Why SQUAD is against procedurally generated solar systems?

[cantab]

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.

I don't. Procedural parts and suchlike offer greater control to the expert player, but will risk bewildering the novice with possibilities. Heck, I found just the stock parts overwhelming when I first bought the full game. No, I thing the "lego-brick" construction will stay.

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri_Bb is debated, others like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Cygni_Bb are confirmed. They orbit the one star directly, there are yet other planets that orbit binary pairs.

As it is, KSP can't really handle equal binaries. The Kerbol system would be fine, the Newstar system would be fine, but travel between them would be screwy. It would only work if the second star is considerably less massive than Kerbol, so that it's reasonable to have the primaries all orbiting Kerbol, and the Newstar system would be like a bigger and more distant Jool system.

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

It's still only a hanfdful of important different systems. Stock, Alternis, Real Solar System, Planetfactory, Planetfactory CE defaults, Urania - I've probably covered all the ones of any note, and all of them bar RSS keep at least some of the stock planets.

[problemecium]

This is the first I've heard about SQUAD officially being against procedural star systems, and all I have to say is that I second the people saying that procedural does not equal random. Space Engine uses a procedural universe, but it's always the same "random"-looking universe for everyone (unless you mess with the generation settings), so a player can find a cool planet and then tell everyone else where it is so they can go there in their own installation.

My hope is that a mod gets made for this, or at least SQUAD changes their minds sometime in the distant future (around version 12.9834.248 maybe xP)

[Excellent]

What about a compromise that takes only the best out of procedural planets? For example there could be a planet (and only one planet) that is different whenever you start a new game with a seed. This makes it so the entire community can still have all the base planets along with another planet that's slightly different every time you come to it.

You don't even have to change the name, nobody goes to dres anyways why not spice it up a little?

[jamqdlaty]

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?

If they're not reading what I'm saying in first post and they talk about problems that I've already covered, who they are if not enemies? Come on, My english is simple, but not bad. It's not that hard to understand me saying that I'm bored on making progress in Career and making science every time in the same default solar system. Two on three messages are about things I've already covered in first post. I'm just annoyed by them.

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?

Man, read the first post. What are you talking about? Universes? sci-fi WARP engine?... I'm talking about playing Career in different Solar systems, making progress and science in different conditions every time you WANT to try a new world seed. WARP engines? KSP is not that sci-fi and I hope it'll never be. Even if, I would still have to make all science tree up to WARP engine in our default Kerbol System every time I play Career mode.

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"

Please, read the first post. There could be a choice to play on default or "random" system.

[YNM]

(A suggestion to the forum : allow attachment of files ?)

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.

What's a "seed" ?

Alright, it's another game - this to be exact - but that's what I know of "seed" in-game. A seed is a bunch of numbers, which each would make a certain aspects of the map (or in KSP, it could also be mass, density, radius, the six orbital parameters, atmospheres, and so on) different in all possible ways, and you can - really - insert any number to that seed system. If you suggest that SQUAD has to make all the individual seeds unique (and sensible), that's overkill. Code tweaking to the seed system might be done but of course, more features means more codes, and more time required.

Please, read the first post. There could be a choice to play on default or "random" system.

No offense but from other games I've seen many have complained when they have just too much settings. Alright, seed or no seed is only one...

A suggestion if the seed system ever comes to reality : make it that seed 0 is the standard kerbol system as we know it. Put a description beside the seed number box.

Edited May 14, 2014 by YNM

[Kerbart]

To get back to the original question:

1) What does it add to the gaming experience?

2) Adding a new feature, what are the chances that the developers have to spend time developing, debugging and enhancing this feature?

If Squad feels (1) outweighs (2) they'll go for it. If they feel (2) outweighs (1) they won't. Remember that there's limited resources in the dev team, so they have to pick wisely what they're developing. PGP might be on the list, but only if a whole bunch of other features have been implemented first.

[Threadsinger]

I rather like the static system - gives my friends and I something to bond over when we play. Every world has its own consistent characteristics, and it's rather fun to discuss how we landed on Duna for the first time, or tried to land on Eve, or that close call on a return burn to Kerbal. Now, I play with KSP Interstellar, they do not, so once I hit that part of the tech tree our achievements were much less mutual (although occasionally each other's achievements were notable enough to warrant some fun filled discussion); my point here is there is a nice commonality to meeting the challenges in the same universe. I can certainly see that after x-100's of hours KSP's world might seem stale, but I do see value in keeping a static system where there is a shared experience.

Just my two kerbs.

[Hotblack Desiato]

okay, I see the advantages and the disadvantages of different starting systems. but there is one big thing: who starts playing with alternative planets? those who are already experienced, and don't want to go to the same old jool every time.

there are mods for different situations, extra tech, extra features, life support, and so on, even constructing things in space. so for example, I'd like to have this game-start: the kerbals finally invented a big starship with some mysterious engine that hopped over that vast emptiness of space. and they finally reached another (procedurally generated) star system. the ship orbits the star, and prepares for colonisation. the way back is closed (fuel lasted only for one trip) and start exploring the new solar system. means: scanning for resources, landing somewhere, starting of in-situ resource processing and deliver that stuff back to the spaceship.

the fun part would be the possibility to have an entire new solar system with new challenges and so on.

for that point "I landed on eve" instead of "I landed on eve in seed XYZ", my solution would be: my planet XYZ (name from a name generator) has a surface gravity of 1,9 and a surface pressure of 15 bar. and I made a SSTO for this planet. everyone knows what it means to make a SSTO for that planet. oh, and a similar situation is already present: I made a SSTO from eve. oh, but I use KSPi and I have a big badass power transmitter sitting in orbit, and I use the thermonuclear jetengines. those who don't know the mod have no clue what that means.

[jamqdlaty]

To get back to the original question:

1) What does it add to the gaming experience?

2) Adding a new feature, what are the chances that the developers have to spend time developing, debugging and enhancing this feature?

If Squad feels (1) outweighs (2) they'll go for it. If they feel (2) outweighs (1) they won't. Remember that there's limited resources in the dev team, so they have to pick wisely what they're developing. PGP might be on the list, but only if a whole bunch of other features have been implemented first.

1. What do you mean "what"? First thing I tried after installing KSP for the first time was to get to every planet and every moon. Then I tried to get there and come back. For me getting to places you have not been before was the best part of KSP. I like all other things in KSP, but it would be really nice to have possibility of exploring and making progress in other, unknown, possibly sometimes harder systems.

2. It would be time consuming, I know, but I think it would be the biggest and the best change that was made since I played KSP for the first time.

I'm not saying I want it now (but after budget and weather conditions I would expect it to be one of the most important features) . I'm just kind of annoyed that they didn't even give it a 'deeper' thought. They just gave one or two reasons for not implementing it and these reasons were kind of pitiful. For example, they assume that it would break community apart. Why would it? People could share seeds, they would share MORE screenshots than now and these screenshots wouldn't be as boring as 95% of screenshots now. I'm sure there would be some popular seeds on forum which would be used by many players and they would share their experiences. Many people would still play on default system and many youtubers would still make hundreds of tutorials for beginners. For some reason in SQUAD they see only negatives, no positives. I understand their reasons, but do they understand mine? There would be pros and cons of that solution, but it seems to me that overall influence on community would be positive.

Why wouldn't it?

"I got back from Eve, that was hard!" + screenshot <- Somehow people thinks that every new player commenting on his really basic experience holds the community together. Come on, how many almost identical experiences have you read about and have you had yourself? Oh, that hold us together so much, cause now all comunity have the experience of landing on duna over and over again. I see how mutual experiences hold community together, but more than enough is too much. Wouldn't you prefer to read or write about some new experience that can be recreated by other player if they only want to (sharing seeds)?

I rather like the static system - gives my friends and I something to bond over when we play. Every world has its own consistent characteristics, and it's rather fun to discuss how we landed on Duna for the first time, or tried to land on Eve, or that close call on a return burn to Kerbal. Now, I play with KSP Interstellar, they do not, so once I hit that part of the tech tree our achievements were much less mutual (although occasionally each other's achievements were notable enough to warrant some fun filled discussion); my point here is there is a nice commonality to meeting the challenges in the same universe. I can certainly see that after x-100's of hours KSP's world might seem stale, but I do see value in keeping a static system where there is a shared experience.

Just my two kerbs.

Say that after playing with friend 50th time.

" my point here is there is a nice commonality to meeting the challenges in the same universe. " - if that's your point, you didn't read what I'm suggesting. You could play with friends on the same solar system seed if you want mutual achievements. The one difference is that you all could play on different than default solar system.

Will it be "rather fun" to discuss how you landed on Duna for the first time after many many games you play in default solar system?

[Umlüx]

i think they should introduce a procedurally generated universe with a fixed seed. so it is still the same for everyone to compete in challenges and achievements, but others who want to see something new could just go further beyond the 'inner systems'.

of course, we'd first need some sort of resource system for this to keep craft sizes down to a bearable limit.

maybe you could even choose your starting system if you desire so.

[Merinsan]

I too would like to to see some procedurally generated systems. It would certainly extend the life of the game.

However, there are many issues that would need to be overcome, such as generating a system far too easy/hard.

I also agree seeded solar systems would split the community further, but I don't think this is as bad a problem that some people make it out to be. The community is already rather fragmented due to mods. There are even people using different planets already, I have done so before.

The reason I installed new planets was for a new challenge, and this is where I think this idea needs to be thought about. Once you've conquered the current planets, what's left to do?

[W1ntermute]

I think there's some confusion over what procedural generation is and what it can do.

Procedural generation can either be random or fixed. If squad think procedural generation is ONLY randomized, then they have assumed an incorrect viewpoint of it and need to pull their heads in. Fact is, objects can be generated dynamically and still have the exact same features as everybody else's copy of the game. What defines this is a fractal algorithm of each planets features, variables (size, gravity, atmospheric height, apogee/perigee, etc) and also of its texture values. This is what David Braben used on the Elite series of games and EVERY COPY of EVERY GAME he made has the EXACT SAME shaped solar system and universe. The values are set numbers for each body orbiting each solar system. They aren't randomized willy-nilly. Outerra uses this method, so does Space engine. Virtually everything made on the Demoscene does this too.

This, rather than having modeled an entire planet and texture its surface as the main elements. That's insanity, who has the time to sit behind a computer, go click click and do that all day? The end result just gobbles up memory, especially on a juvenile 3D game engine like Unity. Using procedural generation to create planets uses only a minuscule fraction of the memory that KSP currently uses now, even with 64bit. I feel KSP's ridiculous memory usage and the Unity engine are its Achilles heel. The devs flounder under Unity's limitations, this is evident with the slowness of their updates and the time at which it's been in early access. It should be done by now. Truth is, the engine can't handle it. I don't hold a candle of hope for Unity 5. KSP would do much better on a more mature game engine like UE4, less an in-house proprietary one

[Stargate525]

Truth is, the engine can't handle it. I don't hold a candle of hope for Unity 5. KSP would do much better on a more mature game engine like UE4, less an in-house proprietary one

Which i paramount to, essentially, starting over. :/

But yes, there's a difference between procedural and random. I'd love to see the system kept mostly the same, but given a painting-over with procedural craters, features, etcetera.