half a century, and never gone back. Why? Because it's too expensive.

NASA's 2022 budget: USD $30 billion

US military's 2022 budget: USD $800 billion

The problem isn't that it's expensive, it's that our financial system's priorities kind of suck.

[GoldForest]

6 hours ago, obney kerman said:

NASA's 2022 budget: USD $30 billion

US military's 2022 budget: USD $800 billion

The problem isn't that it's expensive, it's that our financial system's priorities kind of suck.

Interstellar would probably require at least half the Military budget. Fusion technology is expensive and adapting a reactor to an engine would make it more so.