Pez_

I think this could be less artificially solved if the reset/data collection mechanics were tweaked so the number of biomes you could get data from were limited by the equipment you can take. Then the science processing lab is more useful if you can build it into the mission as well.

I think this touches on a good point which is the way science is structured doesn't really make sense. What are the goals of science in terms of gameplay? I would say at the moment they are: 1) To give an incentive to explore. 2) To give a tech progression, so players aren't given too much they can do (but don't yet know how) all at once. To be honest I think it fails at both of these. If 1 is the goal, then why is the best way to get science to take 20 different instruments to all of the quite similar biomes of the mun and minmus? Shouldn't it be big rewards for major milestones (getting to new planets/moons, setting up science bases there), not a biome/instrument grind? On 2, I find that I have excess science and am unlocking things before I really want to use them for something so (for me at least) that isn't working either. I would argue the science should also do other things like; 3) Give gameplay information. How thick and high is the atmosphere- can I aerobrake and if so at what height? What does the terrain look like- where should I land? How strong is the gravity- will this lander be able to take off? 4) Unlock easter eggs on the map. However that's a probably a different discussion.

Nail on the head. I think you are right, but they are strange ones that they haven't followed through with. If we are supposed to eyeball things instead of using delta V, then why are maneuver nodes in delta V? If the idea is we don't use delta V, then wouldn't it make more sense to display in terms of how much of your fuel it will use? That idea runs into other problems (how big a fuel burn do I need to reduce my surface speed by 200 m/s?) which I think makes the case that I really needs to be in dV and shown. Good point and I think KER already points the way to do this. In career mode there's a module you add to access KER. Maybe split it into a basic and advanced version and have them unlocked along the tech tree. Interplanetary angles was another thing I would have mentioned. I guess the simplest solution would be to have the tracking station list upcoming transfer windows after one of it's upgrades. There's a balance there though (as I think you mentioned) part of the fun is learning how these things work rather than being handed them.

Actually I use those quite a bit. If you are using SAS to keep your craft pointed straight then the input indicators show the control limits. If they start sliding out one way you know the SAS is going to get overwhelmed and you need to do something, like change throttle or compensate yourself. I can see it would be useful to have the rates to correct a tumble though.

Hi, I've been a KSP player for a few months now. The first time I played was actually a demo about a year ago but I found the learning curve too steep and the user interface confusing and I might not have played again if I hadn't rediscovered on youtube. I really love the game and want it to be even better. I'll try and be as constructive as possible and give specific suggestions to the problems I see. 1) Map mode or stage mode for getting into orbit? I don't think the way these modes are split currently makes sense. Say I want to go into orbit, I need to stage, keep track of my fuel, and keep track of my trajectory especially the apoapsis and periapsis. In the stage mode I can see fuel and stage, but I can't track my orbit in any easy way. In map mode I can control throttle and see the orbit, but I can't stage or see my fuel. This means you have to switch back and forth. Why is it designed like that? Which mode is the player supposed to fly in? Possible solutions: - Add values of apoapsis and periapsis to stage mode (like in KER) so that it can be flown from there - Keep staging and fuel info in map mode so it can be flown from there. - (My preference) Unify the modes- why are they different anyway? How if you scroll out in stage mode you see the trajectory for adding maneuver nodes etc. 2) Mystery/hidden meat UI and features. Examples: - The main space center view. What are the buildings? Surely at least a name should come up when you hover over them? - "EVA" and "IVA". "What's does that mean?", asks the new player. I suspect many (like me) click IVA and get stuck in cockpit as there is no click button to exit. Googling the controls to find out "c" is the right button probably shouldn't be a part of the learning curve. - Maneuver nodes. How to move them? You click and drag the circle, is that clear? Why not drag-able arrows either side? - Fuel transfer? Jetpack? Collecting science from instruments on EVA? Storing science and resetting instruments? I didn't know about any of these things existed before I saw others playing. This all helps to frustrate new players. Solutions: - Proper button labeling/tooltips. - Contextual prompts. Free floating kerbal in space -> "Press R for jetpack". 3) Science gameplay integration I think quite a few opportunities are missed for the science to be useful other than unlocking new parts. It feels artificial to be just collecting points. I think collecting science should give you information that helps you explore the moons/planets How about: - Terrain hidden until survey scan in order to give an incentive to first send a survey probe before trying to land. - Atmospheric analysis reveals height/density (relative to Kerbin) in map view, to give indication for aerobraking/ if parachutes will work. - Gravimetric analysis reveals gravitational strength (again, probably relative Kerbin units), added to map view. - Collect enough and interesting easter egg style sites are revealed. ----------- I have many more suggestions and could probably keep going but I'll stop there for now. I hope that was helpful- keep up the good work!