(DLC missions) seccret surprise objectives feels sort of unfair

[Dunbaratu]

(This is about playing the missions the DLC comes with)

First mission: "Launch your first rocket, get it to 5000 meters, splash it down near the abandoned runway".   "Surprise, we actually meant on the runway, oh you didn't design your rocket for a land landing?  Well too bad redesign and try again."

Second mission: "Get to 48,000 meters, take a temperature reading and return home safely".  "Surprise, we actually meant splash down in the water next to this waypoint we never told you about beforehand. Oh, what's that?  You didn't design the rocket for steering because you thought we were telling the truth about the objectives?  Well, too bad redesign and try again."

Is there a way to learn those surprise objectives beforehand so you don't have to waste a launch just to learn the real objectives?  Are they displayed somewhere?

[Streetwind]

If the "Edit" button is available in the menu where you select the mission, you'll be able to view the whole thing in the Mission Builder. I don't know off the top of my head if it works with stock missions though.

[Temeter]

I think you're supposed to play the multiple times and go for harder and harder objective? You can 'win' by just making a basic objective.

Felt a bit weird to me, but I like it under the idea that the missions throw challenges of opportunity at you, which you might overcome with reasonably overdesigned rockets and skill! That does feel really Kerbal, don't you think?

Edited March 14, 2018 by Temeter

[katateochi]

yeah, this annoyed me too. Wasn't an issue on the first mission because "restart mission" was basically the same as revert to editor, but on the second one, revert mission is right back to the first mission. 

As a forgetful perfectionist, that kinda thing is frustrating. I want to complete all objectives, and the chances of me remembering the "hidden" ones some time later when I replay the mission are slim.
So....I'm now a "forgetful perfectionist git", in that I initialized a git repo in the missions folder, made a commit before launching each part of the mission and then I can just checkout the commit .sfs file and reload that (the non git way would be to just make copies of the .sfs files).  It's a few more steps than doing a standard revert to editor, but it's the end result is basically the same. yeah, cheater, whatever; I don't have time to replay whole missions just because I missed a sub-objective half way through. 

Edited March 14, 2018 by katateochi

[Dunbaratu]

I'm also discovering a tendency for the descriptions in the popup windows to be treacherously incorrect (such that following them as described makes you fail).

For example, on the first probe to minmus mission you're told you have to decouple a probe that has mystery goo while in orbit below 100km, before going to minmus.  The un-mentioned other objective is that your orbit has to have Pe > 95km.  They don't tell you that in the popup and so if you don't open the little info panel on the side and see it you'll have no idea why nothing is continuing.  But that's not the bigger problem - the bigger problem is that the popup claims you finish the objective by hitting the stage button and decoupling the probe.  No, you don't.  According to the *actual* objectives, you do it by performing the mystery goo experiment.  Decoupling the probe won't make any difference and in fact is totally unnecessary.

Realizing the *real* objectives let you keep that probe attached is how I was able to eventually finish the mission, because the probe has 200 units of battery on it, and the primary challenge of this mission is not running out of electricity.  Realizing you never had to actually decouple the probe makes the rest of the mission  actually doable by adding 200 desperately needed electric charge to your craft.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Steven Mading

[Shadows2b]

Well KELBALISH or not I really don't like thoses missions. Would have liked a mission widget on the side the same way the real missions do in career. Thoses missions should have been within sandbox anyway.

I abandoned them and got back to regular gameplay, since I already give myself thoses kind of objectives in the game, didn't need for the DLC ...

[Snark]

Moving to Making History Discussion.

[magimix]

On 14/03/2018 at 7:41 PM, katateochi said:

So....I'm now a "forgetful perfectionist git", in that I initialized a git repo in the missions folder, made a commit before launching each part of the mission and then I can just checkout the commit .sfs file and reload that (the non git way would be to just make copies of the .sfs files).  It's a few more steps than doing a standard revert to editor, but it's the end result is basically the same. yeah, cheater, whatever; I don't have time to replay whole missions just because I missed a sub-objective half way through. 

That is super interesting.  Have you been doing this with saves for a long while?  Have you ever had any issues with this approach? (e.g. the game getting confused after 'reverting' a change, or what have you?)

[katateochi]

20 minutes ago, magimix said:

That is super interesting.  Have you been doing this with saves for a long while?  Have you ever had any issues with this approach? (e.g. the game getting confused after 'reverting' a change, or what have you?)

I've been using git as a craft and save backup/revert tool for years! Never had any issues with it (in either windows or linux), in fact ages ago I made a tool (Jebretary) that automated commits so craft were committed each time they were launched (if they'd changed) and saves (persistent and quicksave) each time they changed, but that tool had a bit of a mem-leak issue (and then I started building KerbalX and Jebretary kinda died). These days I just `git init` inside each save folder and then keep a console open while playing and manually commit changes. KSP doesn't seem to mind at all about files being reverted; you can revert a quicksave at any time and then f8 reload, if I'm going to revert the main persistent.sfs save I do it while I'm in the space center view or main menu (so the game doesn't try to write to it while reverting) and then load it, and craft can be reverted at any time.  
I did wonder if KSP would have issues with the hidden .git folder being inside a save, but it doesn't seem to notice it. oh and these days with the persistent.loadmeta files, I do commit them, but when reverting a save I don't bother reverting that file and it works fine. And so far with missions (which are basically just saves anyway) it doesn't seem to have any issues either. so yeah.... git ftw, and it's so much more efficient that making manual save backups!

[magimix]

Thanks for the detailed reply, katateochi.  I'll have to give this a try myself.  Frankly, I'm slapping my forehead that it never occurred to me to try it before now! :-)

 

 

[Ace in Space]

I mean, I haven't actually played the premade missions yet, but this sounds less like a problem with hidden objectives and more like a problem with bad mission design. If used well, hidden objectives can be used to trigger minor events (such as mission control commenting on a particularly impressive landing that the player would have to go out of their way to pull off) or for plot twists (see Apollo 13).

If it's used for moving the goalposts or obscuring real objectives without plot-related cause, that's just the creator being a jerk.

 

Honestly, though, if that kind of problem exists in the pre-made missions, I'll be very disappointed. That's the kind of bad design I expect from a 12 year old making their first mission.

[KroShan]

@Ace in Space Unfortunatly it is that bad. I guess they have done the missions in the week between release to influencers and public release and didn't even test them - also that there is no implementation to the career mode is very dissapointing @Darth Badie @Robbonaut
It looks like the devs wanted to build bad missions to show the community how not to do it.

One of the missions has a cap of a (i don't know the exact numbers)
1) ~63t Rocket to go to the mun with optional landing there
2) but it doesn't tell you that you launch at 60° inclination
3) it doesn't recognise a direct transfer to the mun. So you need to change the inclination with ~1700m/s dV in LKO that you reach the desired orbit in time
4) you get bonuspoints when you bring 1000 LF to the mun
This is mathematically not possible with the (part) restriction that are given in this mission.

Also the last mission to minmus.
'Design a rover...'
later: points when you cover a distance of several (6?) km in under 3 min

BAD MISSION DESIGN!!!

Off Topic:
I like the parts - but the worth of this 'expansion' will only show over the next few months. When the community kicks in, the bugs are hunted down and the stock missions are redone.

[Dunbaratu]

39 minutes ago, KroShan said:

Also the last mission to minmus.
'Design a rover...'
later: points when you cover a distance of several (6?) km in under 3 min

Which is hard enough normally, but on Minmus it's never going to happen since you must go slow to keep from going airborne. (vacuumborne?)

I solved that one by realizing it was lying when it said "rover".  A hopping lander is also allowed, and can actually do it in the given time.  There are no checks for ensuring that you're actually staying on the ground, despite the (incorrect) description that tells you to make a rover.

[klesh]

That's one of the things I have noticed that's not fun about this expansion.  Someone has chosen to "enhance" the story by using certain language that the mission editor/builder doesn't actually support.  Its an attempt to make it more fun sounding, but it ends up frustrating the user. 

 

An example is the very first mission that gave everyone a terrible first impression of the missions.  "We might not have enough fuel to fill the tank!" is the flavor text of a nascent space program worried about resources.  But when you pull out that SRB it absolutely has enough fuel to fill it, in fact its already full!  The goal was to get to you lower the fuel amount, but the game itself cannot support giving you an SRB that's not fully fueled to start with, so why make flavor text that only hints at some storyline in the designer's mind that can't be replicated by the builder?

You could tell me we need to make room in the SRB tank to fill it with rainbow colored zebras too, but since there is no actual rainbow colored zebras in the game, its all imaginary flavor text.

 

Why not say "The Engineers report the SRB will overfly our target, so they suggest lowering the fuel amounts prior to launch".  Thats a different flavor text that directly tells the user they have to do something, but also invents the fun of Engineer Kerman telling you stuff.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by klesh