Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?

[John FX]

I dunno, I think it's valid to think that something is better left to mods. I feel that way about the historical spacecraft mods.

I would agree if it was not for the superior attitude that oozes from the `I only play stock` crowd a lot of the time.

ANYTHING that can stop being a mod and can be incorporated into that game should be in my opinion until that stops.

If only playing stock is better (not breaking saves, level playing field etc) then we need as many features to become stock as possible.

I see remaining seconds/fuel/Dv as one of the basic readouts in a spacecraft, like speed or altitude.

If you want to play pure trial and error with no readouts then use F2...

If you want readouts then remaining Dv should be among them.

There already is a hotkey to get rid of the Dv readout when implemented and all the others with it so the `trial and error` people can have no information and keep crashing and laughing and the majority of us (86.8% to 13.1% now) can play with sensible readouts...

This topic seems a VERY good example of a majority (over 86%) who think an idea is a good idea and a vocal minority (13.1%) who don`t want the change. When only 1/8th of the poll responders don`t want the change then the change is going to happen. I think it is because it makes a lot of sense.

In the forum lately I have noticed a few people who post a LOT and sometimes it seems a lot of people object to certain things but there are simply a lot of posts by a very few people who seem to want to object and pick at almost every thread and suggestion on the forum.

Sometimes they don`t make a lot of sense but won`t stop objecting until they get agreed with and wear people down until they get an agreement from them...

Edited April 26, 2014 by John FX

[Col_Jessep]

A stock delta-v readout would be very welcome, especially now that several parts have 'fake mass' in the VAB/SPH. I don't enjoy guessing my way to other celestial bodies.

[John FX]

A job that can be done on the first try is no kind of achievement and therefore not much of a rush to complete successfully.

Well I landed a kerbal on every single body in the system within about a month of buying the game to become a grandmaster.

I did them all first time except for Tylo and Moho. Getting to Jool I did first time. Same with Eeloo (although it took ages) Getting to Moho was hard but you get to retry every couple of months so it was quick at least. Landing on Tylo was the hard part, I kept overestimating the Dv my lander had. That meant another two years until the next try. Repeatedly warping for two years just to try to land again is not fun. It is boring I landed on Eeloo before Tylo...

I still thought that was an achievement though, even though I did it first time. I did this stock BTW...

I just didn`t realise it was supposed to be hard at the time. I docked for a month before I found RCS in the parts list. Docking used to be hardcore, now it is boring with RCS but do you see me asking for RCS to be removed from the game? No, because the majority of players find it useful. I could happily play with no RCS but players who are not me find it VERY useful so I do not object to the feature.

Now I want to know what I build has a chance of working before I fire the engines and I get enjoyment from making good rockets, not ones that explode. This would be a very useful feature to the majority of players.

To those who do not want this, please realise you are in the minority and you will sometimes just have to put up with parts and features in the game you do not find balanced or useful in your particular method of gameplay.

Complaining a lot will NOT stop this feature but it WILL make the forum a less nice place to be.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

I would agree if it was not for the superior attitude that oozes from the `I only play stock` crowd a lot of the time.

I've never actually seen anyone say this, it just seems to be a feeling non stock people feel.

ANYTHING that can stop being a mod and can be incorporated into that game should be in my opinion until that stops.

Well it will not stop because its not something they are doing but something you are feeling. Also as always which mods are we talking about? There isn't the ram for all the mods to e implemented so by adding as many mods as you can you are

A: Stopping anyone with less than 4 GB of ram from even playing the game.

B: Stopping anyone from choosing the mods they can have.

If you want to play pure trial and error with no readouts then use F2...

What is the difference in a single player FPS between a map and a map that shows all enemys, there direction and how hard they are? The extra map is more information and should therefore make the game better so why do we not have it?

This topic seems a VERY good example of a majority (over 86%) who think an idea is a good idea and a vocal minority (13.1%) who don`t want the change. When only 1/8th of the poll responders don`t want the change then the change is going to happen. I think it is because it makes a lot of sense.

All of north America makes up just 5% of the world population, by your logic this means the world can safely ignore all Americans because they are just a vocal minority. "Only 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe in Big Bang" http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/only-20-percent-of-americans-surveyed-believe-in-the-big-bang/ . Being in the majority does not automatically make you right. It also doesn't make you automatically wrong either. I do think there should be a total mass readout in the VAB/SPH but that is as far as it should go. Note I have not said if I use mods or not, or which mods I use, any argument that says I'm a stock purist would be very inaccurate. I can defend stock purists without being one. Now I'm off to do real world things so will probably not reply to any counter arguments. Also

[r4pt0r]

all that really matters is harvester said he doesn't want it in the stock game.

[Darth_Kerb]

Yes.

A manouver-node gives you the dV-requirement for the burn. Whats the point in calculating a requirement if you don't know your total dV? As the game is right now, Delta-V is simply not implemented consequently, but it's there. I understand the "ksp-way of doing things", but either you have dV fully integrated or you leave it out completely. Having dV-requirements but no total dV in vanilla ksp ist just half-baked. In fact, the requirement a manouver node gives you ist pointless if you don't know how much Delta-V you actually have. It's like a car telling you that you need amount X fuel to drive from A to B but not letting you know how much fuel you have at all.

[Uncle Mort]

What is the difference in a single player FPS between a map and a map that shows all enemys, there direction and how hard they are? The extra map is more information and should therefore make the game better so why do we not have it?

Not an argument, simply put, in the "real" world you wouldn't know the exact disposition and strength of an enemy but in designing and building a rocket, delta-v, TWR etc. is basic information. It should be available in stock.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

in the "real" world you wouldn't know the exact disposition and strength of an enemy

You also wouldn't have a cross hair in your eyes, wouldn't have a hud with a map (even without any people on it), you can't take 100 bullets, in the real world you bleed out not get healthier afterwards, explosions can make you permanently deaf, shrapnel can kill from meters way, people don't have health bars, guns jam, people need time to pick up ammo they can't just magnetically absorb it, armies are not constrained to a tiny box of terrain, wind affects bullet trajectory and people do not re-spawn. I am referring to a FPS game not real life because we are talking about games. So the argument stands, why is this not in FPS games when so many other VERY MUCH non realistic things exist?

What is the difference in a single player FPS between a map and a map that shows all enemys, there direction and how hard they are? The extra map is more information and should therefore make the game better so why do we not have it?

[bsalis]

all that really matters is harvester said he doesn't want it in the stock game.

Well, from the pcgamer article linked previously, i'm not sure the decision is so firm...

I wanted it sometimes, and I un-wanted it other times. In the end, it takes away a gameplay element because it takes some of the guesswork and some of the trial and error and figuring out for yourself what the delta-V is.

Squad have changed their minds on priorities and features before. This is nothing unusual for a game that is evolving and has not hit v1.0 yet. You just don't usually see it, since you are typically buying a finished game.

Another quote from HarvesteR, made some time ago...

There are still many design decisions to be made, before we can be sure of how we should go about things... Mainly, I'm divided between having orbital mechanics in the game or not... So we decided to leave it up to the players to decide.

So even orbital mechanics was undecided at one point... pretty sure a delta-v readout is not something they will take off the table.

[r4pt0r]

again, for some(including harv) adding a dv indicator would be dissapointing. the clear choice is to leave it optional as it already is, as a mod

[r4pt0r]

again, for some(including harv) adding a dv indicator would be dissapointing. the clear choice is to leave it optional as it already is, as a mod

EDIT: as stated above however, the devs vision for the game might change.

EDIT2: sorry on the double post

[xcorps]

all that really matters is harvester said he doesn't want it in the stock game.

No, that's actually not all the really matters. Wrong is wrong, doesn't matter who you are. If 80% of the player base wants a simple feature and the lead dev says no, then the lead dev is out of touch with his customers.

[r4pt0r]

alot of people wanted mineable resources ingame and thankfully the devs aborted that operation.

[Paul Kingtiger]

all that really matters is harvester said he doesn't want it in the stock game.

The same thing was said about multi-player, but now it's been officially announced.

I don't think it's fair to assume that devs can't change their mind or that the goal of the game won't evolve over time.

It's also perfectly reasonable to discuss why having a counter would / would not, be a good idea.

[xcorps]

alot of people wanted mineable resources ingame and thankfully the devs aborted that operation.

Don't shift the goalposts or strawman. This discussion is about Dv information. Your point was that one of the dev's may not want to include DV readouts. My rebuttal is that just because a dev doesn't want to include doesn't mean that it's a decision that's good for gameplay.

[r4pt0r]

Don't shift the goalposts or strawman. This discussion is about Dv information. Your point was that one of the dev's may not want to include DV readouts. My rebuttal is that just because a dev doesn't want to include doesn't mean that it's a decision that's good for gameplay.

EDIT: for your idea of good gameplay. majority means nothing

it seems to fit harvesters idea of good gameplay

Edited April 26, 2014 by r4pt0r

[Uncle Mort]

You also wouldn't have a cross hair in your eyes, wouldn't have a hud with a map (even without any people on it), you can't take 100 bullets, in the real world you bleed out not get healthier afterwards, explosions can make you permanently deaf, shrapnel can kill from meters way, people don't have health bars, guns jam, people need time to pick up ammo they can't just magnetically absorb it, armies are not constrained to a tiny box of terrain, wind affects bullet trajectory and people do not re-spawn. I am referring to a FPS game not real life because we are talking about games. So the argument stands, why is this not in FPS games when so many other VERY MUCH non realistic things exist?

What is the difference in a single player FPS between a map and a map that shows all enemys, there direction and how hard they are? The extra map is more information and should therefore make the game better so why do we not have it?

Your argument was "Strawman" but now has turned into an entire haystack. I don't play these FPS war games but they are obviously not, and cannot be realistic: you would be dead and "game over" every few minutes without those non realistic features. But then again KSP has similar features.

Delta-v is such a fundamental part of rocketry I cannot understand why it isn't an integral part of the game.

[xcorps]

it seems to fit harvesters idea of good gameplay

You continue to beat the appeal to authority drum. Do you have something besides a fallacy?

majority means nothing

It means a lot if you're marketing a product.

Edited April 26, 2014 by xcorps

[r4pt0r]

You continue to beat the appeal to authority drum. Do you have something besides a fallacy?

It means a lot if you're marketing a product.

he already got your money ha.

im not appealing to authority. its harvesters game and he will make it how he wants it to be. this dv counter idea doesnt seem to fit his vision for a final product, but he knows people will want it, hence the space port and an acceptance of the modding comunity.

[SSSPutnik]

As long as you can hide the window info, yes.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

I don't play these FPS war games but they are obviously not, and cannot be realistic: you would be dead and "game over" every few minutes without those non realistic features. But then again KSP has similar features.

This is the point, KSP is a game not a true simulation. You could make an FPS that was totally realistic, but it would probably not be fun. This is my point and not at all a straw man argument. I am using FPS's because non of us can see unbiasedly when it come to KSP. The point boils down to what is too much information and what is fun.

Delta-v is such a fundamental part of rocketry I cannot understand why it isn't an integral part of the game.

Delta-v is part of real life rocketry, the world where you have to wait two years in real time till 2016 for a probe to reach mars. A world where you only control one tiny aspect of the program, where you do not get to fly a rocket if you designed it, or design it if you write the auto pilot to fly it. What is fun is not always what is real.

[xcorps]

he already got your money ha.

Not a cogent point.

im not appealing to authority. its harvesters game and he will make it how he wants it to be. this dv counter idea doesnt seem to fit his vision for a final product, but he knows people will want it, hence the space port and an acceptance of the modding comunity.

The poll/discussion isn't about what Harvester wants. It's about what the community wants.

Trying to stifle discussion with Harversters vision is an appeal to authority. Fawning credentialism in fact.

[Red Iron Crown]

All of the mods I've seen that do dV counters have a method to hide the readout when not in use, I can't imagine that a stock implementation would not include a way to hide it.

I don't think I've seen a poll so one-sided about a potential feature. KSP is not a democracy, of course, but it would seem the community as a whole heartily supports the idea.

[r4pt0r]

oh pardon me, terribly sorry.

actually doing calculations or looking at numbers doesnt fit with how i see kerbals. i place a node, drag dials till it does what i want it to, and launch. seems more "kerbal" to me. if in the vab or in orbit i already know my craft can make it to duna and back that takes away the excitement from the game for me. thats my opinon.

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

Using other games as an example, you should at least choose a game that has some similarity to the one we love here on this forum...

If you were to compare it to something else popular with a similar basis, such as War Thunder (WWII flight sim war game) then you remove the fact that in an FPS you are not in a vehicle (most of the time) which consumes fuel and other resources, and do have a lot of technical readouts. In War Thunder, because you are flying around a lot, fuel can become a concern if you get good enough to survive for a while and realise that you don't have enough fuel to last the whole 10 minute gametime... or what usually happens is people run out of ammunition, and either way have to learn how to land at an airfield to refuel and re-arm. The point is, the readouts are customisable in the menu, to what YOU feel you need to play the game better.

And some of these 'less important' readouts are off by default, and you have to go looking in the menu to find them. But the customisation is welcome; some people never last more than a few seconds into an engagement, and so some of these readouts have no attraction for them, so they leave them off... and they have just as much fun without it

And on a last note, I like when people pick at details - some of the best plans in the world have fallen apart because small details have been forgotten, so it's always best to comprehensively develop things first, otherwise there could be some horrible game-breaking bug lurking somewhere that doesn't get found until release day... and if you lot think it's bad now when a release is delayed for any reason, what do you think it will be like in the years to come as more and more people get the game? will we see angry mobs outside the SQUAD offices? will it lead to the end of the world and we have to travel into the stars to survive? who knows, but now I've said it, it sounds better than other end-of-the-world scenarios haha!