Do you like the "Kerbal" nature of the game?

[CaptainKipard]

Do you like the narrative that Kerbals do things in a haphazard way.

Do you like "Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co." and "Found lying by the side of the road"

Why or why not?

I don't personally, because it seems to be a starting point for many decisions that Squad and mod makers make.

The KSC buildings being developed right now are just the most recent example. The art style is just silly. Really, silly is the most appropriate word I can think of. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for it other than, "Look out! Those Kerbals are so silly, whoa! They can't measure straight pieces of metal, hehe, They're so silly. :confused:"

[Nemrav]

I'm fine with it, it goes well with Jeb smiling mouth wide open in the face of danger... And the failures that go with the launches that you first make...

It seems that people uninanimousely don't like a few of the low quality textures on the new buildings, sure... But otherwise I'm not sure there are too many who hate the aspect completely..

[r4pt0r]

they are seriously un-serious. I like that. matches my playstyle. I dont waste time with dv, or weights, or any calculations. I build a ship and it either works or doesn't. If it doesn't I redesign.

[nli2work]

I don't care much for it; but it's not my call. As long as the game is open enough to modders and the space faring mechanics remains more or less accurate, I don't care what Squad does with the "main" game. if they suddenly decided to do Star Citizen... or remove sandbox mode... I got other hobbies to waste my time on.

[Robotengineer]

I like it, it works partly as a marketing scheme I would think, but it also has some detractions, when I started I thought there were random failures because of the part descriptions. I think it goes well with the whole premise of the game.

[razark]

Do you like "Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co." and "Found lying by the side of the road"

It was cute and amusing at first. The game has grown beyond it.

[Boomerang]

I'm fine with little references to it in part descriptions and such. If they want to portray kerbals that way in the advertising shorts, that's fine too, so long as they don't have more people doing video work than working on the actual game.

I do take issue with the 'lulsokerbal'/trailer park look of the work we've seen so far. The narrative is that they lack quality controls and high quality parts but still have fairly advanced rocketry knowledge.

As it is, it's looking like kerbals were a bumbling bunch of farmers who accidentally stumbled upon a pile of high-grade fireworks, which is too silly for my taste. Some competency would be nice.

[Specialist290]

This looks like a discussion related to the game's future development. Moving

[Superfluous J]

I voted "Like it" though I'd have chosen a "Love it!" option instead.

I think a sanitized, super-serious version of this game would lose all of the charm and most of the interest for me. I doubt I'd still be playing if - after a multiyear trip to Eeloo, my little guy didn't run like a goob all over the surface to plant his flag and collect his surface samples.

I want exactly what this game provides: A rock-solid (in-progress) gameplay experience that is extremely serious in teaching you hard-taught lessons in practical space flight, wrapped in a Legoesque toy box with silly green aliens who cobble together rockets from stuff they found lying on the side of the road.

[The Czosnex]

I want exactly what this game provides: A rock-solid (in-progress) gameplay experience that is extremely serious in teaching you hard-taught lessons in practical space flight, wrapped in a Legoesque toy box with silly green aliens who cobble together rockets from stuff they found lying on the side of the road.

No part in-game looks like "found lying by the side of a road". The whole aesthetics of tier 1 space centre doesn't fit with what we already have.

[Superfluous J]

No part in-game looks like "found lying by the side of a road". The whole aesthetics of tier 1 space centre doesn't fit with what we already have.

One of the flaws with the way the tech tree functions is that the tier-1 stuff is just as reasonable when you've unlocked the entire tree as when you start. The good part of that is you have a LOT of parts to use once you've unlocked them, and aren't just replacing the sucky tier-1 engine with the better tier-2 engine, then the better tier-3 engine etc until you're done. The bad part of it is that the Tier-1 stuff looks (because it is) just as advanced as the tier-10 stuff (is there a tier-10? I've never actually counted them).

I don't have a problem with it. It just simply doesn't bother me and the alternative (starchy boringness in all aspects of the game) is extremely distasteful to me. Probably as distasteful as the concept of finding a perfectly workable rocket engine in a junkyard is to you.

[CaptainKipard]

This looks like a discussion related to the game's future development. Moving

Ooop, I thought I put it in General KSP Discussion, but this is also fine. Thanks.

[Yaivenov]

One of the flaws with the way the tech tree functions is that the tier-1 stuff is just as reasonable when you've unlocked the entire tree as when you start. The good part of that is you have a LOT of parts to use once you've unlocked them, and aren't just replacing the sucky tier-1 engine with the better tier-2 engine, then the better tier-3 engine etc until you're done. The bad part of it is that the Tier-1 stuff looks (because it is) just as advanced as the tier-10 stuff (is there a tier-10? I've never actually counted them).

I don't have a problem with it. It just simply doesn't bother me and the alternative (starchy boringness in all aspects of the game) is extremely distasteful to me. Probably as distasteful as the concept of finding a perfectly workable rocket engine in a junkyard is to you.

Hmm, perhaps a quality modifier could be added? When you start your available parts are beat up, dented, scratched, rusted, etc. and as you progress through the tech the parts are slowly refined, so a tier 1 engine at the very beginning would look like scavenged junk, but the same tier 1 engine late game would be pristine and polished.

This could also be tied in with a state-of-the-art modifier that gives small improvement to the thrust and isp of the available engines up and down the line. For instance the LV-T45 might see a 3% increase in it's vacuum ISP after you research optimal engine nozzle length versus throat diameter ratios.

[Vanamonde]

I do not interpret it as Kerbals being haphazard. I see them as having an excess of enthusiasm. "Volunteer to fly to another planet not knowing if the ship is capable of getting me home again? Sign me up!" is in the same spirit as, "Turn a barn into a rocket assembly building? Sure! It's faster than building one from scratch!"

[Starwaster]

Like it.

I like the idea that there's these little green guys and they need my help with their space program. I don't view myself as playing the game as a Kerbal so much as I'm some human that got involved with them and their planet and I'm helping them explore their star system.

[KyleKidd]

I think it gives the game a special bit of charm. And I don't think they are portraying Kerbals as junkyard hicks, as was suggested in a previous post. I think they are trying to portray a "Humble Beginnings" type of feel with the barn and trailers.

The Kerbal Space Program had to start somewhere. Look at our own rocket history, and you will find a lot of the famous rocket scientists also started out shooting off their first rockets in that kind of environment. As their knowledge grow, and as the community grew, they were able to develop more advanced hardware. From there they began to get recognized and received funding to actually start building more advanced facilities.

And personally, if I myself was about to launch my own rocket program, I would look to buy a large and flat piece of land somewhere in the middle of no-where with some already set up infrastructure (a farm would be ideal). In the beginning, money would be tough, so why not buy some cheap trailers to live in? You would want most of your money to go into research, development, and high quality parts.

In my way of thinking, the developers of Squad are nailing it. And the quirky nature of the Kerbals only adds to the fun.

[razark]

Look at our own rocket history, and you will find a lot of the famous rocket scientists also started out shooting off their first rockets in that kind of environment.

First rockets, yes. The Kerbals are portrayed as being well past that level of technology.

As their knowledge grow, and as the community grew, they were able to develop more advanced hardware. From there they began to get recognized and received funding to actually start building more advanced facilities.

And only then were they able to consider sticking a person into the rocket. Kerbals start with that level of rocket.

[prophet_01]

I definetly like it.

Remember all those dark humor jokes on antares launch failure?

The game would be a lot less fun to learn and would give you a bad feeling when crashing or messing around, cause it would feel like actually killing people and raising hell. But with all that cartoon like aspects it's a lot more fun to learn the necessary basics and know how, while the clear message is "failure can be fun". I want to enjoy my explosions and failures instead of being serious and feeling bad for the kerbals I killed.

On the tier-1 buildings:

I am more or less ok with the idea, but some buildings are just too trashy imo. The barn is one of those. It may change with the final textures but atm it's not my cup of tea. I like the trailers though. Those feel right for me. I think they should decide on thetheme. Junkyard OR farm but pls not both as it's just too much (at least for me).

On the idea of evolving parts. That would be kinda nice. I like it as long as it's only visuals. No offense, but ISP changes and alike would make the gameplay a little messy imo. It would be not harder for new players and an it's additional aspect that severely affects the gameplay and might be hard to spot or predict.

Sry for the mighty wall of text...

[White Owl]

Not a very well worded poll, since the Kerbal nature is not understood to be the same thing by different people.

Really, just cut to the chase and ask "do you imagine the rockets you design are built out of junk?"

I am vehemently opposed to the junk parts idea, and always have been. Kerbals are excitable, willing to try crazy ideas, love all forms of flight, and don't particularly mind exploding from time to time. But aside from part description text, nothing in the game has ever pointed to this whole scrap metal idea. Until now.

The junkyard parts notion must have seemed like a good way to get people interested in the game, waaay back before KSP got big. Back when the concept was something like "a less serious Orbiter", and facing the fact that not many people will ever play Orbiter, wondering how best to communicate the difference. Junkyard = silly = less serious = fun. But the game got popular on its own merits, with nothing at all looking like junk! All parts ingame currently have a smooth, clean, well designed appearance. And people love them!

(I may have voiced a harsh opinion or two about the aerodynamic nosecone, shielded docking port and sepratron... but that's because they could all easily be made more aerodynamic, not because they appear to be made of corrugated tin and baling wire.)

Players fell in love with KSP when nothing ingame looked like junk. Therefore, the junk aesthetic is not necessary for people to fall in love with this game.

Will adding a literal rusty junkyard and scrap metal buildings to the early KSC cause potential customers to not fall in love with this game? There's an experiment I would prefer not to try.

[KSK]

I can't vote on the poll for some reason, but yes, I like the kerbal nature of the game.

I don't see any disconnect between the humble beginnings theme and decent engineering. Quite the opposite actually - building a functional, crew carrying, sub-orbital rocket on a shoestring budget, in a barn / rented warehouse / low cost building of your choice, implies a great deal of very good engineering. My own take on the 'parts lying by the side of the road' meme, is more that those parts are re-purposed and built into the various rocket components. Jeb doesn't find an old rusty rocket engine in his junkyard part bins, but he might find some tubing here, a couple of useful looking valves there, maybe an old spark plug or two, some cables... So the early kerbal rockets do look pretty decent, but under the skin they're built from a combination of newly made parts, filled in with those 'parts found by the side of the road' to save money.

Edited November 11, 2014 by KSK
Clarity.

[John FX]

I do not interpret it as Kerbals being haphazard. I see them as having an excess of enthusiasm. "Volunteer to fly to another planet not knowing if the ship is capable of getting me home again? Sign me up!" is in the same spirit as, "Turn a barn into a rocket assembly building? Sure! It's faster than building one from scratch!"

This is how I see it. A desire to get into a totally untested and probably unsafe pile of explosives with a barely space capable pod on top is very kerbal and does not necessarily mean low IQ.

Myself I see it as en ethos started by Jeb when he ran his junkyard. I imagine he would build many many things from junk parts and drive/fly them about until one day he found an SRB a pod and a chute and the rest is explosive history.

EDIT : Also the poll seems broken less than 24 hours from being started.

[CaptainKipard]

Just a few things.

1. The Kerbals have a stupidity scale, not an intelligence scale.

2. The official animations have them portrayed as dangerously negligent.

3. Starting with manned missions from the very beginning goes way beyond enthusiasm.

You can try to spin this but it's just reaching.

[Red Iron Crown]

Can't vote in the poll since the thread got moved to Suggestions and Development Discussion, but I would have voted "Yes".

For me, "kerbal" means a near-total disregard for personal danger, unbridled enthusiasm for space exploration, and haphazard design and construction. This nature is important in the early stages of playing the game when the player is in the shallow end of the learning curve and fails a lot, it changes those failures from moments of frustration into moments of comic relief. It's funny when your rocket tears itself apart due to excess thrust and a lack of struts; if kerbals looked more like humans and the motif was more of a serious space program I'd feel worse when things go awry.

Even later when a player gets more skilled and their space program becomes more SRS BSNS with calculation and mission planning, it's still good to be able to laugh in the face of failure.

[FishInferno]

I really don't care one way or another, but if I had to choose, I would say yes. Remember that KSP is a game first, simulator second (i think I heard that somewhere). The main priority is to have fun, and some humorous phrases in descriptions cant hurt, right?

[r4pt0r]

Just a few things.

1. The Kerbals have a stupidity scale, not an intelligence scale.

2. The official animations have them portrayed as dangerously negligent.

3. Starting with manned missions from the very beginning goes way beyond enthusiasm.

You can try to spin this but it's just reaching.

not sure your point here. All of these point to being "ZOMG THAT IS SO KERBAL XD", and lends credence to the "kerbal spirit", that is the pure unadulterated enthusiasm for space travel.