How do you feel about this ?

[Remkeau]

In my opinion improving the current planets is indeed better, before adding more planets (which are still welcome, but first things first). I've been to all bodies, but only to Eeloo and Dres once. They just don't seem to spark any interest to go there after the initial challenge. Laythe is more interesting to make a colony with all it's islands.

[Red Iron Crown]

Damn, I'm glad I get those for free. That's a ridiculous idea.

It is literally an expansion of content. You obviously feel that the current complement of planets is insufficient, but that doesn't make a suggestion otherwise "ridiculous". There are enough bodies to satisfy new players for quite a while, I don't think it's feasible or reasonable to expect Squad to focus on satisfying old veterans like you (or me) who have thoroughly explored the 15 landable bodies in the system.

Anyway, yeah, the current planets need polish and should obviously come first, but seeing new planets being considered a "big maybe" is just really dumb. Planets are the real "content" of KSP, it's the whole reason to play the game, to get out and explore.

Your whole reason to play. I'm not sure even half of KSP players ever go interplanetary, certainly it is not all players. For that portion of the player base that tools around Kerbin's SoI, more planets add exactly nothing.

[Ippo]

I don't think we need more planets: we already have enough. I'd rather have the ones we have made more interesting: unique places, more interesting / challenging landscapes, another one with oxygen maybe?

The absolute best would be having a climate.

[Robotengineer]

Squad seems to be devoting resources to things the majority of the community doesn't want (IMHO). I would rather see at least 2 new planetary systems, gas giants preferably, before multiplayer or female kerbals.

Addressing the possibility of expansion packs; it seems likely to happen, probably after scope completion. Available as an extra purchase Which makes perfect economic sense for Squad, but sort of (IMO again) takes the indie out of KSP.

I would also like to see unique science, like being able to visit certain land features with a rover for science.

[Blind Dead McJones]

I don't think we need more planets: we already have enough. I'd rather have the ones we have made more interesting: unique places, more interesting / challenging landscapes, another one with oxygen maybe?

The absolute best would be having a climate.

I agree, I'd rather see them improve the current planets before they add any more. Most of the planets that we already have are honestly rather boring if you don't already know about the easter eggs, and some planets don't even have that (I'm looking at you, Dres). They've talked about geysers and volcanoes and stuff like that, and I'm honestly more excited for that than a whole new planet with nothing on it.

[CaptRobau]

Squad seems to be devoting resources to things the majority of the community doesn't want (IMHO). I would rather see at least 2 new planetary systems, gas giants preferably, before multiplayer or female kerbals.

Addressing the possibility of expansion packs; it seems likely to happen, probably after scope completion. Available as an extra purchase Which makes perfect economic sense for Squad, but sort of (IMO again) takes the indie out of KSP.

I would also like to see unique science, like being able to visit certain land features with a rover for science.

Female Kerbals are one of the most requested features for KSP.

[cantab]

I'll be another to second the call for much, much more interest on the current planets. They really want bringing to life, not just visually but also linking in with the science system. For example on Duna you would be able to get different surface samples from the dust, the boulders, and the exposed bedrock.

[Guest]

It is literally an expansion of content. You obviously feel that the current complement of planets is insufficient, but that doesn't make a suggestion otherwise "ridiculous". There are enough bodies to satisfy new players for quite a while, I don't think it's feasible or reasonable to expect Squad to focus on satisfying old veterans like you (or me) who have thoroughly explored the 15 landable bodies in the system.

I think that developers should keep an eye on their experienced players because those people help spread the word about their game, just like new players. Of course, SQUAD is at the point where they can safely ignore long-time players, especially those who bought before the DLC affair, so my words probably ring hollow.

Your whole reason to play. I'm not sure even half of KSP players ever go interplanetary, certainly it is not all players. For that portion of the player base that tools around Kerbin's SoI, more planets add exactly nothing.

Like everyone else around here I obviously feel like my ideas regarding KSP's gameplay and future are best, and I see no reason to stop stating them because I feel they are best. It's also my most direct frame of reference. Additional content is always good for a game. Another stock gas giant system (NOT DLC) would be very welcome for KSP, but I also completely understand the need to polish up the current planets first.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think that developers should keep an eye on their experienced players because those people help spread the word about their game, just like new players. Of course, SQUAD is at the point where they can safely ignore long-time players, especially those who bought before the DLC affair, so my words probably ring hollow.

I'm not even sure all or most long-term players are screaming for more planets or feel limited by what we have now. I would certainly enjoy more, but I'm in the "explored most of the system" category. The current number of planets is enough for dozens if not hundreds of hours of gameplay, which is much more than most games deliver.

Like everyone else around here I obviously feel like my ideas regarding KSP's gameplay and future are best, and I see no reason to stop stating them because I feel they are best. It's also my most direct frame of reference. Additional content is always good for a game. Another stock gas giant system (NOT DLC) would be very welcome for KSP, but I also completely understand the need to polish up the current planets first.

I don't have a problem with expressing your ideas or thinking that they are best (as you say, everyone likes their own ideas). Just not sure it's good form to characterize a different viewpoint as "ridiculous", though I suppose you're living up to your "not very diplomatic" moniker.

[WololoW]

What is this "DLC Affair" you speak of regex?

[Guest]

What is this "DLC Affair" you speak of regex?

I wasn't around for it, so someone can probably fill it in better, but there was apparently a big hullabaloo about "updates" being interpreted as DLCs, so SQUAD promised people who bought before a certain date free access to any DLCs that were made in the future.

[Aragosnat]

Yeah. With how we get science and money now. There is to an extent hardly a point to go out to get more science. Even though I'm planning on doing it for fun. If the tech tree either had more and or cost more. Like what another mentioned here. We need to hit another planet/moon to get the tech part to unlock so then we can then spend science on it. Kind of like what mining for resources would have brought.

But, do agree the current planets need some love. Just so they can get a system in place for creating biomes on other planets. For the just in case they do add more then just planets to Kerbal's system.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

I just want GP2, the plans for the moons actually make them interesting, such as one where the mountains are so high they reach out of the atmosphere and another one where it spins so fast that it's oblong, the devs have even said that the physics for both these concepts work and are fun. SO WHERE ARE THEY??!?!??!

[FleetAdmiralJ]

More planets would be nice, but there will always be the question of "why not add even MORE planets" regardless of how many we have. We have a good selection of planets as it is, so the question that must be asked (which usually never enters into discussions of people complaining about why X isn't in the game) is this: should creating more planets be a higher priority than, say, completing career mode, or updating aerodynamics, or fixing bugs, or whatever else they have planned down the pipe (or any other number of things people on the forum have been clamoring for). Remember, the number of devs they employ can probably be counted on your hands, and they are working on multiple aspects of the game as well as making sure all of those parts work together, as well as making the game as moddable as possible.

Meanwhile, we have literally dozens if not hundreds of modders who often focus all of their energy on a specific aspect of gameplay (which they wouldn't be able to do, by the way, with the time the devs spend trying to make the game as accessible as possible for modders).

So my feelings on more planets is this:

Sure, I'd love more planets. Planets are always good. But I think there are a multitude of other things in the game that should take priority over it. They may get to it eventually. I doubt they will get to it soon.

- - - Updated - - -

I just want GP2, the plans for the moons actually make them interesting, such as one where the mountains are so high they reach out of the atmosphere and another one where it spins so fast that it's oblong, the devs have even said that the physics for both these concepts work and are fun. SO WHERE ARE THEY??!?!??!

Unfortunately, the person who was working on all of that for squad no longer works for them. So it's likely much of the new planet development halted when he left.

Squad seems to be devoting resources to things the majority of the community doesn't want (IMHO).

I would just note that what you want (or even posting a thread with a lot of people saying "me too") is not the same as what "the community" as a whole wants. If you go into the chat during squadcast, you see many more people ask about multiplayer than more planets (though it is a popular one). And female kerbals are both often asked about and, for certain reasons, something they want to put into the game anyway.

Edited July 29, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[pxi]

I'm a bit disappointed.

Now I agree that the existing planets need more work done on them, and things like the asteroids update have added some nice gameplay options, but eventually going to Duna or Jool or wherever becomes routine, regardless of however many biomes, easter eggs or whatever are added. Ultimately, I personally find it more compelling to go places I have not gone before.

On the subject of more planets via DLC, I'm not opposed, but they'd have to be something pretty decent to compete with what the modding community has been providing.

EDIT: You might be wondering: no I don't qualify for free DLC.

[treejoe4]

They will add GP2, of course they will, just like one day they will add interstellar travel.

If you compared KSP to a newly bought house, you wouldn't start just adding poorly built furniture every time you went out to the store. You would take your time and buy stuff with quality. A buggy rushed GP2 in 0.25 is only going to appeal to those you are impressed by colours and shiny objects.

[snsmac]

I dont think that the adding of planets should have the highest priority at the moment. Squad should first try to make the existing planets more interesting and they should include tools for delta-v calculation and similar things into the stock game, because for newbies (like me) it is extrem hard to do interplanetary travel without them. An other problem with the current planets/moons is, that there is no reason why you should travel to them. You dont need them to finish tech tree and most of them are boring, small, stone planets/moons. Sure there are interesting and challenging planets too, for example Eve, Jool or Laythe, but the most other planets are just too s

[Cornholio]

More planets would be fun and probably will be part of the game some day. I wouldn't read in too much of the "big maybe" line. It will happen. The game needs to be addressed heavily in other areas: incorporating aspects of the game that are only covered in mods such as life support, aerodynamics, reentry, and comsats. These mods (and others) add such a unique aspect to the game and should be considered updated aspects when a new build is released. I, personally, haven't played .24 yet because mods are iffy and I don't want to play straight sandbox or career/science without more depth.

[Robotengineer]

-Snip-

I would just note that what you want (or even posting a thread with a lot of people saying "me too") is not the same as what "the community" as a whole wants. If you go into the chat during squadcast, you see many more people ask about multiplayer than more planets (though it is a popular one). And female kerbals are both often asked about and, for certain reasons, something they want to put into the game anyway.

Yes, I can see that. I primarily frequent the forums for my KSP stuff and I haven't seen much talk about female Kerbals on the forum.

[Redshift OTF]

What I hope for is one or two more gas giants (Saturn, Neptune, or Uranus analog) with moons and a Kuiper belt or Oort cloud with randomly spawned asteroids.

I like this idea. A Kuiper belt would be awesome, perhaps one where random/procedurally spawned Pluto like planets are created for each unique save that you have to discover with space telescopes and/or probes. I think this would tie in well with the New Horizons probe that will visit Pluto next year!

I would also like a another gas giant, (maybe ringed), with an Eve like moon, (smaller but with a similar atmosphere), or a mini Laythe so you have another place to use jet engines on. Perhaps a twin moon would be a good idea, (2 moons orbiting each other while in orbit around the gas giant).

[razark]

Yes, I can see that. I primarily frequent the forums for my KSP stuff and I haven't seen much talk about female Kerbals on the forum.

That might have something to do with the heavy boot that gets stomped down from the "do-not-suggest" list, which gets treated as a "thou-shalt-not-talk-about" list way too often.

[SkyRex94]

So seeing the different opinions of you, there's another point that makes me wonder: Why do they work on Female Kerbals NOW? I think it is as same Priority as new planets would probably be. I really want new Planets, at least a blue Gas Giant, but I also agree that there are many more important things to do first. But female kerbals aren't one of those, it'll be just a cosmetic or RP thing. I doubt playing female Kerbal differs in Gameplay to playing Jeb, so if they say 'first scope completion/ Planets a BIG MAYBE' why they're doing this now? Delta V Readouts, proper Aerodynamics, fixed and balanced Science System/ Science Tree and improved Science gathering (no biome spamming with every biome worth the same even if its the 10th place you visit on the same body), immersive enhancements to all planets, better VAB part Lists, Reentry Heat, Use for Probes, use for Rovers, balanced Contracts... these are things that add something to the Gameplay, they should be addressed ASAP. And when Scope Completion is reached i want to see an updated completing the KSP Planet system and make it more diverse to get more Exploring-Value and such an update would be fitting for things like female Kerbals or Visual Enhancements or paintable suits or whatever.

Don't get me wrong, i like the idea of adding Female Kerbals.

Just saying, focusing on female Kerbals RIGHT NOW doesn't make any sense according to Squads own 'plan' and compared to things that would actualy add Gameplay-Value.

[Red Iron Crown]

So seeing the different opinions of you, there's another point that makes me wonder: Why do they work on Female Kerbals NOW? I think it is as same Priority as new planets would probably be. I really want new Planets, at least a blue Gas Giant, but I also agree that there are many more important things to do first. But female kerbals aren't one of those, it'll be just a cosmetic or RP thing. I doubt playing female Kerbal differs in Gameplay to playing Jeb, so if they say 'first scope completion/ Planets a BIG MAYBE' why they're doing this now? Delta V Readouts, proper Aerodynamics, fixed and balanced Science System/ Science Tree and improved Science gathering (no biome spamming with every biome worth the same even if its the 10th place you visit on the same body), immersive enhancements to all planets, better VAB part Lists, Reentry Heat, Use for Probes, use for Rovers, balanced Contracts... these are things that add something to the Gameplay, they should be addressed ASAP. And when Scope Completion is reached i want to see an updated completing the KSP Planet system and make it more diverse to get more Exploring-Value and such an update would be fitting for things like female Kerbals or Visual Enhancements or paintable suits or whatever.

Don't get me wrong, i like the idea of adding Female Kerbals.

Just saying, focusing on female Kerbals RIGHT NOW doesn't make any sense according to Squads own 'plan' and compared to things that would actualy add Gameplay-Value.

NathanKell made a good point about female kerbals in the official thread about the AMA (now closed due to excessive grumpiness, I think): Working on female kerbals doesn't draw resources away from those features you mention, as it is purely a modeling/texturing exercise while all those gameplay features are programmer tasks.

Female kerbals are important to have in the developing educational version of KSP, because a game about science and technology that has only male characters sends a bit of the wrong message.

[AmpsterMan]

Just a friendly reminder to keep the topic in mind when posting.

I linked the video above to the moderator chat a few months ago and we had a lively chat on the topic as it regards to KSP. I for one am happy to hear they will be making a concerted effort to make the planets better and flesh them out. As it stands, the addition of planets in 0.17 was expansion by scale rather than kind. It was good for the time, but I feel we are deeper in the development cycle, deep enough to make the changes that we need to make the bodies unique.

As it stands, there are very few differences in Kind in KSP. In fact, only divided into 3 distinct categories:

building

1. Launch Vehicles

2. SpaceCraft

3. Atmospheric Craft

1:Launch vehicles all have one thing in common; it gets you to space. Usually, launch vehicles are distinct from spacecraft, however, in certain cases they can have similar/same makeup (SSTO rockets or Spaceplanes). They provide the same challenges every time, namely the balance between delta-v, Thrust-weight, and aesthetics (amongst others, trying to be concise here! ). Every Launch Vehicle ever has to consider these things. Therefore, per the above video, this is a difference in kind as far as the game is concerned. Of course, within this small subset there can be differences in kind vs. differences in scale as well. The 23.5 super engines (scale) vs. the 24.x OMS and Verner (kind), but I want my post to be at a lower resolution than these scales.

2: Spacecraft at first might seem similar to Launch Vehicles. While they do share much in common, they also have some unique differences. Whereas every Launch Vehicle must get a space craft into orbit from the same planet, each spacecraft has a unique payload. Furthermore, it may act as a return Launch Vehicle that needs to be tuned to the desitnation's unique characteristics. Space craft must concern themselves primarily with DV and TWR in different ways than LVs. Furthermore, they may have to have the capability to dock, carry crew, do science, etc. Whilt a case can be made for this just being a difference in scale (just an extension of the LV), i portend it is a difference in kind.

3: Airbreathing craft are mainly played with in Kerbin and Laythe. Since the places with breathable atmospheres are by the nature of the game, limited, I suspect this place won't have much room for differences in scale. In fact, though I love airplanes, I don't think Airbreathing craft have as high a priority as the other parts of the game. Still, this is definately a very different part of the gameplay and one that requires a very distinct set of skills to build. It is definately a difference in kind if there ever was one. (My Opinion: I think Squad's single stroke of genius, if they only ever had one, was to hire Chad and incorporate his mod into the base game)

flight

1: Takeoff

2: Orbital Maneuvers

3: Landing

4: Surface Activities

5: Atmospheric Flight

1: Every mission that takes place in outer space starts off with the actual takeoff. This is a major part of gameplay. In fact, effective and efficient takeoff is the most important skill the player can learn in this game. Without it, they will never get anywhere. It's like if the player in Minecraft didn't know to punch wood. Takeoff has unique challenges for takeoff that aren't presented elsewhere. Furthermore, even though most takeoffs take place from Kerbin, if one wishes to return from an orbital body, they have to know the specifics of said body.

2: The second thing everyone must learn is how to get somewhere. The skills required to change 6 orbital parameters to get a desired goal are imo, second only to the importance of taking off. This is an area that is easy to learn, difficult to master. Anyone can go to Mun if told to burn at sunrise and wait for intercept. Capturing an Asteroid and docking it with your space station in LKO in a polar orbit is completely different. This is the Difference in Kind that has the most smaller differences in kind and is the one that makes this game what it is imo. I suspect this one is almost completely finished to perfection.

3. Landing is definately another difference in kind. While it is technically a takeoff in reverse, it is qualitatively different from the same. We all remember how nervous we were when we first attempted to land on Mun. Adjusting thrust and attitude, looking at map, monitoring fuel, etc. All of this is very distinct from when we first took OFF from Mun and that is why I think it is a difference in kind as well. This is, paradoxically, a difficult to learn, easy to master skill. Each landing, while different from the other skills, is effectively the same (atmospheric landings are a subgroup, imo).

4. Surface activities are the crux of my argument as to why I like the direction suggested. I'll go more into detail later; for now I'll just provide basics. Surface actiivties can include finer search for easter eggs, planting flags, driving rovers, making a surface base, drilling for resources (with mods), science gathering, and just running around. These are the entire and sole purpose of the entire game. To GET there. KSP is missing in what to do when we finally get there. (again, more later)

5. Atmospheric flight is again, underdeveloped but genius in my mind. The fact that one can use a completely different game style to explore the surface of Kerbin and Laythe is very fun. There could be an argument made that this can be included into surface activities, but I find the qualitative difference to be such that it qualifies as a difference in kind.

Science and Funding

This one is actually very interesting. I don't know if there is enough in the game to make it truly strategically deep (at least not yet) but it does color the other choices in game. Do I make a potentially cost saving SSTO Space plane or do I make a multi-stage rocket? Do I do the riskier mission to Duna or go to Mun. Whilst I think this area has potential, I feel it is underdeveloped at the moment and reserve further judgment.

So, after this long winded, difficult to parse section, why do I think the direction of better bodies vs. more bodies (at least in the short term) to be an empirically better choice.

Unique planets allow for unique surface activities.

Right now, the most interesting part (i.e. the one that involves the most unique interaction of user input) is in space. Building a space station is seen as fun and cool because it has the most different interactions that a player can have. Each space station is unique; it requires creative thinking in the build mode, creative launch vehicles, creative spacecraft (the station), creative flying, etc. etc. This is one avenue of play that was largely locked before 0.18. (I consider the introduction of docking in 0.18 the second largest stroke of genius). The techniques required to make fun space stations require the largest interactions between differences in kind in the game at the moment. Building it in Low Kerbin Orbit, Low Mun Orbit, or Low Jool Orbit are NOT differences in kind because they basically require the same skills, only in a larger amount. Adding more planets, moons , etc. will not make this avenue of play any DIFFERENT only MORE. (I do, however, think the game could do with a larger variance of planet and moon orbital parameters. With the exception of Moho and Gilly, most planets don't require plane change, which I think would make subset differences in kind under the orbital gameplay more fun, but I digress)

Surface activity right now is very bland. We have seen it said before; once you land on one of the bodies, the other bodies are pretty much the same. With the exception of gravity, landing on Vall requires the same skills as landing on Mun. Furthermore, once landed, with nothing to explore or do, one just needs to pick up science, perhaps a few screenshots, and then go. Sure, one could drive a rover around. But that gets old, fast. Unless there is a legitimate reason for driving around (even just to pick up different science readings with unique flavor) it is all the same. The process of getting the rover to the planet was more fun than actually being on the planet.

With deeper planets, the complexity of the game would be untouched. (That is another extra credits vid that I might consider editing in with my post) but depth would be added. If the Mun arches were somehow incorporated into the lore of the game; if perhaps a connection was found between the crashed saucers on Mun and Kerbin; if there was a reason as to WHY there is a kerbal face on Duna, then there would be much more to do. Of course, this does require careful thinking and game mechanics to allow for the discovery of such artifacts. I'm thinking something like what Outer Wilds did; ofcourse, this is just personal opinion and fancy .

This is just one idea though. However it is that surface activity can be expanded, I think the game will benefit as a whole. Right now, I personally haven't gone interplanetary since 0.18. Why? Because nothing has changed. I haven't visited Eeloo or Dres because, meh, there is nothing there. Sure, I can visit that big scar on Dres. But that's about it. I don't even know what makes Eeloo interesting, besides it being so far away and crossing Jool's orbit. Two things that I can readily gather by looking at the map view. Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus are qualitatively more fun (if we go by the differences in kind idea) because it provides just as many challenges as these other places, with added flavor (Biomes!) with a much smaller investment in time. When building a space station in Mun orbit will always be qualitatively the same as building one in Laythe orbit. However, building a surface base should not be the same in Mun and Laythe. Right now there is no qualitiative difference between surface bases on the two bodies because there is no qualitative difference between the two bodies!

I have exhausted my thoughts. If you got this far, thanks for reading

P.S. If this is all difficult to parse, my apologies. I admit that my capacity for critical writing is a few steps behind my capacity for critical thought.

Edited July 29, 2014 by AmpsterMan

[Red Iron Crown]

*snip*

That's a well thought out post, thanks for taking the time to write it. Your distinction between scale and kind is a good one that resonates with me. The tl;dr version for those who didn't read the above post:

Difference in scale: More places to do things

Difference in kind: More things to do at those places

I think we've probably reached the point where there are enough places to do things. The entire surface areas of fifteen landable bodies, just waiting to be populated with things of interest. It seems like a good idea to focus on those differences in kind, to give us more things to do in all that vast area. Much as I would love more planets, I would love even more to have more interesting things to do on the ones we have now. Too many of my interplanetary missions spend only a few minutes on the surface, because once you've planted a flag, done some science, posed for photos and maybe roved around a bit, there's not a whole lot more to do.