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

[Whirligig Girl]

I like the Kerbal nature, but NOT the new buildings. I was hoping for something like a garage structure for the VAB. Something that looks like it starts off as a small project with big ambitions, like the early Interplanetary Societies and Rocketry groups.

[r4pt0r]

I think they could have just used a simlar texture/design to these and these

[AbortButton]

Well, I think that KSP has always had a kind of "wacky science" kind of setting not unlike the portal series.

[CaptainKipard]

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.

I was responding to the people who think that the adjective "kerbal" doesn't mean dumb and careless. It does, and yes Kerbals are "wacky".

The question is whether that appeals to people and why. It's a "why" question, not a "what" question.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[pxi]

Kerbals to me, are essentially natural-born hackers.

Let's take a second to define terms, because I know that to many this term carries a "probably could whistle the nuclear codes down a telephone line" association, like we saw with Kevin Mitnick. This is not what I mean.

Hackers are problem solvers. They get joy from understanding a problem and sorting out a solution. Occasional bragging rights aside, hackers do what they do because it’s extremely satisfying to solve puzzles, to fix the up-until-now unfixable, and do the seemingly un-doable. In many cases they seek to climb a mountain for the simple reason that it is there, and it never occurred to them that they couldn't climb it. Many of them fail in their endeavours, but in the sense that they may have aimed at the moon, many of them end up in orbit, and almost always, something is learned along the way, even if that is something as mundane as why we don't push the button labelled "do not push".

All that being said, I'm fine with "found lying on the side of the road" -- it matches 90% of what I've seen in any hackerspace I've encountered.

I have no issue with the art style as such, but the WIP textures need work, and the models themselves seem rather low-poly. As they stand currently, they remind me of the PS1 era, and not in a good way. I fully expect they will be refined though.

The buying a farm, and botching it into a spaceport concept as a whole though, I like it.

EDIT:

For reading that mini-wall-o-text, let me show you something that makes me think "lolsokerbal"

Edited November 11, 2014 by pxi

[CaptainKipard]

Is there no way to fix the poll?

[Broax]

Since I can't vote so I'll just type it out... Having "silly" kerbals is what makes the game so enjoyable for me... If it was too realistic or serious it wouldn't have that sense of crazy adventures to other worlds...

I understand it might not have the same appeal to other players but for me personally its how why I love it and hope they don't change it...

A serious physics game with funny kerbals... Good combo for me... :-p

[LethalDose]

I'm fine with it as fluff, but it's a fraking stupid reason for not giving us things like vessel weights, TWRs, and dV calculations as part of the stock game.

And this is the reason they have given for not adding this information "Too many numbers gets in the way of the the FUN!"

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

Kerbals have placeholder stats.

[Superfluous J]

I'm fine with it as fluff, but it's a fraking stupid reason for not giving us things like vessel weights, TWRs, and dV calculations as part of the stock game.

And this is the reason they have given for not adding this information "Too many numbers gets in the way of the the FUN!"

I thought HarvesteR's reason for not telling us dV was that it ruined the *magic*, not the *fun*.

Still a horrible excuse to leave out what I consider to be critical information, but just what I remember him saying.

[rkman]

Having "silly" kerbals is what makes the game so enjoyable for me...

I don't see them do anything silly other than looking silly and smiling in the face of danger. Maybe that's enough, but it does not affect gameplay.

[rkman]

I thought HarvesteR's reason for not telling us dV was that it ruined the *magic*, not the *fun*.

Still a horrible excuse to leave out what I consider to be critical information, but just what I remember him saying.

That's also what i remember him saying.

I don't understand why we do get numbers that allows one to use rocket math during flight (fuel flow down to several digits behind the dot), but not a few numbers that would answer one the most often heard questions by noobs: "how many engines and how much fuel do i need to get to where i want to go?". That is a huge barrier right at the beginning of the learning curve.

There are numbers all over the place in this game. It tells us how much detla-v we need, but does not help even a little bit with establishing how much delta-v the ship has, aside from some numbers that can be plugged into the rocket equation. Does Squad expect players to routinely do those calculations? How does Harvester plan his missions to Jool? Just over-engineer? Build from memory?

[r4pt0r]

Its here, below the second picture is the quote about dv in-game.: http://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-dev-on-random-solar-systems-the-joy-of-failure-and-the-cult-of-steam/

Personally I agree, I dont even know what the rocket equation is. I play to have fun not for math. Sure i see it fitting some more OCD playstyles, but it is by no means necessary. I've never wasted my time doing calculations and I enjoy the game just fine. Those that want those numbers can get them using the *Official Mod Repository, Curseâ„¢*

[Red Iron Crown]

Its here, below the second picture is the quote about dv in-game.: http://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-dev-on-random-solar-systems-the-joy-of-failure-and-the-cult-of-steam/

Personally I agree, I dont even know what the rocket equation is. I play to have fun not for math. Sure i see it fitting some more OCD playstyles, but it is by no means necessary. I've never wasted my time doing calculations and I enjoy the game just fine. Those that want those numbers can get them using the *Official Mod Repository, Curseâ„¢*

I don't find HarvesteR's position there compelling at all. The exact same thing could be said about the fuel gauge bars, but I don't see anyone clamoring to get rid of those to preserve the "magic". It's borderline insulting to give us maneuver nodes measured in m/s and not calculate how many m/s we have remaining. It just makes the game more difficult by withholding information, IMO.

[CaptainKipard]

The only sense I can make of that is that he wants players to do the calculations themselves, which is clearly not his intention, otherwise KSP would be a pure sim.

I don't think I did trial and error for more than a few hours when I booted up the game for the first time. Afterwards I went immediately to youtube to find rocket building tutorials because I had no clue how much fuel to take. I didn't fancy doing it the "kerbal" way, because it seemed like wasted effort and wasted time if I establish a sub-orbital trajectory and run out of fuel during circulisation, whereas building a huge rocket broke immersion for me.

Also KER was the first mod I used, after only a couple of weeks of playing.

[cicatrix]

Actually I think the game, as it progresses, starts to lack that initial 'kerbalish' attitude. Things get more and more serious with all these Isp, TWR, Delta-V, launch windows, etc. Actually, I think the game needs to look more 'kerbalish' as it moves along the career. Missions though more difficult should be more fun and absurd like 'Splash at least 100-t mass on one of Eve's seas. Have a Kerbal nearby to watch', etc. As the game title says, it's 'Kerbal space program', not just any space program. From the my point of view it should be more Kerbal.

[Laie]

I thought HarvesteR's reason for not telling us dV was that it ruined the *magic*, not the *fun*.

And I have to agree, at least to a degree.

Way back when I was first installing mechjeb, I did it because I was pissed of with having to go through the launch->map->info routine everytime I wanted to check on my vessel's mass. What I really wanted to know how the latest addition of both tanks and engines affected my TWR, though I would not have called it TWR, not then. I went with Mechjeb over KER because my approach to the game required many many launches, and some automation seemed to be a good idea. Of course, Mechjeb not only told me about mass and handled the boring launches, but also gave me a full delta-V map.

It took me a while to understand the concept, then it dramatically changed the way how I built rockets. It became less playful, more determined. Don't know if it was "magic", but I lost something that day.

Then again, without a delta-V map I'd probably have become frustrated with KSP and dropped the game before I made it to Duna. So there's that, too.

[metl]

I can agree with that sentiment. Now that I have learned how to use KER and Dv properly, I couldn't imagine going back. Launches are now technical and I try to shave off down to the minimum needed (without actually emptying tanks, I just use smaller tanks.) My landers are much more smaller than they sued to be, much more technical. They have definitely lost that Kerbal appeal. I still love the game and play it more hardcore now, but it did lose some of the "magic".

[Pds314]

The modern buildings and space center look mostly realistic actually. I can't think of anything in them that is particularly odd about it.

And I would have to say that as long as "only 85% chance of catching on fire" isn't taken too seriously, I don't think it hurts the game really to have the Kerbals do things in a haphazard way.

And plus, let's be realistic, even the most haphazard and made-fun-of real space agencies, North Korea, etc, are still leaps and bounds ahead of your average KSP player. The fact is, for well over 99% of us, doing things haphazardly absolutely reflects our playstyle.

Now, be that as it may, there are some things that just don't make sense with this..

Atmosphere physics - should at least be sensible. I'm fine if FAR isn't implemented stock and such things as wing interactions and mach effects aren't present, but this really needs to be improved. Maybe SQUAD should ask Ferram4 for a look at how NEAR works?

Jet fuel consumption - I'm fine with jets being simplified, or optimistically efficient, but with such a blatant attempt to make them realistic, they should have pseudo-realistic effective specific impulses of like 2000-3000, not over 8000!

Basic jet engines - basic jet should have a higher effective Isp, at the cost of needing more air per fuel. Perhaps 5000 ISP and 63 air/fuel, whereas turbojet should have maybe 2500 ISP and 15 air/fuel.

Rocket and tank masses - rocket engines and tanks are currently unrealistically massive when dry. I don't really see the benefit of this.

Realistic intake drag - air intakes generate not nearly enough drag. Also delete the thrust/velocity curve, and possibly add a thrust/altitude curve.

Intake overheating - Intakes should start overheating past ~mach 2. High-performance intakes should be able to last to ~mach 3.5.

Precooled intakes - putting a precooler behind an intake should allow it not to overheat as easily. Precoolers should come late in the tech tree.

Fuel types - Liquidfuel should be equivalent to RP-1 or Jet A. Oxidizer should be equivalent to LO2. As with the jet engines, Liquidfuel should be balanced with 3 units of oxidizer, not 1.222. There should also be an LH2 analog fuel, which is substantially less dense (70 kg /m^3 vs. 850 for Liquidfuel and 1150 for Oxidizer), and reacts with with Oxidizer at different stoichiometry (1:9 by mass instead of 1:3). There should be different engines that work with these different fuels and have different Isp and thrust. An efficient LF engines might have an ISP of 350. An efficient LH engine might have an ISP of 450, but LH engines would have considerably lower thrust per size and mass, and would of course need a very large fuel tank, which would be heavy for what it contained. There could even be another fuel or two, a methane analog (420 kg/m^2, up to 380 ISP, 1:4 stoichiometry).

General rebalance - by this I mean making the Mark 55 Radial and the KR-2L seem like they both have their merits. Right now, some parts just seem to be awful, and some seem to be good. For example, the Mark 55 is one of the ones that is awful. Similarly, the 24-77 can't even shine a candle on the 48-7s.

Rebalance masses - Landing gears shouldn't weigh 500 kg a piece. Maybe there should be bigger ones that do, but they should only be for holding up 747-sized monstrosities.

Get rid of massless parts - Every part should weigh something, even if it is only a kg or two.

Again, this wouldn't so much make things harder as make them saner. You could still have all the Kerbalness you want, with SRBs found lying on the side of the road and rockets haphazardly strapped together, with moon missions where you end up landing on the nozzle of the CM because your lander fell off the ship during ascent, it would just be slightly more sane.

And come to think of it, it might also be a good idea, in that case, to scale up just a little bit, perhaps double the radii of most of the planets, that way the Delta-V requirement to reach LKO is preserved. Similarly, increase the atmosphere density of Eve to maybe 20 times Earth, so that Eve is still difficult to escape. (We wouldn't want people reaching Low Eve Orbit on 6 km/s Delta-V, now would we?).