Jump to content

What sort of KSP player are you?


Ho Lam Kerman
 Share

Recommended Posts

How do you play KSP?

Are you a Danny-type guy, always trying to find new ways to break the game?

Or are you a Scott Manley type of guy, trying to find extreme ways of doing the craziest things?

Or are you a rational guy, always testing stuff first, and building rockets that look like they'll fly in real life?

Or are you a military guy, re-enacting wars and making bombers and missiles?

-----------------------------------------------

I'll start first. I'm a rational guy. I like to build and test and test again. I'm not a guy who strands kerbals in space. I'm a guy who plans out my missions well. My rockets look like they could fly in real life. I'm also a responsible pilot, and I don't like killing kerbals for fun. I send probes before I send kerbals.

I'm also slightly a military guy. I sometimes like building and testing missiles, though I don't put any kerbals in them, or try to actually bomb a structure. (Though I sometimes try bombing flags. To no success.)

----------------------------------------------

What type of KSP player are you?

Edited by Ho Lam Kerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a rational player myself. My spacecraft are generally quite realistic and in my main sandbox save I’ve been playing somewhat NASA-style, building up from Mercury, Gemini and Apollo to a Shuttle and space station.

However, when I get bored I go a bit crazy..... :sticktongue:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I'm not sure if I'm any of them.

May I suggest one more category:

Campy, Sci-Fi kind of player??? Often trying to build stuff based on my favorite old sci-fi shows and movies. That would be me... lol.

Edited by Just Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just kind of wing it.  I have no idea who this "Danny" is, and I have never seen a Scott Manley video.

 

The only things I really test extensively are shuttles and Eve landers.

Edited by Geonovast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to test various components of a craft before putting it all together.  I also tend to build things that look as if they should fly or may actually exist in real life, apart from a couple of complete experimentals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm mostly rational but, some of my rockets are bizarre contraptions that no one would ever ok to fly in real life. They do fly in KSP but mostly because they are overpowered brute force method things. I do this when I want a station in orbit and I don't feel like making 10 launches to build it in orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a rational player, but I'm hardly ever satisfied by the looks of functional crafts. My vessels tend to weight 30-50% more due to all the eye candy stuff I slap on them.

I've been a functional builder for quite a while, then it got boring. Flying to planets to land a flag was my priority only during early days of playing KSP. Now I find enjoyment in building large stations, bases and interplanetary colonization motherships.

I tend to overcomplicate my game with life support mods, 120% heating, remote tech and MKS industry, but that brings real flavor, purpose and functionality to all my creations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rational- progression from unmanned solid boosters to a probe in space, orbit then back to crewed with a solid, crewed suborbital booster then primitive orbital capsules, then Mün and Minumus probes, Mün flyby and orbit in crewed vehicles, then bigger rockets for landings. Stations, Eve flyby, Duna... On and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do I play KSP? With wreckless abandon. What kind of approach? Well, that's as complicated as the flight plan is.

I understand there are missions. At L.I.O.N. (yep, I roleplay as engineer, scientist, pilot and mission control) we set our own goals. We often go Danny in trying to accomplish them... but unintentionally.
Due to the teachings of military strategy, the missions are often quite straight-forward. Sometimes into obstacles... sometimes unintentionally.
To do it like Scott Manley is to "Fly Safe..." PFFFFT! Yeah, right, okay lol! FUN > SAFE See how rational my mathematics are!

If that's not clear enough: I'm the guy who chooses parts with closed eyes or throws fragile-looking things down cliffsides just to "see what happens." I like to say I didn't actually mean to break the game... it just wasn't ready yet. I didn't say "go" you see. 
Sometimes I set out with a goal in mind... but it's usually just to finish the craft I started before I start a new one! :confused:

The game is only really boring when everything goes according to plan, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Elon Musk kind of guy always trying to recycle everything to lower costs , then I use my contract cash to try to build bases on every celestial body. It's extremely hard not to use throw away vessels as it limits your dV and it makes it much more of a challenge to move that 300 ton station into the orbit of Eeloo.

Edited by General Apocalypse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mission planner / oddball designer / roleplayer / story teller.

I send up nothing that won't on paper make the trip, I commit to nothing without testing. And I intentionally try to do odd things like launching stations that have no stack nodes at either end. Then I turn them into visual logs :)

Spoiler

eqUKxZe.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a colony manager.

The goal is not just to get there, plant a flag and to come home, but instead to build a self-sustaining base and fill it with Kolonists.(Generally using RoverDude's USI-LS and MKS)

My last game had self-sufficient colonies on the Mun, Minmus, Duna, and Moho.  This game has an objective of a self-sustaining base on Lathe with at least 20 inhabitants and indefinite life-support/habitation.

(probably with a test-base on the Mun)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a tinkerer.  I try to make things look like rockets, but if the mission calls for something odd, then something odd it will be. I use KER to make sure I have the numbers I think I need, but it’s seat-of-the-pants after that. 

Testing? That’s what Jeb is for! If I don’t have a probe core, Jeb has a mile of guts and will fly it as far as it goes!  The real space programs used probes because they knew how to make a guidance system, but the Japanese used kamikaze pilots because they couldn’t. I think Jeb would have been at home in the land of the rising sun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pretty rational, i mostly play Realism Overhaul so most of my things can without a doubt work they way they should in Real Life.

I use KSP more like a simulator and less like a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rational, but next to no testing is done generally. I end up making strategies on the fly, solving problems again and again until I get it done.

This can result in a lot of head banging and sometimes impracticalities. But I do get some pretty neat solutions.

*7 year old Grand Tour crew complaining from Moho*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...