Modding, Expansions, and the' problem' with a procedural galaxy

[Lithium-7]

I've seen the suggestion to add other star systems over and over again, and the fact that the dev team (and plenty of players) seems vehemently opposed to that idea seems... odd.

I know of at least one excuse the devs came up with to not bother with this:

Falange: "That’s something we get a lot, and it’s actually something that I’m not very particularly [interested] about implementing. It’s not that can’tâ€â€we could, theoretically. But I think that KSP being a game where you can build your own spacecraft, play the game in your own way, and have essentially a completely different experience from everyone else… the only thing tying these experiences together is that the universe is the same. So if we were to add procedurally generated planets outside the current solar system, you would end up with places and destinations that don’t exist for anyone else. And then it would fail in terms of you being able to relate to someone else’s experience. You wouldn’t be able to say, “Hey guys, I landed on Duna, this was really cool!†And everyone knows what Duna is and what it stands for. Instead, you’d get, “Hey guys, I found this planet, it looks kinda like this.†And people would be like, “Oh... I’ve got completely different planets on mine.â€Â

To me, there's a frustratingly-obvious solution that's staring me in the face, yet I haven't seen anyone mention it yet.

Just use the same seed.

Have every single copy and save of the game use the exact same generation number doohickey, so that everyone gets a procedurally-generated galaxy, but everyone gets the same procedurally-generated galaxy. Like Starbound.

That way, someone can be like, "I landed on the third planet of the second star in the system at (galactic coordinates)", and then, people might not initially know what they're talking about, but they can just head for that system and find the exact same thing there. There's still a disconnect in that the galaxy would be too massive for everyone to come to know what it all contains, but that happens with anything on this scale. It's basically unavoidable without just rejecting the idea entirely, which seems like a really dumb idea when there are so many people that want this to happen, or at least be possible.

Which brings me to the next point: If the devs won't implement it, they should make it possible for modders. Because if they just decided to stomp on the idea entirely and not even make it possible for modders to accomplish in some form, that seems like it would be a really big letdown to a lot of people, and it would probably mean less people actually buying the game. (unrealistic FTL travel is far more popular and therefore profitable than no FTL at all.)

I'll admit that I don't entirely understand the prioritization on realism (there are so many things in this game now that are still extremely unrealistic, and I think it's been stated that KSP is a game first, and a simulation second), but if that's how they want to make their game, I shouldn't try to change that. All I ask is that they at least try to enable the people who really, really want this to happen to accomplish their goal without having to make another game entirely or have to do some extremely drastic, difficult, and loophole-y modding to make it work. I mean, implementing your own planets has already been shown to require extensive modding and workarounds.

But currently I haven't seen Squad mention much about the potential relation between FTL, other stars, and their expansion packs. I'd like to think that, since I think they said that the expansions would include content they don't consider to be within the scope of vanilla KSP, could they make it into an expansion? It seems like a good idea; people would pay good money for that. Plus, I think the fanbase would break in two if Squad decided to not make it into one (or, again, make it possible with mods.)

Also: Notice that I'm not mentioning how exactly I think they(modders or Squad) should do it, what FTL system they should use, or anything like that. That's because that's not the point, the point here was explaining what can be done to solve the only problem I've seen Squad pose with a procedural galaxy, and explaining why I think they should at least let the community do it.

[r4pt0r]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/12/23/kerbal-space-program-dev-on-random-solar-systems-the-joy-of-failure-and-the-cult-of-steam/

this sorta explains why they wont, but i think they could do something to make it easier for modders. in another thread someone mentioned if squad released an "API"(i think thats what he said) that would help modders, but i dont know what that is.

[shizophrenic]

i agree that with using a seed based System Generator falage's Argument from the interview becomes obsolete.

there is still one weak Argument against i can think of

the Setting of the game:

kerbals a a humanlike sentient lifeform on a planet similar to ours. kerbals live in a solar System with a similar structure to our solar System. their technological evolotion is very Close to ours.

seed based solar System could be quite different, E.g a jupiter type planet innermost. that wouldn't be anymore similar to ours.

any travel between stars would break that Setting too.

if you don't care about Setting the argument gets pointless to you. kerbals could even start on a eve like planet or a gas gigant for you and and look like flat disk with a single antenna on top

[Superfluous J]

This

has

come

up

before.

That last one's a link to more links, if you're curious to see even more discussion about it than the first 4 links

[Lithium-7]

This

has

come

up

before.

That last one's a link to more links, if you're curious to see even more discussion about it than the first 4 links

Also: Notice that I'm not mentioning how exactly I think they(modders or Squad) should do it, what FTL system they should use, or anything like that. That's because that's not the point, the point here was explaining what can be done to solve the only problem I've seen Squad pose with a procedural galaxy, and explaining why I think they should at least let the community do it.

:l

None of those involve a workaround for Squad's reason to not make procedural star systems. And none of those involve suggesting that Squad at least make it possible for modders to do.

What they do involve is people just plainly suggesting to include procedural star systems, and other procedural things related to other stars and planets.

I never actually mentioned that I wanted them to implement it, nor did I specify how. I'm not suggesting that they implement FTL, procedural systems etc. period, I'm suggesting that, IF they decide at any point in the future that they want to make these things happen, they could work around the whole community disconnect like I said, but if not, I have a way for them to semi-satisfy those who want them to do so.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Brixmon

[Redjoker]

i agree that with using a seed based System Generator falage's Argument from the interview becomes obsolete.

there is still one weak Argument against i can think of

the Setting of the game:

kerbals a a humanlike sentient lifeform on a planet similar to ours. kerbals live in a solar System with a similar structure to our solar System. their technological evolotion is very Close to ours.

seed based solar System could be quite different, E.g a jupiter type planet innermost. that wouldn't be anymore similar to ours.

any travel between stars would break that Setting too.

if you don't care about Setting the argument gets pointless to you. kerbals could even start on a eve like planet or a gas gigant for you and and look like flat disk with a single antenna on top

You could have the analog for our solar system and then procedural generate everything else. This would also have the bonus of ensuring that at least the first planets were reasonably explorable and allow the player to unlock the tech needed to explore further,

[Jas1126]

One of the things I absolutely loved about X3: Albion Prelude was the fact that there was so much to explore. So many systems with many unique planets. So much wonder and surprise. So... MUCH. And now I'm playing a game in which I can finally land on planets, something that I desired for years, only to hear that this game will remain tiny. How disappointing.. Thank goodness mod makers are around.

Falange talks about how they limit the game based on the community's conversations? Really?

That's just.... Really? What about the hundreds of thousands who will never even read the forums? I'm just dumbfounded.

[Justin Kerbice]

Falange talks about how they limit the game based on the community's conversations? Really?

That's just.... Really? What about the hundreds of thousands who will never even read the forums? I'm just dumbfounded.

Welcome to the so called "democracy"

It could be really great to have some pseudo random solar systems and pitfalls can be avoided more or less easily with some boundaries (to avoiding a gaz giant close to its star for example).

An API for that could be great but as they even not really support modding right now (allowing/tolerate it is more appropriate, according to actions taken til now, not words or promesses; don't believe me ? Did they give any API doc upon each releases for plug-in dev ? NO), it's more kind of dream.

But devs do what they want even sometimes it's not easy to understand their motivations. Look at pidgin/gaim, they just shot themselves in the foot with audio/video support.

[Dunbaratu]

The idea that seed-based generation still makes it possible for players to have shared solar systems if they like *HAS* been mentioned many times before. Squad still doesn't want it. Don't ask me to defend why, however, as I don't agree with any of the justifications they've used.

[Nuke]

i have to agree here, i cant remember a game of elite where i didnt start a new save by doing the diso->lestii run to get some early cash (at least till i got my fuel scoops, docking computer, and the beam laser). those systems would be generated perfectly identical no matter how many new games i played and this was a game that fit cleanly onto a 5.25" floppy. the frontier games also pulled this off in more detail. these are ancient games too, came out years before 3d accelerators where things.

there is no technical reason why this cant be done while confirming to squad's notion that the game needs to be laid out the same for everyone. this still leaves the other problem about how to travel those distances without breaking the laws of physics. which is one that is kinda hard to solve. something involving an unrealistic/pseudorealistic warp drive or other exotic means of propulsion (q thrusters), simulating relativistic time dilation, extreme time warp, or reducing the scale of the universe to unrealistic levels (travel distances <2 ly) or some combination of the above. then if you manage to make that transfer, what do you do when you get there? while you can do the primary goal of adding more stuff, it opens up a pile of other things that you need to make it all work.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Nuke

[rkman]

i agree that with using a seed based System Generator...

It's not like there ever was a way to procedurally generate content without a seed, the trick that solves Harvester's problem is not in the seed per se, the solution it is in not including the option for the player to change the seed

"it’s actually something that I’m not very particularly [interested] about implementing"

Harvester used to be interested in it, at some point he has said every star in Kerbin's night sky would be a star we could go to.

[allmhuran]

I'm not against the idea of other solar systems and I agree that using the same seed for everyone eliminates the problem of comparable experiences and achievements.

However, I'm also not entirely convinced that more solar systems would be the best thing for KSP. I wonder what additional gameplay would be added by this.

Right now the gameplay consists of only a few elements:

- Ship construction (which is the most variable, differentiated and in my opinion therefore the most fun aspect of KSP)

- Launches

- Landings

- Atmospheric flight

- Driving rovers around

- Intercepts (of planets or moons or other vehicles, it's all the same thing in terms of what you need to do)

- More advanced intercepts (gravity slingshots, efficient planning, docking).

Other than ship construction, there's not a huge amount of depth to any of these. Yes, players make incremental improvements with their launch, landing, and intercept efficiency, but it's really all rather simple once you get the idea. I'm not going to add "science", since I don't think the current science mechanic, which involves nothing but mindlessly pressing a button on a dialogue box, counts as gameplay.

More solar systems would not add any new gameplay features, it would just add more things to launch from, land on, and intercept. I think what we need is new and more in depth gameplay features. If development resources aren't a problem then sure, I'd say do both. But if they are (and they always are) I'd definitely focus on more in depth gameplay before adding new planets, or moons, or solar systems, which would only serve to repeat the existing gameplay even more.

Edited May 18, 2014 by allmhuran

[shizophrenic]

i have read that the planets surfaces Models are procedurally generated. Are we are loading those precalulated models or are they generated each time at the start of the game? i just don't know. depending on that answer we have already procedual code with a seed or not.

[rkman]

I agree with allmhuran that other 'deeper' gameplay features should get priority over a procedural universe or galaxy.

i have read that the planets surfaces Models are procedurally generated. Are we are loading those precalulated models or are they generated each time at the start of the game?

Precalculated, afaik the planet surfaces have been procedurally generated outside the game, and several manual art-passes applied.

depending on that answer we have already procedual code with a seed or not.

For distribution of stars/planets/moons a different procedure would be needed anyway.

[Ruinsage]

The problem with interstellar travel is that it's unfeasible to do a return trip, which would make it the kerbal colonizing program instead of the kerbal space program.

And once you reach that scale, piloting everything by yourself becomes impractical.

[Dunbaratu]

Sigh.... For the umpteenth time... Having it possible for there to be a different solar system is a *SEPARATE ISSUE* from how one would actually get around to using that content - whether it's other solar systems in the same universe that you get to with FTL, or whether it's just a way to restart a game in a new universe from scratch (you can't travel between solar systems - having other solar systems is just for restarting new campaigns in those solar systems).

I really wish people wouldn't conflate the two. They can be addressed entirely separately. A dislike of FTL is not a valid argument in favor of a fixed,never-different, always identical solar system, because you can have a variety of solar systems without enabling the ability to travel between them in the same campaign.

[Dunbaratu]

It's not like there ever was a way to procedurally generate content without a seed, the trick that solves Harvester's problem is not in the seed per se, the solution it is in not including the option for the player to change the seed

The player doesn't have to change the seed. The clock can do it, or any number of other things. Again, look to the example of minecraft. The player *can* choose the seed manually, but doesn't have to and can let the system pick it, then later on the player can get the seed displayed to them and point it out to their friends and say "hey check out the world I got with seed 123456789 - it's pretty neat", and let them manually start a game using that seed typed in manually. To make a fixed universe, Harvester had to not only prevent the PLAYER from changing the seed, he also had to prevent any and all forms of getting a different seed, like the traditional system clock technique, and just hardcode the seed(s).

Edited May 20, 2014 by Steven Mading

[Nuke]

Sigh.... For the umpteenth time... Having it possible for there to be a different solar system is a *SEPARATE ISSUE* from how one would actually get around to using that content - whether it's other solar systems in the same universe that you get to with FTL, or whether it's just a way to restart a game in a new universe from scratch (you can't travel between solar systems - having other solar systems is just for restarting new campaigns in those solar systems).

I really wish people wouldn't conflate the two. They can be addressed entirely separately. A dislike of FTL is not a valid argument in favor of a fixed,never-different, always identical solar system, because you can have a variety of solar systems without enabling the ability to travel between them in the same campaign.

they are related because you want one, you need the other. why generate a solar system you can never get to? or why have interstellar propulsion and not have anywhere to go? id even argue that you would need additional features like stock isru and off planet construction to make it playable. its one of those features that opens a can of worms, and if you dont address that the game looks incomplete and squad would have wasted dev time on something that will likely never be used. game reviewers ridicule that kind of thing.

to be fair there are mods for everything in that can of worms, but thats not the point. if you implement procedural galaxy as a stock feature you must logically include features that let you exploit all those other solar systems, otherwise they are pointless. if you use the "i want it so mods can use it" argument, well there is a mod to add other systems.

tldr: a implies b

[allmhuran]

tldr: a implies b

No it doesn't, and SM just posted a comment showing that it doesn't:

you can have a variety of solar systems without enabling the ability to travel between them in the same campaign

Posting on behalf of him because I too find non sequiturs very frustrating when trying to discuss a specific point.

[Porkjet]

There will be other systems eventually. I'm not worried about that. Theres so much to do for squad, I'm sure at a later point in development they might rethink their decision, just like they did with Multiplayer, which used to be on the 'will not be implemented' list, and now is being worked on. Traveling to other stars seems to be a thing every KSP player that has succesfully traveled to other planets wants to do.

[Ruinsage]

Sigh.... For the umpteenth time... Having it possible for there to be a different solar system is a *SEPARATE ISSUE* from how one would actually get around to using that content - whether it's other solar systems in the same universe that you get to with FTL, or whether it's just a way to restart a game in a new universe from scratch (you can't travel between solar systems - having other solar systems is just for restarting new campaigns in those solar systems).

I really wish people wouldn't conflate the two. They can be addressed entirely separately. A dislike of FTL is not a valid argument in favor of a fixed,never-different, always identical solar system, because you can have a variety of solar systems without enabling the ability to travel between them in the same campaign.

How is that a separate issue? That's like saying we should be able to mine for diamonds on the bottom of the ocean, without anything to use the diamonds for? Sure, being able to say "I mined diamonds on the bottom of the ocean" might be nice, but if you have nothing to use them for, then what is the point?

Interstellar travel is such a vast step up from interplanetary travel that they simply don't belong in the same game. Saying that the system could be used for enabling people to make a procedural starting solar system is nice and all, but if SQUAD wants people to play in the same system, as to not divide the community, then why would you need it?

People that want to play in other solar systems can install mods because that is exactly what mods are for, people who wants to play the game in a non-vanilla way.

[allmhuran]

Just want to let you know again that I feel the mental pain you are experiencing on reading these comments Steven, and to reassure you that you are not actually the last rational living person on the planet. To wit...

How is that a separate issue?

Issue 1: Can it be done?

Issue 2: Should it be done?

Given that the answer to the first is definitively "yes", and the answer to the second clearly varies by opinion between "yes", "no", and "maybe", then it is obvious that issue 1 and issue 2 are not identical, since if they were the same issue they must have the same answer.

Your opinion on whether "more solar systems" is a good idea for gameplay reasons has no relevance to the question of whether such is actually possible in the first place. I've already said I'm not convinced that more systems is, in fact, something that the devs should consider, but at the same time I feel compelled to support the purely logical aspect of what Steven is saying.

[Nuke]

Issue 3: what does implementing the feature do for the game?

unless you do it all the way, the answer is nothing. there might be diamonds there but you can neither get them nor are they any use to you when you do. if you do go all the way, you cross into the territory of completely changing the mechanic of the game, but it can be fun to have more rocks to screw around on when you get there (several months at fastest warp, unless you cheat, oh crap, i broke my descent engine).

[Dunbaratu]

but at the same time I feel compelled to support the purely logical aspect of what Steven is saying.

Except that you're not. You're talking about the same separate issue that Ruinsage was and ignoring my point while making a *different* point I never made and pretending that counts as supporting what I said.

I never made anything even remotely like your point about whether or not unrealistic FTL is okay for gameplay reasons. That's utterly irrelevant to my point, and if you thought it was relevant then you really don't get what I said.

What I was pointing out was that the claim that FTL is necessary for there to be a reason to have more than one fixed identical solar system is false in the first place because traveling between such systems in the *same campaign* is not the only reason someone might want more than one solar system to pick from.

What I'd like is the ability to start a NEW campaign and end up playing THAT campaign in a slightly different solar system than I had for the previous campaign. That's something that DOES require breaking free of the fixed one-solar-system-for-all limitation, but does NOT require any sort of FTL.

That's why "should the game support differently generated solar systems" and "should the game support FTL" need to be addressed separately. No matter how valid arguments against FTL may be they have nothing to do with the OTHER reasons for wanting differently generated solar systems.

The reason I get frustrated by the constant conflation of the two is that I actually *agree with* most of the arguments saying FTL is a bad idea, but the fact that THOSE are good arguments shouldn't be allowed to unfairly taint the utterly separate issue of other possible reasons for differently generated solar systems.

[Dunbaratu]

they are related because you want one, you need the other. why generate a solar system you can never get to?

It would be stupid to generate a solar system you can never get to. Which is why I never said that or advocated for it, no matter how much you pretend I did. Let me repeat what I said, and for the hard of thinking out there I'll boldface the important part you are ignoring:

"you can have a variety of solar systems without enabling the ability to travel between them in the same campaign."

Those words "in the same campaign" I didn't just add for fun. It's what I actually intended to say, and it's what I actually DID say.

Just because you can't get there in the same campaign does not imply you never can by starting a different campaign