Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?

[HebaruSan]

15 minutes ago, regex said:

It wouldn't be "reasonable".

The joke was that the mod would remove presumed stock limitations (because the goal of career is to start out hard as nails and get easier over time) and make the calculator available from the start.

15 minutes ago, regex said:

No it wouldn't.

A space program that starts out not knowing the rocket equation (exactly as a typical new player would not) and then discovers it through gameplay is not a form of improvement?

15 minutes ago, regex said:

And this is the reason why.  I can understand unlocking telemetry requiring more/better ground-based tracking and space-borne antennas but unlocking the natural log of your craft's mass ratio makes zero sense.  Humans derived the equation as early as the 1800's, long before actual spaceflight, and I see no reason why Kerbals should be different in that regard considering just how inventive, enthusiastic, and precise they actually are about their spaceflight hardware.

 

Is the game teaching space flight, or physics history?

15 minutes ago, regex said:

That sounds like an excellent candidate for a KSPedia page rather than a "progression for progression's sake" sort of mechanic.

"Show, don't tell." Gameplay will reach more players and be more enjoyable than reading.

[regex]

Just now, HebaruSan said:

The joke was that the mod would remove presumed stock limitations (because the goal of career is to start out hard as nails and get easier over time) and make the calculator available from the start.

Ah, well, that mod would be "reasonable".

Just now, HebaruSan said:

A space program that starts out not knowing the rocket equation (exactly as a typical new player would not) and then discovers it through gameplay is not a form of improvement?

It makes zero sense that a space program wouldn't know the rocket equation or the mass of its craft.  Knowing how much you have should never be in question, knowing how much you need is what should be learned.

Just now, HebaruSan said:

Is the game teaching space flight, or physics history?

Is the game teaching spaceflight or teaching someone how to use calculus to derive a simple equation?

Just now, HebaruSan said:

"Show, don't tell." Gameplay will reach more players and be more enjoyable than reading.

Meanwhile everyone else who knows better has to break out the calculator early on for literally no reason.  Tutorial or KSPedia would be much better.

[Guest]

At the very least, the Engineers Report in the VAB/SPH should have a delta-v calculation.

Perhaps it could be tied to a Tracking Station/VAB/SPH building upgrade, such as when all three buildings are upgraded to level 2, then you get a delta-v readout.

[regex]

16 minutes ago, MailletC said:

Perhaps it could be tied to a Tracking Station/VAB/SPH building upgrade, such as when all three buildings are upgraded to level 2, then you get a delta-v readout.

Are you going to tie other features like the mass of a craft or the exhaust velocity of an engine to building upgrades as well?  Because otherwise you're just locking out a feature for no reason other than providing tedium, and locking out the other stuff is just "progression for progression's sake".

[G'th]

I find that a Delta-V readout should be a standard thing in the Engineers report. It makes zero sense to tie it to any kind of progression, because it would only be as a hindrance to people who know how to utilize the information, and a pointless unlock for people who don't. 

And realistically speaking, this kind of information was worked out from the beginning anyway. No real rocket was ever constructed without establishing how far it should be able to go beforehand.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

6 hours ago, MsieurDionne said:

I think that this information should be calculated by an engineer or an advanced probe core. As many have pointed out, figuring things out is the funniest/most frustrating part of early games.

This is a fine idea and would give a good reason to try to shoehorn Ole Bill into the earlier missions.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, regex said:

Are you going to tie other features like the mass of a craft or the exhaust velocity of an engine to building upgrades as well?  Because otherwise you're just locking out a feature for no reason other than providing tedium, and locking out the other stuff is just "progression for progression's sake".

I was thinking you can unlock the tools to make things easier, much the same way you unlock patched conics by upgrading the Tracking Station.

Delta-V stats only become necessary when traveling outside the Kerbin system. You can basically point and shoot to get to the Mun or Minmus.

[regex]

Just now, MailletC said:

I was thinking you can unlock the tools to make things easier, much the same way you unlock patched conics by upgrading the Tracking Station.

But unlocking/building a better tracking network or better antennas allowing better orbital predictions actually makes some sense.  Unlocking some rando who runs the calculations for you doesn't, especially since I already have all the information I need to do it on my own.  You're basically locking out a useful feature for the sole purpose of making progression, which is bad gameplay IMO.

Just now, MailletC said:

Delta-V stats only become necessary when traveling outside the Kerbin system. You can basically point and shoot to get to the Mun or Minmus.

I beg to differ.  If making cheaper rockets in career is important to you then getting the most out of your stages is crucial, even for LKO/Mun/Minmus operations.  It's also a good indicator of how many hops you can make on Minmus if you're hoovering up the science.  Letting newbies know how much they have allows them to learn and figure out how much they need, which is crucial for the first trip to Duna or Eve.

[worir4]

1 hour ago, G'th said:

I find that a Delta-V readout should be a standard thing in the Engineers report. It makes zero sense to tie it to any kind of progression, because it would only be as a hindrance to people who know how to utilize the information, and a pointless unlock for people who don't. 

And realistically speaking, this kind of information was worked out from the beginning anyway. No real rocket was ever constructed without establishing how far it should be able to go beforehand.

The same could be said about maneuver nodes however they have to be unlocked through the tracking station. 

I think DV readouts should be added but in career it should be unlocked through upgrading buildings; Before maneuver nodes though.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, regex said:

If making cheaper rockets in career is important to you then getting the most out of your stages is crucial, even for LKO/Mun/Minmus operations.

I agree, but information like that can be easily found out by simply building a rocket, flying somewhere, then building a better rocket next time. If your rockets are cheap enough, you can launch dozens of them, using each one as a test to help improve the next one.

Having delta-v stats available from the very beginning of career mode is simply min-maxing your saved game, not having any meaningful progression. Anyone who wants to manually find out their delta-v can do so on their own. What providing a delta-v calculation in the Engineer's Report does, is eliminate the effort or thought behind fuel/thrust/isp considerations. You swap out fuel and engines until the numbers are where you want them. That type of design process should only be available to players after they have at least learned to fly somewhere else, or put in the effort to upgrade a single building.

If you are so opposed to any sort of grind or progression, play Science Mode and be done with it. Unlocking features is a reward for playing the game. Giving those features away for free at the beginning is lazy.

 

55 minutes ago, G'th said:

It makes zero sense to tie it to any kind of progression, because it would only be as a hindrance to people who know how to utilize the information, and a pointless unlock for people who don't.

I disagree. Even someone who has never even heard of delta-v before, can look at the number and realize it is significant in some way. Learning things is part of this game, encouraging the player to learn something, or experiment, is never wrong.

Experienced players can always calculate their own delta-v, literally in a matter of seconds. Not having a delta-v calculation automatically available does not hinder the experienced player in any way, because they already know that if you strap a couple Thumpers (set to 75% thrust) to the side of a main stage consisting of two FLT-800's, an FLT-200, and a Swivel; you'll get a Mk-1 Pod (with some Science Gear, fuel, and engine) into orbit no problem at all.

A payload consisting of an FLT-800 with an LV-909 can fly anywhere in the Kerbin system. I know this, not because I did the math, but because I launched one and saw how far it could go.

I see experienced players building rockets by eye all the time, because they've already launched so many rockets they don't need to sit there solving the rocket equation for every single launch. They know what works, and what doesn't.

[regex]

6 minutes ago, MailletC said:

What providing a delta-v calculation in the Engineer's Report does, is eliminate the effort or thought behind fuel/thrust/isp considerations. You swap out fuel and engines until the numbers are where you want them. That type of design process should only be available to players after they have at least learned to fly somewhere else, or put in the effort to upgrade a single building.

Nonsense.  This can already be done with a calculator or through foreknowledge of the game, you're just turning it into tedious busy-work.

6 minutes ago, MailletC said:

If you are so opposed to any sort of grind or progression, play Science Mode and be done with it. Unlocking features is a reward for playing the game. Giving those features away for free at the beginning is lazy.

Progression for progression's sake is never good gameplay, it's just there to make you jump through hoops.  Like actions groups, locking out a useful feature just to make some sort of progression is lazy game design.

[numerobis]

On April 30, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Armisael said:

Delta-v calculations are way faster than the physics calculations happening every physics tick anyways.

dV is simple on a simple rocket; when you have complicated fuel flow, it gets tricky. The mechjeb calculator needs to do a simulation, which has a pretty noticeable performance impact.

Also, jets make the deltaV calculation a bit odd.

[Guest]

Just now, regex said:

Nonsense.  This can already be done with a calculator or through foreknowledge of the game, you're just turning it into tedious busy-work.

It's not me that does it, watch a live stream from anyone who uses KER. All they have to do is cut and paste fuel tanks and engines until the numbers say what is desired. If that's not lazy, I don't know what is.

Quote

Progression for progression's sake is never good gameplay, it's just there to make you jump through hoops.

The whole idea of a career mode is jumping through progressively larger hoops, and having your time and effort expended be rewarded with something.

If you're just going to give the player everything they want on a silver platter, then the challenge and reward of playing disappear, and you might as well play sandbox mode.

Career mode is supposed to be grind-y and progression-ish, that's the whole point.

If anything, I think there could be even more progression than there already is, more building levels, more tech nodes, have Kerbal experience levels be used for more things, etc.

[regex]

2 minutes ago, MailletC said:

It's not me that does it, watch a live stream from anyone who uses KER. All they have to do is cut and paste fuel tanks and engines until the numbers say what is desired. If that's not lazy, I don't know what is.

So if they did it by hand you wouldn't call it lazy?  Because ... why?  Because they're wasting time plugging numbers into a calculator instead of sensibly using a computer to do a tedious task for them?

The problem you're describing has nothing to do with instant delta-V displays and everything to do with that particular player's mindset.  And there's nothing wrong with that, people play KSP in lots of ways.

2 minutes ago, MailletC said:

The whole idea of a career mode is jumping through progressively larger hoops, and having your time and effort expended be rewarded with something.

If you're just going to give the player everything they want on a silver platter, then the challenge and reward of playing disappear, and you might as well play sandbox mode.

Don't over-exaggerate here.  I'm not talking about "giv(ing) the player everything they want on a silver platter", I'm talking about locking out a particular useful feature in order to make progression.  That's not meaningful progression, it's lazy game design.

2 minutes ago, MailletC said:

If anything, I think there could be even more progression than there already is, more building levels, more tech nodes, have Kerbal experience levels be used for more things, etc.

Progression that is meaningful is laudable, progression that simply locks a useful feature up because "uh, can you think of anything that could go there?" is terrible.  Action groups are a perfect example of this; where the user could simply hit 1 button and collect all the science on their craft they instead have to right-click all the little things while trying to fly their craft or whatever.  I mean, I suppose you could categorize that as "gameplay" but I call it an exercise in frustration and tedium that makes me want to play something else.  The same goes for delta-V.  I can see exactly the things that go into the equation in front of me on the screen, why don't I just have that number available to me?  Oh, right, someone locked it up because it made "progression".

And I'd be all for more progression so long as it was meaningful and made actual sense.

[Accelerando]

Fanboyism is the only possible reason why this is even a matter of debate...

Nobody complains about being able to see how much ammo you have left in a shooter game, which is honestly one of the best comparisons I can imagine for this kind of situation (you know exactly how many bullets/how much fuel it'll take to achieve your objective ideally, but a large number of things can go wrong). Nobody complains about being able to see how many blocks you have left to place or materials you have left to use in Minecraft and its ilk. Nobody complains about precise status gauges in any other game where you have to carry out complex operations to a high degree of precision.

Denying players delta-V information doesn't make anything more "fun" unless you enjoy calculating the same answers over and over again or crashing over and over again. Failure that shows you in a meaningful way what went wrong and what to do better next time is fine. Being forced to sit through failure after failure because you don't have handy access to the information that would make it easy to overcome this and actually get to do the things I want ingame - that is not meaningful failure and it is not interesting failure.

Wanting to force this kind of mindless tedium on other players is just another way of saying "I enjoy making cool games tedious, frustrating, and inaccessible to people who would like to play the game but don't have the time, patience, or energy to put up with the hoops I'd like them to be forced to jump through." It's a punishment for not being a fanboy

[klgraham1013]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.   KSP's difficulty should come from getting to the next planet, not artificial barriers in career mode.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Don't over-exaggerate here.  I'm not talking about "giv(ing) the player everything they want on a silver platter", I'm talking about locking out a particular useful feature in order to make progression.  That's not meaningful progression, it's lazy game design.

Point taken, but I still disagree. If you don't need a feature at the start of the game, it doesn't need to be given to the player at the start of the game.

You don't need Patched Conics to get into orbit, you don't need to EVA until you land somewhere else, and you don't need action groups until you have a large and complex craft that requires them.

That's why all of these things are "locked out" until you get around to unlocking them. Personally, I never needed to calculate my Delta-V to go anywhere in the Kerbin system.

Quote

Action groups are a perfect example of this; where the user could simply hit 1 button and collect all the science on their craft they instead have to right-click all the little things while trying to fly their craft or whatever.  I mean, I suppose you could categorize that as "gameplay" but I call it an exercise in frustration and tedium that makes me want to play something else.

I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I never felt panning the camera around and right-clicking on some parts was frustrating.

If anything, it gives a motivation to collect some SpaceBucks, upgrade the VAB to level 2, and unlock the basic action groups.

Quote

And I'd be all for more progression so long as it was meaningful and made actual sense.

Same here, I'm all for meaningful progression. Like I said, if anything, there's not enough of it.

[mattinoz]

41 minutes ago, regex said:

Don't over-exaggerate here.  I'm not talking about "giv(ing) the player everything they want on a silver platter", I'm talking about locking out a particular useful feature in order to make progression.  That's not meaningful progression, it's lazy game design.

To me the value of unlocks might be more in code design and reseting of player expectations.

Members of the dev team have basically said that getting the code right in one release is next to impossible. So breaking it up in to levels of correctness to me would allow them to piecemeal the development of the code and should make each step fairly meaningful progression as the calculations would start simple then take in to account more complexity as the Dv system levels up.

A simple first level calculator that works on pure math and errs on the low side of ISP values so that it leads to over engineering would be still be a massive improvement to the game and take a lot of tedium out of trying to build more complex craft.  If a more complex calculator comes along over time that would be cool as well.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, regex said:

So if they did it by hand you wouldn't call it lazy?  Because ... why?  Because they're wasting time plugging numbers into a calculator instead of sensibly using a computer to do a tedious task for them?

I think we have a misunderstanding. My point was meant to be that trial and error can get you anywhere in the Kerbin system, no delta-v or calculators required.

I voted yes on including a delta-v readout, but I think it should only be unlocked when you really need it. That's all.

[regex]

2 minutes ago, MailletC said:

I think we have a misunderstanding. My point was meant to be that trial and error can get you anywhere in the Kerbin system, no delta-v or calculators required.

And?  Some people prefer to play the game in a different way, with math and precision.  No matter if you can do it, the enjoyment in a sandbox game comes in many forms.

2 minutes ago, MailletC said:

I voted yes on including a delta-v readout, but I think it should only be unlocked when you really need it. That's all.

Okay, my argument is based on the grounds that, regardless of need, which is a very subjective topic in a video game, the information can easily be calculated by hand so there is no reason not to automate said calculation.  Paywalling it basically amounts to punishing the player for playing the game, where the feature comes as relief from tedium.  That's all.

[Blaarkies]

6 hours ago, MailletC said:

I voted yes on including a delta-v readout, but I think it should only be unlocked when you really need it. That's all.

6 hours ago, regex said:

... the information can easily be calculated by hand so there is no reason not to automate said calculation.  Paywalling it basically amounts to punishing the player for playing the game, where the feature comes as relief from tedium.  That's all.

Completely agree! Is it cheating when you can predict something in a game, just by taking a moment and actually calculating it? This is possible with most games that have a pause menu.
If engine Isp stats are hidden before the "unlock" as well, then very well...at least, i don't know how to calculate DV without the Isp value, and if the player cannot calculate it yet, then DV is fair game to be "upgrade locked" information.

 

 

[monstah]

Grumpy old spacehippie is back, whee! \o/

That said, how about having a dV readout on the Engineer Report from start, but unlocking one for active flights? (edit - I mean, not having it on the VAB to me is a no-brainer no-no, but accurately measuring how much fuel was spent could be something related to progression, maybe both R&D and Tracking station so that some doppler-shift tracking is involved?)

Personally, I'm beginning to skip the entire first tier buildings on my new saves, since most of their limitations seem artificial to me. Let's see, a patch of ruined ground on otherwise perfectly flat landing grass. Two factories that can't put more than 30 parts together, and can't hook a landing light to the landing gear switch. A group of bureaucrats who can't remember more than two contracts at the same time. A slab of concrete with a limitation on how high you can build something on top of it (seriously?). A research facility that has to discover how to, I dunno, pick dirt from the ground?

Edited May 3, 2016 by monstah

[regex]

 

1 hour ago, monstah said:

That said, how about having a dV readout on the Engineer Report from start, but unlocking one for active flights?

That would be better than tying it to having an Engineer on board (Kerbal classes are so bad...).  And yes, the main thrust of my argument is that, in the VAB/SPH all the information needed to calculate delta-V is staring the player in the face from the beginning; paywalling the feature (assuming we get it) amounts to nothing more than an irritant at that point.

Quote

Personally, I'm beginning to skip the entire first tier buildings on my new saves, since most of their limitations seem artificial to me.

Agree with the rest of that post.  Over here, last time I started a career game I unlocked all the science nodes available to the tier 1 R&D building before I started, that helped significantly reduce the :groan: factor of starting my "nth" career save and served much the same goal since I could unlock the buildings faster.

[Kerbart]

12 hours ago, MailletC said:

I think we have a misunderstanding. My point was meant to be that trial and error can get you anywhere in the Kerbin system, no delta-v or calculators required.

I voted yes on including a delta-v readout, but I think it should only be unlocked when you really need it. That's all.

You could tie the accuracy   precision of the  DV to how advanced Kerbal Science is (ie. the level of the R&D building). Tier 1 gets you DV rounded down to the nearest 500 m/s; tier 2 gets you DV rounded down to the nearest 100 m/s and tier 3 gets you down to 1 m/s.

[Red Iron Crown]

4 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

You could tie the accuracy   precision of the  DV to how advanced Kerbal Science is (ie. the level of the R&D building). Tier 1 gets you DV rounded down to the nearest 500 m/s; tier 2 gets you DV rounded down to the nearest 100 m/s and tier 3 gets you down to 1 m/s.

So....back to calculating by hand or using external tools then?

If you give the player accurate masses and accurate Isps then all you're doing by hiding the delta V counter or making it less accurate is pushing the player to manual/external calculation.