The teachings of the Kerballah

[PB666]

Today, the issue of game morality has spiked this forum with all manner of concerns.

Noting that the Promo of the game is two Kerbals grinning at their overturned lander "Mun or Bust". And taking in account: rumors of earlier versions in which screen shots of a launch blowing up into a great number of radiating fuel tanks was grounds for congradulations and laughter in the community (And xkcd cartoons); The word 'Kerbacidal' or similar variants has made the national news media. (From the news bite meaning not caring that a player has wiped untold hundreds of Kerbin-kind in all mannner of launch, land and lost of control disasters).

Given the fact this is a single player, heavily modded game, in which modding is so integral to the game that current mods may end up in the next release, and Curse is a sanctioned modding center. . .

I can dispell the morality issue simply by saying KSP is a form of interactive art, archetecture or engineering, as long as the creations are not traded for profit, its amoral. You are the creater and consumer of the art you create, and art is as such until you market it as something else.

But if we must discuss ethics of play . . . . .

'Alt-F12 is cheating! You're a cheatah'.

Uhmmm, alt-F12 is a place for loading new and edited parts. Its a place to debug and look for problems. Its a place to tweak a resource or the physics so that one does not have to create a 1500T launch for a payload that will be unstable to time warp once it reaches orbit. Alt-F12 can be used for 'cheating' but I suspect most use it for modding and testing parts. If the game is a creation and alt-F12 (a part of the creation process) is 'cheating' one can only conclude that creation is a form of cheating? (I will deal with the broad philosophical context of this thought at the end). If the game itself is a consequence of 'cheating' and cheating bothers the player then probably shouldn't play? Might I recommend bingo. 'Unlimited fuel is cheating', against who?, but using unlimited fuel to get to Moho removes the challenge of the game. Think about it this way, if career mode is the only true game mode, then all other modes are cheating, but prior to career mode we were all cheatahs.

Part Clipping is a 'Sin'. Use that at your next confession. So My understanding is that the reason that mass models drag is the complexity of a surface based drag system. In a real world 'milk' . . . . . (I don't see any cows on Kerbin).... In a real world deep space kracken did not rip your ship apart because of the game-clock time differences between a part A and close part B had to, during translation, factor in delta-d/delta-T as T shrinksto the tick in the game clock. Space was very big and numbers could not deal with it all at high speeds, Certainly that makes a difference at the horizon of a black hole, but. . . . . OK so my understanding of clipping is as follows, in old game, you crammed parts and overlaps parts. This was IIRC a game issue, not a physics issue. When you move fast and they impact each other at a speed higher than their impact tolerance and they explode. So point centered mounted them on meshes and made sure they stayed clear of each other using struts, and the folks in the 'help' forums have a much easier life. This is my understanding of why 2 versions back we avoided clipping.

In a real world parts would be hidden or molded into each other to provide the sleakest structure as to minimize drag.

If we want to argue real-life, the perfect structure for surpassing a ground speed of 240 m/s (~Mach 1) is a fusiform shape, along the ray of attack (any number of parallel lines representing the angle of attack) there should be a smooth rise, flattening and fall of crossectional area. Sudden increases in crossectional area (such as a goo container) can cause a rapid build up of density. In speed photography these density modes are often trailed by a momentary cloud(s) of 'steam' as the rapid change of pressure causes momentary condensation of water vapor. The critical point is that density rises astronomically along surfaces as speed approaches Mach 1 at increasing angles to the 'ray' representing the angle of attack, and in real life this has had disasterous consequences.

Below 23,000 meters how many times have we(pl) surpassed 240 m/s, most of prolly cross around 10,000 meters and note that the jellyfish shaped asparagas did not explode. That is not real-life, that is _game_ physics. IN real world sticking out non-aerodynamic stuff is kracken fodder for V1 rocket and 50s era Jet craft alike.

Stock parts purism. I could make ton of reasons for modding. Keep it simple. I made two adapters (fueled) in 0.25, the next version 0.90 has one part that does exactly what my two together do, based on the purism argument the stock parts would be a 'cheat' or 'exploit' of my two part adapter. If your are a real purist you prolly should not use any parts except the MK1 fuel tank an the basic engine and a retro-MK1 capsule. Modding IMHO, is the only good reason to keep playing after completing the career mode (or previously sci mode). X is that which expands on the boundary of X. This equation differentiate abstract thinkers from everyone else.

Physics-less parts are a 'Sin'. Really, you are not going to use a fuel-line or RCS thruster because its physicsless?

Evolution.....of everything in the Kerbalverse.

Koses - all was created by that which exists it was. I have faith 42 did it.

Kewton - matter cannot be created or destroyed, energy cannot be created or destroyed. E = 1/2 m v ^ 2

Keinstein - there is an equivilancy between matter and energy through this equivilancy they interconvert E = m c ^ 2. Also gravity and inertia are related because energy warps space time.

Keisenberg . . .Klanck, there is a scale to the universe at the lowest limit matter and energy can spontaneously be created and destroyed in small discrete quanta (e.g. matter can be in multiple places and no place all at once). E = hv on planks scale E = v = m h = C = G = 1

See what happens if we start to question the system . . . . .I can summarize everything....42.U chaos. MK1 capsule disappeared..a longer summary?

Kewton challenged 42, taking offense Keinstein cheated Kewton by stealing energy at the speed of light (a crafty slight of hand that also curved space, clipped time into space and modded mass and energy). Noting the favoritism Keinstein showed toward 42, Keisenberg tricked 42 into playing dice with the Kerbalverse by getting Kawkings to convince the Kerbalverse that it was a quantum singularity on Klancks magical scale. That shrank K so small that 42 could not see it. Not to be cheated, 42 imbued Klanck's scale with quantum uncertainty (Also known as ALt-F12). Utterly dazed by the fact 42 would play dice with the big (oops, small K, damn that scale modder Kawkings) and therefore forever plaguing statistics with false positives and negatives...in less than minus 42 of a second K inflated into a chaotic state, thereafter converting most of its physicsless parts into draggy massive things (many RCS thrusters became "Mainsail engines", however, most just exploded due to the fact they self-modded into parts that lacked of impact tolerance and force resistence). For the next 200,000 years (or 200 or 20,000,000 depending on your temperal reference frame) the false positives and negatives battled the truth in a process called annihilation which left K hypnotized (Also the old MK1 capsule apparently was annihilated). When K woke up it was big and growing but why? And it had a hangover we now call KMB and doesn't remember a thing about what happened. There may be another kerbaliverse in it's future explaining its large size, since Kiggs apparently took liberty with the little K while it was in its' vulnerable state, and spread little swimming bosons in that space-time where-the-stars-don't-shine, and any significant bump in the field may mean a baby Universe is in our future. We must clamp down now, or K may start on the slippery slope toward toward energy and matter 'from the dark side', oh wait, too late.

My two edicts in career mode

1. Moho is the only planet of significant meaning, once you reach Moho orbital Pe, with enough fuel you can reach anywhere, easily, quickly you may not be able to stop once you get there, but thats another problem.

There is always enough energy around Moho, all you really need is something to propel.

2. Jeb is not kracken food. Once you feed the kracken the game is over. Nobodies perfect.

[Janos1986]

Seriously, why are you concerned about it?

Ignore them, I do.

It's not a multiplayer game, there are no enforced rules, nobody can tell you what to do to have fun.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Janos1986

[Xavven]

I'm just about the exact opposite of the OP. I'm a 100% stock player, do almost no part clipping, and I don't use the alt-12 menu.

The reason I play that way is that I don't like changing the nature of the puzzle created by the developer by installing mods. It doesn't mean that there's no challenge left to be had when modded, but it's not the SAME puzzle. I don't consider a stock manned Eve return to be the same challenge as a FAR manned Eve return. I choose that example specifically because some would say that using FAR is an even greater challenge in some aspects but less of a challenge in terms of raw delta-v required. The challenge is just different under that mod, and comparing two players who succeeded under two different conditions would be like comparing apples and oranges.

On the issue of declaring something "cheating," it's not so black and white. You have to use some discretion; a combination of inferring how the developers intended a particular puzzle to be approached, how plausible within the game universe any given action would be (note I didn't just say "realism" but rather what makes sense given the game's rules, mechanics, and universe), and an evaluation of how it affects the overall challenge of the puzzle. Sometimes people find shortcuts that, although they might trivialize a puzzle, I wouldn't call out as cheating, but rather quite clever.

Thrust plates is an example of a clever building technique. Infinite fuel is an example of a cheaty way to circumvent the challenge by changing its rules.

EDIT: Aha! I just found another example of a clever building technique in the "External Interstage Struts" post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/109009-External-Interstage-Struts

Now, do I condemn players who exploit things I consider cheating? Not really. Play the game in a way that is fun for you.

But I sort of just roll my eyes and scoff at players who claim they've accomplished some big challenge in the game and yet they did it by using a clearly over-powered modded part with 10,000 Isp and more TWR than a 48-7S. I don't consider them to have overcome the same challenge as a player who did not have access to that part.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Xavven

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

OP: Have you been drinking?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just about the exact opposite of the OP. I'm a 100% stock player, do almost no part clipping, and I don't use the alt-12 menu.

Oh and That.

[Yukon0009]

What the hell?

[Red Iron Crown]

We're all in this to have fun. Play the game how you like, try not to judge others on how they like to play. I don't think anyone seriously frames gameplay choices as a morality question.

[Yukon0009]

We're all in this to have fun. Play the game how you like, try not to judge others on how they like to play. I don't think anyone seriously frames gameplay choices as a morality question.

I don't get what this is.

[Red Iron Crown]

The OP? The first half seems to be a long-winded version of "the way I like to play is not cheating or immoral", which I happen to agree with. The second half I'm a bit stumped about, too.

[Daze]

It was needed to make reference to religion?

[Whirligig Girl]

Yeah that's the only thing which is really irrelevant here. Although, I did chuckle at "Kerballah" That was a pretty good use of adding K to everything. Not so much for Koses, Kewton, Keinstein, and Keisenburg. Everyone knows Newton's Kerbal counterpart is Ike Kilonewton!

[monstah]

Is this a case of feeding the trolls?

[KerbMav]

It was needed to make reference to religion?

*redacted*before*even*typing*

[PB666]

It was needed to make reference to religion?

If your a purist, yes. In the abstract, every morsel of information learned bout the kerbalverse lends information on the when and how of creation and ultimately the utility. A universe that is 6000 becomes 13.3 billion and for some, multiples thereof. Each Kerbal scientist adds a bit that takes power away from 42 and gives it to the kerbals, eventually they can create their own Kerbalverse (e.g. Kiggs). In a medieval religious perspective, it was not just the act of ..., but the carnal knowledge that was the 'sin'.

In the same way every morsel of information one learns about the game engine and algorithm alters the way we design and play. Its a Genie that cannot be shoved backwards. You cannot argue that a modder is a lessor player simply because they are more informed about game play mechanics. Better or worse at docking, transfers? Before using MechJeb, after using MechJeb. Another example, I have 4 strength variants of strut connector, using these I learned emperically about where designs weaken, thus now I use far fewer struts by making designs that are inherently stronger. I could remove the strut con variants, but not the knowledge I gained in designing and using.

One final example that will add sense. If you are playing career hard and have to go to the persistent save to uncrash a game, simply knowing of the file and its content is abstractly god-mode, for me the game is over. To be clear, if Jeb falls through a hole in KSC terrain mesh and dies, and I go to the persistent to rescue him, whats the point of career hard mode. Hard mode and any form of persistent save manipulation is a contradiction in desired imperatives. Either the engine has to work perfectly and be opaque, or career mode is a compromise, and I start thinking about its design (e.g. why manned flight before unmanned)............. its done. (am I an career mode ultrapurist?)

But in the creative mode no such 'ethical' limitations apply, simply stated I can have as much knowledge of the rendering as I desire and it only adds to and improves the game. In fact I personally would like to be to the point were I can Blender a part, create a collision mesh and port it into the game as easily as I mod stock parts.

[sal_vager]

I'll just leave this here PB666:

2.2 Forbidden content

Messages which contain, discuss or link to the following are explicitly forbidden:

g. Use of vulgarity, profanity and any technique that skirts the language filter

[Daze]

Oh god, what i'm reading. Hope you are trolling

[PB666]

I'll just leave this here PB666:

Saw it and chuckled, how the internet has changed since 87.

[Louella]

Physics-less parts are a 'Sin'.

?

Do people complain that various bits and bobs don't have things like aerodynamic drag forces directly applied to them ?

That seems a bit much.

Especially when much of it can be viewed as somewhat of an abstraction.

Take for example, the scientific instruments, like the thermometer, which iirc, is a physicsless part.

Having an aeroplane with a thermometer on it, depending on where it is placed, then given its shape, there could be strong aerodynamic forces on it, which would either cause heating and thus inaccurate results, or possibly detach the thermometer from the aircraft.

That's if you take the designs of those instruments literally.

If instead, you view them as an abstraction, then, attaching the thermometer part, means that the aircraft has an appropriately mounted thermometer, probably in a fairing to reduce the forces acting on it, that would give an accurate reading.

Another example, would be the basic solar panel, which again is, iirc, physicsless.

In the real world, with an aeroplane, a solar panel can be built flush with the surface of the aircraft. It can even be part of the wing, as seen in some solar powered research aircraft.

In KSP, those solar panels are mounted protruding from the surface. If they were subjected to aerodynamic drag, they'd possibly break or detach. But they're physicsless, so don't.

If it is argued that they should have physics applied, then, since you cannot build panels flush with the surface of the aircraft with the existing part, then you either need new parts, or to just not build aircraft with solar panels on them.

What would such limitations actually achieve in gameplay terms ?

[malkuth]

Yeah that's the only thing which is really irrelevant here. Although, I did chuckle at "Kerballah" That was a pretty good use of adding K to everything. Not so much for Koses, Kewton, Keinstein, and Keisenburg. Everyone knows Newton's Kerbal counterpart is Ike Kilonewton!

Not really since in some circles its actually spelled with a K anyway.

[elxverde]

Saw it and chuckled, how the internet has changed since 87.

How have you been around since 1987 and then write an OP like this?

(lolwut * OP's drunk?) ^ tl;dr

[Trann]

I love how other people tell me how to enjoy a thing. It's never tiresome.

[Liowen]

We're all in this to have fun. Play the game how you like, do not to judge others on how they like to play. I don't think anyone seriously frames gameplay choices as a morality question.

Sorry had to fix this for you, since Yoda said: "Do, or do not, there is no try!".

And sorry, not really, but I a Ketheist and do not believe your works of fiction. Also tl:dr to be honest.

[PB666]

I'm just about the exact opposite of the OP. I'm a 100% stock player, do almost no part clipping, and I don't use the alt-12 menu.

. . . . . . . . . .

EDIT: Aha! I just found another example of a clever building technique in the "External Interstage Struts" post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/109009-External-Interstage-Struts

Now, do I condemn players who exploit things I consider cheating? Not really. Play the game in a way that is fun for you.

Excellent example! But wait, if you are a purist how is this not an exploit, If I make a really tall rocket I have to build XL MGS and then strut to other XL MGS to stabilize this.

Think about this, I can now use these interstage struts, make then 10 times stronger than the EAS-4 and by pass alot of parts, lag issue, etc. (BTW I stated in this forum that the strut connectors need to be refined, its time)

In the end the outcome may be different. In the stock part case I may abandon tall rockets for short fat things with side tanks and asparagas layouts that lack aerodynamics. In the mod case I make them taller and sleeker like they should be.

Basically you are arguing that 'feel good about bypassing game limitations in one direction is OK but not the next'.

Here is precisely what I do. Factor 5 or 6 tank, lots of 4nozzle rockets on oversized radial attachment points (Because I know how drag is factored and I really dont care about drag and but do care about part count lag -avoid the kracken at all costs!). Plop my payload on top and strut the radials (Nacells and other lateral projections) to the rim of the tank, SSTO. Its no different from using unlimited fuel. With two stock mods I can essentially achieve the same result as unlimited fuel. Even a mega tank launch has limitations, I have put a 106 crew capacity circular-spinning space station in orbit the limitation is the width limit of the launch pad. I put in on a rocket for the sole pleasure of watching it launch (or not). I could have just hacked gravity until it was 80Mm and done a 100 dV burn to orbit.

Aerodynamic rocket parts (aerodynamic cones) offer no game advantage, they are a disadvantage, the conversion parts (unfueled) stack 3.75 to 2.0, 2.0 to 1.0 and 1.0 to 0.5 offer no game advantage, they increase weight, increase cumulative segmental flexibility and increase drag.

So if I create a modded tank that corrects in game deficiencies should it not offer up advantages of having thought about how the game is unrealistic? Yes it should. And a few months later, here comes the Squad version of the same tank. Hmmm, immoral or simply ahead of the game. Its not even grey zone, its all white.

I have no problem increasing ISP of a part that is 50 year old technology that was never implemented, If I am going to use that part in a specific application (e.g. a NERVA like rocket that is going to be centerpiece of a low-g lander) and efficiency and reuseability is going to be a centerpiece (paraphrasing the wiki on NERVA, it was designed for hours of continuous use). I read the real-world stats on all the engines I mod, and I try to keep those stats within real-world limits. If someone takes my mod (although I have only presented one as an example of node shifting) and buffs it up with ISP, I am not sure why I would care, I have buffed up others parts, played with them, I have a whole directory of mods I don't now use but I reference the coding for future constructs. Even the bad mods I really appreciate because sometimes they give insights. Art is that which expands on the boundary of art.

But the critical point is that knowing about the game deficits and thinking about game deficits is - by definition - part of the thought process that will create exploits, even if I don't create them myself, as soon as the new stock parts appear I am ripe to include them more so than if I had never tinkered with the beast.

[monstah]

So if I create a modded tank that corrects in game deficiencies should it not offer up advantages of having thought about how the game is unrealistic? Yes it should.

In my opinion, this gem exemplifies just how incomprehensible and fascinating this thread is.

I'm gonna get me some popcorn. Be right back.

[worir4]

In my opinion, this gem exemplifies just how incomprehensible and fascinating this thread is.

I'm gonna get me some popcorn. Be right back.

I'll have salted please

[Liowen]

In my opinion, this gem exemplifies just how incomprehensible and fascinating this thread is.

I'm gonna get me some popcorn. Be right back.

Have an movie style popcorn, and bacon salt? Cause that combo is just good.