Jump to content

Auto Pilot/Auto Maneuver would be nice


Dientus

Recommended Posts

Well this thread sure kept a high pace, nearly all that I'd like to interject on all sides of all arguments has been covered already. Anyway @Brikoleur I still take issue with your assertion that it's a waste of development resources to have more advanced autopilots as a stock feature, all development of all features are (assuming devs have even the slightest bit of competence) weighted measures of three primary factors, 1: how essential is it to the vision of the game, 2: how much does it cost to develop, 3: how much does it improve sales of the game. I'd like to just quickly comment on these three factors.

1: The vision of KSP 2 is actually the less "knowable" factor to us at this point, given that the devs need to avoid spoilers and making promises that possibly don't pan out I think we'll have to largely set this aside for now.

2: The development cost is hard to estimate but you seem to assume that they work on a system where they have absolutely no room for anything that isn't critical to just getting the core running, I don't think this is the case since they were able to extend the deadline by a massive leap and seem to have enough personnel to get a lot of less critical features implemented. This is just my impression though.

3: The community reception is what really has the power to largely override both of the two factors if it's substantial enough. These days a game isn't something that sells 90% of its total in a single week and then gets played for a month and forgotten, we mostly live in a connected world where a platform like Steam manages to keep games selling for ages and the opinions of existing players greatly influence the long term sales through reviews and other feedback. If we step away from the automation for a moment and just take a general feature that would cost time and money to develop, the question is just how much of an impact it has on the long term sales and the happiness of players. If it costs 50k currency to implement and makes up for it with 100k currency in additional sales then it's likely a good idea to make the investment. Going back to the case at hand, KSP2 isn't KSP 2.0, it's an entirely different beast and your argument that convenience for casual/lazy/incompetent players is too expensive to add would result in the effect that they just aren't going to play the game rather than suddenly stop wanting to be casual, or somehow develop skills they literally can't. You're cutting out a section of the potential audience. Even worse you're not factoring in that long term a game keeps selling more the more its players enjoy messing around in it, because if your Steam friend Bob is popping up a notification that he keeps playing the same game 5 days every week then of course you'll wonder what's so good about it, this is how an important number of sales are made after the initial rush. An important aspect to this is to keep players from getting tired of the game because it's the same old thing, now in KSP we've seen that a select portion keeps doing Apollo reimaginations to death but for most players the game is more engaging the more they can do with it and the less it gets in the way of any one thing they enjoy about it, I have a very hard time imagining that anyone would complain if KSP2 makes sure players experience and understand flight before letting them automate flight but it would go a tremendously long way when it comes to ensuring that players don't get sick of having to manually fly things when they just want a craft to go to some specific location.

 

@mcwaffles2003 already mentioned this, KSP2 will be far more drawn out across very big stages and I think it's very foolish to cut the game off from those who mostly just want to enjoy the last stage of large scale management. Not sure how well known the X series of games is here, the overlap with KSP is very slight and mostly just that both are space games, but I'd like to just mention that in the latest one (X4 Foundations) there is a huge array of play styles being enabled without compromising one another. Want to get in the pilot seat and go blast some pirates? Sure, knock yourself out endlessly! Want to be a peaceful trader? No problem, buy low and sell high on the ever fluctuating markets! Want to build factories? Go right ahead, set up a giant complex that takes raw resources and churns out expensive high tech goods and watch your bank account... recover the initial 600 million credit investment over a couple of real life weeks! This is starting to sound like a shabby advertisement but the point is; provide a wide array of possible ways to play a game and as much as possible don't force any of it on the player, this IS a good approach to making games that have more to them than just "run & gun".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rejected Spawn said:

KSP2 will be far more drawn out across very big stages and I think it's very foolish to cut the game off from those who mostly just want to enjoy the last stage of large scale management

I think that those players are likely to be disappointed. It's not realistic to expect an infrastructure and large-scale management game that's complex enough to be engaging without the bits about building rockets, flying them, and exploring new planets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Perhaps then we should discuss what features would be reasonable to take from mechjeb as stock? 

That would clear all the possible misinterpretations.

From my perspective is all about preserving gameplay when it emerges naturally, I want my resource haulers to precisely and routinely land on landing pads at my colonies without too much hassle, but the highlight in my first Eve return mission was planning around the pinpoint landing problem, with a 3 surface crafts mission turning into a 5 one plus a backup ready in orbit.

Anything that can keep that side on the exploration phase while automating away the tedium when you're trying to set up resource transfers and crew rotations between colonies it's ok for me.

And, since those two often overlap (colonization of Mun while you explore Jool) , it would be even better if much of that automation is linked to the fixed infrastructure, as an example the pinpoint landing automation should be enabled by the landing pads own systems and equipment. 

Edited by Master39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in full agreement with @Master39 here. I wish I could have expressed these goals as succinctly and eloquently. Preserving gameplay as it emerges naturally is key, and from where I'm standing there is a real risk of endangering that if the automation gets too good and too comprehensive; certain features in MJ in particular take it well past that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

I am in full agreement with @Master39 here. I wish I could have expressed these goals as succinctly and eloquently. Preserving gameplay as it emerges naturally is key, and from where I'm standing there is a real risk of endangering that if the automation gets too good and too comprehensive; certain features in MJ in particular take it well past that point.

I absolutely agree with both of you. The automation proposed would make the game play itself. It would also take away from development of other features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some features of autopilot are used specifically because of a lack of proper planning/execution tools in KSP. If those are improved, there is less need to rely on autopilots.

For example, a maneuver node that takes into account your ships TWR (across stages too), and doesn't expect a ship to expel 100% of its dV instantaneously at T=0 would make interplanetary burns much more accurate, even with manual driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

For example, a maneuver node that takes into account your ships TWR (across stages too), and doesn't expect a ship to expel 100% of its dV instantaneously at T=0 would make interplanetary burns much more accurate, even with manual driving.

I'm kind of assuming that'll be in, because it's the same problem as a brachistochrone trajectory, it's just that the time under thrust is much shorter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

I think that those players are likely to be disappointed. It's not realistic to expect an infrastructure and large-scale management game that's complex enough to be engaging without the bits about building rockets, flying them, and exploring new planets.

How is it unrealistic to expect that when that is one of the things we know concretely? Not only will the game feature colonies but those colonies develop in stages to the point where they will turn into cities effectively. We will need to find locations near those colonies to harvest materials that will enter a ship/colony building logistical network and develop the infrastructure to see it through. Also, getting away from manual flying and establishing infrastructure will help in the exploring new planets... How else am I going to know where I'm going to want to build my next colony? I will have to explore planets to find sites with resources or logistical opportunities that I desire. 

I'm not here to say that this game isn't about flying rockets, far from it, but I doubt that is all it will be. I'm very much expecting to see the first 3 X's of the 4x genre (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) in KSP 2. KSP 1 got us into space and I believe KSP 2 will illustrate the consequences of doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In real life, no space craft is flown by the seat of your pants only. Many situations are such that humans simply cannot be expected to pilot a space craft e.g. due to high g-loading, for instance during ascent.  Also the calculations for manoeuvres are almost always calculated by (super-) computers in advance. It is IMHO not something you can do in your head, especially if you haven't a two-body gravity system only. So, now we have a simplified simulation, where you finagle with manoeuvre nodes until you get the desired results. That may be to your liking. Or not. 

It is my understanding, that KSP2 will be on a much larger scale - game play and planetary system wise. With near and far future technologies, some of which are low thrust / high ISP drive systems. Others are of the torch drive variety. In any case, having an "auto pilot" or "manoeuvre node calculator" or whatever navigational aid at your disposal would be great, because believe it or not, not every KSP(2) player is a rocket scientist, who is able to conjure up trajectories right off his head. So yeah, while I appreciate the mental excercise of figuring out a trajectory that takes me from Kerbin to Duna and back, there are days where I just wanna cruise about the Kerbin system without spending much thought about it. Or for automating the umpteenth launch  from Kerbin. Or to get a base part to the Mun for the twentieth time. Or just because I am lazy.

To make a long story short, I think an autopilot and a potent (and extendable) trajectory calculation tool should be in KSP2. Of course, nobody has to use it, but if you want to...

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

It is my understanding, that KSP2 will be on a much larger scale - game play and planetary system wise. With near and far future technologies, some of which are low thrust / high ISP drive systems. Others are of the torch drive variety. In any case, having an "auto pilot" or "manoeuvre node calculator" or whatever navigational aid at your disposal would be great, because believe it or not, not every KSP(2) player is a rocket scientist, who is able to conjure up trajectories right off his head. So yeah, while I appreciate the mental excercise of figuring out a trajectory that takes me from Kerbin to Duna and back, there are days where I just wanna cruise about the Kerbin system without spending much thought about it. Or for automating the umpteenth launch  from Kerbin. Or to get a base part to the Mun for the twentieth time. Or just because I am lazy.

To make a long story short, I think an autopilot and a potent (and extendable) trajectory calculation tool should be in KSP2. Of course, nobody has to use it, but if you want to...

Most of what you're asking here is confirmed and even for what isn't basically everybody here agrees that that kind of automation should be in the game, maybe not when you're planning your first Mun mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

How is it unrealistic to expect that when that is one of the things we know concretely?

I'm basing this expectation on what they stated in Developer Insights #3 (boldface mine) :

Quote

Even with infinite time and money, KSP2 would not make a colony system as complex as a game that is dedicated to them. Why? KSP2 is a game about building and flying cool rockets, so our colonies serve rocket gameplay. We’ve minimized colony micromanagement to make sure that our players are free to build their next great idea and are not babysitting an interstellar empire’s worth of needy Kerbal colonists. We all know that Kerbals just need cool suits, snacks, and something fun to crash.

When we talk about colonies, we frame the experience in terms of rocketry. The player builds a rocket with inflatable colony modules and flies it to a location to establish a colony. The colony synthesizes fuel to refuel rockets. Players fly missions to provide colonies the resources they need to become self-sufficient. The colony grows to allow players to build and fly rockets from these new locations, opening a host of new possibilities for missions.

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/200604-developer-insights-3-–-ksp2-design-pillars/

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

I'm basing this expectation on what they stated in Developer Insights #3 --

Clarification; you selected a part that taken out of context sounds like it validates your standpoint. The text goes on to say the following:

While colonies are subservient to rockets, that does not mean that colonies are a dry, minimal experience. We’re researching the mechanics of space colonization with the same attention to detail that we apply to vehicle parts and planets. We want players to build crazy orbital drydocks and mining colonies on stalactites. Colonies need to be fun to create and build up, and they need a wealth of possibilities.

Nate describes this as a “toyetic” experience. If someone happily spends their play session rearranging the modules on their Ultimate Mun Spaceport, then we’re doing the right thing. Much like a toy, the experience is in how these modules fit together and give the player new things to do.

And the four pillars they boldly proclaim in a nice picture are still "building cool and unique rockets", "exploring new planets", "realistic space flight" and "defining and achieving unique goals" -- none of which has anything to do with being stuck in a pilot seat, we've already seen Percy safely drop down on the surface of Mars after figuring out a good spot to land and getting to it entirely automatically. They want the player to learn how to do as much as possible, they don't want to force the player to keep doing all of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rejected Spawn said:

Clarification; you selected a part that taken out of context sounds like it validates your standpoint. The text goes on to say the following:

Those two paragraphs are the clearest statement of their design intent specifically with regards to the colonies, and they make it pretty clear that this isn't going to be a "3X-like" experience -- the colony mechanics are a supporting system, not a central gameplay plank. The paragraphs you're quoting don't contradict that at all. They just say that they want to make it as much fun to build bases as it is to build rockets – the "toyetic" experience they're talking about. That's awesome, but it has nothing much to do with "3X-like" mechanics, the infrastructure and logistics game @mcwaffles2003 has in mind for example.

So no, unless and until they state otherwise, I'm not expecting a particularly deep or rich resource-and-logistics-management endgame. It'll still be about playing with space Legos, except that you'll also be playing with stationary ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to misunderstand my point. My point is that there is still plenty of gameplay around the colonies, KSP2 will not be exclusively about piloting a bunch of stuff, it will be about so much more that appeals to so many more players in so many more ways and your strange aversion to letting these other types of players have fun with the game is completely irrational in my eyes. I can't see at all why you obsessively object to expanding the target audience and providing a much appreciated convenience for a lot of experienced players, forcing the player to pilot ships endlessly is like adding Preston Garvey to KSP, "Another ship needs your guidance!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rejected Spawn said:

forcing the player to pilot ships endlessly

Nobody is saying that, if that's what you're reading then you're misunderstanding someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... automation of flights and autopilots are different things. The concept of automating the flight happens in the background. The only real interaction for the flight is setting a few options. An autopilot is something that helps the pilot. It's in your face and you can choose to use it or not.

The autopilot argument

Here's a few points of contention I keep seeing with the argument for an autopilot. I will never use it, so don't add it to the game; the player won't learn anything; it's a waste of development resources; and it should added for convenience and to aid the player. I'll focus on the arguments for against adding an autopilot.

The argument of I never use it, so don't add it to the game. Awesome, good for you. Adding it will not affect what you are doing, so why worry about it.

Adding an autopilot is a waste of resources. It's the devs who will decide whether or not they have the resources to develop it or not. It's not a waste of resources if the majority of players find it useful in some way.

The argument about learning a skill before you're allowed to use an autopilot for it. That thought process is total BS. It's a game, not real life. If the player doesn't want to learn how to land a plane, they don't have to. If the player can't master landing a plane, that shouldn't stop the player from enjoying the game and forcing the player to quit playing because they can't use a tool to help them land a plane because they can't do it themselves. That thought process is akin to not being able to use spelling and grammar checking until you write a hundred pages of documents without spelling or grammar errors. And having to start over whenever you start using a new instance of whatever word processer you're using.

The player won't learn a skill because of the autopilot. It's a game. The player doesn't need to learn a skill if they don't want to. Or imagine that the player sees what is happening and successfully learns that skill because they can see what needs to be done to complete that task. Some people need to see how a complicated task is done before they can do it themselves.

I'm all for having a full featured autopilot included in the game from the very beginning and allowing the player to choose whether or not to use it. But if it's not added by Intercept and is done with a mod, so be it.

Automation of flights

The automation of flights should be available as soon as you have a need for it. Since we don't know if crew rotations will be a necessity, I would like to see it begin as soon as you have one base that supplies resources and one base that consumes resources. So when you get your first few bases down in the early game, the automation of flights should be available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, there really are people who want to make flying optional in a game that’s about flying because MY FREEDOM TO PLAY AS I WANT. Takes all sorts I guess.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

in a game that’s about flying

See, this is the thing, that's not just what KSP is to everyone.

I personally have more fun building the craft than flying them, I enjoy designing a mission profile and seeing it complete. Flying is fun, but it isn't the only thing I like about the game. I suspect I will enjoy flying more when I can fly with other people but for now my interest in flying itself comes and goes as a novelty.

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

See, this is the thing, that's not just what KSP is to everyone.

If you flip a bucket upside down, it makes a perfectly acceptable stool, but it was still originally designed to hold water, not to be sat on.

What players end up doing with KSP2 is their business. The designers still need to have a clear vision of what they want the game to be, and it has to actualise that vision. That's the topic under discussion here, not the myriad wild and crazy and wonderful things players will come up with when they get their grubby little hands on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

What players end up doing with KSP2 is their business. The designers still need to have a clear vision of what they want the game to be, and it has to actualise that vision. That's the topic under discussion here, not the myriad wild and crazy and wonderful things players will come up with when they get their grubby little hands on it.

Ok, cool, you aren't the designer though. [snip]

Also, grubby? [snip]

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Ok, cool, you aren't the designer though.

No, but I am A designer. Designing and making software is my day job. I shipped my first piece of paid software in 1986. I know how this stuff is made, and I also know a lot of ways it can go wrong.

[snip]

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Also, grubby?

That was intended as friendly, not uncivil.  My hands as a KSP player are extremely grubby, I'm continuously doing stuff that's not about building and flying rockets. I think the crazy stuff players come up with is absolutely wonderful – and as a designer, I think it's largely because of the constraints in the game. KSP strikes a really amazing balance between frustration and reward, constraints and possibilities, and if a lot of those constraints were removed, it wouldn't be anywhere near as fun.

Put another way, consider the guy who implemented Flappy Bird with Breaking Ground parts. Amazing, huh? Now imagine that there was a system in KSP that let you slap a screen onto a surface and program what's displayed on it.* That would make implementing Flappy Bird MUCH easier and more convenient and it would be more robust too. But what would be the point?  The whole point of the mad Flappy Bird contraption is that the guy took the design materials available in stock KSP, used them within the constraints of the game, and made something absolutely bonkers and amazing. That's the entire fun of it. That's why any game, and especially a game like KSP needs constraints, otherwise it's just boring and flat and  not fun. And that's why a full MJ style autopilot that makes flying optional is a REALLY BAD IDEA. [snip]

*Which could be a pretty neat feature by the way, especially if IVA activities are properly done and there's support for instrumentation. I would like to design my own cockpit. But that's a digression. 

Edited by Guest
Redacted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of content has been removed and/or redacted, due to folks allowing themselves to descend to making personal remarks (forum rule 2.2.d) and arguing-about-arguing (off-topic, rule 2.2.o).

Folks, everyone has an opinion, and has a right to their opinion.

It's fine to express that opinion, and it's fine to express disagreement with someone else's.  It's fine to say "I like (or don't like) X, because <reasons>".  It's also fine to say "I disagree with your opinion,  because <other reasons>."  Lively debate provides the feast of reason and flow of soul that helps to keep the KSP forums an interesting place.  :)

It is not okay, however, to resort to insults or any other form of personal remark.  Address the post, not the poster, please.  Attacking the poster personally is not going to win any arguments; it simply demonstrates that you don't have enough confidence in the merits of your own argument that you feel compelled to hit below the belt.  If you think they're being a doofus, fine-- but don't call them that.  Let all the other readers form their own opinions.  Name-calling and finger-pointing never solves anything-- all it does is to hopelessly derail the thread into pointless bickering, while  making it less fun for everyone involved, including innocent bystanders.

So don't do that, please.

Another thing to avoid is "arguing about arguing".  If you want to debate a person's points, by all means do so.  If  you take issue with how they choose to argue, though-- that's getting into personal territory and generally never ends well, regardless of whether you're actually "right" or not.  It's off topic:

  • The topic of this thread is about "the advisability (or not) of having some form of autopilot in KSP2."
  • The topic is not about "how my opponent So-and-so is choosing to conduct their argument".

Look, folks, we're all friends here.  Please remember that.  C'mon, we know you can do better than this, so let's please clean it up?  There's nothing wrong with getting irritated, but it's not okay to then lash out because of that.

In short:

  • Do not make personal remarks about fellow forum members or their conduct.
  • If you see someone else making such a remark about you (or anyone else), do not respond in kind.  You have three options:
    • Just ignore them and don't respond to them at all.
    • Respond to their substantive argument, but don't react to the interpersonal jibe.
    • If you think their remark is so egregious that it "crosses the line", then by all means report the post and the moderator team will have a look at the earliest opportunity.
  • If you choose to debate someone, please address their points, and not how they make them.  "Arguing about arguing" is off topic.

And if I may offer a bit of advice-- never post mad.  If you're angry, better to either wait a while until you've cooled off enough to post sensibly, or else just don't post at all.  Posting while angry rarely goes anywhere pleasant, and ruins the ride for everyone.

Okay, re-opening the thread for business.  Play nice, okay?

Thank you for your understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snark said:

And if I may offer a bit of advice-- never post mad.  If you're angry, better to either wait a while until you've cooled off enough to post sensibly, or else just don't post at all.  Posting while angry rarely goes anywhere pleasant, and ruins the ride for everyone.

That's some good advice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I see a lot of people saying that KSP 2 should have some auto pilot feature because I enjoy building the ship, not piloting it. I NEVER want to be selfish, but I believe this feature would be a waist of development time, and would not really change much. The game is confirmed to have mission preplanning so piloting you rocket will probably be very easy (don't quote me on that :) manuever nodes are also obviously in the game. I just do not understand why a full autopilot should be in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

Wow, there really are people who want to make flying optional in a game that’s about flying because MY FREEDOM TO PLAY AS I WANT. Takes all sorts I guess.

Well, yes. I've been using MJ from .21. Without MJ I would have quit playing. I would have never gotten to find out how fun and rewarding KSP could be. Nor I would have found out how beautiful the Kerbol system could be. You see, using a keyboard and mouse to play flight and driving sims is a serious handicap for me. I need to use a joystick, hotas, or a gamepad since very fine control is needed along with very course controls. Since KSP's controller support was terrible, I had no choice. (I hope that KSP2 controller support is much better.) My problem is that I have a hard time locating the proper key to hit, at the right time nor do I have an instinctual feeling when to let go of the key. (This is something I've never have been able to overcome in my 30 years of PC gaming.) So something like a simple bank turn or keeping the maneuver marker on the pro/retrograde marker is a serious chore for me. That's no fun. With MJ and other autopilots I've found, I can still enjoy playing KSP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...