Why more experienced KSP players may be handicapped in KSP 2

[Guest]

Thoughts and opinions are welcomed:

I think the more experienced KSP players are going to struggle more in  KSP 2 than newer KSP players. And I think that's because we have learned how to fly a rocket and now that's in our gut reactions in KSP. But now in KSP 2, how you fly a rocket is going to be different, going interstellar or even using other tech will make us have to relearn all over again how to fly a rocket. But that's my theory, what do you guys think?

[Dr. Kerbal]

30 minutes ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Thoughts and opinions are welcomed:

I think the more experienced KSP players are going to struggle more in  KSP 2 than newer KSP players. And I think that's because we have learned how to fly a rocket and now that's in our gut reactions in KSP. But now in KSP 2, how you fly a rocket is going to be different, going interstellar or even using other tech will make us have to relearn all over again how to fly a rocket. But that's my theory, what do you guys think?

I think for traditional rocket like going to the Mun or Duna will almost be the same. But interstellar travel will be different. 

[MKI]

Experience is experience.

If you learned it once, you can learn it again. 

My understanding is the on-boarding process will be much better from day one, so I'm sure they take all the "veterans" into account. I think something like the camera controls will take the most getting used to, but directly playing the game to the same capacity as before shouldn't be that big of a learning curve. I'm sure it will be similar up until you hit the new features, where learning how to take advantage of it will take some time. Which I see as a time to enjoy

 

 

 

[pandaman]

Well, the 'rocket science / orbital mechanics' still follows the same laws of physics.  So the only big difference  will be learning our way around  a new UI.  Sure, there will be unfamiliar parts etc, but even then we have a frame of reference and basic understanding that will help with a lot of it.

When a new CoD release happens it doesn't hamper 'old' players much, as the game still works in pretty much the same way. 

[Clamp-o-Tron]

I disagree. The game isn't just going to be interstellar tech, it will also be a remastered version of KSP1. Orbital mechanics and knowing how to build a rocket don't change. Of course, orbital mechanics also apply to torchships, although maybe it won't be as "intuitive" as Hohmann transfers for returning players. (In actuality, torchship trajectories are probably easier for new players to grasp- it's just point-and-burn, then turn around and turn around, all with automated assistance on those trajectories. No need to worry about slowing down to move closer to a target, or speeding up to move away.)

In addition, it seems like a lot of the current game is going to be revamped and improved, so we'll be going through that before the interstellar parts. The interstellar mechanics were probably showcased in the trailer because they're also probably the biggest draw to people who would see the trailer on Steam and decide to wishlist it.

I actually have a lot of thoughts on what the early game should be like, I might distill those into a thread later, as I don't think there is a good discussion of the early game anywhere.

42 minutes ago, MKI said:

I'm sure it will be similar up until you hit the new features, where learning how to take advantage of it will take some time. Which I see as a time to enjoy

I really, really, really agree. The most fun I have with a game is the week after I pick it up, constantly going "whoa! That's cool/hard! I'll play more to find more stuff like that/beat it!". It's also probably the reason I have picked up so many KSP mods and have 40 games in my Steam.

[Sesshaku]

I think it will be harder. But mostly because we're not gonna have all the amazing mods that we use for better more precise maneuvers.

 

I know Kerbal should be accessible for all. But I hope they make the game with more complex simulations in mind too. I'd like a game in which is both possible to have really easy gameplay for rookies, and complete recreations of the Lunar Module programming for more intense player. And of course, something along the middle for the rest.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Sesshaku

[SpaceFace545]

I agree but not for the same reasons. I feel that even though the devs are adding more complex features they are trying to dumb the game down for a younger audience.

[pandaman]

13 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I agree but not for the same reasons. I feel that even though the devs are adding more complex features they are trying to dumb the game down for a younger audience.

My understanding, based on what @Nate Simpson has said elswhere, is that the game is not being 'dumbed down' or made 'easier' at all.  But they are  making it more accessible, and easier to understand, by having better tutorials and explantions etc.

[Nate Simpson]

1 minute ago, pandaman said:

My understanding, based on what @Nate Simpson has said elswhere, is that the game is not being 'dumbed down' or made 'easier' at all.  But they are  making it more accessible, and easier to understand, by having better tutorials and explantions etc.

This is correct.  Of course we would love audiences of all ages to be able to get more out of the game, and we're putting a lot of additional effort into teaching core concepts more effectively, but the physics and core gameplay are immutable. And quite a few areas of the game, particularly as you move deeper into the tech progression, offer new levels of interesting complexity. 

[Dr. Kerbal]

48 minutes ago, Nate Simpson said:

This is correct.  Of course we would love audiences of all ages to be able to get more out of the game, and we're putting a lot of additional effort into teaching core concepts more effectively, but the physics and core gameplay are immutable. And quite a few areas of the game, particularly as you move deeper into the tech progression, offer new levels of interesting complexity. 

Can we have a little less glitched encounters?

And yes. I think KSP2 will be playable for players form KSP1 just new features will have to be discovered and both games may have to be played differently.

[Wubslin]

ITT: People scared of learning new skills

[MKI]

The idea you can't teach advance concepts to "younger audiences" is a misconception. It just requires a specific approach for a given target audience to keep their attention so they keep learning. Having those approaches available, and making them effective doesn't mean the core  game "has to be dumbed down". Nor does it mean there is only 1 target audience, or that the game has to focus on only on 1 type of player.

Something as simple as a solid tutorial and a "skip tutorial I'm badS = true" button can make all the difference between those that want to be thrown into the fire, and those that want some help being thrown into the fire.

Obviously it takes more time to build and support these different approaches, but lets be serious this is a game that needs to make money, and the more people buy it means more content for everyone. 

Kerbal has it "easy" in that one of its core "fun factors" is that its hard, but that is also what makes it rewarding. That's also true regardless of the audience. The same way RUD and explosions are always fun, who doesn't like explosions?

Edited January 28, 2021 by MKI
typos

[The Aziz]

That's why I'm not going straight into sandbox mode (if there is any), I'd be simply overwhelmed. Start from zero and learn everything as it goes. Some you already know, some you'll learn.

[Kernel Kraken]

20 hours ago, pandaman said:

Well, the 'rocket science / orbital mechanics' still follows the same laws of physics.  So the only big difference  will be learning our way around  a new UI.  Sure, there will be unfamiliar parts etc, but even then we have a frame of reference and basic understanding that will help with a lot of it.

When a new CoD release happens it doesn't hamper 'old' players much, as the game still works in pretty much the same way. 

I sure hope the UI isn't too screwed. I don't see a point in just completely re-arranging it. The current one is a bit outdated, but it just needs some nicer lines or less clutter. I guess we'll just have to wait for some real gameplay footage 

[shdwlrd]

I would have to say yes and no. The hard parts (orbital mechanics, rendezvous, docking) should stay the same. The rest is learning what the new parts are and how to use the new systems that will be introduced. Not overly difficult, just can be time consuming and frustrating.

[dave1904]

I doubt it. Its the basics in orbital mechanics that are the most difficult to learn. Once you get it its actually very simple. Fundamentally nothing will change. Physics are still physics. 

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Kernel Kraken said:

21 hours ago, pandaman said:

Well, the 'rocket science / orbital mechanics' still follows the same laws of physics.  So the only big difference  will be learning our way around  a new UI.  Sure, there will be unfamiliar parts etc, but even then we have a frame of reference and basic understanding that will help with a lot of it.

When a new CoD release happens it doesn't hamper 'old' players much, as the game still works in pretty much the same way. 

I sure hope the UI isn't too screwed. I don't see a point in just completely re-arranging it. The current one is a bit outdated, but it just needs some nicer lines or less clutter. I guess we'll just have to wait for some real gameplay footage 

There's images of the UI you can find on the internet, and on this forum. The UI is much less cluttered and makes a lot more sense than KSP 1's jumbled-up mess that grew slowly with time. The devs couldn't see that KSP 1 would be as advanced as it is today, and couldn't take that into account when designing the UI. Of course, Intercept is developing the game in a much more organised fashion and has developed a proper UI. The navball, altimeter. speed, throttle, etc. are all in one corner so as to reduce the amount of darting around your eyes will do, the SAS autopilot buttons will be on a compass with your ship orientation in the middle so newbies will have an easier time visualising what will happen, timewarp and portraits are on the top and bottom of the screen respectively away from the more important UI elements, and the staging is on the right hand side in flight rather than jumping around like in KSP.

Of course, the UI will change as it did between the dev story and the PC magazine.

[Dr. Kerbal]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

I sure hope the UI isn't too screwed. I don't see a point in just completely re-arranging it. The current one is a bit outdated, but it just needs some nicer lines or less clutter. I guess we'll just have to wait for some real gameplay footage 

Nate Simpson told me that the UI cane be changed and place wherever you want. You could even arrange it to the original KSP.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

On 1/28/2021 at 11:04 AM, Dr. Kerbal said:

Nate Simpson told me that the UI cane be changed and place wherever you want. You could even arrange it to the original KSP.

Wait was this actually confirmed? UI isn't going to be Static Sprites?

Well my 21:9 Monitor might actually get some use then if that's the case.

Back to the topic at hand....

I'd put this in a "Maybe, but no" category, because what are we defining "Experienced" as? There's plenty of people in KSP who've played for 1000's of hours who haven't gone interplanetary, but I'd still consider them far more experienced than me. Why? Because i basically bludgeon my way across the Kerbol System with huge DV budgets, mining "Landers" (These are often in the 150t range....) toted around by massive Nuclear-Powered Motherships (Thanks Nertea) without a care in the galaxy towards efficiency or duration.

Does that make me more "Experienced"? Perhaps, but i haven't developed even close to the maximum potential skill that i could approach. Meanwhile there's others who can get to Duna and Back in what amounts to a lawn chair, using carefully planned assists to maximize the DV savings. 

Basically my overall point is that Experience is not always Equal to Skill, and almost never translates into all areas equally. My ability to plot transfers, manage multiple vessels and perform large constructions in orbit using docking and rendezvous isn't something to scoff at. But it's fundamentally a skill set i developed to use as a gigantic crutch once i realized these razor-thin DV margins for transfer just weren't working for me. And that i was unwilling to learn how to utilize multiple gravity assists or spend the time performing the maneuvers.

Those never developed as a result, and thus in those areas i posses neither Skill or Experience despite my long playtime in KSP. 

So if KSP2 involves having to use multiple gravity assists to ping-pong my way around interplanetary space, then you could argue my KSP1 "Experience" would be a handicap.

But just like KSP1, KSP2 seems to offer a solution.  There's no less than 3 "Torch Drives" that would allow me to continue bludgeoning my away across the stars, but would likely be deep in whatever tech tree they had. So either i can adapt to that new style of play, or just trade time in the mid-game for late-game. Also off-world construction, colonies would even make chemical propulsion potentially viable (Albeit at ludicrously large scales).

I don't think that's a bad thing though, a game should make me think about the options on the table. It SHOULD make me ask myself at a given moment if the option to press ahead with what i have is better in the long-run, or if changing things up will yield benefits. That's what keeps things interesting!

[Wubslin]

Oh and hey, speaking of constant acceleration flight profiles (the kind where you accelerate the whole trip) - As much as current science fiction would have you believe it, I'd say the classic "flip and burn" is kind of a thing that wouldn't actually happen. 

You're going to have your engine suffer the shock of an entire stop and start cycle, thermally stress out all of its components, and even threaten the chance of a failed startup, and for what? To save on  the 0.00000001% delta-V lost through steering losses in that brief time? Nah, when I get to playing with the big boy rockets I'm not shutting off that engine till I get to my destination, if only to play pretend simulationist.

It's gonna be full gas, do a yellow brick road constant thrust prograde spiral out of Kerbin SOI, flip eight years later, and then eight years after that I'll retrograde spiral down into the SOI of the target planet. Only then will I cut the engine. Why bother turning the thing off for two minutes?

[Jack Mcslay]

1 hour ago, Wubslin said:

Oh and hey, speaking of constant acceleration flight profiles (the kind where you accelerate the whole trip) - As much as current science fiction would have you believe it, I'd say the classic "flip and burn" is kind of a thing that wouldn't actually happen. 

You're going to have your engine suffer the shock of an entire stop and start cycle, thermally stress out all of its components, and even threaten the chance of a failed startup, and for what? To save on  the 0.00000001% delta-V lost through steering losses in that brief time? Nah, when I get to playing with the big boy rockets I'm not shutting off that engine till I get to my destination, if only to play pretend simulationist.

It's gonna be full gas, do a yellow brick road constant thrust prograde spiral out of Kerbin SOI, flip eight years later, and then eight years after that I'll retrograde spiral down into the SOI of the target planet. Only then will I cut the engine. Why bother turning the thing off for two minutes?

Considering how slow ISS maneuvers it would be fair to expect  a turnaround maneuver to last way more than two minutes

[Superfluous J]

23 minutes ago, Jack Mcslay said:

Considering how slow ISS maneuvers it would be fair to expect  a turnaround maneuver to last way more than two minutes

Conisdering how much quicker "KSS" maneuvers are I would expect KSP torch ships to turn around in about 2 seconds