Why SQUAD is against procedurally generated solar systems?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

As someone else said, I think some people is misunderstanding what "random" means.

Random, in general computer terms really means pseudo-random. It's long to explain, but essentially you are not really getting any random data and you can, 100% of the time, reproduce your exact results if you know a number known as "the seed". Like in FreeCell solitaire: there could be a gazillion possible games given by the shuffle of the cards, but if you want to replay that one from last week, all you need to know is the game number. Guess what that "game number" is? Yep, the seed, that original number that was used to start the pseudo-random number generator.

Same thing could apply to KSP. So, when you are generating planets, go you say "what's the general color of the terrain of my next generated planet?" Get a random number in the a range of a palette of colors that look good for planets. (Oversimplification, I know, it's just to illustrate the idea ).

Also, you can absolutely control how to use them, if you are looking for a number to use as the mass of a planet, you can ask for a number between certain ranges. You can be certain that your planet won't be too small or too big or too close to the sun, etc.

All this with a simple, common, pseudo-random number generator found in any compiler of any programing language. I mean, SQUAD wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel here. (EDIT: apart from the rest of the stuff, obviously)

And sicen all this is pseudo-random, you can ask a million numbers during the process of procedurally generating the universe, but all you need to replicate them all is the seed, a 32 bit number.

So a player could say "hey, look at this beautifully place I found in universe 1234", you go to your KSP, punch that number in and bingo, same universe, same planets, more fun.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Rosco P. Coltrane

[Ruinsage]

Making procedural planets would just be the exact same as the planets we have right now, as the skills you need to get there and land would be the same as what you have right now. Sure, you would see more different planets, but getting back would be crap. You would have to calculate how much delta-V you would need every time instead of looking it up, including drag from the atmosphere, along with the best time to do interplanetary transfers, both ways.

The learning slope would be too high for most players, and would alienate them from the game. Those who want to do it this way can use mods.

[MKI]

I have one thing against this.

If you have had enough with the current 15+ Space Bodies and their planet sized attractions. Get a mod for it.

If you like the game enough to literally get tired of the same old planets then get a mod for more.

KSP is a lot of freedom, one of the few things that keeps players related is their system. This isn't exactly a game where you can just go to a planet, land, and return. It takes some practice and experience to get there. This isn't minecraft where you can just go build a house in a wall, or in the middle of nowhere regardless of the general environment. You need to build a rocket to get you somewhere and back, all depending on where and how.

If things were procedural generated, like whole planets were made differently to simulate different systems, you have:

1. a new difficult game to learn EVERY SAVE

2. no "cannon" environment, hell get rid of Jebediah if you don't mind not having Cannon.

3. no relation to the average other player

If things were toned down, such as the surfaces of planets were a little different. Then the whole idea is sort of a waste of time and effort. If your bored going to Duna for the 50th time, seeing a new crater wont make things more interesting.

And you lose the "cannon" aspect again.

So i have no problem with this being a mod, but this should not be a game. It already is pretty daunting for a new player, and think of how many people would be turned off if literally no one can relate to your system? This isn't Minecraft where a random generated world works.

[Enceos]

Yes, with procedurally generated SS the community will totally break apart. There will be no background story, no myths, no lore for the game. The wiki will only be about orbital mechanics and parts. Watching or reading one's stories of challenge and success will have little to no relation to others. This seed number will break the community into the number of possible seeds. Little to no one will waste his time going through the whole career mode to try repeating what some other person did on some planet in his own universe.

The biggest sane thing I see in expanding the current universe is making Kerbol a double star system with everything that you can infer from it.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Enceos
typo

[ThermalShark]

Most arguments in this thread about the in-game praticality of interstellar travel can be fixed. (i know that's not what the OP wants, but it is what i want, in addition to having the option to start in a random procedural system).

First, nobody is saying it should be released close to now. I hope this to be added after we get significant in-situ resource utilization. Without in-situ resource utilization, it is impossible to do anything more on another star than sending some probes to scan stuff. I also expect for KSP to have a much more advanced building system than sticking pre-defined parts together and changing some properties and resource quantities. And an economy.

About the distance, Kerbol can be in a binary star system, and the other star would be the randomly procedural one. Even in real life, stars in a binary system are a lot closer to each other than your average distance between stars of several light-years. This, along with the scale reduction in the KSP universe, can make the stars close enough for slower than light travel. I know it will still take long, but there is no problem with that. You can launch a interstellar ship then do some missions on Jool, for example. Or just go to a super timewarp mode and reach there in 1 minute real life time. You would only rarely send interstellar ships, because the ships sent would extensively use in-situ resource utilization, and you would be able to build more ships when you get there, and reproduce more kerbals.

Just one other star would be enough, because with updates a star can be very vast, when you have the freedom to make underground mining bases, a construction complex in a hollowed asteroid, and all that cool stuff. Right now all you have to do is explore the surfaces and move asteroids; and science as it is now doesn't count, as it is just getting to the place and pressing buttons so you can press more buttons on more distant places.

In my view a interstellar project should be really big business. Something to do after you have a self-sustaining colony on Laythe, solar farms near Kerbol, and a asteroid mining program to fund the interstellar one. It should be something you spend a lot of time planning, something a person wanting to do it for the first time will want to ask for advice to experienced players. It should a week of real life time to complete the first stage of the program, which would be setting up the funding, building the orbital construction site that will build the interstellar ships, scanning the other system for locations, planning what they will do after they get there, etc.

Of course, such a big thing will need to be released after the game is stable enough so updates may never break saves...

Edit: Here is some real life data on stars:

distance between...

Alpha Centauri and us = 277600 AU

Stars in Sirius binary system = between 8.2 AU and 31.5 AU, average 19.85 AU

Stars in Procyon binary system = between 8.9 AU and 21 AU, average 14.95 AU

Stars in Alpha Centauri binary system = between 11.2 AU and 35.6 AU, average 23.4 AU

this means the distance between the Alpha Centauri stars is 13513 times smaller than the average distance between stars around this part of the galaxy. Stars in a binary system are A LOT closer than unrelated stars. Divide 23.4 by 10, to account for the fact that everything is 10% of the real size in KSP, and now it is too close instead of too far. 2,34 AU is 25,7 KAU

Edited May 10, 2014 by ThermalShark

[TheGeoninja]

The main reason against procedural generated solar systems is they don't want players to travel to a different solar system and say "hey have you been to planet x". Friend replies "Planet x? I've never even seen that but I have planet y." It creates a bit of an odd situation and Easter eggs couldn't be implemented

[Alewx]

I agree with HarvesteR, keeping the game compareable and shared in experience for the players sounds better to me.

On the other side there are quite a lot of players that already made it several times to all the planets, an expansion of the Kerbalverse would be nice. (Real Interstellar Traveling )

[Beowolf]

I agree with Felipe. Procedural solar systems would make it harder for players to compare experiences. We all know it's hard to get to Moho, so can meaningfully discuss it. With procedural planets you'd have to list a dozen properties of the world and its orbit before anybody begins to understand how awesome it was you landed on it.

This is a case where I think it's better left out of the stock game. But now I'm interested in taking a look at the mods that provide it. Do any of them let you design solar systems and share them? I was just picturing a "hot Eve": Orbiting Kerbol super-close, plus in a high-inclination orbit just to be mean...

LOL, I've never made it home from Eve's surface yet, so doubt I'd be up to that one. Still, it's fun to imagine.

[LethalDose]

Edit: Here is some real life data on stars:

distance between...

Alpha Centauri and us = 277600 AU

Stars in Sirius binary system = between 8.2 AU and 31.5 AU, average 19.85 AU

Stars in Procyon binary system = between 8.9 AU and 21 AU, average 14.95 AU

Stars in Alpha Centauri binary system = between 11.2 AU and 35.6 AU, average 23.4 AU

this means the distance between the Alpha Centauri stars is 13513 times smaller than the average distance between stars around this part of the galaxy. Stars in a binary system are A LOT closer than unrelated stars. Divide 23.4 by 10, to account for the fact that everything is 10% of the real size in KSP, and now it is too close instead of too far. 2,34 AU is 25,7 KAU

Good numbers, ThermalShark. A quick question: Is there any evidence of exoplanets orbiting individual stars in those binary systems? If those stars are so close (within 20 AU), it's hard to imagine planets orbiting individual stars instead of barycenter of both stars.

By that logic (which may, or may not be sound, that's why I'm asking about the exoplanets), if Kerbol was a half of a binary stellar system, wouldn't it be expected that Kerbin and it's siblings be expected to be orbiting the binary's barycenter, not only Kerbol as it does now?

[tntristan12]

You know, I was brainstorming this earlier. I think the way I'd do it if I wanted to make a distant binary system would be to have two stars located very far apart. For the purposes of this discussion I'll use the names Kerbol (starting star) and Alternis (the second star, whose name I stole from NovaSilisko's excellent planet pack). Let's say that when you are closer to Kerbol, you are effectively in its SOI. When you are closer to Alternis, you are in its SOI. When you get halfway between the two, they alternate.

When you are in Kerbol's SOI, Alternis orbits Kerbol. When you switch to Alternis' SOI, Kerbol starts orbiting it in the opposite direction. Because there are no other points of reference (this approach limits the entire game to exactly two star systems), you would not be able to tell this switch had occurred: the skybox would give nothing away. You could further sell this illusion by hacking out the orbit lines in the map mode. Because the stars would be so far apart, relative motion would be very difficult to detect. The orbits would be so wide that in the time it took you to go from one to the other, it would appear as though they were moving in straight lines if at all, making navigating it very easy.

This addresses both primary developer concerns:

1) Because you could make the argument of this as a binary system, the devs (or modders) would be able to allow a combination of conventional propulsion and high time warp to make transit times reasonable (I would say several minutes - up to 15 at max warp is reasonable) without the need for warp. This would open the market for mod makers to implement their own warp ideas.

2) Since there's only one other star system there is no need to make it randomized. The devs could use a fixed seed to procedurally generate its planets and that would solve the issue of gameplay being different for different players.

A solution like this is something I feel would make everybody happy. It would be the other star system many people on this forum including myself have advocated, it would adhere to the loose standards of realism required by the devs, and it would be close enough to be reachable on conventional means yet far away enough to present a true interstellar challenge to anyone who wants it.

Thoughts?

[jamqdlaty]

It looks like most of you don't get the SEED idea...

1. You could choose - default Kerbol System - friendly for new players or random (you can enter seed) other world.

2. There would probably be a thread on forums about the coolest seeds - you could still play on systems that other people play or find new ones and share them.

I don't know why everybody just say that it would break community apart. I mean... Why would it?... Any problems which can't be fixed with what I just said?

I guess I need to edit first post and add there some BOLDED info.

PS: There was a guy who started post with "I've read only first page" and ended it with "Any other questions?"... Well, how about checking for them on more pages? ?I don't want to write the same things again and again.

[Superfluous J]

It looks like most of you don't get the SEED idea...

I think a lot of detractors do. The idea that it'll break the community up is that you can't say "I went to Jool," you'll instead say "I went to Jool in Seed 981491542!" Nobody will know what that means without loading it up and looking.

I don't think, though, that that would break the community up any more than the million different mods has broken the community up. But it's still a valid concern even though "procedural =/= random"

[jamqdlaty]

Ok, I edited first post.

1. Some people don't even enjoy community stuff.

2. Take a look at "What I did in KSP today" thread. It gets boring.

- I went to Jool!

- Wow, what an interesting fact, man! I definitely enjoy reading that you've orbited Jool more than exploring new worlds myself in KSP!

You get it?... Who cares that you went to Jool? What's the big deal about "breaking the community" by giving them more possibilities?

There ARE plenty of materials about Kerbol System for new players and there still WILL BE. There WILL BE people saying "I went to Jool", but there also will be people saying 'I went to Jool on seed "blabla", you should check it out'. They will share screenshots and encourage people to do the same thing - sharing worlds and playing on best of these. There would be some hard planets on popular seeds and people would talk about it on forums, they would share their ways to get to planet X in Y system and back.

Even if it made Community little less active (I don't think so), it would be a cost of giving them more possibilities and definitely more fun. It's worth it.

Are they earning money on forums? I don't think so. Are we having more fun on forums than in game? Well, is it really a good thing? I would definitely recommend KSP with random generated systems to my friends. Even if people on forums were less active. Some of you say that one fixed Kerbol System is a good thing, it brings new players. It seems like you care more for bringing more players and filling SQUAD pockets than having fun yourself.

EDIT: I edited first post guys. Please read it before you post about problems or questions I've already answered there.

2) Since there's only one other star system there is no need to make it randomized. The devs could use a fixed seed to procedurally generate its planets and that would solve the issue of gameplay being different for different players.

What does it have to do with the topic? I'm not talking about interstellar travels, I'm talking about Kerbol System not being your Solar System (starting Solar system in case of interstellar travels) everytime you play especially in Career mode. What's the fun in playing Career for 20th time in a System you already know very well? Well, if someone thinks it's fun, he could play on default seed.

Edited August 20, 2014 by sumghai
Consolidated consecutive replies by the same poster

[BudgetHedgehog]

I think random solar systems are a great idea. Don't see how they can break the community at all - to me, there's no difference between saying 'I went to Jool and this view is amazing' and 'I went to Jool in seed xxxxxxx and this view is amazing', except the fact the last is more interesting because it's something I can replicate and see for myself. I love the game, but even though the sights are all pretty, they're also the same. All the time. For everyone. Forever. I want to be able to start in a different place and think 'hey whoa, seed xxxxxxxx starts you on an very eccentric orbit close to Kerbol?! Well, hmm.. how can I do this...' - it'd bring back the feeling of starting the game anew all over again.

As for new players, there should always be a default seed. When you click 'Start New' in the main menu, it should come up with a box to enter seed number. It would already be filled in as the default seed so new players don't get a different starting point to anyone else.

If they're worried about helping other people out ('help me get into orbit'), it's literally a case of either saying 'help me get into orbit on seed xxxxx' or asking what seed they're using if they don't originally say. Then we can enter that seed into the text box and start a new save to find out what the circumstances are ('yeah, you've started at Eve sea level.. good luck').

I mean, they could limit what the seeds generate - for example, you should always start on Kerbin, or there should always be a low gravity moon within the starting SoI - but I think that wouldn't be as interesting. Maybe like, '80% of the time, you start on Kerbin' though I'm not sure if that's possible.

So yeah, not really anything new, just echoing others thoughts. Would really love for this to be a thing and it won't break the community at all. If anything, it'll become more vibrant ('share the hardest seeds you've found!' or 'what was great about your seed?', not to mention all the related troubleshooting and help (though, it could get a bit too much, now I think about it)).

[Superfluous J]

- I went to Jool!

- Wow, what an interesting fact, man! I definitely enjoy reading that you've orbited Jool more than exploring new worlds myself in KSP!

You get it?... Who cares that you went to Jool? What's the big deal about "breaking the community" by giving them more possibilities?

Sorry. That was an example. I thought it was obvious.

[jamqdlaty]

Sorry. That was an example. I thought it was obvious.

What is obvious? That sharing your rockets and never-changing-Jool screenshots are funnier that doing the same things in various systems?

Well, I and ObsessedWithKSP gave some good reasons for our thoughts. We told why we think it wouldn't be bad for community. We realize that there would be little less discussions about default Kerbol system.

So now, what are your reasons for this ruining the community? What do you think about what we have wrote?

Don't you really see any good influence this change could have on community?

Edited May 13, 2014 by jamqdlaty

[Superfluous J]

What is obvious? That sharing your rockets and never-changing-Jool screenshots are funnier that doing the same things in various systems?

Yes, that's what I meant. You got me.

You obviously don't think there is any room for discussion so I will bow out.

[r4pt0r]

So now, what are your reasons for this ruining the community?

if i see someone talking about their Eve ssto lander, i know what that is. i can say "hey man thats awesome" . i know what eve is, i know it has a hellish gravity well and an atmosphere thicker than concrete.

if i see someone talking about their Thros'x(or whatever name) ssto lander, i cannot relate to that. i dont know the conditions of Thros'x. i know nothing about its environment. so i will not say "hey man thats awesome", as i have no connection to his world.

[YNM]

Mainly to the OP : I'd make this rather a modification rather than a core feature (which is done by CE planet factory; thanks cerrak !).

Why ?

1. Mind you, you're not the only one who play the game, and not all player is an old (ie. experienced) ones. Seeding is great - that'd give me a hell of challenge - but new players ? What would they say ? "Dammit, I got a hard seed" or "well, the game's not so interesting, bad seed"

2. Uniformity and ease of ironing out bugs. Having a seed system, means there's a whole pack of (10^n)-1 seeds to be investigated (from physics to textures to sciences), whether something's wrong or not. The value of n is, well, up to you, but most game have something along 7 to 10.

3. And comes in one pack before the above, it'd be a huge effort to code them. Firstly, they have those things to do, to iron out bugs in the current game and improve what's there until a seed system could be viewed, or a seed thing would radically change how the program is structured. I guess if anybody is willing to solve this together with KSP Dev teams, that'd be great.

[Wahgineer]

procedural doesn't mean random. Squad could set it up where all of the planets (except the kerbol system) are procedurally generated from a constant, unchangeable seed. That way, planets are unique, new, and random, but everyone would have the same planets to visit.

[tntristan12]

How about if career mode always had the same seed (the current default system), but it could be changed for sandbox mode? That seems like it'd accomplish what the devs are looking for, since all players in career mode would have a common experience but it would give players of sandbox mode more things to talk about.

[Wahgineer]

How about if career mode always had the same seed (the current default system), but it could be changed for sandbox mode? That seems like it'd accomplish what the devs are looking for, since all players in career mode would have a common experience but it would give players of sandbox mode more things to talk about.

Nah, best to keep consistency.

[rkman]

How does Squad feel about the current trend of the community being split across different planet packs (mods)?

If Squad does not want to split the community across different KSP universes, i think it would be better if a procedural universe would be added (with a fixed seed so it is the same for everyone every time), to reduce the need for modding the current ksp universe.

Seriously, with a couple of hundred solar systems to explore in one universe (so no need to start a new game to get new planets), why would anyone want a different universe? Is it just because they want different planets close by to Kerbin so that they don't have to travel very far?

[Vanamonde]

Please try to keep in mind that even the forum members who disagree with you are not your enemies. Also, this thread has at times veered into suggesting new planets for the game, which is a What Not to Suggest List item. Talking about methods of generating planets is a discussion, but arguing that new ones should be generated is just one of those subjects which gets endlessly re-hashed on the forum without result, let's not drag that into the disucssion, alright?

[TimMartland]

Here's the problem. It took SQUAD years to make the current Kerbol solar system. Do you really think its possible to have procedural planets without a huge amount of time (time way out of the scope of the current game - we're talking 4-5+ years minimum) and massive CPU requirements? It simply isn't practical and might not even be possible at all.