deep explanatory manuals

[zeilden]

shown in the ksp 2 technology video we can see that there will be new and different fuel types , and is reasonable to assume that some engines will take more than 1 type of fuel. so i hope that for those engines there will be explanations what changes with the different fuel types unlike ksp interstellar which basically just gives 40 different fuel types and says go. which is one of the reasons why i uninstalled that mod.

[steuben]

Define deep.

Are we talking Usborne's "Book of the future" deep or we talking Hayes manual for Star Wars/Star Trek deep.

[zeilden]

27 minutes ago, steuben said:

Define deep.

Are we talking Usborne's "Book of the future" deep or we talking Hayes manual for Star Wars/Star Trek deep.

Really I mean like instructions Or a tutorial 

[Chilkoot]

2 hours ago, steuben said:

Define deep.

Are we talking Usborne's "Book of the future" deep or we talking Hayes manual for Star Wars/Star Trek deep.

I think he's saying, "I'd like a thorough game manual explaining the game's features and mechanics".

Not for everyone, but there's an argument to be made that the lack of manuals is laziness and cost-cutting, even today.  No matter which camp you're in, a strong game manual is a hallmark of polish and attention to detail.  Just like many game features, not everyone will use it, but those who do are likely to really appreciate it.

[Guest]

I don't think a manual would work. Nobody reads manuals. I should know, I've written several.

The game does need well thought-out, intuitive, and interactive ways of teaching players how to play this. Things like the advisors from Civilization games -- Arthur C. Kerman telling you about relays and CommNet when you first experience a probe blackout, Konstantin Kerman telling you about the rocket equation and dV when you first need to make orbit, and so on. You'd also need set-piece challenges that gradually ramp up the difficulty and introduce concepts as they come up -- for example, if the challenge is "Fly by Duna" then somebody would need to explain what a transfer window is, how to set up the alarm clock for one (of course the game needs a built-in KAC), and then how to set up a Hohmann transfer for the window. And so on and so forth.

KSP is hard and KSP2 should be at least as hard; it should however communicate much better to newbie players who would otherwise simply not survive the initial difficulty curve. When I first started and got the "Exit the atmosphere" challenge, I managed that well enough -- and then proceeded to make a crater when I plummeted back down, with no idea what I did wrong. That was pretty frustrating, and a tutorial introducing the concept of a gravity turn and re-entry corridor would have been most welcome at that point. 

[The Aziz]

I mean, there are features (useful features, worth mentioning) in the first game that even veterans with hundreds or thousands of hours in game don't know about. Because their existence wasn't announced. 

Don't do this with new game, if it's gonna be much deeper, make it as transparent as possible. 

[zeilden]

2 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

I don't think a manual would work. Nobody reads manuals. I should know, I've written several.

The game does need well thought-out, intuitive, and interactive ways of teaching players how to play this. Things like the advisors from Civilization games -- Arthur C. Kerman telling you about relays and CommNet when you first experience a probe blackout, Konstantin Kerman telling you about the rocket equation and dV when you first need to make orbit, and so on. You'd also need set-piece challenges that gradually ramp up the difficulty and introduce concepts as they come up -- for example, if the challenge is "Fly by Duna" then somebody would need to explain what a transfer window is, how to set up the alarm clock for one (of course the game needs a built-in KAC), and then how to set up a Hohmann transfer for the window. And so on and so forth.

KSP is hard and KSP2 should be at least as hard; it should however communicate much better to newbie players who would otherwise simply not survive the initial difficulty curve. When I first started and got the "Exit the atmosphere" challenge, I managed that well enough -- and then proceeded to make a crater when I plummeted back down, with no idea what I did wrong. That was pretty frustrating, and a tutorial introducing the concept of a gravity turn and re-entry corridor would have been most welcome at that point. 

yes thank you this is what i meant because in complicated mods like interstellar the concepts were just thrown at you and when i went to try and figure it out my brain shutdown while they where explaining how nuclear reactors powered engines but did not produce power and something like thermal force or something.

 

and @Brikoleur thank you for putting my jangled mess into coherent words.

[XLjedi]

The track record for how Squad managed updates over time was not very conducive to detailed manuals.  For instance, many would've liked a detailed manual for how rotors and propellers were supposed to work.  But given the fact that Squad changed the mechanics of the things 3 different times in 1.7, 1.8, and most recently once again in 1.9...  There's not a lot of incentive for anyone to write down how something is going to work when it's constantly evolving.  Perhaps things will be a bit different under new management in KSP2?

Edited February 25, 2020 by XLjedi

[steuben]

Little that can be done for those that don't RTFM and don't TTFT.

The little "you failed, here's an idea prompts" will get very old, very quick, See TVTropes's Annoying Video-Game Helper. And can point in you in the wrong direction if not _very_ intelligent. Was that crater you made because you came in too fast, at the wrong angle,  didn't pack chutes, didn't pack enough chutes, packed the wrong chutes, forgot to open your chutes, opened the chutes too soon, opened the chutes too late, or your probe core ran out of juice 10 seconds too soon?

For the fuel-tank-engine triangle just need a page Civilopedia style (or as best can be done to maintain multi-platform usability) that says this fuel is stored in these tanks, and used by these engines... having just said that. I'm going to have to sit down with KSPedia. It may actually cover everything.

[James M]

I would've really appreciated a manual for the KAL1000 part. I kind of understand it now, but even after having had it for like a year, it still feels complicated. The only thing I can compare it to is trying to learn and use a new music producing program. There's just so much stuff to learn and do that unless you sit there for a week trying to figure it out, you probably wont. 

[SpaceFace545]

On 2/24/2020 at 9:10 PM, steuben said:

Define deep.

Are we talking Usborne's "Book of the future" deep or we talking Hayes manual for Star Wars/Star Trek deep.

I think he meant LEGO instruction manual

 

[mcwaffles2003]

On 2/24/2020 at 9:41 PM, zeilden said:

Really I mean like instructions Or a tutorial 

like this?

Spoiler

 

I think something like this would be nice, but with literature and maybe a compatibility chart. Overall I would hope there would be a large in-game reference source, kind of like a wiki that filled out more as bodies/techs are discovered

For instance,at the start of the game there would be some literature/stats on the simple SRB we start with, the command pod, experiments, etc.. This would also include the planetary bodies but not have anything but rudimentary info on them like distance/color (at the start).

Then as new parts are brought fourth each gets an entry, like a fleshed out tool tip. Also, as new biomes are explored info about them is recorded as well (like the reports we see when doing science). Maybe when you reach space for the first time (with a pressmat barometer and thermometer) you can look up kerbin in the reference and see a chart like so:

Spoiler

 

In the case of engines a table of ISPs and thrusts for each acceptable fuel type or a list of compatible nozzles (if KSP 2 goes full KSPIE)

Finally when other planets are researched their wikis fill out then you find a new solar system and you need to work to fill out the wikis on those too. This kind of dynamic info source, I feel, could bring a new type of life to the game. A more earnest adventure of discovery. And maybe when every entry is filled out we can say that's when the game is finally "beaten" and all the accomplishments have been fulfilled.

I'm not a programmer, but personally this doesn't seem like it would be THAT hard of a task to create and would bring a lot to the game. It would give players a "direction" without being a guiding hand, it would give us reference to know whats going on without giving spoilers to things we haven't attempted yet, and it would make science finally feel like we're doing something more than just filling out a dumb tech tree that when it is completed then science loses its entire appeal and becomes unnecessary weight...

We could finally have a tangible and useful interaction with the science we obtain. That to me sounds like a far more fulfilling structure.

 

Maybe add in a scrap book feature too so when its all complete you can see all the moments you planted flags, see an obituary of all the lost kerbals, have pictures of a few breakthrough rockets (first rocket that got to the moon, another planet, another solar system, on n on... you know)

Edited March 14, 2020 by mcwaffles2003