Make a Terraforming DLC

[Vl3d]

I think it would be a great expansion to the game. Have specialized terraforming colony buildings and parts that would in-time change the environment of a planet. Yes, Surviving Mars did it first and it was a good DLC.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Vl3d

[The Aziz]

Surviving Mars didn't do it on a planetary scale (no, a texture going green from red in planet view is not planetary scale, everything that actually changes is the playable square). And even there it's very simplified, terraforming process is a hundreds if not thousands year long effort, depending on the body.

Edited January 28, 2023 by The Aziz

[Vl3d]

1 minute ago, The Aziz said:

terraforming process is a hundreds if not thousands year long effort, depending on the body

So is interstellar travel.

[tstein]

59 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Surviving Mars didn't do it on a planetary scale (no, a texture going green from red in planet view is not planetary scale, everything that actually changes is the playable square). And even there it's very simplified, terraforming process is a hundreds if not thousands year long effort, depending on the body.

Hundreds of years is piece of cake for kerbals. How many missions  of grand tours on minimal  mass take 200 years...

[t_v]

For anyone with concerns that this is going to be more difficult and complex than changing a few textures, you are absolutely correct. But this isn’t a small feature request like making kerbals smile at sunrises, it is an idea for a full DLC where anything goes (because it is essentially a full update where the features are being directly funded). 
 

With technical concerns aside, comes the question of if this would fit. I think it would, as a super end-game goal.
 

First, terraforming isn’t something you can do to every celestial body; some are too small to hold an atmosphere or way outside of the temperature range, even accounting for the changes in atmosphere. So you would end up with one or a few “home worlds” in each star system, with the rest being unterraformed. No concerns of homogenizing the planetary bodies and making them all identical to explore. 

Second, terraforming is a very complex task which can produce a lot of gameplay and be a massive goal to work towards. The first big challenge is getting water, and enough of it to run a water cycle. This could mean importing immense quantities of it via comets or simply creating giant blocks of ice to transport. Then the atmosphere needs to be changed; there is a certain range of pressures, temperatures, and compositions that life can work effectively under and focusing on a small area won’t work as the original atmosphere mixes back in. This creates another huge logistics problem of supplying plants (in both senses of the word) with the necessary resources to convert atmosphere in controlled conditions across the planet. There is more potential gameplay and actions players can take, but the gist of it is that this will not lack in depth, and will still be about rocketry. 
 

And lastly, is this kerbal? I can certainly imagine ways this could be implemented that detract from the spirit of the game and make it much more serious and optimized than it should be. But there are also ways to keep the dynamic between the serious accomplishments of the kerbals and their goofy nature intact. Just like with colony building, keep it informal. No progress counters towards “terraformation,” just buildings and a gradually changing planet. Supply routes that are managed the same way they are between colonies, with the player driving between the start and end destinations and setting their own paths. With the right implementation of features (or lack thereof), terraforming can feel exactly like setting up the biggest colony ever, which decidedly fits in the game. 

[TheLoneOne]

1 hour ago, t_v said:

For anyone with concerns that this is going to be more difficult and complex than changing a few textures, you are absolutely correct. But this isn’t a small feature request like making kerbals smile at sunrises, it is an idea for a full DLC where anything goes (because it is essentially a full update where the features are being directly funded). 
 

With technical concerns aside, comes the question of if this would fit. I think it would, as a super end-game goal.
 

First, terraforming isn’t something you can do to every celestial body; some are too small to hold an atmosphere or way outside of the temperature range, even accounting for the changes in atmosphere. So you would end up with one or a few “home worlds” in each star system, with the rest being unterraformed. No concerns of homogenizing the planetary bodies and making them all identical to explore. 

Second, terraforming is a very complex task which can produce a lot of gameplay and be a massive goal to work towards. The first big challenge is getting water, and enough of it to run a water cycle. This could mean importing immense quantities of it via comets or simply creating giant blocks of ice to transport. Then the atmosphere needs to be changed; there is a certain range of pressures, temperatures, and compositions that life can work effectively under and focusing on a small area won’t work as the original atmosphere mixes back in. This creates another huge logistics problem of supplying plants (in both senses of the word) with the necessary resources to convert atmosphere in controlled conditions across the planet. There is more potential gameplay and actions players can take, but the gist of it is that this will not lack in depth, and will still be about rocketry. 
 

And lastly, is this kerbal? I can certainly imagine ways this could be implemented that detract from the spirit of the game and make it much more serious and optimized than it should be. But there are also ways to keep the dynamic between the serious accomplishments of the kerbals and their goofy nature intact. Just like with colony building, keep it informal. No progress counters towards “terraformation,” just buildings and a gradually changing planet. Supply routes that are managed the same way they are between colonies, with the player driving between the start and end destinations and setting their own paths. With the right implementation of features (or lack thereof), terraforming can feel exactly like setting up the biggest colony ever, which decidedly fits in the game. 

the terrain system in ksp never was designed to have the textures of planets change like that while you loaded into the game, so I feel like this is unfeasible because they would have to rewrite the entire terrain system and rendering and loading systems from scratch. Side effect: in the process, break every mod, and every saves. it would liquid off a lot of players basically. I presume its a similar situation with ksp 2.

[jastrone]

no it doesnt fit the game

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

 

 

[Stephensan]

i mean it can be implemented as a dlc.

[The Aziz]

27 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

  Hide contents

 

 

Your point? None of these take a realistic approach to terraforming. In Spore you drop 5 trees from space and boom, forested planet. In US2 you just magically add and/or change the atmosphere and you can do it while the simulation is paused.

Besides, despite what was said, terraforming changes the main focus of KSP which is building and flying rockets. Now you'll be micromanaging hundreds of bases with seed plantations, greenhouse gas generators, all of those spread evenly across the planet which is GIGANTIC, and waiting for microscopic results longer than any other challenge there is.

Unless we take non realistic approach but then it would clash with the entire game theme which is realistic spaceflight and physics.

Spinoff in the same universe, maybe, dlc no.

[kerbiloid]

20 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Your point? None of these take a realistic approach to terraforming.

It's not about the realism, but about a playable approach.

Spore has a simplified model of climate conditions (there is a window with temperature, humidity, etc.)

It provides (say, a DLC) a set of magic/hi-tech devices to run a volcano to bring more water and make the oceans deep, iirc frost to make it melt, and so on.

20 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Now you'll be micromanaging hundreds of bases with seed plantations

No. The surface details could self-adjust themselves on display. Like they do on biome. The biomes could self-adjust.

20 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

greenhouse gas generators

The mentioned volcanoes.

Edited January 28, 2023 by kerbiloid

[The Aziz]

6 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It's not about the realism, but about a playable approach.

Spore has a simplified model of climate conditions (there is a window with temperature, humidity, etc.)

Spore has also a simplified evolution model, simplified space flying model. Very playable approach if you're not trying to teach the idea of microbiology and rocket science. KSP is trying to teach about rocket science, and related challenges. You could simplify some things by not simulating certain details, but then

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It provides a set of magic/hi-tech devices to run a volcano 

right. May as well introduce warp drives.

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

KSP is trying to teach about rocket science, and related challenges.

KSP has biomes. They can shift their parameters on climate change. No need in running dinosaurs.

[t_v]

1 hour ago, TheLoneOne said:

the terrain system in ksp never was designed to have the textures of planets change like that while you loaded into the game, so I feel like this is unfeasible because they would have to rewrite the entire terrain system and rendering and loading systems from scratch. Side effect: in the process, break every mod, and every saves. it would liquid off a lot of players basically. I presume its a similar situation with ksp 2.

Save file backwards compatibility takes extra work, but I explained how the amount of work put into the DLC isn't as big of an issue compared to putting in that much work for small features. As for mods, having this more customizable system would increase mod-ability and while you can't reasonably code to preserve mod backwards compatibility, I'm not sure it would break as much as you might think.

35 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Besides, despite what was said, terraforming changes the main focus of KSP which is building and flying rockets. Now you'll be micromanaging hundreds of bases with seed plantations, greenhouse gas generators, all of those spread evenly across the planet which is GIGANTIC, and waiting for microscopic results longer than any other challenge there is.

Unless we take non realistic approach but then it would clash with the entire game theme which is realistic spaceflight and physics.

 

I addressed the possibility that the game becomes full of micro management through this, but by the same logic if there were no other way to design systems, then the colony system itself would also be full of micro management. If you can make a well-designed colony system that doesn't rely on micro management and emphasizes building and flying (which you absolutely can), you can do the same with terraforming, as it is just an extension of the same concepts. Much larger scale, yes, but that is what makes it a final challenge to work towards. 

[TheLoneOne]

1 hour ago, t_v said:

Save file backwards compatibility takes extra work, but I explained how the amount of work put into the DLC isn't as big of an issue compared to putting in that much work for small features. As for mods, having this more customizable system would increase mod-ability and while you can't reasonably code to preserve mod backwards compatibility, I'm not sure it would break as much as you might think.

I addressed the possibility that the game becomes full of micro management through this, but by the same logic if there were no other way to design systems, then the colony system itself would also be full of micro management. If you can make a well-designed colony system that doesn't rely on micro management and emphasizes building and flying (which you absolutely can), you can do the same with terraforming, as it is just an extension of the same concepts. Much larger scale, yes, but that is what makes it a final challenge to work towards. 

again, tell me how can they implement this without breaking the game's base code. I have coded before, have you ever? I'm only asking because things like the terrain system tend to not be something in games like this that can change without rewriting most of the code. this game would not be designed for it.  This is a problem with their game's framework. can you loveing replace a framework without making the whole building fall apart????????????? no.

[t_v]

33 minutes ago, TheLoneOne said:

again, tell me how can they implement this without breaking the game's base code. I have coded before, have you ever? I'm only asking because things like the terrain system tend to not be something in games like this that can change without rewriting most of the code. this game would not be designed for it.  This is a problem with their game's framework. can you loveing replace a framework without making the whole building fall apart????????????? no.

I have coded before and am coding now, and I am not trying to minimize the amount of work this would represent. There is no way to add this functionality (assuming it isn't possible already) without replacing a serious amount of code that impacts other parts of the game. However, it isn't impossible to keep things from breaking; you can update foundations and keep the rest it working, as long as the code behaves the same way under the conditions it was previously in. Similar to how you can add functions to a class or parameters to a function as long as the behavior doesn't break everything relying on it. This is in no way a quick easy "oh yeah, let's just replace the textures and update the normal maps and add new scatters and everything will be fine," but it is not an impossibility either, just a large and difficult update. 

[stephensmat]

I love a terraforming games. I was flat out addicted to doing it in Spore. Surviving Mars is also a favorite.

I don't see any way to do it as a serious possibility in KSP. That's not what this game is for.

Thing is, it's also not needed. Kerbals don't seem to mind walking around in Spacesuits. Unless the 'Life Support' in Colonies is a lot more intensive than we seem to think, then there's no practical difference between putting a base on a dead moon and a living, leafy world.

[mattinoz]

11 hours ago, TheLoneOne said:

the terrain system in ksp never was designed to have the textures of planets change like that while you loaded into the game, so I feel like this is unfeasible because they would have to rewrite the entire terrain system and rendering and loading systems from scratch. Side effect: in the process, break every mod, and every saves. it would liquid off a lot of players basically. I presume its a similar situation with ksp 2.

The terrain system has from what we have been told been rewritten, restructured and rebuilt. So frankly we don't know what is capable of or could be capable of given the stated gaol of the new game was to set up for another 10 years of continual game play and Sales revenue (facts of life). 

Sure what is being shown is a first step to take it from minimal product to system that could eat each of the bodies in the system to make a Dyson sphere would still be a massive under taking. overload this with multiplayer and it is certainly interesting. 

If they even want to take it that far is also a big unknown but it would allow a decade of interesting scope maybe even 3. So understand if they are thinking that sort of overhaul is KSP3 in 2040.

I think it could be multiple DLC's not just one along this path. with say procedural (but still on rails) Planet generation in between before simple deformation of surfaces and caves and Kerbal made cravens for colonies. 

[Profugo Barbatus]

On the whole "Realistic Terraforming" aspect, surprised Per Aspera didn't get a callout, especially now that the latest expansion is full on "settle humans in open air settlements" level. 

As far as KSP 2 goes, I find it endlessly amusing to see calls for DLC before the Early Access even drops. Doesn't hurt to dream, but we're still years off from DLC content even being concepted beyond an idle "wouldn't that be cool" lunch break convo between two designers. It'd be neat to have, but we don't even know half the aspects it could actually influence as the mechanics they might even influence aren't even known. 

[Vl3d]

The idea isn't really new, but it's a cool direction to take things. And it kind of makes sense now that we'll have colony construction.

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Vl3d

[intelliCom]

But how realistic is terraforming? Is there actually enough water locally available on Duna/Mars to do it, or would you have to take some from Kerbin/Earth to do so?

If you need to transfer water from Earth to terraform Mars because Earth is polluted, why not just terraform the Earth?

Edited January 29, 2023 by intelliCom

[kerbiloid]

Without changing the planet gravity, it isn't.

[Vl3d]

25 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Without changing the planet gravity, it isn't.

And the magnetic field.

[kerbiloid]

45 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

And the magnetic field.

And the rotation period.

[darthgently]

Mars is not viable for terraforming, but is not bad for paraterraforming where sheltered bubble environments are expanded and interconnected until one decides to stop or run out of space on the planet. 

So humanity and other terrestrial life would live inside a membrane that mediates between the environment and our lives. 

Not much different than we live now in a civilized bubble, but with the techno knob turned up to 11

Edited January 29, 2023 by darthgently