Scalable Difficulty Factors

[Vaporo]

But KSP is nowhere near that case. Its goal was not to make a Simulator like "training simulator", it's to make a video game that deliberately simplify the less interesting aspect of rocket-science to make its fun more accessible. Aspect like the planets' size and distance, orbital mechanic, the relation between ISP/thrust/atmospheric density, fuel density, gyroscopic gimbals-lock,

KSP wasn't made REALIST to begin with, so it would require major rewrite that will only satisfy realism-nuts so they can pretend KSP is serious-business. I'm pretty sure not giving false-information to kids is another reasons KSP will not make itself pass as more realist than it is.

You, sir, have managed to sum up the intent of KSP. A LOT of people on the forums need to read your paragraph here. You should put it your signature.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Vaporo

[Northstar1989]

You, sir, have managed to sum up the intent of KSP. A LOT of people on the forums need to read your paragraph here. You should put it your signature.

Just, so much nope.

KSP was originally a little 2D game with very little in the way of many of its current features or complexity.

The path of its evolution has been towards realism and complexity. And, it's actually picked up MORE fans/players as it's underwent a lot of this.

Additionally, a lot of realism features actually make the game easier, or other realism features more acceptable/d=fun- for instance docking and better joints made the game easier (as would In Situ Resource Utilization), and realistic aerodynamics would make more realistic-sized planets more fun/interesting since rockets would ascend through the atmosphere a LOT quicker...

Regards,

Northstar

[Beeman]

I've always been in favor of having difficulty options and toggles when making a new game in KSP. We have something similar to that right now, we can choose between sandbox mode, a mode where science is your only building limitation and full-on career mode, where you've got to manage your funding and reputation while trying to earn enough science to unlock more parts. They could very easily just expand on the new game menu with some additional options. Rather than three prefabs, they can just have a checkbox for R&D, then another for funding and reputation, perhaps with sliders beside each with which we can set a desired multiplier. Five settings seems reasonable for these - two multipliers below one(like .5 and .25), one above one(like 2x and 5x) and the center point being 1x or stock.

Other things I'd like to see as options include the reentry heat thing or whether or not we've got every planet visible in the tracking station without building or upgrading the observatory(that's still a planned thing, right? ).

Things I wouldn't want to see as difficulty options or toggles without mods are things like the planet or universe size or gravity settings. Those types of things are...a bit technical and not the types of things you see in a vanilla game without console commands or whatever. They just don't fit, if that makes sense.

[Eric S]

Just, so much nope.

KSP was originally a little 2D game with very little in the way of many of its current features or complexity.

The earliest prototype, yes, but by the time it had it's first public release, it bore a very strong resemblance to its current incarnation. The devs have said repeatedly that given the choice between simulator-level realism and fun, they'll chose fun. What decisions have they made that favored realism and complexity that weren't also fun/challenging? I think the entire science system, both gaining and spending science, speaks volumes towards the fact that they place game mechanics over realism.

[Kegereneku]

Just, so much nope.

KSP was originally a little 2D game with very little in the way of many of its current features or complexity.

[...]

Since the very first version the game never tried to use real value for anything.

It did evolved toward something more complex and .... more FUN, not more realist or else it would have used the right numbers for many things.

Features like "Docking" and better joint were not KSP trying to be more "realist" (for starter because there's no magnet on real spacecraft, and joint were a flaw that was solved), it was just new feature to, once again, make the game fun to play.

As said earlier, remaking planet bigger alone would ask for major rewrite as the planet were NOT-randomly procedurally generated and would make the game harder. Every maneuver would also require a LOT more precision, making auto-pilot a necessity.

Now a "better aerodynamics" model is a wanted feature indeed, but not necessarily a "more realistic" one, for starter because it would make any non-aerodynamic rockets incapable to fly.

KSP was never meant to be a simulator or more realist than credible enough to be fun.

If you want a real space simulator you search for ORBITER and accept that if you are bad at it it's because KSP was definitively simplifying things for you, like the whole process of building a rocket.

Realism isn't the enemy. But good game-design is the goal.

[Northstar1989]

Since the very first version the game never tried to use real value for anything.

It did evolved toward something more complex and .... more FUN, not more realist or else it would have used the right numbers for many things.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about here. The game devs have themselves said that one of the major decisions was whether to include a realistic orbital mechanics system as they expanded towards including other planets and making Kerbin an actual planet (originally, Kerbin was just an infinitely-large procedurally-generated flat world), or use something less realistic. They made the DECISION to intentionally move towards a more realistic model, and were surprised when people actually *liked* it...

Features like "Docking" and better joint were not KSP trying to be more "realist" (for starter because there's no magnet on real spacecraft, and joint were a flaw that was solved), it was just new feature to, once again, make the game fun to play.

Once again, you're completely wrong. Docking was DEMANDED by players because it could be done in real life and they saw no reason why they shouldn't be able to do it in-game. Yes, it also made the game more fun, but it also simultaneously made it much more realistic. As for magnets in real-life docking rings, you couldn't be more wrong:

http://www.internationaldockingstandard.com/download/IDSS_IDD_RevA_Final_051311.pdf

As said earlier, remaking planet bigger alone would ask for major rewrite as the planet were NOT-randomly procedurally generated and would make the game harder. Every maneuver would also require a LOT more precision, making auto-pilot a necessity.

Making the planets larger doesn't require a major re-write. Mods like Real Solar System already do it with just a couple small files and a handful of lines of code. The vast majority of files in RSS are for the new textures to make the planets look like Earth, Mars, etc. If you play the upscaled-Kerbin system variants (like I currently am doing in my latest Career Mode thread), it's nothing but a couple tiny files/configs...

I also have to say you're quite wrong on the requirement for an autopilot thing. In *MY* current Career Mode game I have MechJeb2 installed, but haven't actually unlocked any of its autopilot functions yet. Thus, I have been playing with Real Solar System (6.4x Kerbin system) using only MechJeb2's Advanced SAS functionality (which basically is used to align your craft along a maneuver node, the prograde/retrograde vector, or a couple other nodes that are already part of the stock game; or to set a specific angle/rotation to the horizon which is useless for maneuver nodes anyways and sees most of its use in plane flight and high-precision rocket ascents...) and the Kerbal Engineer style functions for info on your vessel mass/situation and Delta-V budget...

Now a "better aerodynamics" model is a wanted feature indeed, but not necessarily a "more realistic" one, for starter because it would make any non-aerodynamic rockets incapable to fly.

What you just said made absolutely no sense. A huge number of players have been crying out for a better aerodynamic system meaning full well a more realistic one, and knowing this would make pancake-rockets impossible to fly. They want it anyways, because sometimes more realistic is more fun, like with adding docking...

KSP was never meant to be a simulator or more realist than credible enough to be fun.

By most definitions, semantics aside, KSP *ALREADY IS* a simulator. Nobody is asking for 100% realism (a fully-realistic politics system that always cut your funding would be no fun, for instance), but a huge number of players would have more fun with more realism in the simulation.

If you want a real space simulator you search for ORBITER and accept that if you are bad at it it's because KSP was definitively simplifying things for you, like the whole process of building a rocket.

Orbiter isn't necessarily a realistic simulator at all. Under-the-hood, it's incredibly unrealistic (rockets are simulated as nothing but a mass, a thrust, and a shape, for instance- they are not composed of smaller parts that can individually break and such). Orbiter is only the facsimile of realism. And boring to boot- NOT because of the realism, but because is stupidly limits players to nothing but basically re-creating missions that have already been pre-designed for them (and most of which are recreations of historical missions) rather than allowing players and freedom to design their own missions in-game whatsoever (all mission-design has to be done out-of-game and takes HUGE amounts of effort).

I'm betting dollars-to-donuts that you, like most players that set up Orbiter as a straw-man argument against realism in KSP, don't actually own the game yourself, and have probably never even played it.

Realism isn't the enemy. But good game-design is the goal.

Realism makes the game much more fun and interesting at times. As it stands, experienced players quickly lose interest in KSP, because it's *too easy*. They wouldn't be saying that if they could set a difficulty slider to make Kerbin Earth-sized and it took 10 km/s Delta-V *just to make orbit*. Personally, even I am not in favor of life-sized Kerbin system. I think that the most FUN setting for an experienced player would be between 30% and 50% scale (which is why I play with the 64% scale Kerbin system RSS config- not only is it to scale with the 64% sized rocket parts in the stock game, it also is the closest to what I consider a FUN level of realism- though it's probably a little too hard for most players IMHO, and I would bet most would prefer a 30-50% sized system instead of the current >9% sized system...)

Finally, I would ask you, WHY DO YOU CARE IF THE DEVS ADD REALISM FACTORS AS DIFFICULTY-SLIDERS ANYWAYS? Since it would be a tweakable setting at the beginning of a new game, and the default would be what's currently used anyways, it wouldn't actually change your game experience at all. And, a I've already pointed out, and RSS has already proven, it doesn't take more than a handful of lines of code to make the additional setting a reality. Why do you care how other people play their games if it doesn't affect you?

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. It's already been confirmed that Difficulty sliders will be in the 0.25 update, so it looks like, I win this debate. Even if they won't have things like a planet-size factor at first, I bet the devs will be *quite* amenable to including them in the future once it's shown to them that it would take *very little* effort to include as an option... Respectfully, I hope that you'll even consider playing with it yourself at some point.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Northstar1989

[stupid_chris]

This thread is over a month old. Last reply was in August. No need to be upset.

The devs have now said they would do this and are working on this feature.

Nah, closing the thread.