What direction do you want KSP to take.

[jwenting]

interesting choice of options, clearly designed to drive people away from saying they like KSP like it currently is...

[Comrade Jenkens]

interesting choice of options, clearly designed to drive people away from saying they like KSP like it currently is...

I consider KSP as it currently is as the middle ground.

[Paul Kingtiger]

I think I saw a piece from C7 once on this, I would like KSP to tone down a bit on the whole "Kerbals are idiots and build rockets by bolting together bits of metal and fill them with rocket fuel" vibe.

This! Treating KSP like a disaster simulator cheapens the achievement of getting into space IMO. As for the graphics, I like the cartoony vibe of the stock parts, but currently they feel like 3 or 4 different design styles mashed together. I'd love it if a single design style and colour palette was chosen and all the parts adjusted to match so that an assembled rocket looked like a designed whole and not a mismatch of left over bits.

[PhaserArray]

I feel like KSP should definitely have more realistic aerodynamics and reentry damage. From the part side, I would love to see more procedural parts, engines and plane parts (wings, control surfaces, etc).

[sal_vager]

I'd like to see more real world science in KSP, it was the orbital mechanics that drew me to this game to begin with and expanding on that with more things that NASA and others actually do in space would be fantastic.

Things such as using instruments to study the Suns activity, detect energies entering the Kerbol system from deep space and doing chemical analysis on surface samples

[Dunbaratu]

I'd like SQUAD to take a serious look at their position that procedurally generated planets is bad. I think it would be the best thing ever because it *would* make all the other science stuff feel more real. Currently, if you want to know the best angle from which to transfer to Eve, you look it up online, because everyone has the same "Eve". If you want to know the density of Laythe's atmosphere, you look it up online because everyone has the same "Laythe". That makes the science instruments a bit pointless other than as a way to mine tech tree points. But if this time around I might have different moons around Jool than in my last campaign, and different moons than other people have around Jool, then I have to send my own probes with my own instruments to learn what my solar system is like. It makes the instruments really mean something and feel like you're roleplaying a science program a lot more. The info from the map view would be vague - just barely accurate enough to be able to plan your first probes to the body, until you take the actual measurement and then the map view info would get more accurate.

But right now, since the solar system is identical every campaign you play, and identical for all players around the world who own the game, the feeling of discovery at learning that information is nonexistent and there's little point in bothering playing the game that way.

Also, it would increase replay value a LOT to have a slightly different solar system when you restart a campaign. These days I'm starting to think "oh a trip to Duna. Big deal. I know exactly what that's like and exactly what I'll find when I get there."

I can understand the arguments against procedural content being that people can't share anything with each other that way, but how about a compromise: About half the planets being constant for all campaigns and the other half that are varying? You use the constant planets to show each other stuff online and share plans, and the varying ones to experience the thrill of discovery yourself.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Steven Mading

[coolitic]

I like it how it is.

Both realistic physics but cartoony failures. If they made it too realistic it wouldn't be neither fun nor funny. If they made too cartoony it would feel kind of dumb and easy.

[Joonatan1998]

I like the current art style, but I would like some more realism and balancing, especially for the career mode.

-Add re-entry heat

With some powerfull and easy to use heatshields

-Add life support

limited resource (with better containers higher in the tech tree) and a module that is heavy (10-14t) but generates it(also very high in the tech tree). At the moment manned interplanetary missions are too easy, there is no reason to ever use probes, this would also restrict mission duration to sensible duration (no waiting alone in a pod for 12 years before rescue)

-Rebalance the tech tree

At the moment there are a few key techs that you need to unlock (solar panels, struts, fuel lines)

but other than those more key parts advanced parts are often not better than some basic parts, in most cases they are just larger. (LV-T30 has better TWR and ISP than a skipper)

Larger tanks also should contain more fuel compared to weight. (They are later in the tech tree, but at the moment not better in any way, except reducing part count)

-Useless/overpowered parts

Some of the parts that are higher in the tech tree but are clearly worse than some parts you get earlier.

Useless:

poodle (Lv-909 -much earlier in the techtree, better TWR and ISP)

skipper (Lv-30 -Even the first engine you get is better)

Mark-55 radial (Completely useless, probably worst engine in the game)

MPL-LG-2 (Transmission bonus is useless, you are planning to bring those kerbals back???

Reseting science parts is not very usefull, because the lab weights the same as 11 goo containers+11 materials bays, and with those you can drop them when they are used)

Inline advanced stabilizer (heavier and later in the tree than Inline reaction wheel)

Place anywhere linear RCS port (should have more thrust than the RV-105, it is later in the tree and only works in one direction)

Overpowered:

Rockomax 48-S (not that late in the tech tree, great ISP and TWR, even has thrust vectoring)

Jet engines (just limit the intake spam)

Advanced S.A.S module, large (lighter than the small ones? it is higher in the tech tree so it is ok for balance, but it makes no sense that it is lighter)

-Science costs

At the moment you can complete the tech tree with only mun and kerbin...

I think that the first biome you visit should give you more science(the current amount), and it should reduce with each biome you visit (100% in the first biome, 60% in the second, 50 in the third...)

-better aerodynamics

At the moment the best rocket desings are flat

and planes are very strange.

Sandbox mode should have some parts that you can't get in career mode, such as a part that is very light (0.05) and gives you infinite life support if life support is implemented.

[Alguien]

I think I saw a piece from C7 once on this, I would like KSP to tone down a bit on the whole "Kerbals are idiots and build rockets by bolting together bits of metal and fill them with rocket fuel" vibe.

It was Artyom/Bac9 who made a whole article about it while talking about the new buildings. And i am sure no one is against some cartoony looks, but people can dissagree about it if it goes way to much into the cartoony part and the whole "lol so kerbal xD"

[VR_Dev]

I want the physics to be as real as possible. Makes me feel more accomplished when I get cartoony things like my zoids and gundam to fly

Edited March 23, 2014 by clown_baby

[KASASpace]

I'd like SQUAD to take a serious look at their position that procedurally generated planets is bad. I think it would be the best thing ever because it *would* make all the other science stuff feel more real. Currently, if you want to know the best angle from which to transfer to Eve, you look it up online, because everyone has the same "Eve". If you want to know the density of Laythe's atmosphere, you look it up online because everyone has the same "Laythe". That makes the science instruments a bit pointless other than as a way to mine tech tree points. But if this time around I might have different moons around Jool than in my last campaign, and different moons than other people have around Jool, then I have to send my own probes with my own instruments to learn what my solar system is like. It makes the instruments really mean something and feel like you're roleplaying a science program a lot more. The info from the map view would be vague - just barely accurate enough to be able to plan your first probes to the body, until you take the actual measurement and then the map view info would get more accurate.

But right now, since the solar system is identical every campaign you play, and identical for all players around the world who own the game, the feeling of discovery at learning that information is nonexistent and there's little point in bothering playing the game that way.

Also, it would increase replay value a LOT to have a slightly different solar system when you restart a campaign. These days I'm starting to think "oh a trip to Duna. Big deal. I know exactly what that's like and exactly what I'll find when I get there."

I can understand the arguments against procedural content being that people can't share anything with each other that way, but how about a compromise: About half the planets being constant for all campaigns and the other half that are varying? You use the constant planets to show each other stuff online and share plans, and the varying ones to experience the thrill of discovery yourself.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but procedural DOES NOT MEAN random.

Procedurally generated planets is a good Idea, that way you can have all the aspects of a planet (except the single number aspects and the name) be represented by a number.

It is quite amazing, but a common mistake is that Procedural means random, it really doesn't.

Although I do say that maybe if you started with a seed like minecraft but always Moho, Eve, Kerbin, Duna, Dres, and Jool In the same place, and then procedurally generate everything outside of that.

Now, onto what I think about KSP's direction:

KSP hit that sweet spot for me. Where it used a completely new recipe for a game combining hilarity and cartoony stuff with hard physics. I love it.

Personally, I would like to see Aerodynamics implemented, and a limited dangerous reentry (like angle doesn't matter).

Either way, Squad knows best, and I put my faith for this game in them.

[cantab]

We already are getting some random stuff: the asteroids.

It also might be interesting to randomise the starting positions of the planets. That way career modes might play out a bit differently; sometimes you'll get an Eve window early, sometimes it's Duna, sometimes it's even a (to be added) comet in a great spot. The seed needs to be exposed to the player mind, or the stock game include launch window information.

[Koooooj]

I'm personally all for changes that improve realism, but the problem there is that real-world spaceflight is *hard*. That's fine for experienced players, but KSP needs to be approachable enough for the average Joe to enjoy it. Getting a Kerbal to orbit and back is hard enough for an inexperienced player, I would hate to see how hard it would be if they had to deal with a bunch of other realism additions.

To that end I personally support a difficulty/realism menu where various aspects can be turned on and off. Communication delays for unmanned vehicles? Optional. Kerbals requiring food, water, etc? Another option. This is the design approach that has been popular in submarine simulators as old as Command: Aces of the Deep and as new as Silent Hunter 5 and it works very well for them. The game can be designed around the full difficulty version while still letting less-experienced players have a fun time while learning enough to play on full difficulty. I'd even support a "realistic engine efficiency" toggle that lets new players play with much higher Isp versions of the stock engines.

That said, though, I don't think KSP should go for 100% realism and I think it's on track for a good balance right now--I feel like a number of more realism changes just haven't happened because of the dev time required. Some unrealistic aspects are necessary, too. I'm glad Kerbin is much much smaller than Earth--it puts the ascent time into a better range for casual play. A real space program takes thousands of man hours per day to manage, and KSP just can't become that--it needs to not be tedious.

[Whirligig Girl]

Upwards direction is generally good for a space program.

[Whirligig Girl]

We already are getting some random stuff: the asteroids.

It also might be interesting to randomise the starting positions of the planets. That way career modes might play out a bit differently; sometimes you'll get an Eve window early, sometimes it's Duna, sometimes it's even a (to be added) comet in a great spot. The seed needs to be exposed to the player mind, or the stock game include launch window information.

I'm assuming you mean the phase angles change, but not the actual orbital parameters, yes?

[LethalDose]

It also might be interesting to randomise the starting positions of the planets. That way career modes might play out a bit differently; sometimes you'll get an Eve window early, sometimes it's Duna, sometimes it's even a (to be added) comet in a great spot. The seed needs to be exposed to the player mind, or the stock game include launch window information.

Yes, Yes, Oh sweet gods of Kerbin YES! THIS!!!

I would love LOVE to see random phase angles applied to the planets (except Eeloo, which is supposed to be a moon of GP2 anyway).

This would also be a great toggleable option for the game.

[Jouni]

Useless:

poodle (Lv-909 -much earlier in the techtree, better TWR and ISP)

skipper (Lv-30 -Even the first engine you get is better)

Mark-55 radial (Completely useless, probably worst engine in the game)

Place anywhere linear RCS port (should have more thrust than the RV-105, it is later in the tree and only works in one direction)

If you replace a cluster of 4 or 5 LV-909s with a Poodle, the only thing you are probably going to notice is that you have one big engine instead of 4-5 smaller engines. There are some minor differences in performance, but you won't see them, unless you deliberately go looking for them.

In the same way, the only real difference between a Skipper and a cluster of two LV-T30s and one LV-T45 is that you either have one big engine or three smaller ones.

Mark 55 engines are useful for adding thrust to lifter cores, when a Mainsail is too weak for the job alone. Again, you can get similar results with engine clusters, so the choice is mostly a matter of aesthetic preferences.

The linear RCS port is good for spaceplanes, where you often can't use thruster blocks with 4-fold symmetry.

Overpowered:

Jet engines (just limit the intake spam)

It's not really a matter of intake spam, because jet engines are very powerful with just a small number of intakes. KSP jet engines have extremely high TWR, making them useful as rocket boosters. On the other hand, the small scale of the stock world means that jet engines take you a long way towards orbit, making SSTOs smaller and more fuel efficient than multi-stage rockets with similar payload capacity.

[Lignite]

I think it should keep the cartoony art style it has, along with the humorous experiment reports and part descriptions. This style makes this game accessible, which is instrumental in its success.

But then, I would like more realism in some aspects such as deadly reentry (where the wrong angle of reentry can kill you do to the Gs or overheat your ship) and an improved aerodynamics system. Improved celestial body textures would be nice too, or at least some more stuff happening on Kerbin like foliage and cities and clouds.

The game, in my opinion does a stellar job of making these otherwise complex ideas (orbital mechanics) into something fun. My friend neither plays many video games nor likes anything too "sciencey" or "mathy", yet he spent hours with this game just because it lets you be creative and laugh at your own failures, and maybe even teach you something about the complexities of space travel, all without punishing you or boring you to death.

[Dunbaratu]

Yes, Yes, Oh sweet gods of Kerbin YES! THIS!!!

I would love LOVE to see random phase angles applied to the planets (except Eeloo, which is supposed to be a moon of GP2 anyway).

This would also be a great toggleable option for the game.

Yes, and I agree that if there is procedural planet generation that it makes sense to use an algorithm for which sharing one random number seed with another player would allow that other player (provided they have the exact same software version) to generate the same solar system as you by plugging it in.

This is vital for more than just 'showing off'. It's also vital because of the stated intentions of supporting multiplayer some day. There needs to be a good way for the server to ensure that all the clients have the same picture of the solar system in their heads.

[Joonatan1998]

If you replace a cluster of 4 or 5 LV-909s with a Poodle, the only thing you are probably going to notice is that you have one big engine instead of 4-5 smaller engines. There are some minor differences in performance, but you won't see them, unless you deliberately go looking for them.

In the same way, the only real difference between a Skipper and a cluster of two LV-T30s and one LV-T45 is that you either have one big engine or three smaller ones.

Mark 55 engines are useful for adding thrust to lifter cores, when a Mainsail is too weak for the job alone. Again, you can get similar results with engine clusters, so the choice is mostly a matter of aesthetic preferences.

The linear RCS port is good for spaceplanes, where you often can't use thruster blocks with 4-fold symmetry.

It's not really a matter of intake spam, because jet engines are very powerful with just a small number of intakes. KSP jet engines have extremely high TWR, making them useful as rocket boosters. On the other hand, the small scale of the stock world means that jet engines take you a long way towards orbit, making SSTOs smaller and more fuel efficient than multi-stage rockets with similar payload capacity.

The smaller engines have a better TWR and ISP than the large engines, clusters will almost always give you better results. I think that larger engines should be better than the small ones. (or at least not worse) because they are higher in the tech tree.

Mark-55 is always worse than some other option, you could add a small tank(FL-T100) and attach a LV-T30 to it and have better TWR and isp than with a mark-55

Lv T30 to it

If the only advantance a more advanced engine has is aesthetic, it is underpowered, if it also is significantly worse than the less advanced alternatives, it is useless.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Joonatan1998

[Dunbaratu]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but procedural DOES NOT MEAN random.

- Procedural is a prerequisite for randomness. You can't have random manually generated content.

- SQUAD *themselves* use the term "procedural" when describing what they don't want to do, which is their OWN misnowmer because a lot of their current unchanging constant fixed content is procedurally made already.

So complain to them about the difference, not me. I'm just using terminology that people who play KSP will understand because it's what the KSP makers themselves used to describe the idea of having different solar system for different campaigns and different players.

It's no different than calling a crater on the Mun a "biome". I know perfectly well that it's not a biome because of the "bio" part of the word, but I also know that because SQUAD made the error of calling them that, that I have to continue that error if I want to communicate to other players of the game.

So don't blame me, and your entire point was irrelevant to the comment I made anyway because whether you call it 'random' or 'procedural' it doesn't change the meat of what I said, which is that having the exact same solar system every time you play, for every player and for every campaign by the same player, reduces the value of discovery and science measurements, and greatly reduces the replay value of the game.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Steven Mading

[cantab]

I'm assuming you mean the phase angles change, but not the actual orbital parameters, yes?

Yup. Since any change to the actual orbital parameters, if it's large enough to be noticed as more than trivia, will be large enough to mess with the game difficulty.

In fact, for the meantime you can do this yourself anyway. Start a new save and immediately exit it, then edit the time in the save to a random value. *Plans to do this on next save*.

The smaller engines have a better TWR and ISP than the large engines, clusters will almost always give you better results. I think that larger engines should be better than the small ones. (or at least not worse) because they are higher in the tech tree.

I concur with this. Part count gets to be a problem for big stuff, it's not good to essentially have a trade off between performance in the game and performance of the game. There'll still be a place for clusters for fine-tuning, and for aesthetics, but fewer bigger parts should generally be the higher performance option, for both senses of performance.

[karolus10]

I believe that we can had both complexity and fun, more complexity added into game doesn't make it mandatory for new players and try it the "jeb's way" .

Later on new players are learning about the game (in sandbox game players are progressing, not the game itself), they would seek new challenges and slowly swap launching rocket blind and aim for more precision.

Best thing about KSP (and this is main difference from hardcore simulations) is that You don't had to know how to send complex rocket at carefully calculated trajectory... you just snap few random parts together, start playing the game and learn rocketry the fun way :

If only we would had better explosions and replays... it would be sweet.

Edited March 24, 2014 by karolus10

[Jouni]

The smaller engines have a better TWR and ISP than the large engines, clusters will almost always give you better results. I think that larger engines should be better than the small ones. (or at least not worse) because they are higher in the tech tree.

Mark-55 is always worse than some other option, you could add a small tank(FL-T100) and attach a LV-T30 to it and have better TWR and isp than with a mark-55

Lv T30 to it

If the only advantance a more advanced engine has is aesthetic, it is underpowered, if it also is significantly worse than the less advanced alternatives, it is useless.

The choice between engine clusters and big engines is a choice between what happens in calculations and certain aesthetic preferences. You almost certainly won't see the difference in the way the rocket flies, except in some extreme circumstances.

Let's assume that we have the core of a relatively big asparagus launcher. The payload is 57.9 tonnes, and there are 2.5 orange tanks worth of fuel in the core.

• With a Mainsail and 4 Mark 55 engines, we get initial TWR 1.28 and 2270 m/s of vacuum delta-v.
  
• With a Mainsail and 2 LV-T30 engines (attached to empty FL-T200 fuel tanks, as the engines wouldn't attach to FL-T100s), we get 2362 m/s of delta-v with TWR 1.24.
  
• With a cluster of 6 LV-T30 engines and 3 LV-T45 engines, we get 2492 m/s of delta-v with TWR 1.20.
  
• With 6 LV-T30 engines and 4 LV-T45 engines, we get 2459 m/s with TWR 1.31.
  
• With a cluster of 10 LV-T45 engines, we get 2427 m/s with TWR 1.24.
  

So basically we get at most 10% more delta-v in exchange for worse maneuverability. That's hardly noticeable, unless you are one of those people who build minimal launch stages around payloads, instead of using prebuilt lifters. I continue to use the Mark 55 engines, because they are easier to use and less fragile in the VAB than engine clusters.

[Joonatan1998]

10% less delta-V with the "best"(Mainsail) engine than you get than with the first engine you get...

Edited March 24, 2014 by Joonatan1998