Jump to content

Flight Automation


Should KSP 2 have autonomous elements?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of these appeal to you? [multiple choice]

    • Full flight automation (integrated point-to-point automated flights)
      13
    • Landing and maneuver execution (maneuvers, transfers, circularization, ascents, landings, docking, etc.)
      20
    • Rover automation
      26
    • Plane automation
      17
    • Kerbal automation (can be commanded to do tasks, collect samples, do repairs, return to vessel, etc. without being manually controlled)
      22
    • Cosmetic automation (Kerbals wander around vessels + colonies on their own, goof off, etc.)
      33
    • Automation only after tech-unlock
      26
    • Automation only after proof-of-concept (can repeat maneuvers completed by player)
      29
    • Limited Automation (eg. automated milk-runs, stage recovery, surface harvesters only)
      25
    • No automation
      1
    • Other [explain below]
      2


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

What incentive is there for a veteran KSP player to prove that they know how to do an orbital maneuver, a proper gravity turn, an orbital rendezvous, docking before they can automate it? There is none. So the question stands, Why punish the veteran KSP player by forcing them prove their skills and understanding of the game mechanics before you can automate them?

Everyone seems to be under the impression that to enjoy the game, you must know how to do the necessary skills. Or put another way; I had to learn these skills, so must you or prove that you know them before you can have an autopilot. That's kind of dictating how to play KSP.

My point is "I don't care if you want an easy or hard way to play, as long as you're playing and enjoying KSP, that's all that matters." 

A new player will have to learn a ton of new things. Why force them to master the flight skills the veteran players had to master before you can use an autopilot. 

It seems to me that everyone's thinking is to enable the easier play modes, you have to beat a game using the hardest game mode. What about the player you just wants to go though the story and casually do what is needed to beat the game?

I think this is a great argument. Im trying to imagine though what my experience would have been had these tools been available to me from my first flight. Would I have just clicked "ascend to orbit" and let it ride? Would I ever have learned the fine control it took to land on the mun? Or felt the thrill of doing it successfully? (after several quicksaved RUDs?) I take your point about veterans 'back in my day' sentiments but I honestly think learning the fine muscle memory to control an ascent or land or dock or keep a spaceplane's AoA is part of the emotional drama of the game. Just like fighting in Dark Souls or cornering in Mariokart, the skill of flying is an integral part of KSP.  And even though it's hard at first it's what makes you feel like Neil Armstrong on those harrowing descents. I honestly think it would be robbery to take that from newer players by handing them some of this stuff. You'd just be watching, rather than playing. It would be like having autoaim in a FPS. It's the reason I feel like some of these tasks should only be enabled after the player has actually executed them. Maybe you can only auto-land on a body you've already landed on, so you aren't just loading up dV and clicking "land on Tylo" and watching it happen. I do hear you and maybe there's some toggle settings in the difficulty menu that work it out but I think learning these skills first before you automate them is important. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

It seems to me that everyone's thinking is to enable the easier play modes, you have to beat a game using the hardest game mode. What about the player you just wants to go though the story and casually do what is needed to beat the game?

I don't imagine there being much of a story to go through but for those that want automation from the get go, isn't that the point of having a sandbox mode?

5 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

What incentive is there for a veteran KSP player to prove that they know how to do an orbital maneuver, a proper gravity turn, an orbital rendezvous, docking before they can automate it? There is none. So the question stands, Why punish the veteran KSP player by forcing them prove their skills and understanding of the game mechanics before you can automate them?

I feel like this kind of argument could also be used for any general progression mechanic like the tech tree, something like "Why should a veteran player have to discover all of the parts again? Just have them available from the start. Why force us all to go through discovering the science in all the various terrain when we all know we can do it and the tech tree is just making an inconvenience to getting those parts"

5 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Everyone seems to be under the impression that to enjoy the game, you must know how to do the necessary skills. Or put another way; I had to learn these skills, so must you or prove that you know them before you can have an autopilot. That's kind of dictating how to play KSP.

My point is "I don't care if you want an easy or hard way to play, as long as you're playing and enjoying KSP, that's all that matters." 

A new player will have to learn a ton of new things. Why force them to master the flight skills the veteran players had to master before you can use an autopilot. 

The objective to a campaign mode in any sandbox-esque title is ultimately to present constraints and dictate play to direct the players play. I think the enjoyability of it comes from balancing how linear vs how creative the play is made from those constraints. If the play is too linear the player feels like they're being dragged along through a cutscene and not being given any agency in play where as if there is too much creative freedom available in play the player is left without a sense of direction and it's really easy for them to get lost in what's going in.

I think that the point of making players prove their skills is so they understand what is happening and why it is happening when an automation system acts as it does. It also helps give a sense of broadening scope as the game progresses. Early on a player is doing everything in a single mission and they are actively learning the mechanics of the game. As the game progresses they are given the opportunity to let the computer take more and more of the reins in piloting so that they can have more room to manage the emergent complexity now being presented with managing all the aspects of their growing space civilization. I feel this gives a slow "zooming out" of scope which I think would give a good feel to the game, in my opinion.

Another argument to be made is if automation is presented too early in the game that actually could have the effect of overwhelming new players. New people being introduced already have to understand all the buildings they've just been introduced to, they have to understand how the UX/UI works in the VAB to assemble a rocket, they have to learn the functions of all the parts they're being presented, then they have to learn the flying mechanics of the game. This is already a LOT to take in. To add onto that an assortment of automation systems, now new players have to understand retrograde, prograde, etc.. launch profile desired altitudes, maneuver nodes, and on and on... Its too much. 

Perhaps this is anecdotal but I tried introducing my gf to KSP and she sat and played it for a solid hour and a half and I tried to not tell her how to play beyond her asking what things would do and I think a lot of us take our knowledge of the systems in KSP for granted. She is a smart person, she's finishing her masters in chemistry currently and is an avid gamer, and asking her what she thought of the game she tells me she was simply lost. She found it unenjoyable and was overwhelmed with everything that was going on (we started in career, not sandbox). So I think the last thing to do would be add even more systems to interface with at the start of the game. Instead, introduce those systems after players have learned the mechanics that those systems govern so that they have the experience to understand what is actually happening. It's not some n00b hazing to make new players manually pilot their craft, it's limiting the scope of play to keep the game approachable and not overwhelming.

Another place we can all look to see a similar instance is watching jacksepticeye play KSP:

Spoiler

 

He doesn't show it on his face but you can tell how increasingly frustrated he is getting with trying to build a rocket. It looks like madness but by 1/3 of the way in when he's strapping boosters on to make the rocket spin he's actually doing something really smart, though it looks really dumb, he's trying to spin stabilize a rocket. By around the halfway mark he gives up on rockets entirely only to move towards planes hoping they will be simpler. He never plays the game again.

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I also think the automation should be a mid- to late-game thing. If we just hand it to everybody instantly, no skill is required, except to navigate the UI. It would also be overwhelming to new players, who would have no idea what all their buttons are doing. Besides, you wouldn't really need it in the early game. You won't be launching Breakthrough Starshot-esque probe swarms the third week of your campaign.

And do we really know how complex the automation will be? Is it going to model our crafts fully, and perform maneuvers in a sequence which we flew, or is it just going to transfer some resources to an account once we've demonstrated the concept? How much control do we get?

Edited by SOXBLOX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Everyone seems to be under the impression that to enjoy the game, you must know how to do the necessary skills. Or put another way; I had to learn these skills, so must you or prove that you know them before you can have an autopilot. That's kind of dictating how to play KSP.

My point is "I don't care if you want an easy or hard way to play, as long as you're playing and enjoying KSP, that's all that matters." 

The question isn’t about how you play the game. Obviously the answer to that is, “however you want.” The question under discussion is, what is the game you play going to be like? 

7 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

A new player will have to learn a ton of new things. Why force them to master the flight skills the veteran players had to master before you can use an autopilot. 

Because flight is a core gameplay activity, and adding systems that invalidate or dilute core gameplay activities is generally a bad idea. 

You could certainly make an excellent space program game that completely omits flight, but KSP is not that game.

7 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

It seems to me that everyone's thinking is to enable the easier play modes, you have to beat a game using the hardest game mode. What about the player you just wants to go though the story and casually do what is needed to beat the game?

Flight isn’t a difficulty mode, it’s a core activity. Also I don’t think KSP2 will even have a story (and I hope not, it wouldn’t fit IMO.)

Finally, KSP isn’t a casual game. It requires a significant investment in time and effort, much more than most games. The enjoyment in it comes from learning to do some actually pretty hard stuff.

I’m all for making KSP2 better at teaching that hard stuff and lowering the barrier of entry, but if it no longer requires you to learn it at all, it will be a  hollow experience, a pale shadow of the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked OTHERS.

All I feel that is missing, are 2 things.
1- Maintain Sea Level altitude.  This should work on planes and on space ships (that can hover by having the proper thrust vectors)... First it would make flying quad-copter vessels far more manageable, then if the plane has enough flight control surfaces It should maintain altitude (and heading too, like set it to 045 degrees it stays on that).
2- Cruise control.  Mostly on Rovers, I want to tell my rover to maintain 15m/s and it speeds-up (either with electric wheels, or w/e lateral thrusters it has) if it slows, and slows down using back brakes and engine if necessary to keep the forward motion at 15m/s.

those level of automaton would make my live much much easier.
As for the rest of the game like refueling/logistics, whatever works would be fine.  I don't want to babysit colonies/station all day/week/month, but I don't want the entire game to play itself either.  I'd be okay for base/station ressuply to be automated once you did it once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I selected landing and maneuver execution as well as kerbal execution because for me those would help immensely.  I'm barely capable of making orbit manually in KSP and MechJeb was extremely helpful to me.  My primary goal and the most fun part of KSP for me is setting a mission goal and designing a spacecraft/rocket to get me there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2021 at 5:56 PM, Pthigrivi said:

I think this is a great argument. Im trying to imagine though what my experience would have been had these tools been available to me from my first flight. Would I have just clicked "ascend to orbit" and let it ride? Would I ever have learned the fine control it took to land on the mun? Or felt the thrill of doing it successfully? (after several quicksaved RUDs?) I take your point about veterans 'back in my day' sentiments but I honestly think learning the fine muscle memory to control an ascent or land or dock or keep a spaceplane's AoA is part of the emotional drama of the game.

First off, thanks, I'm trying. :) You're explaining how I learned how to do a proper gravity turn. I figured out how to fly the rocket, but I didn't know the proper technique to reach orbit. (I found MJ before I even knew who Scott Manley was.)  And forget any type of manual vertical landing for me, I can't tell which way I'm drifting. (I can't see the movement of the ground nor make out the relative distance to the ground. I can't extrapolate distance of a 3d environment on a 2d plane. (It's not like I haven't tried to land vertically in the past seven years, I just can't do it.) It's funny you mentioned "fine muscle memory". What if you have one of the myriad of physical or neurological conditions that don't allow fine muscle control? What then? And removing the drama of the action? You're still sitting there hoping that the autopilot doesn't screw up or flake out on you. (Do you think that the SpaceX techs weren't nervous when they sent the 1st Crew Dragon up with astronauts? I bet all of them breathed a collective sigh of relief when that capsule safely splashed down.) 

On 5/19/2021 at 5:56 PM, Pthigrivi said:

Just like fighting in Dark Souls or cornering in Mariokart, the skill of flying is an integral part of KSP.  And even though it's hard at first it's what makes you feel like Neil Armstrong on those harrowing descents. I honestly think it would be robbery to take that from newer players by handing them some of this stuff. You'd just be watching, rather than playing. It would be like having autoaim in a FPS. It's the reason I feel like some of these tasks should only be enabled after the player has actually executed them.

Fighting or FPS games aren't really good examples for this debate. They require a level of muscle control and reaction times that go much farther than what KSP requires to be considered competent at the game. Mariokart on the other hand is perfect. You can still beat the Mariokart without cornering or racing perfectly. It's how you use your powerups. Now imagine you couldn't use the powerups in Mariokart until you beat the game. That's no fun and most players won't play it again. (I'm masochistic and have done it on a couple versions of the game.)

On 5/19/2021 at 5:56 PM, Pthigrivi said:

Maybe you can only auto-land on a body you've already landed on, so you aren't just loading up dV and clicking "land on Tylo" and watching it happen. I do hear you and maybe there's some toggle settings in the difficulty menu that work it out but I think learning these skills first before you automate them is important. 

Does crash landings count for the unlocking of the auto-landing? That's the only way I would ever be able to unlock it. Having an optional way to unlock a autopilot from the beginning would be one way to solve the issue. But the overall attitude of you can't have that function (landing) until you can prove you can do that function (landing) first is BS, especially in a game. If this was real life where mistakes could have real life and death consequences, I wouldn't be debating you. (I'm sure as hell would want the pilot landing the plane I'm on to know how to safely land the plane they are flying before they can use the auto-land system.) But it's a game. 

On 5/19/2021 at 7:33 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

I don't imagine there being much of a story to go through but for those that want automation from the get go, isn't that the point of having a sandbox mode?

We're not sure if KSP2 will have an open sandbox mode like the first one or not. But we can surmise that here will be optional missions or contracts or something to help new players learn about the mechanics of KSP. Why would Intercept be making the animations explaining the concepts required to play KSP.

On 5/19/2021 at 7:33 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

I feel like this kind of argument could also be used for any general progression mechanic like the tech tree, something like "Why should a veteran player have to discover all of the parts again? Just have them available from the start. Why force us all to go through discovering the science in all the various terrain when we all know we can do it and the tech tree is just making an inconvenience to getting those parts"

Unfortunately this is a mechanic in different RTS or city building games and yes, it's very annoying. It's one thing to have to build a base up again to get access to what you unlocked, it's another to have to research it again to unlock it. How does this compare to KSP?  KSP2 is being framed as a continuation of KSP1. So most everything available in KSP1 should be available from the start of KSP2. You shouldn't be starting with a capsule, parachute, and SBR. You should have everything you need to make a Mun or Minmus capable rocket from the start.

On 5/19/2021 at 7:33 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

The objective to a campaign mode in any sandbox-esque title is ultimately to present constraints and dictate play to direct the players play. I think the enjoyability of it comes from balancing how linear vs how creative the play is made from those constraints. If the play is too linear the player feels like they're being dragged along through a cutscene and not being given any agency in play where as if there is too much creative freedom available in play the player is left without a sense of direction and it's really easy for them to get lost in what's going in.

Overall, I agree with you. The catch is that you don't have to prove you have the skills required to progress, you usually only have to collect items, points, or reach a certain milestone to progress. (There are exceptions but KSP isn't a combat or a challenge based game. It's about exploration, not proving you have the skills to procced.)

On 5/19/2021 at 7:33 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

I think that the point of making players prove their skills is so they understand what is happening and why it is happening when an automation system acts as it does. It also helps give a sense of broadening scope as the game progresses. Early on a player is doing everything in a single mission and they are actively learning the mechanics of the game. As the game progresses they are given the opportunity to let the computer take more and more of the reins in piloting so that they can have more room to manage the emergent complexity now being presented with managing all the aspects of their growing space civilization. I feel this gives a slow "zooming out" of scope which I think would give a good feel to the game, in my opinion.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I want in the game. I don't want something that I tell "fly me to Duna" and it does it automagically. On the actual player controlled craft, you shouldn't have to control the craft for100% of the flight. You should be able to setup an maneuver/waypoint (or series of maneuvers/waypoints) and be able to walkway or do something else. (Actual flying in KSP doesn't interest me anymore, but the designing and exploration still does.) The level of automation you seem to be referring to should only be reserved for the logistics flights once you reach that point. But here is the thing with autopilots, you still need to know what you want to do, how and where you want to execute it, and design the craft with enough stability for the autopilot and control the craft. If you don't do anyone of those things properly, no autopilot will be able to help you. You still need to learn how orbital mechanics works, design a plane/rocket properly, how the actual simulation works.

On 5/19/2021 at 7:33 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Another argument to be made is if automation is presented too early in the game that actually could have the effect of overwhelming new players. New people being introduced already have to understand all the buildings they've just been introduced to, they have to understand how the UX/UI works in the VAB to assemble a rocket, they have to learn the functions of all the parts they're being presented, then they have to learn the flying mechanics of the game. This is already a LOT to take in. To add onto that an assortment of automation systems, now new players have to understand retrograde, prograde, etc.. launch profile desired altitudes, maneuver nodes, and on and on... Its too much. 

I do understand the information overload for new players. There is a lot in KSP to take in. (I've been playing flight sims for years before I found KSP, so it was a new type of challenge for me.) I'm not saying you need to show a new player where it's located and how to use it right away. I'm just saying that it should be there, available to use for the players who don't need the hand holding. 

On 5/19/2021 at 7:33 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Perhaps this is anecdotal but I tried introducing my gf to KSP and she sat and played it for a solid hour and a half and I tried to not tell her how to play beyond her asking what things would do and I think a lot of us take our knowledge of the systems in KSP for granted. She is a smart person, she's finishing her masters in chemistry currently and is an avid gamer, and asking her what she thought of the game she tells me she was simply lost. She found it unenjoyable and was overwhelmed with everything that was going on (we started in career, not sandbox). So I think the last thing to do would be add even more systems to interface with at the start of the game. Instead, introduce those systems after players have learned the mechanics that those systems govern so that they have the experience to understand what is actually happening. It's not some n00b hazing to make new players manually pilot their craft, it's limiting the scope of play to keep the game approachable and not overwhelming.

Another place we can all look to see a similar instance is watching jacksepticeye play KSP:

He doesn't show it on his face but you can tell how increasingly frustrated he is getting with trying to build a rocket. It looks like madness but by 1/3 of the way in when he's strapping boosters on to make the rocket spin he's actually doing something really smart, though it looks really dumb, he's trying to spin stabilize a rocket. By around the halfway mark he gives up on rockets entirely only to move towards planes hoping they will be simpler. He never plays the game again.

Good luck, and remember to take it one step at a time. I have several very intelligent, die hard gamer friends that walked away from KSP because they didn't understand it and nothing was explained in the game nor did they feel the need to look outside of the game for information. As for jacksepticeye, I've seen that video before. I blame Squad for not explaining anything or offering sources for information. As we know, Intercept is creating helpful explanations for every concept in the game.

On 5/19/2021 at 10:39 PM, Brikoleur said:

The question under discussion is, what is the game you play going to be like? 

That's a very good question. We have no idea how the game is going to play like. A lot of the speculation and assumptions is that it will be the same as KSP1, which is reasonable but foolhardy. But there are things that won't change. Orbital mechanics won't change. How you design a stable plane or rocket won't change. How you fly a rocket or plane won't change. (At least at the physics level anyway, keybindings is a different story.)

On 5/19/2021 at 10:39 PM, Brikoleur said:

Because flight is a core gameplay activity, and adding systems that invalidate or dilute core gameplay activities is generally a bad idea. 

You could certainly make an excellent space program game that completely omits flight, but KSP is not that game.

No where in the core pillars for KSP is stipulated that you have to fly. It's just "realistic space flight."

Spoiler

Actual-Image-1.png

KSP is a space/flight/driving/boating/submersible/designing sim. But nowhere is it stipulated that you have to actually control your creation 100% of the time; nor is it stipulated that you have to prove you know how to fly to be allowed to access an autopilot. As I replied to mcwaffles, "You seem to be misunderstanding what I want in the game. I don't want something that I tell "fly me to Duna" and it does it automagically. On the actual player controlled craft, you shouldn't have to control the craft for100% of the flight. You should be able to setup an maneuver/waypoint (or series of maneuvers/waypoints) and be able to walkway or do something else. (Actual flying in KSP doesn't interest me anymore, but the designing and exploration still does.) The level of automation you seem to be referring to should only be reserved for the logistics flights once you reach that point. 

On 5/19/2021 at 10:39 PM, Brikoleur said:

Flight isn’t a difficulty mode, it’s a core activity. Also I don’t think KSP2 will even have a story (and I hope not, it wouldn’t fit IMO.)

But there are autonomous drones that can take off, flight a specific route and land (even on a moving aircraft carrier no less) that exist today. (Just being facetious.) Flight is necessary for KSP, but it isn't necessary to be at the controls 100% of the time. Nor is it necessary to prove you can fly before you can access an autopilot. As my reply to Pthigrivi states; "But the overall attitude of you can't have that function (landing) until you can prove you can do that function (landing) first is BS, especially in a game. If this was real life where mistakes could have real life and death consequences, I wouldn't be debating you. (I'm sure as hell would want the pilot landing the plane I'm on to know how to safely land the plane they are flying before they can use the auto-land system.) But it's a game."

Both KSP 1 & 2 have a stories. It's a story of exploration and discovery. Most people won't see it, some will only see the journey, some will see the destination, but there is a story for both. Why won't you see the story? Because you are directly controlling (writing) the story and it will be different for everyone. (Much like how WW2 vets will tell you the facts of what they did, but to you it's a story. It's a matter of perspective.)

On 5/19/2021 at 10:39 PM, Brikoleur said:

Finally, KSP isn’t a casual game. It requires a significant investment in time and effort, much more than most games. The enjoyment in it comes from learning to do some actually pretty hard stuff.

Yes, agreed. So is Space Engineers, WOW, Elite Dangerous, Cities: Skylines, No Mans Sky, Subnutica, Factrio, Dyson Sphere Program, Freespace, Syndicate, or any number of games you have to learn a great amount of information about the game and spent a good amount of time learning it.

On 5/19/2021 at 10:39 PM, Brikoleur said:

I’m all for making KSP2 better at teaching that hard stuff and lowering the barrier of entry, but if it no longer requires you to learn it at all, it will be a  hollow experience, a pale shadow of the original.

No where did I say nor imply remove the requirement to learn the necessities to play KSP. All I suggested is to have an autopilot available from the beginning and not to prove you have the SKILLS to be able to have access to an autopilot. I will reference again my reply to mcwaffles; "You seem to be misunderstanding what I want in the game. I don't want something that I tell "fly me to Duna" and it does it automagically. On the actual player controlled craft, you shouldn't have to control the craft for100% of the flight. You should be able to setup an maneuver/waypoint (or series of maneuvers/waypoints) and be able to walkway or do something else. (Actual flying in KSP doesn't interest me anymore, but the designing and exploration still does.) The level of automation you seem to be referring to should only be reserved for the logistics flights once you reach that point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

We're not sure if KSP2 will have an open sandbox mode like the first one or not. But we can surmise that here will be optional missions or contracts or something to help new players learn about the mechanics of KSP. Why would Intercept be making the animations explaining the concepts required to play KSP.

The new adventure mode is said to be replacing career and science mode. I took that as meaning sandbox will still be available and my argument is largely based on this premise and if it isn't there disregard anything I'm saying. Personally though, I think they would have to be insane to take sandbox out.

3 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Unfortunately this is a mechanic in different RTS or city building games and yes, it's very annoying. It's one thing to have to build a base up again to get access to what you unlocked, it's another to have to research it again to unlock it. How does this compare to KSP?  KSP2 is being framed as a continuation of KSP1. So most everything available in KSP1 should be available from the start of KSP2. You shouldn't be starting with a capsule, parachute, and SBR. You should have everything you need to make a Mun or Minmus capable rocket from the start.

My impression is that KSP 2 is a remastering and expansion on KSP 1. Personally, I doubt the game will start with everything from KSP 1 unlocked if there will still be a tech tree mechanic in the game and instead we will see a familiar start in KSP 2. Personally, I enjoy the mechanic as it makes stepping back into the game much easier for me. But, to each their own

12 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Overall, I agree with you. The catch is that you don't have to prove you have the skills required to progress, you usually only have to collect items, points, or reach a certain milestone to progress. (There are exceptions but KSP isn't a combat or a challenge based game. It's about exploration, not proving you have the skills to procced.)

You seem to be misunderstanding what I want in the game. I don't want something that I tell "fly me to Duna" and it does it automagically. On the actual player controlled craft, you shouldn't have to control the craft for100% of the flight. You should be able to setup an maneuver/waypoint (or series of maneuvers/waypoints) and be able to walkway or do something else. (Actual flying in KSP doesn't interest me anymore, but the designing and exploration still does.) The level of automation you seem to be referring to should only be reserved for the logistics flights once you reach that point. But here is the thing with autopilots, you still need to know what you want to do, how and where you want to execute it, and design the craft with enough stability for the autopilot and control the craft. If you don't do anyone of those things properly, no autopilot will be able to help you. You still need to learn how orbital mechanics works, design a plane/rocket properly, how the actual simulation works.

I do understand the information overload for new players. There is a lot in KSP to take in. (I've been playing flight sims for years before I found KSP, so it was a new type of challenge for me.) I'm not saying you need to show a new player where it's located and how to use it right away. I'm just saying that it should be there, available to use for the players who don't need the hand holding. 

Specifically "I don't want something that I tell "fly me to Duna" and it does it automagically" That wasn't the impression I was getting from you, I assumed you meant more in the light of how mechjeb works. Also I empathize with you when you say flying doesn't interest you as much anymore as I am in a similar boat. There's only so much novelty in point, burn, cut off before it gets tedious which is why I REALLY hope to see some form of automation (especially in space where you don't even have to worry about atmosphere dragging you around or crashing), especially since a campaign is going to entail WAYYYYY more flights and the last thing I hope people to feel walking away from KSP is monotony and tedium. Also, I agree that KSP isn't supposed to be a hardcore skill game so much as an exploration. None the less, I feel like dumping the entirety of automation on the player right at the very start would be a bit much and there should be more time for easing players toward that. Even mechjeb doesn't allow automated maneuvers on the first launch. So, as long as a sandbox mode is still in the game I think that's where fully unlocked systems from the get go belong.

 

I have to ask though, do you play career/science mode in KSP or are you strictly a sandbox player and if you do play one of them what aspects of that mode do you appreciate it for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Specifically "I don't want something that I tell "fly me to Duna" and it does it automagically" That wasn't the impression I was getting from you, I assumed you meant more in the light of how mechjeb works. Also I empathize with you when you say flying doesn't interest you as much anymore as I am in a similar boat.

Yeah the whole click button get reward thing isn't any fun, I wanna at least have to know that I need to execute a hohmann transfer or whatever the specific maneuver is called so it's not just select target and wash my hands.

Edited by AdmFranzvonHippie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I have to ask though, do you play career/science mode in KSP or are you strictly a sandbox player and if you do play one of them what aspects of that mode do you appreciate it for?

I play sandbox only. Science is boring and career is broken. The biggest failure is the tech tree. If it was put together in a sensible way, I would play career. (I know CTT is a thing, but I don't want to use it.)

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...