Stock Game not very fun without Delta-V & TWR readout

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Besides, it's a caricature of an argument that nobody else has actually made.

Yeah, no.  It's a caricature of the essence of an argument that's routinely made.  Look at the post right above yours - it makes essentially just that argument "knowing d/v takes away fun, and I'd hate to take that away from new players".  (Also making another routine mistake - presuming that what the poster finds fun is a universal prescription for fun.)

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said:

Yeah, no.  It's a caricature of the essence of an argument that's routinely made.  Look at the post right above yours - it makes essentially just that argument "knowing d/v takes away fun, and I'd hate to take that away from new players".  (Also making another routine mistake - presuming that what the poster finds fun is a universal prescription for fun.)

"the essence of" sounds a bit subjective. I suspect that's the problem

I think if you look around, you will find very few people (if ever) will attempt to make the "I like playing KSP this way, so everyone should be forced to do the same" argument except when being facetious or attempting to create a (very flimsy) strawman argument.

Best,
-Slashy

[X-SR71]

Engine thrust is already shown in the game. ISP is already shown in the game. Mass is already shown in the game. Why the heck not show a simple delta-v and TWR readout already. The player has all that information, but is forced to calculate the resulting delta-v and TWR by hand. Not very friendly at all. It's silly we have to install KER to actually make the game easier than stock.

I'd say stock KSP is more for hardcore gamers than for us casual gamers who simply want to have fun and not bother with math and spreadsheets. I feel sorry for the console players who don't even know if their rocket is going to lift. 

[Kobymaru]

11 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

"the essence of" sounds a bit subjective.

Is it? The common argument is that the dV information "spoils" the fun of ... something ... . So having the information available is not good because the user is supposed to magically eyeball the number through experimentation.

OK, now let's take this premise and expand it a bit.

So why do we have Apoapsis/Periapsis markers then? I mean, they are clearly redundant information, because could be calculated from orbital parameters such as velocity and altitude. They obviously detract from the fun of the aforementioned something, because the player can't experiment and is spoiled the suspense of how high/low their craft is gonna fly.

For that matter, since less information is more fun, why don't we remove the velocity info altogether? It can clearly be calculated from triangulating various planets, here's a super easy tutorial on how to do it, and people who don't want to do this can either use this magical spreadsheet or install a mod.

Also, why don't we remove the information on how much fuel is left in your craft? Same thing, calculatable from different numbers (integrated burn time, engine ISP, thrust, tank size and ambient pressure), super fun if it's not available, and you might as well install a mod for that. On top of it, it would even be realistic, because usually a spacecraft doesn't know its remaining fuel exactly.

 

What is the difference between one number that can be calculated from other information in the Game and is extremely helpful for mission success and another number that can be calculated from other information in the Game and is extremely helpful for mission success? How is one number a spoiler, and how is the other number clearly obviously essential? My suspicion is that the only difference is the status quo, because one has been around since the beginning and the other one is boycotted by the devs.

 

Edit: this must be the spoiled fun that people are talking about: 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Kobymaru

[pandaman]

I do understand why some players enjoy using 'trial and error' or spreadsheets and/or working stuff out with chalk on a slate, but I'm very much in the 'this should be stock' camp (along with KAC and mission planning tools too).  However with on/off toggles for those who don't want to use them ( you don't even need to disable the calculations, just don't show the bits that display it).  For career mode I think some form of 'unlocking' would very likely be appropriate.

[klgraham1013]

3 minutes ago, pandaman said:

For career mode I think some form of 'unlocking' would very likely be appropriate.

Why?  I've never understood this?  Why hide valuable information behind unlocks?  Imagine hiding AP/PE?  Velocity?  Altitude?  Imagine hiding ammo counters or health displays in other games until you reached level 5.  I mean, that'd be like locking parachutes away at a time when the player would  need them the most.  Surely, we wouldn't do something like that.

[Just Jim]

14 minutes ago, pandaman said:

I do understand why some players enjoy using 'trial and error' or spreadsheets and/or working stuff out with chalk on a slate, but I'm very much in the 'this should be stock' camp (along with KAC and mission planning tools too).  However with on/off toggles for those who don't want to use them ( you don't even need to disable the calculations, just don't show the bits that display it).  For career mode I think some form of 'unlocking' would very likely be appropriate.

yes... I totally agree. 

For me, it's just a matter of game-playing style. I prefer the "trial and error" method because of the nail-biting situations you can end up in. For example, the other night I was landing a small colony base on Minmus... and found myself running out of fuel as it was coming down, and quite literally landing on fumes. Now I totally understand and respect that some players would want to know ahead, and probably would have added a couple hundred more units of LOX before launching it...

But at the same time... trying to land, freaking out watching my altitude and fuel both dropping at about the same rate, and not knowing if I was going to make it or not, was insanely exciting and nerve wracking... and really, really fun in a scary roller-coaster kind of way. And I think some of the folk 1000 miles from here at Squad could probably heard me shouting when it landed safely.

That's why I don't have a problem with it being added into the game... but with a switch, so I can turn it off, and sweat it out... it's just how I prefer to play is all.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Just Jim

[GoSlash27]

48 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

The common argument is that the dV information "spoils" the fun of ... something ... . So having the information available is not good because the user is supposed to magically eyeball the number through experimentation.

Kobymaru,
 Not true. The common argument is that they enjoy figuring it out in their game, and don't want it provided to them. You are free to include it in your game if you wish. This is the common argument... unless you're aware of someone calling for the banning of MJ and KER.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by GoSlash27

[Warzouz]

18 hours ago, archnem said:

I can calculate dV and TWR with an abacus and slide rule, so therefore everyone should and not rely on a computer to do computing for them.  I can also calculate orbits with a protractor, compass, and counting on my fingers, so therefore they should get rid of the entire tracking station in stock.  It detracts from my fun.

True, next version of KSP will be compatible with cardboard and pen. The PC version will be terminated.

I love this topic, I can't imagine a more biased one.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Warzouz

[Just Jim]

11 minutes ago, Warzouz said:

True, next version of KSP will be compatible with cardboard and pen. The PC version will be terminated.

I love this topic, I can't imagine a more biased one.

I don't understand why people are being so snarky and mean about this... did it ever occur to anyone that some of us might just enjoy doing the math the hard way if we need the dV??? Seriously... I understand a lot of people hate math... but not everyone, including me!!! I enjoy really putting my brain to work now and then... 

I've already said a dozen times now that they could go ahead and add it in. All I want is the option to turn it off... that's all.

How is this being bias??? 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Just Jim

[Kobymaru]

11 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

The common argument is that they enjoy figuring it out in their game, and don't want it provided to them.

Fair enough, but could you enlighten me what they think about the following question:

 

59 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

What is the difference between one number that can be calculated from other information in the Game and is extremely helpful for mission success and another number that can be calculated from other information in the Game and is extremely helpful for mission success? How is one number a spoiler, and how is the other number clearly obviously essential?

 

I'm just trying to understand how lack of a very selective piece information can be fun.

[Just Jim]

2 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

I'm just trying to understand how lack of a very selective piece information can be fun.

I'm not going to re-quote myself... read what I wrote 5 responses up from this 

That's my reason why I think it's fun...

Edited March 22, 2018 by Just Jim

[blakemw]

4 hours ago, X-SR71 said:

Engine thrust is already shown in the game. ISP is already shown in the game. Mass is already shown in the game. Why the heck not show a simple delta-v and TWR readout already. The player has all that information, but is forced to calculate the resulting delta-v and TWR by hand. Not very friendly at all. It's silly we have to install KER to actually make the game easier than stock.

 

What irks me most of all, is in the training missions often you get this kind of helpful readout added into the help boxes, like I think for landing on mun it gives you an easy to read vertical speed readout, perhaps true altitude. I can't remember exactly what. I do remember after doing the training mission I tried it in a normal game and was like "what? where is my readout?", so after a little googling I installed KER and never looked back.

[pandaman]

Just now, klgraham1013 said:

Why?  I've never understood this?  Why hide valuable information behind unlocks?  Imagine hiding AP/PE?  Velocity?  Altitude?  Imagine hiding ammo counters or health displays in other games until you reached level 5.  I mean, that'd be like locking parachutes away at a time when the player would  need them the most.  Surely, we wouldn't do something like that.

Ok, I should probably have explained it, but what I mean by 'unlocking in career' is...

As I see it the early part of career, especially for new players, is getting to grips with the basics of assembling stuff and launching.  How much 'welly' your first few craft have is pretty much irrelevant.  Once you reach the point where you need to design craft to do a particular job, which admittedly isn't too long, then that is where you need to have an idea of the capabilities of what you are designing whilst actually designing it.

So, to have the Dv readout etc 'unlockable' in some way (maybe even in stages) COULD allow player to learn some basics without worrying about 'the numbers'.  And to some extent reflect the learning process of first discovering how to make a rocket, then realising that to make much use of it you need some way of measuring how much power it has so that you can estimate better what it's capabilities are.  And then developing the 'tools' that enable you to design to meet a need rather than building first and then measuring.  If that implementation was done well I think it could enhance career mode.

 

[GoSlash27]

21 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

I'm just trying to understand how lack of a very selective piece information can be fun.

It doesn't matter whether you understand that or not. It's enough to simply say that we do have fun playing our way and don't want it taken away.

 As I've said repeatedly upstream, it should be added as stock, but optional. Especially in the console, where they don't have the option to add it themselves.

Best,
-Slashy

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

5 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

Fair enough, but could you enlighten me what they think about the following question:

 

 

I'm just trying to understand how lack of a very selective piece information can be fun.

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.

[Gaarst]

15 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

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.

The game taking every single possibly useful feature at the beginning of career is ridiculous; here's an example: you're beginning to learn the game, you want to go to orbit for the first time, what could the game do to help you? Give you tools and information...  nah, how about taking everything away from you and letting you learning to go to orbit by yourself. That's career for you.
KSP is extremely hard when you start and gets easier as you progress, give me a single game that has the same difficulty curve.

[MechBFP]

10 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

Is it? The common argument is that the dV information "spoils" the fun of ... something ... . So having the information available is not good because the user is supposed to magically eyeball the number through experimentation.

OK, now let's take this premise and expand it a bit.

So why do we have Apoapsis/Periapsis markers then? I mean, they are clearly redundant information, because could be calculated from orbital parameters such as velocity and altitude. They obviously detract from the fun of the aforementioned something, because the player can't experiment and is spoiled the suspense of how high/low their craft is gonna fly.

For that matter, since less information is more fun, why don't we remove the velocity info altogether? It can clearly be calculated from triangulating various planets, here's a super easy tutorial on how to do it, and people who don't want to do this can either use this magical spreadsheet or install a mod.

Also, why don't we remove the information on how much fuel is left in your craft? Same thing, calculatable from different numbers (integrated burn time, engine ISP, thrust, tank size and ambient pressure), super fun if it's not available, and you might as well install a mod for that. On top of it, it would even be realistic, because usually a spacecraft doesn't know its remaining fuel exactly.

 

What is the difference between one number that can be calculated from other information in the Game and is extremely helpful for mission success and another number that can be calculated from other information in the Game and is extremely helpful for mission success? How is one number a spoiler, and how is the other number clearly obviously essential? My suspicion is that the only difference is the status quo, because one has been around since the beginning and the other one is boycotted by the devs.

 

Edit: this must be the spoiled fun that people are talking about: 

  Hide contents

 

 

This is a pretty solid argument. 

Since some stuff like manevour nodes and patched conics are not available right at the start though, that is why I still believe this information as well should be made available through either a tech upgrade or building upgrade.

I remember the first time I installed MechJeb and saw how inefficient my Duna lander really was lol. I think I learned a lot more by using it later than if I would have if I had it at the start. 

Edited March 22, 2018 by MechBFP

[GoSlash27]

3 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

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.

 I don't have a dog in this particular fight so long as the info can be turned off. But having said that, it *could* be a pretty cool addition to the career gameplay mechanics. Like upgrading tracking to display DV in flight, and upgrading the VAB to display DV and TWR during build. Perhaps a second upgrade to the VAB to unlock stage planning, like how I do it now.

3 hours ago, Gaarst said:

KSP is extremely hard when you start and gets easier as you progress, give me a single game that has the same difficulty curve.

That's true, but it also limits the scope of what you can achieve at the same time. The information and parts open up as you go, but the goals also get more difficult.

Best,
-Slashy

[MechBFP]

2 hours ago, Gaarst said:

KSP is extremely hard when you start and gets easier as you progress, give me a single game that has the same difficulty curve.

Except when you decide to make an Eve Ascent Vehicle, then it sky rockets back to hard.

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

KSP is extremely hard when you start and gets easier as you progress, give me a single game that has the same difficulty curve.

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.

[Warzouz]

22 hours ago, Just Jim said:

I don't understand why people are being so snarky and mean about this... did it ever occur to anyone that some of us might just enjoy doing the math the hard way if we need the dV??? Seriously... I understand a lot of people hate math... but not everyone, including me!!! I enjoy really putting my brain to work now and then... 

I've already said a dozen times now that they could go ahead and add it in. All I want is the option to turn it off... that's all.

How is this being bias??? 

Just Jim, please cool down, I totally agree with you. I was just trolling because this debate goes nowhere. YES KSP need tool improvements. The first one is DV, but there are many others.

Why do we have a tool for rendezvous and we don't have any tool for transfer window ? Does newbee are suppose to GUESS ? KSP is not an university course, it's a video game.

Why the manoeuvre node tool is still so clumsy and not precise. Do devs ever go to Moho ? or does they stick to the Mun ? - I can't imagine getting a Moho encounter on console...

[Just Jim]

23 minutes ago, Warzouz said:

Just Jim, please cool down, I totally agree with you. I was just trolling because this debate goes nowhere.

Sorry... the last couple days have been kind of hectic, and I snapped. I apologize.

24 minutes ago, Warzouz said:

Why do we have a tool for rendezvous and we don't have any tool for transfer window ? Does newbee are suppose to GUESS ? KSP is not an university course, it's a video game.

Transfer windows??? Hmmm... Now this I think I would support... Again, with an off/on option in the settings for those that don't need or want them. But I agree, they are a little tricky, especially for beginning players. And I won't deny I used the online calculator for the longest time before I more or less memorized them all.

As long as we stick with the off/on switch for this and the dV readout, I agree, this is something to consider adding in.

[pandaman]

Slightly off topic maybe, but I think relevant... 

My general take on this is that the stock game should have the appropriate building and planning tools to enable players to actually do what the game is capable of .  Yes I KNOW  numerous mods, charts and apps cover it all already, but that is not the point.

From my own experience, I love this game, and wanted to do more and explore more and 'trial and error' just wore very thin after a while.  I wanted to land on Duna and elsewhere, and got increasingly frustrated that i couldn't actually 'design' my ships with the tools provided in game - so, reluctantly, KER was (and still is) my friend.

I also feel the need for some kind of mission planning tools, not just an alarm clock and launch window indicator, but some kind of interactive DV map where I can select my itinerary and get an idea of the capabilities I will need to design for.

IRL (as far as I know) 'flight plans' are worked out and ships are designed or configured for the tasks and specifics of the mission.  They calculate what the missions requirements will be (Dv and all sorts of other stuff) from the data they have and design the hardware accordingly, working out what and how to build before they get anywhere near a welder or assembly building.  To me that is something that should really be reflected in the stock game.  Tools to help you plan and decide WHAT you need to build depending on what you want to do, and tools that help you to build it to those requirements.

All of that could potentially be structured into the career mode with more data, and therefore more accurate estimates, becoming available as you explore and 'do science'.

And, as with all of these things, provide an option to not show them for those that don't want it.

[Dark Lion]

Stock Game not very fun without Delta-V & TWR readout
I didn't realize we had to keep playing when we stopped having fun-- but why don't you just mod the game already, if that's all it'll take for you to have more fun with it? Why does this thread even exist?

I know this is probably a moot point, but everyone is different in some kinda way. Never, ever, will everyone, together. I want dV in-flight, too, but they don't. So what? After years of these "conversations" there's still no stock dV or TWR info. Take a hint. Something else is of far greater importance or priority. I'd guess it's money, because I'm usually right. Please don't misunderstand... I don't mean "shut up," I mean "what's the point? They aren't listening."

Maybe there's another big picture problem we're, as yet, unaware of as well... Recent events lead me to an unsteady assumption as to the definition of a "finished game." It could be a means to drag on the "developmental" phases and just keep adding excrementse you can buy in the meantime. I gotta tell ya, the same as everyone else is different and I can't hope to understand every perspective, I know exactly how much I would pay Squad to put dV and TWR readouts in KSP: NOTHING. I paid for KSP and Making History. So far I've made all kinds of awesome empty beer cans, wasted precious time and sweat not one drop.

Seriously @Kobymaru? You still don't think you'll really get it, do ya?