Does more accessibility mean less challenge?

[Pthigrivi]

General question for everyone: how many people can manually land a Spacex-style first stage on a dime? I find after a LOT of practice I can land planes on runways though it still often takes a couple of quicksaves and I can pretty reliably land within 10m of my target on planets with no atmosphere, but the best I can reliably do is land within a kilometer of KSC with a tailsitter from orbit. Same with Eve and Duna. When Im building a base on planets with atmospheres I usually drop most of it at once, and everything after that I drop with wheels so I can drive the km or two that I missed by back to base. 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[Bej Kerman]

On 5/15/2021 at 10:22 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

I too get worried when I hear developers talk about "appealing to a broader audience" or "simplifying game mechanics to make them more approachable".

Telling from the addition of procedural wings to remove the tedium of joining wing segments and the approachability of the new tutorials, this won't mean "we're removing the effects of the atmosphere on thrusters" or anything along those lines. They're simply streamlining what KSP 1 horribly failed at.

(In regards to the title, more accessibility does not mean less challenge  - the two are completely disconnected)

Edited May 31, 2021 by Bej Kerman

[Guest]

<snip>

Edited June 20, 2021 by Guest

[The Aziz]

SpaceX first stage return? Given limited fuel and not exactly accurate boostback burn, I manage to land somewhere in ksc area. Once almost on sph lol. That is, if I have some sort of predicted impact marker on screen.

But returns from space? I can cut it down to few kilometers (either somewhere in the mountains or in the sea).

[Guest]

On 5/14/2021 at 3:51 PM, wpetula said:

KSP 1 is an extremely difficult game, especially for people who aren't familiar with orbits and space travel. The developers stated that they are making KSP 2 more accessible by adding tutorials, better interfaces, and other quality of life improvements.  Reaching a broader audience and improving the feel of the game for everyone is great, but I am worried that it's going to ruin the best part about KSP. KSP 1 is immensely satisfying when you finally understand how a concept works after playing with it for some time. If the tutorials in KSP 2 are too abundant or reveal the answer to a problem before the player has had time to tinker with it, the "AH HA!" moment is lost. 

I think the quality of life improvements are amazing; I just hope the developers don't accidentally strip KSP of its magic.

TBH, the tutorial animations are to bring YouTube to KSP.

Think of it like the Sherpas Nate referenced to, you still have to complete the hike, but now you have a guide of how to do that.

I found excitement when I finally understood orbital mechanics, interplanetary navigation, and etc. Tutorials on youtube help me understand where I should be going, but I usually never got to that point until many tries later. I poured time into KSP 1 the first few months and powered through a lot of the game, orbit on first day, mun in first week, all planets/moons in first 5 months.

I think there's nothing wrong of having  tutorials to teach someone of what they are trying to look for, my main concern with tutorials is that it might get too specified of how to do something, which loses the "AH HA" moment AND prevents players from trying other things.

[Motokid600]

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

General question for everyone: how many people can manually land a Spacex-style first stage on a dime?

MechJeb is so much better then I am at it. XD.

[catloverjerrygarcia]

5 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

General question for everyone: how many people can manually land a Spacex-style first stage on a dime? I find after a LOT of practice I can land planes on runways though it still often takes a couple of quicksaves and I can pretty reliably land within 10m of my target on planets with no atmosphere, but the best I can reliably do is land within a kilometer of KSC with a tailsitter from orbit. Same with Eve and Duna. When Im building a base on planets with atmospheres I usually drop most of it at once, and everything after that I drop with wheels so I can drive the km or two that I missed by back to base. 

I could do it, but I'd need heavy medication prescribed afterwards and be hairless until it grew back.

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

MechJeb is so much better then I am at it. XD.

Exactly.  I mean many of us have played for 3-5k hours or more and still struggle with this stuff. I think this kind of thing counts as legitimately hard. Still the idea that KSP2 will have colonies implies we should be able to land relatively close to them. It seems like some kind of stock landing assistance would almost be mandatory. 

[shdwlrd]

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

General question for everyone: how many people can manually land a Spacex-style first stage on a dime? I find after a LOT of practice I can land planes on runways though it still often takes a couple of quicksaves and I can pretty reliably land within 10m of my target on planets with no atmosphere, but the best I can reliably do is land within a kilometer of KSC with a tailsitter from orbit. Same with Eve and Duna. When Im building a base on planets with atmospheres I usually drop most of it at once, and everything after that I drop with wheels so I can drive the km or two that I missed by back to base. 

Tail landing manually...  that usually ends in disaster. I will use either MJ or TCA. Landing planes, I can get about 1.5km away from my target and drive (taxi?) back. Basically landing is hard. Something to help you out wouldn't take away the challenge of something like landing. Even if it's something that shows you a descent or glide path that you have to follow. You will still have the challenge of keeping your craft in line but it would help you find the rhythm to eventually make landing easier overall.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

General question for everyone: how many people can manually land a Spacex-style first stage on a dime? I find after a LOT of practice I can land planes on runways though it still often takes a couple of quicksaves and I can pretty reliably land within 10m of my target on planets with no atmosphere, but the best I can reliably do is land within a kilometer of KSC with a tailsitter from orbit. Same with Eve and Duna. When Im building a base on planets with atmospheres I usually drop most of it at once, and everything after that I drop with wheels so I can drive the km or two that I missed by back to base. 

An orizontal landing with a plane? If is not a complete brick (in which case I would discard it during the flight testing, long before putting it in orbit) usually first attempt or second, with the Island runway as a backup if I'm low on fuel during the deorbit.

A tailsitter coming in from orbit? I'm practicing with them right now (a meshup between a SSTO rocket and a SpaceX BFR but with Vector engines) for the first time and I can say that I can at least reliably aim for the KSC plateau, I have a bit of practice to do on the re-entry profile and I still have at least half a dozen 10 Km hops to do to nail the suicide burn. Nothing impossible to do.

For Eve and Duna I've considered gliders in the past, but the wings are bulky and folding them doesn't work that well past probe-sized crafts. I think my next attempt for EVE will be a "Starship-like" glider-fairing that opens up at the last possible moment to deliver the paiload with parachutes (no reason not to use them on EVE) but I still have to test-fly the idea.

In my last (and only) Eve surface mission I had to plan the mission profile with a radius of 100Km and that meant that my return craft (an electric rocket-plane) needed to be able to travel that much between the landing point (done with a different an more simple capsule with a parachute) and the habitat (another simple parachute landing).

I was beyond happy when I finally landed everything in a 10Km radius demonstrating that even Eve pinpoint landing is just another acquired skill you can master with a bit of practice. 

 

12 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Exactly.  I mean many of us have played for 3-5k hours or more and still struggle with this stuff. I think this kind of thing counts as legitimately hard.

It's hard if you automated it away in the first 50h or so and then played the remaining 3950-5950 without ever practicing it, just like with planetary transfers, rendezvous, docking and every other thing you can do in the game that requires a bit of practice to master.

 

12 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

It seems like some kind of stock landing assistance would almost be mandatory. 

I think that more than landing automation you should have the required information to land on your own.

An atmospheric prediction tool, a suicide-burn help tool, some sort of ILS for planes, some serious tutorial on how to land a plane / rocket and some even more serious tutorial on how to design them to be able to land.

The point is that atmospheric landing and generally powered flight are gameplay loops as complex and as deep as the orbital mechanics, and the lack of information and tutorials is even more damaging.

We don't need to automate away this part of the game, the game just need the same level of information and tools we have when planning a rendezvous.

[PlutoISaPlanet]

A few days ago I landed a probe on Ike. Why did it take me so long to do this?

1. Figuring out how good nuclear engines are

2. Building a relay network

3. Geting the proper window 

4. Not knowing exactly how to plan the mission.

 

So, does ksp 2s new features make any of this easier. Not realy. 

The mission planner does help. But it is basicly just a delta v map. 

Well, I don't want to stretch this out, but I hope I got my point across.

[edu201]

I like not understanding things. The fact of not understanding how things work gives an air of grandiosity and curiosity What makes me invest more to try to understand. What makes KSP and other games special is the fact that I don't understand it very well. When you know everything, it starts to get boring.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Vanamonde
complementing

[shdwlrd]

On 6/1/2021 at 4:46 AM, Master39 said:

I think that more than landing automation you should have the required information to land on your own.

An atmospheric prediction tool, a suicide-burn help tool, some sort of ILS for planes, some serious tutorial on how to land a plane / rocket and some even more serious tutorial on how to design them to be able to land.

The point is that atmospheric landing and generally powered flight are gameplay loops as complex and as deep as the orbital mechanics, and the lack of information and tutorials is even more damaging.

I do agree with you. My only hope that the devs will realize that anything that has to do with landing has to be active lot farther that 2km. Most commercial flights start their ILS lineup at about 10NM+ (18.5KM+) and must be on aligned on the ILS by 4.5NM (8.3KM) or they must abort the landing and try again. Most private planes doing a visual will start to land at ~2NM (3.7KM) but they are moving MUCH slower then their turbofan brethren. Landing direct from orbit; the guidance will have to start several hundred KM from the landing point for a tail sitter.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

On 5/31/2021 at 8:31 AM, Pthigrivi said:

General question for everyone: how many people can manually land a Spacex-style first stage on a dime? I find after a LOT of practice I can land planes on runways though it still often takes a couple of quicksaves and I can pretty reliably land within 10m of my target on planets with no atmosphere, but the best I can reliably do is land within a kilometer of KSC with a tailsitter from orbit. Same with Eve and Duna. When Im building a base on planets with atmospheres I usually drop most of it at once, and everything after that I drop with wheels so I can drive the km or two that I missed by back to base. 

I can land boosters far easier than aircraft, completely manually.

Normally i end up using a drogue chute or two to keep them stable once they end up in the thicker portions of the atmosphere, but other than that it's much easier pointing a brick in the right direction and letting it fall than maneuvering an aircraft in KSP. Plus with the terrain the way it is, landing aircraft is 9/10 times pointless due to krakens shoving the gears through the wing roots. So i actually end up using TSTO reusable craft much more than aircraft, just less to go wrong lel.

I think what KSP2 needs more than automation is tools, it wasn't until 1.10 that we got a altimeter that accounted for elevation instead of assuming sea level. Trajectories in stock would also allow much, much easier piloting, and just getting rid of the buggyness of wheels would solve so many issues it's not even funny.

And I've even tried to use mechjeb before, and it's always easier in the end for me to do whatever it could manually. So i know I'm pretty biased here, pretty much the opposite of all the people who say they couldn't play without it.

[DJWyre]

12 hours ago, edu201 said:

I like not understanding things. The fact of not understanding how things work gives an air of grandiosity and curiosity What makes me invest more to try to understand. What makes KSP and other games special is the fact that I don't understand it very well. When you know everything, it starts to get boring.

Knowing and being able are two very different things.
Aside from KSP, I play a lot of World of Tanks; knowing the mechanics, the maps, the tanks, etc. will only get you so far, it's takes thousands if not tens of thousands of games to really get the way it all meshes together and play well.

From what I can tell the KSP2 tutorials are more 'orbit = fast sideways' rather than specific heights, trajectories, speeds, TWR, etc. Like a Car manual will tell you what the clutch is for, but won't teach you clutch control.

You'd be surprised how many people don't know that orbit isn't just going ' up to space' or not understand why the Hermes in The Martian can't 'just turn around'. You and others may find joy in discovering the laws of gravity, but for most it would be a needlessly long and frustrating wall to learn about a basic building block of the rest of the game.

I knew how to orbital a body before playing KSP - I still jumped out of my chair and screamed the first time I did it.

KSP1 is like coming to a crossroads with no signpost, you try looking on a map but there is no map. Some may try each path until they get where they're going, most will say "F**k it" and go home.