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

[Bekiekutmoar]

Some form of binary star system would be a way to avoid the FTL/Thousands of years travel-problem. Put another star at 50 billion km from the Sun (only 500 times further away than Eeloo) and add parts that 'borrows' a bit from plans like the Deadalus project in the 70's created by the British Interplanetary Society. I'd say a bit of artistic freedom while fabricating multiple star-systems wouldn't hurt.

[Bartybum]

only 500 times further away than Eeloo

I think 50 times would be enough.

[KerbMav]

My hoppy astronomie knowledge tells me I would think that binary star systems would "share" not only their barycenter but also their planets and the whole family would orbit said barycenter.

[cantab]

Depends on the positions. Planets close enough to one of the stars would orbit that single star. The other star needs to be far enough away to not perturb the orbits into a collision or ejection. Planets far from both stars orbit the barycentre and are known as "circumbinary planets". The stars need to be close enough together, compared to the planet's distance, that they act like a single mass.

[Red Iron Crown]

My hoppy astronomie knowledge tells me I would think that binary star systems would "share" not only their barycenter but also their planets and the whole family would orbit said barycenter.

It can go either way, as I understand it. Planets are able to orbit the individual stars, especially if the stars are quite distant from each other. Planets are also able to orbit the barycenter, assuming they're distant enough from the stars.

Edit: What the ninja above me said...

[KerbMav]

Wow - that would be an awsome setting for a space game ...

[Lithium-7]

Let's get one thing very clear

A return trip from kerbin to a different star system, if we assume you land anywhere when you get there, would require roughly 400.000 km/s of delta-V. That is an unfeasible amount. And yes, this is assuming there isn't FTL, which is a good assumption, as having FTL in ksp would be the single most misplaced and boring mechanic I could imagine.

This is subjective. Your opinion is not fact. In addition, you are not Squad. Different people have different views of what should and should not be implemented into KSP- and it is for this reason, and the massive, unreasonably vitriolic hatred for unrealism that I suggested that it should be moddable(you don't have to install an FTL mod, or for that matter, an FTL expansion), which has barely been touched upon so far. Also, I don't think anyone here has seriously proposed that interstellar travel should be possible with traditional rocket, ion or nuclear engines.

My argument is that once you go outside the solar system, what you do becomes a colonization effort, which is not within the scope of this game. Remember the old game "spore"? In the end, you had to colonize and manage the entire galaxy with a single ship, which was simply ridiculous. The entire game led up to the point where you would lead you species to colonize the galaxy, and it was a huge letdown, because the end was simply so much crap. Unless we get ships that can fly by themselves, colonization simply isn't a suitable mechanic for ksp. And this is my argument: Interstellar travel is not within the scope of KSP

Again, your opinion is subjective and you are not Squad. None of us get to decide what is and isn't within the scope of KSP because we are not the ones behind the design of the game.(please don't say I tried to decide that, I only made a suggestion for how they could go about FTL travel IF they decide to do so.) Additionally, things being outside the scope of the game is(although technically subjective, this seems to me like an uncontroversial opinion) not necessarily bad and no reason to not allow modders to implement it themselves. It is only a reason to not include it in vanilla KSP.

also i kinda liked spore and i didnt find that to be an issue so thats also completely subjective

Technically, nothing is objective, and realism depends on how concrete you perceive your knowledge to be, and what you consider to be realistic. As far as what we're pretty sure we know about the universe, then realism can be objective, but some people don't adhere to that set of knowledge as concretely as others. Therefore, FTL by Alcubierre drive can seem mostly realistic to one person and unrealistic to another, because the first person doesn't feel so attached to what we think we know about the universe.

I, uh, am that first person, by the way.

Now for other reasons you would want to have procedural systems (of which, I have only found one):

Other campaigns

Which is exactly what SQUAD has stated that they don't want, because it would divide the community. Which I agree with, and don't really see any reason to continue debating. If you want to play in another system, get a mod.

And this point had not been made in this thread before my first post, so holding it against me that you have had a similar discussion about that instead of what I was trying to discuss, is moronic.

I know that I at least have one more reason, which is exploration for the sake of exploration. Even after science is mostly 'done', I'd still like to go out into the universe and land on other planets. People have said that there is no reason for traveling to and landing on other planets, but this implies that four assumptions are made:

1#: Practical reasons are the only reasons

2#: Reasons are objective

3#: People do things for absolutely no reason whatsoever

4#: Career mode is the only mode

I know for a fact that people played KSP before career mode existed, but why would they do that if there was no ingame incentive?

It's simple, really, exploration for the sake of exploration. You don't NEED a practical reason to travel halfway across the galaxy in a massive colony ship, if you're doing it because that star is there and it's fun. Fun, after all, is the point of playing a game, and it is 100% subjective, so that means that while having unrealism in your KSP might not be fun for you, it's obviously still fun for lots of other people.

Some people don't play KSP for the same reasons that you do, and that is why you may not understand why people even consider adding an unrealistic thing to KSP. People can and often do have mindsets and sets of values that are like night and day compared to yours, and it's important to be open-minded. I'd like to believe that anyone smart enough to comprehend orbital mechanics would be more open-minded and creative, more willing to let go of your fragile views of how reality seems to work. (we still don't understand virtually anything at all about this universe! Technically, we don't know what's realistic and what's not. We could ALL be wrong about everything.) But, as evidenced in both this thread and the scientific community, as well as humanity as a whole, this is not always the case.

Please calm down. This is not supposed to be a thread where we throw virtual eggs in each others' faces and wave our E-peens around.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Brixmon
more clarification

[Darkstar616]

E-peens aside, people seem to be forgetting that humanity has only ever set foot on the moon. The fuzz (I really hate not being able to swear) we're able to achieve in KSP will most likely take NASA decades and probably even centuries.

A civilisation of green humanoids that consists of only a space program with the intent of exploring and collecting all the science in their local star system to therefore advance their technology for better methods of collecting the science until they reach a technological boundary that prevents them from advancing further than what humanity has already come up with.

The real question here is "Is KSP going to be an unrealistic NASA simulator or a space simulator with realistic physics?" since people are confused on what they are supporting, as am I.

[dryer_lint]

I think if they ever made a KSP 2, like a sequel to KSP, it would be about other star systems... however, I don't really like the idea of implementing other solar systems into the game. In my opinion, KSP is a game about realistic and modern technologies, or at least near-future technologies. It would probably be impossible to visit another star system with the current engines and things.

[frizzank]

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

With the addition of multiplayer this kind of changes things. What if Minecraft had exactly the same world generated for everyone. If it was a single player game then I think it would be ok, but throw multiplayer into the mix and that single world, as big as it is, can get old.

Procedurally generated content adds so much more in the terms of content that no player can possibly ever explore all of.

As for having a unified experience you should have "Presets" of systems and universes that the main game is played in. Career and sandbox are already to different game modes I see no gameplay related reason to not have procedurally generated content in a sandbox universe.

Also it was a huge no no to even mention multiplayer not to long ago. Then someone made a hugely popular multiplayer mod, and now its official. So things change.

[MKI]

I personally would like to see the kerbal system done before even thinking about interstellar travel.

Interstellar travel is over rated for Kerbal Space Program. The real question is do you really need such a thing in this game at all? To even implement it you would need to add a whole system just to GET THERE. There would need to be unrealistic warp drives, super time warp and ridiculous amounts of delta-v. Not to consider life support, if it ever gets implemented.

So yea travel between the stars belongs outside of stock KSP.

Now back to the actual thread of procedural galaxies.

I feel the main point of the OP's post is why the Dev's do not support certain modded content. It really has nothing to do with if they support it or not in the stock game, its that it takes TIME AND EFFORT to do such.

Asking for procedural generated content in the stock game is one thing. Asking for support for it in modded form is another. The fact the Dev's do not support it really goes down to what they really want to do themselves. Which simply put, is FINISH THE GAME.

Paying customers(anyone who bought the game) its pretty much expected that the company will utilize my money in finishing the game they bought, not making a game i might not want. So if procedural generated galaxies, or planets or systems or what ever are not in line with what Squad needs to do to finish the game they bought and Squad wants to make, then Squad has no reason to go off and support something not in line with the game.

Now the argument that "Squad should let the community do it" isn't any good for the same reason why so many oppose it in the stock game. Its not what people bought the game for, so why should Squad go out of their way in finishing the game i bought to support modders to make a game MOST don't want or need?

Yea it sucks if your the minority that wants such things, but what you want isn't in the game, or ever going to be in the game. So the fact the Dev's wont support it is because they want to please the majority that want their game. If i heard they were doing modding support for this stuff that directly didn't help the stock game i wouldn't be very pleased.

Once the game is finished THEN it would be time to look to support such things, but until then there are many pressing matters still in the stock KSP experience. Until then just look forward to the next update, each one brings us closer to full release.

[frizzank]

Well you don't want it, and others do. If enough people do want it then it becomes part of the finished game. Just like some people do not want multiplayer and think it is a waste of time for the devs. Fortunately they are drowned out by the overwhelming majority that do want it.

Just as most things in life it doesn't matter if you want it, it just matters how many other people want it....

[Red Iron Crown]

Well you don't want it, and others do. If enough people do want it then it becomes part of the finished game. Just like some people do not want multiplayer and think it is a waste of time for the devs. Fortunately they are drowned out by the overwhelming majority that do want it.

Just as most things in life it doesn't matter if you want it, it just matters how many other people want it....

It's not a democracy at all. If every single player wanted some particular feature Squad is under no obligation to implement it.

I'd love to know your source for an "overwhelming majority" wanting multiplayer.

[Ruinsage]

-snip-

You manipulated my quote, and I refuse to argue with someone who would resort to such cheap tricks.

[Sky_walker]

Overwhelming majority wants multiplayer?! Buahahahahaha

[Bartybum]

I didn't see a large community plea for multiplayer, but I do see one for multiple systems.

[r4pt0r]

Well you don't want it, and others do. If enough people do want it then it becomes part of the finished game. Just like some people do not want multiplayer and think it is a waste of time for the devs. Fortunately they are drowned out by the overwhelming majority that do want it.

Just as most things in life it doesn't matter if you want it, it just matters how many other people want it....

lucky for us harv has said he doesnt want it, so it wont happen(as of now)

[vexx32]

I didn't see a large community plea for multiplayer, but I do see one for multiple systems.

That's mainly because in the past posting asking for multiplayer would have to be shut down immediately; the arguments weren't even evolving, they were just being reiterated over and over, resulting in infractions and occasional banishment because people got too overexcited and vehement about it. Multiplayer is still largely a taboo topic in the Suggestions and Development Discussion section, both because of those issues and because there's nothing more to discuss yet apart from wild speculation as to exactly how Squad's gonna go about it.

Trust me, if we gave people the go-ahead to discuss multiplayer freely, there'd be about ten threads of twelve pages length by tomorrow morning, probably filled with heated arguments and an awful lot of mudslinging. For whatever reason, that particular discussion has never really been one that could be trusted to stay civil here. Bit of a shame, really.