How do you define Kerbal?

[Moon Goddess]

I define it as little green aliens from the planet Kerbin, but I see it passed around a lot as a adjective, what do you mean when you say it that way?

I kinda know what you mean, prone to failure, quickly slapped together, dangerous. Firstly I don't really understand why it got this meaning, and 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.

So I ask, when you say something is Kerbal, like SpaceX's grasshopper is Kerbal. What does that mean to you? And why do you say it that way?

Edited August 15, 2013 by Moon Goddess

[Sesni]

When we (Most of the KSP community) says something is very Kerbal, we basically mean "Strap a buncha rockets to it and see what happens." Aka really unsafe.

[Moon Goddess]

When we (Most of the KSP community) says something is very Kerbal, we basically mean "Strap a buncha rockets to it and see what happens." Aka really unsafe.

You missed an important part of what I'm asking... Why do you mean that?

[Dynamo]

"Kerbal" as an adjective describes a very audicious, foolhardy design. Anything that is over-engineered or awesome is generally attributed to something the kerbals might make, some unusual, half crazy, and highly explosive design. Most KSP pilots barely test their crafts, a mark of boldness that the kerbals are happy to overlook, as they fly the rocket smiling the whole way in the face of a possibly dangerous situation. You could call it a radical approach that ignores the traditional standards to make something truly amazing.

[regex]

I like Bac9's thoughts and definition on the subject. To me, Kerbal as a adjective means something that is enthusiastically engineered with safety being a secondary consideration to excitement.

E: Dynamo's definition is great. Kerbal designs are bold, exciting, and seemingly impossible.

[HeadHunter67]

I kinda know what you mean, prone to failure, quickly slapped together, dangerous. Firstly I don't really understand why it got this meaning, and 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.

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.

[Diche Bach]

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.

I agree. The tongue-in-cheek levity of the game is clearly promoted by Squads look and feel, and characterization of the kerbals. It is clear in everything from how they behave, to the names and descriptions of components. I think they have struck a PERFECT balance really between being serious enough to offer some valuable insights into how space flight works, while remaining light hearted enough to foster a community where things like the following are not only 'tolerated' but promoted by the social dynamics:

Stocky geeky guy wearing batman T-shirt, builds absurdly excessive rocket that he and his online buddies are clearly enjoying a great deal. While taking periodic sips of his drink and puffs on his pipe, said dude doesn't notice that, starting at about 8:50 his two remaining liquid engines are in the process of overheating. Finally they explode at about 10:00 and dude says:

"Whoa! . . . did my engines just explode cause they overheated and I wasn't paying attention" long pause as he watches his contraption ascend slowly. "Ah well, I didn't need those engines anyway."

This is what makes this game and the fan community delightful. It is both serious with some science behind it but also lighthearted. Thus I don't think that the adjective "Kerbal" is pejorative at all.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Diche Bach

[Mercy]

Honestly? I think it's a dumb phrase used by dumb people to cover their incompetence in game.

>Oh man, my rocket blew up!

>>You suck, dude.

>NO ITS JUST BEING KERBAL OMG!!!111!

[Diche Bach]

Honestly? I think it's a dumb phrase used by dumb people to cover their incompetence in game.

>Oh man, my rocket blew up!

>>You suck, dude.

>NO ITS JUST BEING KERBAL OMG!!!111!

Oh puleeez.

Its a computer game, loosely based on Newtonian physics, set in a completely make-believe world where the player creates a "Space Program" on behalf of little green men!

The prospect of distinguishing a "dumb" or "incompetent" style of play in such a game from a "smart" one seems to me to be fallacious.

[Mercy]

Oh puleeez.

Its a computer game, loosely based on Newtonian physics, set in a completely make-believe world where the player creates a "Space Program" on behalf of little green men!

The prospect of distinguishing a "dumb" or "incompetent" style of play in such a game from a "smart" one seems to me to be fallacious.

Well that's too bad.

[HeadHunter67]

Don't worry about him, Diche. He is just the uptight sort that isn't capable of making a constructive post here. Look at his history - it's all about tearing others down to make himself feel better.

What kind of person worries about other people's "competence" in a single-player sandbox game?

No sense of humor and no sense of fun. Sad, sad...

Edited August 15, 2013 by HeadHunter67

[Stratoroc]

kerbal means attempting something that by all means should not work. Putting a space station into orbit using spacetape and boosters, in one piece, is very much kerbal. Sending one kerbanaught into a multiyear voyage of the solar system is kerban. It's things that we all know should not be possible, but do them because it's too damn fun not too. If anything going out of my way to recreate known real world space missions exactly isn't kerban because the result is always a calculated, well thought out, thoroughly optimized solution that was never designed by a mad scientist.

And why? because I'm playing a game. And this game makes otherwise horrible disasters pretty damn comical.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Stratoroc

[Guest]

To me, "Kerbal" as an adjective means a design or mission plan that is audaciously ambitious, probably overbuilt, and more than a bit gonzo. Not casually reckless or thoughtless in nature, more of a "go big or go sit in that crater you just made" mindset. For instance, I've been pouring over schematics of the Russian UR-700 launch platform. Believe me when I say that sucker's pretty Kerbal in nature.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Jack Wolfe

[Mercy]

Don't worry about him, Diche. He is just the uptight sort that isn't capable of making a constructive post here. Look at his history - it's all about tearing others down to make himself feel better.

What kind of person worries about other people's "competence" in a single-player sandbox game?

No sense of humor and no sense of fun. Sad, sad...

OP asked for my definition of Kerbal, I gave it.

I have my owns reasons for not being 100% happy all the time, so I recommend you shut up.

[suzin.felipe]

When I think or Kerbals, I mostly use the same adjectives that I would use for our space programs here on Earth.

It's not like NASA hasn't build their share of silly dangerous machines:

Or more tragic tests:

Not to mention using nuclear fuel on things prone to explosions like NERVAS, or relativistic spaceships using nuclear bombs as engine. Give humans the budget and they will send this crazy things into space, and when they explode they will say "ups" and do it again, no matter how many lives are lost in the process.

So I define Kerbals as being humans with no budget limitations.

[Superfluous J]

When we (Most of the KSP community) says something is very Kerbal, we basically mean "Strap a buncha rockets to it and see what happens." Aka really unsafe.

You missed an important part of what I'm asking... Why do you mean that?

Because for 99% of the players of the game, the first test of their rocket involves the solid rocket boosters falling off the 18 orange tanks on the outer onion/asparagus ring because they forgot to stage correctly...

...and they decide to see if they can reach orbit anyway.

KSP invites sloppiness and just seeing if it works. It's arguably more fun (at least for the first 5 minutes of flight) when things explode or fall off your ship. And it's assuredly more fun to watch YouTube videos where that is the case. So, for most people Kerbals are what they are: Reckless and prone to failure, with the occasional amazing success in spite of themselves.

I personally agree with Bac9, but when I hit space on the launch pad and my solid boosters go flying I'll still see how far up I can go.

[SkyRender]

To me, "Kerbal" (besides referring to the species in-game) refers to something incredibly daring and awe-inspiring relating to space flight. Landing on the night side of the Mun with no lights and sticking the landing perfectly? That's Kerbal.

[HeadHunter67]

I've been pouring over schematics of the Russian UR-700 launch platform. Believe me when I say that sucker's pretty Kerbal in nature.

If that's the rocket I'm thinking of, it's definitely Kerbal in nature. It looks more like a Russian building than a vehicle.

I have my owns reasons for not being 100% happy all the time, so I recommend you shut up.

We all have reasons - I don't take mine out on strangers, and I never complain to my patients about how bad my day is. If we're making recommendations, mine would be that professional help would get you farther than putting down everyone on the forum. Since I can't help and don't honestly care about the reason you treat people poorly, I'm going to go see if this forum has an ignore feature.

[The Jedi Master]

Because for 99% of the players of the game, the first test of their rocket involves the solid rocket boosters falling off the 18 orange tanks on the outer onion/asparagus ring because they forgot to stage correctly...

...and they decide to see if they can reach orbit anyway.

KSP invites sloppiness and just seeing if it works. It's arguably more fun (at least for the first 5 minutes of flight) when things explode or fall off your ship. And it's assuredly more fun to watch YouTube videos where that is the case. So, for most people Kerbals are what they are: Reckless and prone to failure, with the occasional amazing success in spite of themselves.

I personally agree with Bac9, but when I hit space on the launch pad and my solid boosters go flying I'll still see how far up I can go.

This is how I define the adjective form. It is possible for KSP to be somewhat serious while still having a lighthearted touch.

[Mercy]

We all have reasons - I don't take mine out on strangers, and I never complain to my patients about how bad my day is. If we're making recommendations, mine would be that professional help would get you farther than putting down everyone on the forum. Since I can't help and don't honestly care about the reason you treat people poorly, I'm going to go see if this forum has an ignore feature.

Whatever, mate.

[LaydeeDem]

Don't worry about him, Diche. He is just the uptight sort that isn't capable of making a constructive post here. Look at his history - it's all about tearing others down to make himself feel better.

What kind of person worries about other people's "competence" in a single-player sandbox game?

No sense of humor and no sense of fun. Sad, sad...

lol You're not really acting any better typing that personal attack. "Oh look at me all high and mighty because I find a rocket exploding funny. lolsokerbal"

[HeadHunter67]

KSP invites sloppiness and just seeing if it works. It's arguably more fun (at least for the first 5 minutes of flight) when things explode or fall off your ship. And it's assuredly more fun to watch YouTube videos where that is the case. So, for most people Kerbals are what they are: Reckless and prone to failure, with the occasional amazing success in spite of themselves.

I think you have a very good point. This is, after all, a game - one should never let science or math get in the way of FUN. Experimenting is fun, especially when there is no consequence. Real life's serious enough, and if I wanted a game that felt like a bookkeeping job I'd have stayed with EVE Online - where failure is pretty costly.

This is a game where you can have a lot of fun without ever having to crunch the numbers for Delta-V or TWR etc. etc. - and for those that like to do so, they can do that too. I only wish people would stop telling others how to have fun in a single player sandbox game. The people here that scream "Ur doin it wrong!" make no sense to me.

Go out, launch rockets, blow up, try again. Eventually, something spectacular comes from it - and spectacular failures can be every bit as entertaining as spectacular successes, as we can see in the "You will not go into space today" thread.

lol You're not really acting any better typing that personal attack. "Oh look at me all high and mighty because I find a rocket exploding funny. lolsokerbal"

It's not a personal attack - it's reminding him yet again that no one wants to hear him crap on every thread he participates in just because he is miserable.

We are here to have FUN, no one is "wrong" for wanting to play a different way or enjoying it differently. Moreso because it is a single player sandbox game. There is no "wrong way", there is no "cheating", and the only people who care about that sort of stuff are those who need to feel better about themselves by dictating how others should do things. In the real world, that sort of person is called a "politician" or an "evangelist".

Have FUN. If you're not having fun, find something else to do - but it's not acceptable to make others unhappy because you're unhappy. Agreed?

Edited August 16, 2013 by sal_vager

[Mercy]

It's not a personal attack - it's reminding him yet again that no one wants to hear him crap on every thread he participates in just because he is miserable.

We are here to have FUN, no one is "wrong" for wanting to play a different way or enjoying it differently. Moreso because it is a single player sandbox game. There is no "wrong way", there is no "cheating", and the only people who care about that sort of stuff are those who need to feel better about themselves by dictating how others should do things. In the real world, that sort of person is called a "politician" or an "evangelist".

Have FUN. If you're not having fun, find something else to do - but it's not acceptable to make others unhappy because you're unhappy. Agreed?

Stop derailing the thread. I would like to remind you that prior to this, we have interacted once. You have no right to judge me and call me out on my opinion, which the very subject of this thread is asking for. I shall also go ahead and remind you that derailing and personally attacking users is against the rules, trust me, I've had experience.

[stupid_chris]

Okay guys, everyone take your chill pill and go back on topic please. Discussing who is and is not wrong won't get us anywhere. If you wan't to give us your opinion of what "Kerbal" is, go ahead, if you disagree with someone else's definition, feel free to say so, but please keep it polite before this thread delves any deeper than it already has. No need to get angry over Kerbal, that's the reason we're all here after all isn't it?

[Alguien]

So, for most people Kerbals are what they are: Reckless and prone to failure, with the occasional amazing success in spite of themselves.

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