Your Definition of an Accomplished/Professional KSP Player.

[Flixxbeatz]

Does that mean that I'm pro?

-snip-

I can fairly assure that you're already a full-fledged KSP pro because of that and you build spaceplanes like it's nothing

[Munstation]

The guy who made the stock helicopters, anyone who can fly them for more than 2 minutes, and anyone who is on the same level of engineering genius as him.

Pft, 2 minutes .

I fly those things with the main rotor fuel running out before the RCS usually.

I als view a pro as, A player who has ascended from eve and back to kerbin

[Kappa73]

Does that mean that I'm pro?

Well, a good KSP player at the very least. Nice rocket!

[cesarcurado]

A player who loves to play and does so frequently

And also has some skill too

[Reavermyst]

It's a mythical creature that alludes the best of explorers. The only signs of their existence is on Youtube and this very forum! O-O

I hear many of them like pie. But they're not easily convinced by a pie under a box trap...

[AlternNocturn]

My definition of any kind of gaming Pro is simply someone who fully understands all of the mechanics behind the game. A Starcraft pro understands the game 100% and plays it like a poet writes poems. A LoL pro knows exactly what he needs to do at any given moment. A KSP pro understands orbital mechanics and can reach (read: get into orbit around, at least) any planet in the system. I don't think of it as someone who plays the game super well at a championship/astrophysicist level.

[karolus10]

I don't think that we had any "Pro" Ksp players Yet. It's not competitive game Anyway .

IMHO, to be an accomplished/good KSP player we need combination of 3 things

* Possessing knowledge about basics of rocket building and orbital maneuvers (some number crunching doesn't hurt too)

* Skill in piloting (kerbal) spacecrafts

* Passion and satisfaction from playing the game (without fun why play at first place ?)

EDIT_1: You don't need to be rocket scientist (even elementary kid can apply "more boosters" principle) to play the game ... but it helps .

Edited May 26, 2013 by karolus10

[Holo]

Scott Manley is the form of pro-ness. Pro-ness is measured via similarity to Scott Manley.

[Uncle Mort]

A player who loves to play and does so frequently

And also has some skill too

That's me!

Unlike some, I don't feel a need to compete against, or belittle other players to validate my enjoyment of a seriously great game.

[SkyRender]

Scott Manley is the form of pro-ness. Pro-ness is measured via similarity to Scott Manley.

So how would you rate a player who was significantly better than Scott Manley at landing and docking, and matched him in every other department? Honestly, Scott Manley is a pretty amazing KSPer when it comes to orbital mechanics and knowing when to fire while in space to get where he wants to go, but he's admitted himself on more than one occasion that he's decidedly more mediocre in a lot of other departments (especially landing and atmospheric flight; I've never seen anyone else that skilled still be so prone to accidental lithobraking). He also burns through RCS like crazy when he docks, very wastefully turning on both RCS and SAS for much of the procedures.

Thinking more on it, I don't think you really can define any specific level of "accomplished" that is all-encompassing. Each achievement has to be considered independently, and weighted according to the values of the person trying to categorize. I, for example, excel at landing efficiently and effectively on any body and ending up exactly where I want to be for a minimal amount extra as well. I can dock without RCS and have done so many times. I've visited each and every body in the solar system at least once (albeit not time-efficiently in some cases because I didn't wait for a decent launch window first). I don't use MechJeb for anything. Does that mean I'm "better" at KSP than Scott? Well, not necessarily, no. For one thing, he was my original mentor for getting off of Kerbin efficiently, and he's still better than I am at that to some degree. For another, he fully understands the mechanics behind the system whereas I understand them not quite as well (certainly I don't have a degree in astrophysics!).

The real question, I think, is how accomplished you personally feel and what your comparison metric is. And to that end, Scott is a great player to measure against for many aspects of the KSP experience. But not all aspects. In the end, cliche'd as it is, only you can decide for yourself.

[ZedNova]

If you're having fun, it doesn't matter how good you are.

[sadron]

Scott Manley.

[wolfedg]

So I guess the real question is "What is a pro/accomplished player?" With answers ranging from "A person who has a good foundational knowledge of the game and can perform any standard task in game.(Proficient)" to "someone who can do things in the game that less than 1% of the playerbase can do (Heroic/Epic)" to "Superman-AKA Scott Manley(Legendary/Famous)".

Edited May 26, 2013 by wolfedg

[CaptinKornflake]

A person who can play the game and not post threads called "how to rocket"

A player who TRIES and DOES NOT GIVE UP!

[leax256]

We all are professional in our own right. We each have our own unique playing style and are best at it. it doesn't mater how efficient you are at it but instead how much fun you have doing it.

[rodion_herrera]

Someone like Spatzimaus or anyone who has done a grand tour, and got the Kermen to return home.

[Brabbit1987]

Anyone who plays the game while having fun and not always treating it like a competition, to me is a pro.

Also want to point this out just cause I noticed some people commenting on the use of professional. Being a professional doesn't necessary mean you make money for it. The money portion isn't even part of the definition at all. I also feel it has a lot to do with the context. A person can be a pro at art, but not necessary make a single dime doing it. I would use myself as an example, but I actually do make money as an artist sometimes, so it isn't really a good example XD. However I still will say that was not always the case. I guess, I could also say I am a pro at telecommunications since I have a trade degree in that as well as a Fiber Optic Tech Cert, not making any money in that profession currently.

I could say I am a pro gamer ... but I am not really :3

o.o ok i am done talking. ... errr ... I mean typing?

[AmpsterMan]

I think an accomplished player is someone who has an adequate understanding and mastery of the various skills in this game.

[Ekku Zakku]

I'm surprised nobody has put it quite this way; I feel like an accomplished or "pro" player is somebody who can be given a range of tasks (even some that haven't been done or would be deemed by some as impossible or highly improbable) and do it. For quite a while players didn't think it was possible to circumnavigate Kerbin by boat, and about a month ago me and one other person managed to do it. They did it with refueling stops at buoys around the planet, and I did it without refueling at all (but using drop tanks). I even started a grand tour with stock parts and no refueling, with a 2000+ part ship. I haven't continued it since I got to Laythe, but I feel like I do have enough Delta-V to finish the mission.

I suppose anybody reading this thread can already tell that I'm going to say that I think I'm a "pro" player, and it's true, I do feel that way; I even think I'm better than Scott Manley in a few aspects. However, there are still players better than me, especially those who can put more time into the game than I can. I don't know if it would be possible to label anybody as the best player at KSP, especially since so many parts of the game require different skills that need to be learned separately. I'm definitely weak in the design department, yet some have make freaking helicopters... I DON'T EVEN.

So yeah, somebody who can take a task and perform it well and without excessive trial and error, would in my opinion be an accomplished player. I take on challenges on the forum often because I like showing off and setting the bar high, or being the first to get on the scoreboard, or be the first to break a boundary that was impossible for others to pass before I figured out the right configuration of parts or w/e. I even like accomplishing all bonus objectives for challenges if possible XD I challenge myself in challenges... yeah lol. But that's how I've come to my definition; if it can be done and you can figure it out on your own, you're an accomplished/pro player.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Ekku Zakku

[Kerbol Prime]

Dude... Scott Manley IS on his own level: Scott Manley

Scott Manley mode!

Edit: agh why is my quotes broken. Oops

[Commander Zoom]

Temstar.

(also kurtjmac - "accomplished" is not always the same as "successful"! )

[Titus Jeb Worshipper]

If you understand the mechanics of the game/space flight well enough to be able to accomplish whatever you wish within the bounds of the game, and then explain to someone like me how to do those things successfully and repeatably then you are pretty damned good in my opinion. Being uber skilled for your own entertainment is one thing, sharing that knowledge and helping lumps like myself along is something else

[rodion_herrera]

If you understand the mechanics of the game/space flight well enough to be able to accomplish whatever you wish within the bounds of the game, and then explain to someone like me how to do those things successfully and repeatably then you are pretty damned good in my opinion. Being uber skilled for your own entertainment is one thing, sharing that knowledge and helping lumps like myself along is something else

From the definition/criterion you just said, and based on what I've gleaned from reading the forum so far (I'm fairly new so I haven't digested much of it, even got reprimanded by a mod for posting in the wrong section ), the forum members that stand out, that best exemplifies your description are people like Stochasty--with solid backgrounds in physics and math, they don't only purely assess things in theory, but they are eager to really try out their theories in-game. But I'm not discounting the value of just working with theoretical concepts, because as they say, theory is the foundation of principles/law that govern the way things work in a universe (in this case, the Kerbal Universe). So yes, KSP theoreticians are, in a way, "pro" indeed.

[legodragonxp]

An accomplished KSP player is one who has no concern or fear to try anything in the game, even if they fail. Their first question when they fail is not, "Was that a bug?" but instead, "What went wrong and how can I change it to have a success next time?". Their tales or success are only matched by their tales of failure. They know that bragging about their successes in the game to others will turn thier audience away if it were not for the equal number of tales of failure. They know KSP is an experience and not just a game, and any who follow them in to the VAB are going to both have fun and learn something about the universe around them.

-Lego

(cheesy, yeah.. but what the heck)

[rodion_herrera]

Their first question when they fail is not, "Was that a bug?" but instead, "What went wrong and how can I change it to have a success next time?".

In an imperfect universe (like KSP), having that kind of attitude, though in your definition might be "pro", is actually a little err, slow. I mean, if the mindset is "what went wrong and how can I fix it" and expect to fix it by following the rules again, not knowing that part of those rules are actually broken (i.e. a true bug), then no matter how many times a person might retry to fix a problem, he/she won't really get anywhere. So I think it's still healthy to not rule out the possibility of bugs, that is, in an imperfect universe.