Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, sysigy said:

you wouldn't learn the basics of space flight mechanics which is extremely rewarding

Extremely rewarding to you.  But not to others.  Please stop presuming to speak for anyone who isn't you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Extremely rewarding to you.  But not to others.  Please stop presuming to speak for anyone who isn't you.

His comment is not without basis- it's been the discussion points of many journalistic articles about the game, the "feeling of success" is very much the center point of the game. I personally can attest to it, and a quick YouTube search can prove the first Mun landing or first time getting into orbit for people results in a greater celebration that I think you are noticing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

His comment is not without basis- it's been the discussion points of many journalistic articles about the game, the "feeling of success" is very much the center point of the game. I personally can attest to it, and a quick YouTube search can prove the first Mun landing or first time getting into orbit for people results in a greater celebration that I think you are noticing.

I didn't say his comment was without basis,  I said not all players are him.  These are not equivalent statements.

"A feeling of success" is a description of an end-state, not a description of play style or prescription of the route to attain it.  I certainly have a feeling of success when I design a vehicle that lands on the Mun, even if MechJeb does all the flying.  And why shouldn't I?  Designing vehicles and missions is what I find fun.  Proof that my designs work exactly as planned is what gives me a feeling of success.

Take a look at the "What did you do in KSP today?" thread in the general forum.  You'll find an incredible number of different playstyles - all equally valid, and without a doubt in my mind equally giving their players a feeling of success.  Implying or suggesting (or stating outright as some do) that there's only One True Path (and that using MechJeb is a deviation from that path) is complete nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

I didn't say his comment was without basis,  I said not all players are him.  These are not equivalent statements.

"A feeling of success" is a description of an end-state, not a description of play style or prescription of the route to attain it.  I certainly have a feeling of success when I design a vehicle that lands on the Mun, even if MechJeb does all the flying.  And why shouldn't I?  Designing vehicles and missions is what I find fun.  Proof that my designs work exactly as planned is what gives me a feeling of success.

Take a look at the "What did you do in KSP today?" thread in the general forum.  You'll find an incredible number of different playstyles - all equally valid, and without a doubt in my mind equally giving their players a feeling of success.  Implying or suggesting (or stating outright as some do) that there's only One True Path (and that using MechJeb is a deviation from that path) is complete nonsense.

Catch is MJ is a playstyle. Most would take the easy option out and use it's autopilot features rather than learn how to perform flight operations themselves. So adding it to the game effectively forces one play style into the game when those who want it, can just pick up a mod instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

29 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Most would take the easy option out and use it's autopilot features rather than learn how to perform flight operations themselves.


Once again making the mistake of implying that one playstyle is superior to another and looking down on those who chose to use one over the other.  What exactly is wrong with using autopilot features?
 

30 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

So adding it to the game effectively forces one play style into the game


Adding a stock option for a playstyle is bad....  how exactly? 

Oh, right, you already covered that - it's the "easy way".  And the "easy way" is not acceptable.  WRONG.

Rather than re-typing what I just wrote, I'll just direct you to scroll up and read what I said above about the validity of different playstyles since you seemed to have skipped that part the first time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly embrace the different playstyles approach, but I think the OP has some merit, as a game option. While mods are certainly an option we can all avail ourselves of, I think that having a stock tool to look at dv, etc would be valuable, and could improve the ability to educate some players---just as I think that doing a few orbital rendezvous manually implicitly teaches people something about real world orbital mechanics that is often counterintuitive (and it's rare for KSP to have much real world applicability, lol).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2018 at 7:06 PM, cipher2012 said:

WHY do we need a third party outside mod to tell us what Delta V we have and thrust to weight ratio's the rocket has in different spheres of influence

What's wrong with mods? They're made by the community, so they're not necessarily balanced or realistic. Sometimes they get added into the stock game. Sometimes they don't. Either way, they're made by people who love the game and want to add to it, not Squad. Squad doesn't have the obligation to take over every mod it sees, and that's fine with most of us.

On 3/8/2018 at 7:06 PM, cipher2012 said:

I didn't buy this game to learn the math of rocket science. I doubt that 90% of the player base has that desire either. I understand that rocket science is hard and that NASA had loads of troubles figuring out how to do it, but this is a video game, and we are not playing it to do math and spend countless hours trying to get a damn rocket into space and on the proper path without burning to much delta V.

If you buy a spaceflight 'simulator' that centers around building and engineering rockets and sending them into space, then you should expect there to be math and science. You don't just play a physics-focused game about rockets without involving physics in some way.

Mods take like five minutes to install. It's not terribly hard, and sure, you have to wait a bit in between releases, but it's not like the updates feature massive re-hauls. You won't be missing out on anything too big, and there will always be a whole host of other people in the same situation as you.

This discussion almost never ends well. We each have our own opinions on the matter, and I doubt any of us will change them any time soon. So just say what you think and try to avoid criticizing the perspectives of others :)

Edited by Earthlinger
Added a happy smile at the end so that I don't sound annoyed lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

 


Once again making the mistake of implying that one playstyle is superior to another and looking down on those who chose to use one over the other.  What exactly is wrong with using autopilot features?
 


Adding a stock option for a playstyle is bad....  how exactly? 

Oh, right, you already covered that - it's the "easy way".  And the "easy way" is not acceptable.  WRONG.

Rather than re-typing what I just wrote, I'll just direct you to scroll up and read what I said above about the validity of different playstyles since you seemed to have skipped that part the first time around.

Autopilot just simulates launches. You don't learn how to launch rockets. It's press one button and go. I'm ok with this for those who have learned, but using it as a cop out of KSP's difficulty curve, just reeks to me of shortcuts like aimbots for first person shooters, or macros that solve puzzles for you in puzzle games. The fun is in the learning as well as the doing. It's why KSP has doubled up as a teaching aid- so that people can learn the science behind why things work the way they do. You don't learn that by "eh, ran out of fuel, just add more" mentality.

Every play style is different, but "I don't want to learn" mentality coming from MJ is just the same as playing a puzzle game like Minesweeper and letting the computer play the game for you without learning how to play Minesweeper.

Sadly this is a debate that has lasted the entirety of MechJeb's existence so I'm not going to continue this. If you want to, you can ask anyone else- but I'm going to return to Mechjeb as a suggestion.

 

The simple fact is that there's too much conflict over it's inclusion and the fact it exists as one of the most popular mods of KSP just proves it's doing fine as a mod. Fitting select people's niches rather than fitting to the whole as we would expect from adding it to the game. Popular mods does not mean that they should be included, as mods like FAR would be added and cause a significant challenge to new players as they have to learn an even more difficult (granted realistic) aerodynamics model. MechJeb just doesn't fit with the developer's vision of the game, and even with the transition with T2/PD, that vision hasn't changed much, least not according to what they've had Squad publish for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

The fun is in the learning as well as the doing.


And that takes us right back to where we started.  What is fun for you is not necessarily fun for others.  Do not presume to speak for anyone that isn't you.
 

3 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Every play style is different, but "I don't want to learn" mentality coming from MJ is just the same as playing a puzzle game like Minesweeper and letting the computer play the game for you without learning how to play Minesweeper.


Right.  Because when I successfully ran a Jool-5, MJ designed the mission concept, designed the ship, determined the assembly sequence, etc... etc...  Or, to put it another way, utter hogwash.  Flying the vehicle is only one small part of the overall game, and even there - MJ can only do what the player specifically tells it to do.  It's not a shooterbot and it's not a puzzlebot.  It's an autopilot.

And if you think I didn't have to learn a ton of non-piloting things to make that successful run...  My only possible response is to ask have you even played KSP?  I mean seriously, I don't grasp how anyone can think piloting is the whole of the game.

 

3 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Fitting select people's niches rather than fitting to the whole as we would expect from adding it to the game.


Right.  So let's take out most of the wings, since they're a niche.  And let's take out half the wheels and half the landing gear and a good chunk of the tankage because building ginourmous vehicles is a niche interest.  And...  Do you not realize how stupid that sounds?  There's a ton of niches in this game, and what makes KSP so censored cool is that it accommodates so many of them so easily - and none of them take away from any others.  It's not a zero sum situation where adding something for a niche takes away from anyone else.  Not to mention, looking at the number of downloads...  it's a very big niche.  And that's just downloads of the big releases on Curse...  it doesn't count the dev versions a fair fraction of MJ users actually use.
 

3 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

The simple fact is that there's too much conflict over it's inclusion


There's people who object to strawman versions ("it's just like a bot the plays Minesweeper for you").  There's people who object to other people using MJ ("they won't have any fun!").  There's people who wish to push a certain playstyle onto others ("It's OK - but only after they have learned").  None of these are really conflicts over MJ itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people like MechJeb and some people don't. As always, there are people who want to kill each other over it. Anyway, the OP has made his/her point and we can all get on with our lives now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...