How do you define Kerbal?

[GabrielG.A.B.Fonseca]

Kerbal, Noun: Green humanoid beings, standing 1 meter tall originated in the planet know as Kerbin

Kerbal, Adjective: A truly bold design for things that previously existed, most commonly in the aerospace branch; A device that had safety tests overlooked; A device prone to explode;

[annallia]

To me if something is said to be very kerbal in nature I tend to think of what someone here on the forums said about one of their ships. That being "Overly elaborate and suspiciously functional" I forget who said it but that is what I imagine when I hear something is kerbal. Something non-conventional that somehow works.

I go further into having things that are "very Jeb in nature" where it is usually something silly, dangerous, maybe even a bit daft, but somehow fun. Like putting an external command seat on top of 4 jet engines and flying it around...

[Procyon]

Kerbal = when a design that has absolutely no business working, in any universe. works!

Kerbal 2 = when a design that has every reason to work flawlessly.. doesn't

Kerbal 3 = exploding for no discernible reason. especially when it happens on the Launchpad .003 seconds after physics loads.

[Rainbow-Dashie]

I've used "Kerbal" as a verb once or twice, in the same manner as "jury rigged"...

"Whats that thing?"

"Just something I kerbaled together."

Or when your on the moon with a bunch of smashed up parts of rovers and crap... "just kerbal something together!"

Those are about the only 2 times i've used it as a verb..

[Tw1]

I tend to use it to mean bold, and unconventional.

[SkyHook]

I will not speak for the community, but when I say Kerbal, I mean improvised, slightly improbable, and a little wacky. I NEVER add moar boosters though, so when I say it, i don't mean that. In general, Kerbals genuinely add to the game, I just think they shouldn't be counted out as stupid, incapable, and neanderthalic (a word?). I also agree with Bac9 when he speaks about improving the visual style of the Kerbal universe. Failing to change the style of the kerbal universe would hurt the game. Bac9 is changing that quite a bit, though

[Tw1]

If you think about it, all we do is stick parts together. If you look at a rocket engine, it's made up of lots of smaller systems. Even a tank segment has smaller systems inside.

Yet who designed these (in universe?)? Kerbals! They can't be stupid engineers if they make such things, and have them work so well.

They're just a bit wild, impulsive, I think. Most of them.

[Clouds]

TL;DR

In the version that formed my understanding of the meaning of "Kerbal", both the factual game assets and the emergent gameplay showed that to be Kerbal is to be brazen, irresponsible, curious, untested, wonder-inducing, shoddy, and somewhere between indifferent and inviting to failure.

The 0.13.3 free/demo version is where I grew to love KSP, and considering that version remained the free/demo release for a long time, I think that will be true for a lot of KSP fans. Many things in that version fostered the image of Kerbal engineering as outrageous and dangerous.

I disagree, they are indeed reckless, but they are amazing engineers, and outside the promotional videos and a menu screen, the only failure comes from the player hand.

The "lol so kerbal" i have see actually goes about promoting MORE failure, again from the player hand, instead of reducing it and learning.

I.E: the "lol so kerbal" MOAR BOOSTERS instead of making a smaller yet more practical rocket

Back in that version, there were far fewer parts (not even landing legs!), even wobblier physics, and a more severe performance hit for high part counts (leading to a reluctance and limit regarding adding more struts). There was only one Mun. SRBs were the most powerful thing and all performance challenges tended to become an exercise in designing wedding cakes made of MOAR BOOSTERS, because that was the best (sometimes, the only) way to get a contraption going faster, higher, heavier.

These limitations led to a necessity to invent our own goals and to push the included parts into roles for which they were never intended (wings = landing legs, tri-couplers = launch pad "feet" for stability). The meta-goal of being silly and having a laugh was a lot more important in the absence of persistent Mun bases or docking, and no other spheres to land upon.

As a consequence, building zany and improbable craft was one of the most entertaining things to do, both when they did work and when they didn't. There were some hilarious YouTube videos of crafts wobbling and flapping and spinning and uncoiling(!). The game was very good at providing that kind of "physics engine simulated shenanigans" joy.

Many of the original parts' descriptions further played into the "unsafe and low-tech" mentality, describing most of them as having a high failure rate, or coming from a junkyard, or scrounged off the side of the road by Jeb. And oh, the iconic first crew, with attitudes of daredevil ecstasy and sheer terror and rarely anything in between, reinforced that ethos some more.

Furthermore, because there was no persistence and no campaign/budget, it was a sandbox game in the most pure sense, with no consequences for failure. Jeb & co were immune to death or else there was an unlimited supply of their clones; the game provided no reason to design for safety other than to let you decide it on your own.

secondly I strongly agree with Bac9 when he wrote in his blog that this is dangerous to the success of the game and not someone we need to reflect as a community.

The game has clearly evolved away from silliness, though still not 100% serious either. As the game has matured and provided for more challenging goals, and as the players have grown more ambitious and more experienced, it's natural to begin catering with more advanced parts and performance for more serious space-faring. The writing no longer describes everything as pieces of junk, the art style has shifted little by little to be more realistic and more humanesque, and while there are still infinite astronauts, "KIA" is more than just some words on a dead video signal.

It feels more difficult to be silly in today's KSP, but that might be my own fault, since I too have learned and grown as a KSP player. I almost always pick projects that are an exercise in engineering for success...because now, I know how.

The questions stand unanswered: does KSP need to retain its old silliness? That's what got me hooked but not what made me stay. Both hooking, and staying power, are needed for any successful product that aims to be more than a novelty. Can silliness and seriousness coexist? Is the current development direction going to support that?

[The Destroyer]

I define it as...

Kerbal

A: A green man half the height of a human, that likes rockets and sometimes explosions.

B: Something that will probably spontanuasley combust, or something that flys but it REALLY doesn't look like it will.

[boxman]

I think everyone has their own slighlty different version of this definition, which is something this thread seems to back up.

[alacrity]

Kerbal = proper known, being the inhabitance of the Planet Kerbin

Kerbal = adjective, 1) decribing a design of space or air craft populated at times by too much engine and fuel and not enough testing 2) describing a mission objective that is at the same time spectacular and damned unlikely

Kerbal = verb the act of adding yet another row of boosters and mainsail engines to overcome the inherant instability or uncentered mass of a payload on strutting a ship to unrecognizability.

Alacrity

[Jarin]

One of my favorite books used "Vogon Poetry" as a descriptor for programming a particularly ugly/crazy bit of code that still functioned. I've taken to using "Kerbal Rocketry" in similar fashion. Something insane or absurd that still manages to work.

[Moon Goddess]

<Epic Snip>

Thank you for this, this may be the biggest help to understanding this anyone can say.

I started in late .18 I've never gone without landing legs, etc. I've always had the pretty parts, I've looked into NovaPunch looks promising because of so many parts but hate the look of it's Old Stock style.

I've been happy about the fact astronauts don't come back when they die now. I always play with a life support mod, and whenever I see Junkyard or found on the side of the road as manufacturers I laugh at it derisively, I recognize it as a call back to the old game but I see it as alien to the feel of the game now and wonder why it was left in.

Thank you, I think this whole when you started may be the understanding I lack.

[Umlüx]

for me something kerbal describes a thing made out of pure ingenuity and craftsmanship, but lacking safety in every way. you could say: rocket science at any cost.

slapping a dozen boosters strutless to a tank isnt kerbal, its just silly

[Pixel of Life]

Fearless little green idiots.

[The Jedi Master]

-look at all the snip-

I came in from the 13.3 demo, as well. My standard orbital rocket was pretty big compared to my standard orbital rocket today. When I went to the Mun, I was like, "Makeshift landing legs? Eh, I don't plan to return, I'll just land on my engine." Back then, failure was, "Oh, no, now their stuck in orbit. Oh, well." rather than, "Well, that's three hours getting to Eeloo wasted."

Those were the days, I say. But like any good old days, we can't go back to it now--nor do I necessarily want to. I mean, just yesterday I landed on Duna with something that may have a chance of actually going home. I think that means something. It means I'm actually good at the game.

That said, I think we can still have a lighthearted touch. Think of any good story--it has a mix of serious and a mix of fun. If it's all serious, we come out of the story depressed and not really fulfilled. If it's all happy happy joy joy, well, there isn't much of a story, is there?

With this in mind, here is my final answer:

Kerbal

1)Noun: A small, green man, with head out of proportion to the body, and a curious and slightly reckless drive.

2)Adjective: Something (usually in aerospace engineering) that looks like it's doomed to failure, but isn't.

Under this definition, "MOAR BOOSTERS" isn't Kerbal. The Apollo 11 is.

Edited August 16, 2013 by The Jedi Master

[Tank Buddy]

Well, Kerbals hail from the planet Kerbin, that revolves around the star Kerbol. To say some thing is Kerbal doesn't ring to me. I'd say "that's some fine Kerbal Engineering", as in everything they do is essentially jury rigged and is going to explode. So essentially Kerbal means half-ass slapped together and doomed for failure.

[OopsThatNotWork]

For me it means a perfect mixture of sci-fi, realism, and cartoonist.

Edit: As far as parts and content are concerned.

[Jacob01]

Kerbal-

Victims harvested Hired Kerblanaughts which can make things which really shouldn't work, work. They can also live for long periods in space, create everlasting resource supplies, like oxygen, and experience High G forces with no ill effects. They are perfect for space exploration.

[DChurchill]

Then maybe Squad should redefine how they present the Kerbals in their official videos - because Kerbals in their videos are prone to do risky, outrageous, flashy and downright dangerous feats of piloting and engineering with little thought of the consequences.

If "Kerbals are srs bsns", then perhaps they need to reconsider their marketing strategy. Personally, I find it part of the charm and the fun - it makes the sting of failure something to laugh at.

This. If Bac9 seriously thinks it's a problem, then Squad needs to rethink their strategy. Look at the opening screen in the game. A crashed orbiter with Mun or Bust written on it.

It doesn't change my thoughts or feelings on the game, either way. I try to play fairly seriously and realistically but it's kind of fun to think that kerbals are slightly deranged.

[RocketTurtle]

I really think the whole crazy Kerbal thing is a good thing for SQUAD. I was telling my friend about KSP one day and he's like, "so you go to other planets and build rocket?" And I'm like, "yeah, and you blow things up." And instantly he asks for the website link and buys it, now he's really into space travel and NASA stuff.

[korntipton]

what kame first? the Rocket or the Kerbal?

[aNewHope]

I think that Kerbals are rapidly reproducing aliens, that haven't figured out birth control and are using rocket testing instead!

No, actually I think they just enjoy big explosions, while not caring about safety at all.

[Tiron]

If it's worth doing, it's worth OVERdoing.

Did you know quotes don't count towards 10char?

[Eric S]

I think that Kerbals are rapidly reproducing aliens, that haven't figured out birth control and are using rocket testing instead!

THAT'S why Jeb, Bill, and Bob come back if you kill them. Jebediah isn't a name, it's a title! It means "Craziest One!" Bill and Bob are probably insult titles. Whenever one of them dies, the next in line takes the title. It all makes sense now.