Cpt Kerbalkrunch

Seven pages now. If we keep at it, think we have a shot at Thread of the Month?

Glad to hear you guys are back at it. Still messing around with the Mission Builder. Any patch will I'm sure include some fixes and added functionality for it. Even still, I'm impressed with its abilities as is. I think I've only just scratched the surface of its potential. If only I knew anything about programming. Speaking of which; really hoping that 3rd tutorial will be included in the next patch. I could really use it.

I would counter by saying how to click and drag a part onto the editor and put it together with other parts should be the first things you learn. And what these parts do. And how they work. What buttons to press to launch and stage and throttle up and down and what Ap and Pe mean. Basically , everything they teach you in the tutorials. I think most games have a progression, where you gain abilities and equipment as you go. Career mode is like KSP's take on it. If you want everything unlocked from the beginning, you're basically talking about sandbox; which anyone can play anytime they want. At that point, though, I think we're talking more about which game mode we prefer; which would be an entirely different discussion. Not sure where to begin here. I never wanna say something is easy in this game, so I'll just say this; without KAC, Jool is the one planet I can hit on the first try every time. There's no magic involved. When it's in about the right position, you go and you will hit it. It has a huge SOI that is extremely forgiving. Have you ever actually tried, or are you just denouncing it as sorcery? Although, since you also mention having played this long and having trouble getting to Mun and Minmus without a transfer tool, I'm not sure if the stock game will ever be right for you. As for sandbox; yes, we all know there is a mode called sandbox and many players prefer it. There is also a mode called science, and many players prefer that. If you had a point, I have no idea what it was supposed to be. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Telling other players they can't have something? Have you actually read through this thread, or did you just feel like talking?

Nope. Disagree. You're talking about adding something that is not currently there and isn't necessary. You're looking for a toaster that loads the bread for you, too. I would say it was unnecessary and not worth the hassle of building. You would say I was lazy cuz somebody else built there own. We'll just have to agree to disagree here. And I like your comment about taking criticism. Do you read what other people say, or just post? What I often see on here is "criticism" that is rather vehement, one-sided, and as with most things people want, extremely self-centered. This is what I think, so this is the way it should be done. That's my world too, bud. It's gettin' crowded.

I know what you're going for here, but you picked a bad example. That's exactly how I did my Jool 5; and with the now defunct Mk1-2 for all landings. It was an absolute blast. Anyone who's played for awhile could do it. You can hit Jool blindfolded (nobody would really need a transfer tool for that), and once you're there, you can easily make all your transfers. The only tough part is your Tylo lander (as you alluded to), but that's what testing is for. I would imagine that, even if KER tells you your Tylo lander or Eve ascent vehicle will work, you still wanna test it out, don't you? As I said, I get what you're saying, but do you honestly believe Squad just doesn't care about what players want? What they don't want is the headaches that would go along with it. If you told Cybutek or Sarbian that their mod didn't calculate your Delta V correctly, they could just shrug and say that if you use such elab staging, it's probably not going to be entirely accurate. If you questioned them further, they could just say "if you don't like it, don't use it". And what would you say to that? Now imagine Squad implements KER-type info. They would have to support it and investigate every instance where it didn't calculate properly. It would be a constant, ongoing problem with no real end to it. And there would be a bunch of threads complaining that they finally put it in, but still didn't get it right. I don't think it's worth the hassle for them. If I were them, I'd just leave it to mods. As I said before, the only ones who are really hurt by it are the console guys. And really, if you're crazy enough to try to play this game on a console, you probably don't know what you're missing anyway.

I'm not sure if there is one. I flat-out know I wouldn't have been able to play this game without the tutorials. I'm not a math or physics guys, so I would've had know idea what was going on and gotten frustrated quickly and given up. Instead, I went through the tutorials and was hooked immediately. From the moment I hit the spacebar on my first rocket, I thought it was the coolest game I ever saw. Almost 3,000 hours later, nothing has changed my mind. The learning curve is tough, no doubt, but I'm not sure how to cure it. If you jump in with both feet in sandbox you have a bunch of parts and no idea what they are or how to use them. Some guys may be able to learn that way, but I don't know if I could've. At least in career, as you gain better parts and more abilities, you're moving on to more difficult tasks (presumably). I really enjoyed the progression; from basic rockets to orbit to Mun and Minimus and, finally, to Duna and beyond. I thought it was set up well, but I've been on the forum long enough to know we all play differently. So it stands to reason we all learn differently as well. I think the best they can hope for is to find a middle ground that works for most players.

When the game begins, you don't have patched conics, you can't set maneuver nodes, you can't EVA, you don't have landing legs or docking ports or a ton of other things that might be considered "essential". You're meant to start very simply and progress. Unlockable KER-type info would go right along with the rest of the game. Unlocked automatically in sandbox; just like everything else. I don't see how this could be upsetting to anyone.

That makes zero sense, so I really hope they change it. I thought checking it would cause the game as well. Otherwise, what's the point? I've been designing a mission that has dialogue that's a bit lengthy in a couple spots, so this is disappointing. I can work around it, of course, but I thought the the whole point of the Mission Builder was to give you flexibility, and pretty much let you do whatever you want. Hopefully, this'll be addressed at some point.

I no zero about modding (and even less about programming), but I've been playing New Horizons for awhile (and it's utterly fantastic, by the way; I cannot recommend I highly enough), and from what I can tell, each planet is based on one of the stock planets. So I think, rather than creating planets, Kopernicus allows you to alter the stock planets and move them around however you see fit. You can do some pretty radical stuff with it. Sort of like a large-scale version of modding engines or tanks. You can change the stats and appearance however you you want, but it's still based off of an original part. Though I could certainly be wrong. I'm out of my element here and probably shouldn't be posting. "I just drive 'em, baby, I don't know what makes 'em work". A like and a tip of the cap if you know that one.

Always run in high performance and just leave it plugged in. It'll cook your crotch, but I've already got 4 kids; so who cares?

You've hit on it exactly. I too own EU4 and CK2. As a guy who thinks Medieval 2 and Civ IV are 2 of the greatest games of all time, I was told the 2 Paradox titles were right up my alley and that I would absolutely love them. And that may well be true; but I'll never know. I bought both games and loaded 'em up, very excited. You know that feeling when you download a game that you're sure is going to be awesome? That's how it was until I checked 'em out. I was horrified by the blatant, gimme more policy and immediately turned 'em off. I'm kind of amazed they're able to keep it at it. I wouldn't care if the games were the best ever made; I won't give my money to a company like that. I thought Surviving Mars looked interesting; and then I saw the publisher. I didn't lament an opportunity lost. I just moved on. As for KSP, I've often wondered why they don't release "mod packs". With 10 or a 12 popular mods bundled together for 10 bucks. I'm sure there are tons of legal reasons, but it would seem to make sense for everyone. Squad and T2 could take their cut, and modders could start making some money. For us players, you'd have the understanding that they will always be kept current with every update and expansion on day one. It seems like everyone would win, but I don't know anything about the inner workings of the industry; so I don't really know if such a thing is possible.

A guess would still be just that; a guess. Judging by the number of topics and posts over the years, you would think most players can't land on the Mun either. Which is obviously not true. This topic will mostly be one-sided in terms of posts and topics. Since it's not currently in the game, no one bothers to start a topic about how it shouldn't be in the game. There will always be people who don't want it or feel they don't need it. Some like to wing it, as I do, and some like to do the calculations themselves. I'm not so sure there's a majority anywhere on this endless topic. I'll say again, though, I'm not opposed to seeing it added to the game. I would like it to be locked at first, though. Rather than being unlocked through the tech tree or building upgrades, I think it should become available after your first successful trip to the Mun and back. Something along the lines of "you now have new insight into the requirements for space travel". Auto unlocked, of course, in sandbox. I don't see how it wouldn't work that way. Your first Mun landing is a huge accomplishment and shows that you're ready for more in-depth exploration. I'd like to see it added at some point but, again, I don't think they ever will. Maybe in KSP2.

I've used a single-fuselage design with a Mammoth and multiple stack designs with 1.25m tanks. They both performed equally well, and it had it's advantages and disadvantages. The single fuselage was very aerodynamic, and cut through the soup pretty well. I used a four-stage design to dump mass as often as possible and take advantage of higher ISP engines as the air got thinner. The disadvantage of it is that it's a single stack; so it starts to get very tall. You need a good truss system under it to land it safely. The multi-stack design was short and squat, and therefore easy to land. You can put as many engines as you want and dump them in any manner you see fit. The biggest drawback is that it has more surface area and is not as aerodynamic as a single-fuselage, so doesn't cut through the atmosphere quite as well. Both designs can work and are a lot of fun. If you're in the testing and design phase, you might wanna try both. As always, much will depend on your payload. How many Kerbals, if you have a service module, making a direct ascent return or refueling in Eve orbit; all the usual stuff. No matter what, the feeling of accomplishment when you're successful is unmatched by anything else in the stock game. Hope all goes well.

Your comments above effectively sum up all the worst parts of the gaming industry today. It's the reason I skip past anything with Paradox's name on it. Release money-grabbing DLC with no content? No thanks, bud. Would you also like to click on an outer planet and be told "you must purchase such and such DLC to access this planet"? I too would "destroy" my copy of KSP if I ever saw such a thing. Here's hoping they never stoop so low.

You said this: "I understand all the fun and accomplishment in building the rockets be eye, only guessing things, and making gruesome mistakes. But it's a very short-lived experience, that gets more boring and tiresome than fun very fast. Most people got this taste around the boom in popularity in 2015, and then abandoned the game." ...and then showed a graph. Since we can't know what other people are thinking, that's an assumption. As I said, you may be correct, but there are other factors as well. Not sure where the confusion lies. That however, is not only perplexing but downright amusing. First off, who said anything about "randomly throwing together parts"? The best part is, if you actually build a rocket and see if it works, you're cheating. If you know the answers before hitting the spacebar, it's okay. Answers that were given to you through someone else's hard work. What you're saying is the same thing you see all the time; "the way I play is right, the way you play is cheating". It's usually stock guys talking to mod guys, so I guess this would be reverse discrimination. Whatever works for ya, bud.

Not sure I woulda made that info available. Someone is sure to show up to complain about inaccurate rivets and lack of grease-stains on the new fuel tanks.

It looks like that spike coincided with the official 1.0 release. That was when I bought the game as well. What that graph really shows is the power of advertising: in this case, the magic of the Steam ads the moment you log in. Graphs like that are probably hanging in every ad guy's office. Not to say that your assumption is incorrect. It probably is. But I think a graph for most games would look quite the same (except the huge, extremely popular multiplayer ones). I have dozens of games I've tried for a bit and moved on, or never even loaded at all. I suspect we all do. You try something, and maybe it's not your cup of tea. Or not quite what you thought. Or maybe you think you'll come back to it later and give it another shot. There are plenty of reasons to move on to something else. To me, KSP is one of those games that either grabs you immediately (and won't let go), or not at all. Is there such a thing as a "casual" KSP player? I'm not so sure. It's sort of a way of life; bordering on obsession. If someone found the game too hard or not to their liking, I don't think seeing the numbers would help. But for someone who likes the game and wants to get better, more info would certainly help. As I said, I'm not opposed to it. I just don't think it will be incorporated into the stock game anytime soon. And though it may be necessary for your enjoyment (depending on the player), it is not necessary for your success.

I haven't seen all the things you guys have, but I'll take your word for it based on what I've seen myself. The reason I haven't seen any gameplay bugs is that I've been stuck on the mission builder. It's basically the core of the expansion, and probably the only thing that really makes it worth the money. I've got high hopes for it, and I'm really trying to get the hang of it. However, the entire 3rd tutorial is simply missing. The game says there are 3, but I only see 2. At the end of the 2nd it tells you to save and continue on to the next one to learn more advanced techniques; but there is no next one. You can't hit save or continue; you can only hit done. Which ends the tutorials. I've asked in both the mission builder threads, but haven't heard anything yet. Pretty much everyone is asking why they didn't do more testing and what kind of Q&A did they do, but I keep wondering who did it. From all we've seen and heard, you give this to any serious player and they'll find these things within a day; which is exactly what happened. Giving a preview to YouTubers doesn't mean anything to me. If you're not on this forum I don't consider you part of this community, and I don't really pay attention to what they're doing. This forum, however, is full of serious players. Squad would be wise to make use of some of them for testing new parts and features. And we all would be better off with a more polished product. For now, I'm just waiting to see what the next patch is able to do. And how soon it comes along.

I'd love to have that for sure. Flipping back and forth to map view is always fun. Especially when I switch back and the camera automatically zooms in for an extreme close-up on my huge ship. Always irritating.

After almost 3,000 hours, I've been to every stock planet and moon multiple times. Done the Retro Solar Rescue, the Jool 5, and several Eve land and return missions. Except for mundane and repetitive missions like rescues from LKO and asteroid grabbing, I don't reuse rockets. I build every one from scratch for that particular mission. And I could not tell you the Delta V or TWR of a single one of them, because I just don't know. I've never used a mod, spreadsheet, or calculator. I just use trial and error and guesswork based on experience. It was tough going at first, but it taught me a lot. And I would not trade those early experiences. Now, unless I'm going to Eve, I just look at my rocket as I build it and I can kinda tell what it can do. You don't over-build, you try to make it as small as possible while still bringing everything you need and accomplishing your mission. I've gotten good enough at it that I usually just make it or just miss it. And I'm right more often than wrong. It always makes me feel good. And there's an element of mystery and excitement to every mission. Did I cut it too close? Will I make it, or have to mount a rescue? It's fun. The only drawback to this method is that my ships will almost never be as efficient as someone's with the information at hand, but I don't really mind that. I can pare it down pretty well if I work at it. With all that being said, I will admit to salivating with envy whenever I see screenshots with KER open. I would love to have all that info available. I said when I started I would play stock, and I have. I figured once I got good enough and had nothing left to prove to myself, I would install KER. But I just never got around to it. I now moved on to New Horizons; where I've again been demoted to rank amateur. And I'm loving it. It's an absolute blast to me. Just a difference in play-style is all. However, if it were in the game, I would certainly make use of it. I would just make it something to be unlocked further along the game to encourage learning on your own; as I've seen @Rocket In My Pocket and a few others suggest. However, if I were Squad, I would not put it in the stock game. You would immediately see videos posted with ships showing a certain Delta V amount, then making maneuvers and showing the numbers to be completely wrong. Veterans here on the forum would rise to their defense and explain why you can't account for everything and say "you shoulda been around when we had nothing". And others will say "who cares? If it's in the game it should work". There's no winning there. I'd leave it to the realm of mods. It's not hurting anyone (except maybe the console guys; and they're all nuts anyway). A better question is why isn't KAC in the stock game? It's the only mod you actually need, and it's authored by a staff member. That one's a head-scratcher.

Consider me reassured. I'll get back to the game now and bring you a lost of gripes later.

This kinda reads like a goodbye letter. You guys are sticking around, aren't you?

Thinking of joining that crazy spaceplane fraternity? Sorry, bud. I'll have to report you for that. Yo, @SQUAD. Put this guy on the list.

Nostalgia plays a part, certainly, but also personal preference and play-style. I don't know if beginners really don't care about weight or not, as you said, but if you're saying it's harder to launch a lighter payload, I'm not seeing the logic. I used the Mk1-2 for my Jool 5 and an Eve ascent vehicle precisely because it made things more difficult. They were not easy, and I'm extremely proud of them. To me, light rockets are difficult when you get to the end of the spectrum. In other words, when you make it so small you're now pushing the boundaries of capability; like a "low mass" challenge. Building a good, huge rocket can be just as difficult. I don't dislike the Mk1-3. And I don't mind the added functionality it has. Your "top of the line" command pod should have things the others don't. However, it should come at a cost. And not just funds. To me, this game is all about accomplishment. Even after a simple mission, seeing my chutes pop back at Kerbin always makes me feel good. It's something that sets this game apart. So if you wanna launch 3 Kerbals but save mass, it's going to cost you in looks and "cool factor". You'll need some combination of smaller pods or passenger cabin or (God forbid) command seats in a fairing or service module. If you want 3 Kerbals all in one pod that looks cool, is extremely sturdy, and has more functionality, it'll cost you mass. It should be so heavy, in fact, that it makes you wonder whether or not it's worth it. Design decisions should not be easy. If you want this, it should cost you that, and so forth. So I'm fine with the new pod, I just think it should be heavier. At least 4 tons. Make it a tough decision instead of a no-brainer. As always though, this is just one guy's opinion. I doubt I'M the only one, though. Others surely feel the same way.

My thoughts are pretty much the same. It wasn't a "No Man's Sky" level of debacle, but it wasn't good. There's a lot that needs to be addressed. I'm eagerly anticipating today's KSP Weekly. How many of these issues will they admit to, and how many will they attempt to gloss over? They'll surely spin the release as a success (and it probably was financially), but the problems definitely outnumber the positives. Though it's head-scratchingly separate from the rest of the game (as everyone has pointed out), I still think the mission builder could save the whole thing. I've been playing around with it the last 2 nights, and it seems to have tons of potential. It still needs some clean-up and polish (sad to say after a year of development, but I'm willing to give a bit more leeway here; it must've been quite a job putting something so complicated together), but I can already see it's going to be fantastic. Can't wait to see what patches and updates are offered down the road. And if modders are able to get their hands on it, there's no telling what they'll be able to do. So, for now, I'll remain hopeful.