Matt Lowne said he hates the term "kerbal"

[Sylvi Fisthaug]

Matt Lowne published a video on wobbly rockets today, linked below. 

But he also made a statement on how he feels about the term where something is described as very "kerbal". 

Quote

When you describe something as 'kerbal', you tend to think about an incompetently designed and ridiculous death trap contraption, which I really don't like. There seems to be a wide held view that the Kerbals are incompetent engineers, capable only of producing flawed designs held together by makeshift repairs.

He heavily disagrees with this definition of the term, bringing up examples like the different parts, especially the R.A.P.I.E.R. engines which humans haven't come close to inventing yet. He also talks about the methalox engines which are 100% reliable, have very sensitive throttle controls, and can be fired up again countless times in atmospheres and in a vacuum.

He points out that they are not at all incompetent but rather overambitious and sometimes disregard some of the safety precautions. And that this, which he feels is highlighted in the KSP2 early access launch trailer, resonates with the players themselves taking high-risk approaches to complete missions. 

This comes out from the "upNate", Nate's dev update, from a few weeks ago: 

Quote

From Calvinball? More like Spherical Hydrogen Tank-Ball!

On 6/16/2023 at 8:00 PM, Nate Simpson said:

Wobbly rockets are sometimes fun and funny. A big part of what originally got many of us hooked on the original KSP was the silliness and emergent problem solving that came from playing World of Goo with rocket parts. Broadly, we see this as part of the Kerbal DNA, and want to preserve it in some form. Whether that means limiting wobbliness to certain types or sizes of parts, or relegating certain behaviors to player settings, is the subject of ongoing internal discussion. We of course are following community conversations with keen interest, and this is an area where Early Access participants can have a significant impact on the 1.0 version of KSP2

This moves on to the main topic of the video again, which is already highlighted in at least one active thread here on the forums. 

But I agree with Matt here. And I would like to suggest that the developers also move away from "the funny little green men who can't design rockets" approach. I haven't tapped into this discussion below this particular "upNate", but I imagine a lot of that discussion was on this particular statement.

So what do you think? What does describing something as "kerbal" mean to you?

 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Sylvi Fisthaug

[BechMeister]

I think... Unless you make something obviously troublesome/weak.. you should be punished for it. But I think its too much when you have to strut every part down. I mean.. what is the point of the struts if its a have to use between every connection? Then you might aswel not have them... 

Its also especially annoying because struts seems to disappear between tweeks. It feels like every time I tweek a rocket, I need to go restrut it because the strots have gone missing.

That being said.. I find that rockets that were not wobbly in v.0.1.2 are wobbly now.. Aaand since we were supposed to get less wobbly rockets... 

 

I would like to be able to make complex stuff.. and get it reliable into space... Rockets doing flips and all is funny the first time. Not the 100th time.

[Sea_Kerman]

I definitely agree with the overambitious/bold characterization, not the incompetent one.

[Sylvi Fisthaug]

43 minutes ago, BechMeister said:

I think... Unless you make something obviously troublesome/weak.. you should be punished for it. But I think its too much when you have to strut every part down. I mean.. what is the point of the struts if its a have to use between every connection? Then you might aswel not have them... 

Its also especially annoying because struts seems to disappear between tweeks. It feels like every time I tweek a rocket, I need to go restrut it because the strots have gone missing.

That being said.. I find that rockets that were not wobbly in v.0.1.2 are wobbly now.. Aaand since we were supposed to get less wobbly rockets... 

 

I would like to be able to make complex stuff.. and get it reliable into space... Rockets doing flips and all is funny the first time. Not the 100th time.

Yeees! Struts. My biggest pet peeve right now, especially because we need them so much, and they did actually get worse after the update... not even able to change the symmetry of them when they are selected! And fuel lines are excactly the same. Oh well, here's hoping for the next patch. 

22 minutes ago, Sea_Kerman said:

I definitely agree with the overambitious/bold characterization, not the incompetent one.

Indeed! Me as well.

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, Sylvi Fisthaug said:

From Matt Lowne:

When you describe something as 'kerbal', you tend to think about an incompetently designed and ridiculous death trap contraption, which I really don't like. There seems to be a wide held view that the Kerbals are incompetent engineers, capable only of producing flawed designs held together by makeshift repairs.

 

4 hours ago, Sylvi Fisthaug said:

He heavily disagrees with this definition of the term, bringing up examples like the different parts, especially the R.A.P.I.E.R. engines which humans haven't come close to inventing yet. He also talks about the methalox engines which are 100% reliable, have very sensitive throttle controls, and can be fired up again countless times in atmospheres and in a vacuum.

He points out that they are not at all incompetent but rather overambitious and sometimes disregard some of the safety precautions. And that this, which he feels is highlighted in the KSP2 early access launch trailer, resonates with the players themselves taking high-risk approaches to complete missions. 

 

2 hours ago, Sea_Kerman said:

I definitely agree with the overambitious/bold characterization, not the incompetent one.

 

1 hour ago, Sylvi Fisthaug said:

Indeed! Me as well.

Me too.

It's almost as if the original quote is actually incorrect.

 

[CiberX15]

To me the “kerbal” mistakes have, and should always be, the fault of the player. Did you have to send a refueling mission because you didn’t bring enough fuel? Did your ship have to lithobrake because you forgot to pack parachutes? Did you stage your mun landing rocket while still in Karbol orbit?

 

These mistakes, and recovering from them are what makes Kerbal Space Program “Kerbal” to me. Each one is a learning experience, in the same way that a child must sometimes make mistakes to learn from them. The silliness comes from laughing at yourself. Followed by the epic-ness of solving the problem you created.

 

Like my most memorable “kerbal” moment from the original was when I was on my return trip from a highly successful mission to the mun with a load of science. When I realized that I… had not packed a parachute. Having to land that sucker on its tail with the tiny amount of fuel left in it was to me an excellent “kerbal” moment.

 

As opposed to my most recent experience in KSP 2 when I was coming in for a landing and my landing gear just… fell off. That was not “kerbal” to me. It wasn’t a mistake. It wasn’t avoidable. It’s just a bug that needs fixing.

 

I think part of the current problem is that in the original KSP I always felt wobbly rockets were more a result of bad construction. Like, stacking 30 small tanks on top of each other rather than using larger tanks. So wobbly rockets in KSP 1 fit my definition of “this is the players fault” rather than “this is a bug.” In KSP 2 this does not seem to be true and wobbly rockets feel more like a physics bug than an avoidable mistake.

Edited July 2, 2023 by CiberX15

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

He's right about literally everything he said in that video. 

[The Aziz]

Half of that video was just a rant of someone who's better at this game than 92% of the playerbase. And I don't know where they pulled that definition from. Last time I've heard it, it was always about something beyond human standards, be it in ideas, constructions, or even explosions. Wild, crazy, overengineered, overdone. Hell, a little silly if that's what's needed (Reliant Robin shuttle was brought up, and Matt wasn't the only one to try that)

Kerbal as adjective never meant 

Hehe Kerbal stupid hehe

And never will.

[Pat20999]

Nate Simpson be like OMG: we can’t make everything stronger even do we live in 2023.

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Kerbal as adjective never meant 

Hehe Kerbal stupid hehe

And never will.

Yeah it seems the only people who use that definition are those who denounce it.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Yeah - "Kerbal" is more like SpaceX; fast iterations, not over-engineered (where that term = approved by a commitee after months /years of delay and cost overruns) and thinking out of the box. 

Also wacky looking, but somehow against all odds just works. 

Edited July 4, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Sylvi Fisthaug]

On 7/2/2023 at 1:59 AM, CiberX15 said:

So wobbly rockets in KSP 1 fit my definition of “this is the players fault” rather than “this is a bug.”

Indeed! To be fair, Nate did state something along those similar lines in the mentioned Dev Update, so it will probably be fixed sooner rather than later.