A survey on everything I can think of.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

BTW, the plural of technology is technologies, not "technology is" (technology's

Yea try telling my spellchecker (I mean it, it would be nice). I'm dyslexic by the way so if the auto correct tells me something I usually just go with it.

Also Thank you.

[Franklin]

You should pass this around the Reddit KSP community as well. Looking forward to the results, as some here think these realism gripes are strictly for a handful of die-hards here.

- - - Updated - - -

But god, I hope we don't ever see weapons and sci-fi tech.

[r_rolo1]

I like the "computer wants to kill you" option

ANyway, hopefully this will give some insight to the endless discussions that we have seen in the last months :/

P.S I'm sad that the resources issue is so down in the priorities of the people than awnsered the poll ...

Edited September 12, 2014 by r_rolo1

[Franklin]

P.S I'm sad that the resources issue is so down in the priorities of the people than awnsered the poll ...

The thing with resources is they often trip over two wires: 1) collecting resources is boring (even if building resource collectors is fun), and 2) collecting resources on other planets is sci-fi at best, which pushes KSP a little too far out of the sim-game genre.

[Red Iron Crown]

The thing with resources is they often trip over two wires: 1) collecting resources is boring (even if building resource collectors is fun), and 2) collecting resources on other planets is sci-fi at best, which pushes KSP a little too far out of the sim-game genre.

1) can be solved by having harvesting work when the collector is unfocused or having collection be instant. 2) is not so, several mission profiles for Mars include ISRU. It's about as sci-fi as the LV-N, realistic but never used in space yet.

[Franklin]

2) is not so, several mission profiles for Mars include ISRU. It's about as sci-fi as the LV-N, realistic but never used in space yet.

I suppose, but again it's a theoretical line. ISRU has never gone beyond lab testing and the planning stage. It's still theory. While at least NERVAs have been built, tested and existed for decades before development was cancelled.

[Franklin]

Like what line do we draw between 'used/common', 'developed but never widely used', 'proof of concept only/lab existence', 'theory only'.

I mean ultimately I guess I don't care, but so far Squad seems to want to remain in the current-to-very-near-future realm of technology.

[Red Iron Crown]

Like what line do we draw between 'used/common', 'developed but never widely used', 'proof of concept only/lab existence', 'theory only'.

I mean ultimately I guess I don't care, but so far Squad seems to want to remain in the current-to-very-near-future realm of technology.

I would count basic ISRU as very near future, but that's just my opinion.

Agreed about not being sure where to draw the line, it's a slippery slope down to having purely theoretical warp drives.

[Franklin]

Agreed, and ISRU at least is more grounded in probability than warp drives, yeah. It may even operate hand-in-hand with a life-support system so those two desires might be tied together.

[montyben101]

I don't really like the single resource life support systems. They just feel wrong, and snacks just dosent make sense to me since it only works in career mode

[Franklin]

I don't really like the single resource life support systems. They just feel wrong, and snacks just dosent make sense to me since it only works in career mode

Of the "big three" (aero, re-entry, life support) life support has always been the hardest to sell. I imagine if Squad does commit to it, they'll need to simplify it to make it more approachable for casual players. So if we get anything, I'd expect Snacks.

Having to juggle non-renewables like oxygen/co2/water/food/waste, and if you tack on B-list elements like radiation/psychological deterioration, or C-list elements like bone mass degradation and microbial control, new players will quickly begin to hate having to micromanage and consider all these human factors. Plus from a part-count angle alone hell, people forget to add solar panels half the time, nevermind co2 scrubbers and toilets.

And while I think a life support element is absolutely necessary to remain true to the game's scope, hyper realism like having to deal with cabin fever might be too OCD for your casual player.

[Alshain]

I think life support is just too much continual upkeep. If your going to add life support, why not make decaying orbits too so you have to constantly check all your crafts and correct them like real ones do. (Is that what n body physics does?)

[Red Iron Crown]

I think life support is just too much continual upkeep. If your going to add life support, why not make decaying orbits too so you have to constantly check all your crafts and correct them like real ones do. (Is that what n body physics does?)

Decaying is usually more to do with the atmosphere extending much, much further than in KSP. N-body would add orbital perturbations though, which can cause decay.

Personally I like the idea of life support, makes orbital maneuver mistakes have real consequences.

[Yakuzi]

Thanks for the input what kinds of questions would you add if using the 1-5 like dislike options?

No worries There are quite a number of threads discussing improvement of the current science system in the Suggestions and Development subforum, for example:

- Science revamp thread

- More logical science system

Some potential questions for the poll:

How do you feel about science and technology in KSP?

1. Stock (click-fest)

2. Gaining science points is too easy

3. Science over interval (e.g. measure atmosphere from surface to orbit, travel x distance by rover)

4. Science over time (continuous)

5. Long term science experiments (single use)

6. Separate technological innovation from scientific discovery (e.g. tech missions unlock parts, whereas science unlocks information about asteroids and planet gravity/surface/atmosphere/resources/etc.)

7. Parts are unlocked in appropriate environments (e.g. atmospheric science unlocks jet engines and wings etc.)

8. New parts require prototype testing to unlock

9. Planetary events that provide a lot of science relatively

[montyben101]

What I meant was oxygen, food and water, not radiation and bone stuff

I just don't like the idea of a resource called "life support"

[regex]

What I meant was oxygen, food and water, not radiation and bone stuff

I just don't like the idea of a resource called "life support"

To me, stuff like TAC LS just bloats the resource list with a bunch of redundant stuff because I think recyclers are basically "cheating" and don't play with them. I would much prefer a single, non-recyclable resource to six additional recyclable resources (each with their own parts, and potentially ISRU-able!) but I also understand the want to have bases that the player doesn't have to think about, and I think there are a lot of ways to approach that situation and make it work in a satisfactory manner. Having a single resource solves a lot of the headache of managing those resources and also provides much more of an "at a glance" indication of how much longer your Kerbals are going to be able to go. And, seriously, just call it whatever; Oxygen, for instance.

As far as bone deterioration and radiation, I don't think the sim needs to go that deep. You could potentially just have a cool-down time between trips that a Kerbal could take based on how long they were last in space or something, being excluded from the roster. Or you could completely gloss over it because Kerbals have a totally alien physiology.

Contrary to popular belief, I do think of KSP as a game and believe that concessions should be made for gameplay over realism.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

Contrary to popular belief, I do think of KSP as a game and believe that concessions should be made for gameplay over realism.

Heh, yea totally agree with that. I'm still (and feel free to think of it as vaporware) working on a life support that's meant to be based on game-play (but using real physics) Instead of just adding 5 new exactly the same resources(that being said TAC's coding is much better than mine). Each resources should work over a different time scale and in a different way.

Air is the first one and needed for everything up to the edge of Kerbin orbit. Water Next needing more than a capsule will hold for Mun journeys. Extra food is needed for Minmus journeys. Other Kerbals (so you can leave one guy alone in a tin can for years) are needed to Minmus and longer. Radiation is only important in Duna journeys or bases (got to give bases a purpose though). Hydroponics are end tech and should be perfectly possible if we can get them to work. weirdly I thought I was a bit different in wanting a different life support but apparently the data sort of backs me up (not on the rads but I get I'm going to be a bit different).

[montyben101]

To be honest squad should just leave life support out of the game since everyone has their own opinion on it and there are mods to fit them all.

[regex]

To be honest squad should just leave life support out of the game since everyone has their own opinion on it and there are mods to fit them all.

I agree, SQUAD should just stop adding features that mods have already added to the game.

[Franklin]

To be honest squad should just leave life support out of the game since everyone has their own opinion on it and there are mods to fit them all.

Wellll, throwing the topic priority poll into Excel against a heat map and a weighted average shows some interesting community priorities,

Specific points of note:

• People seem more interested in weapons not being in the game than they do better aero being in the game.
  
• People want a better aero model more than having more planets. Seriously, think about that.
  
• Auto-pilot/info systems is surprisingly balanced. I think because everyone wants more info, but many don't want auto pilot. This perhaps should've been split apart.
  
• Life support, despite all its implement-specific arguments here on the forum, seems largely supported as an unspecified element. Almost as evenly supported as DRE.

[dryer_lint]

I think the "Snacks" life support mod is going in the right direction. It's life support simplified down to one resource that makes sense, and has that cartoon-y Kerbal feel to it. There should be a difficulty slider for life support, though.

[Red Iron Crown]

I agree, SQUAD should just stop adding features that mods have already added to the game.

It's hilarious when you're so dry that people who aren't familiar with your...uh...posting style might take you seriously.

People want a better aero model more than having more planets. Seriously, think about that.

That doesn't surprise me at all, given the popularity of atmospheric planes and the lack of interplanetary planning tools in the game.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Red Iron Crown

[regex]

It's hilarious when you're so dry that people who aren't familiar with your...uh...posting style might take you seriously.

That was a dead serious reply, I don't know what you're talking about...

[gchristopher]

Another few categories (all of which have popular plugins) to consider would be:

- Capabilities to move/change/reconnect parts, such as Kerbal Attachment System and Infernal Robotics.

- Rendering/beautification/texture improvements.

- Depth of gameplay with expanded contracts/biome/science options.

All three of those might rate above weapons.

[sal_vager]

Hi guys, just dropping by to remind you that a lot of what you're discussing here has already been covered in the 0.25 discussion thread, and that most of the stuff here is on the WNTS list.

Also I'm moving this to Dev suggestions, have fun