What is the rationale behind playing completely stock?

[falloutaddict]

Basically this. That's why I prefer stock at least.

I honestly view things like mechjeb as cheating, but when that was my sig I got reported "multiple times". There are no depths of depravity mod players wont go to.

Also you absolutely do not need dv or anyother KER numbers added to the game to play it. I manage just fine. I agree with this article, where Harv says "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. It might take some of the magic away."

Remote tech and TAC and KAS might be fun, but I enjoy the game Squad made, just as they made it*.

*With the exception of chatterer and EVE. I like my game to look and sound pretty. Forgive me for cheating.

Interesting points, I do believe the only person you would be cheating is yourself out of some fun! If mechjeb doesn't feel right for someone by all means, they shouldn't use it. I used it for a short while when I started playing and it helped tremendously. But now that I've learned how to land on moons, do interplanetary travels, and take off I don't really need it anymore. One thing I would add is that while you may feel that a dV calculator is not needed (which technically it isn't) and that it may take away gameplay elements by removing guesswork, guesswork is not fun for me. Like I said, I can be kind of dense and it's bad enough I am constantly reverting because I forgot a solar panel or an antennae halfway to duna, but guessing on dV would make me absolutely insane and is definately not what I consider fun, but that doesn't mean it's not for somebody or that my way is the right way to play. Different strokes for different folks.

[EtherDragon]

Not that there is anything wrong with it, that's how I started too before I knew better.

Loaded statement is loaded! =p First, this statement comes with a built in assumption that playing with mods is inherently better than playing without. I challenge that assumption, and give you a modification - it's better for you, because you find more enjoyment out of the mods than you would otherwise.

Then I did know better and I still stubbornly stuck with stock because didn't want to deal with mods in case the were too complicated (before I figured out it is pretty much just drag and drop into gamedata folder).

Still a heavily loaded statement =p. This time with two built in assumptions: 1. That mods are better than stock, and 2. that the mods were too complicated. It's true that some mods make the game more fun for you, but not necessarily for everyone. A well built mod should be easy, and add the kind of value someone is looking for in KSP that KSP stock does not already give them.

Finally I broke down and got mechjeb and a couple others like chatterer. But since then I've been grabbing up mods like candy. I just want to try them all and I've only scraped the surface. So my question is are there people who play a completely stock game and why?

Yes, and I'm one of them. In fact I post four videos per week of stock KSP play on my YouTube Channel. Now, that we've disabused ourselves of the built in assumptions in the very loaded statements above (again... =p) let's get to the heart of your question: Why would anyone play stock when there are such great mods that make game-play so much easier?

Answer: Because I want to focus on a particular style of game-play, one that KSP stock happens to offer.

My comparison:

With Stock - I have to experimentally try different rocket configurations, sometimes failing to achieve a goal several times, before I come up with a design that succeeds. Along the way I've learned a great deal about rocket design, and how certain things affect rocket performance, when and why to use certain design techniques to overcome the limitations.

With Mods - I would just be given a number, and rely too heavily on what that number said instead of discovering for myself why things behave like they do.

Because there are certain mods I just can't do without.

I submit the following possibility - you can't do without the mods, because you have not learned how to play without them. It's possible, I've been doing it since just before Science Mode came out. What I think is more accurate for you to say is - you can't imagine having as much fun without the mods as you do with them. Which is a perfectly valid thing to say!

Kerbal Engineer for deltaV and other useful info (I upgraded from mechjeb after I learned all the fancy maneuvers and such)

In my case specifically, rather than rely on what some gauge tells me my Delta-V is, I learn what a particular rocket is capable of by testing it. Sometimes its maiden voyage is just a fly by and return trip. Often times I end up stranding someone while being shy by maybe 100 dV. For me, failing to master every flight the first time is much of the fun, and I couldn't do without that.

Kerbal alarm clock (seriously, how can you play without this?)

"Warp To" removes my need for this mod. When I have multiple missions going at the same time - I'm going to watch them carefully at the tracking station. But my style is usually one mission at a time.

KAS/KIS (very useful for all sorts of things)

I don't even know what these do. I've been able to play career modes all the way to a Jool grand tour without them. =)

I have also started using TAC (life support) remote tech (more realistic antennas) outer planet mods, not to mention all of the parts mods I've added.

I understand the allure of more realism in KSP such as life support. It's a practical planning issue that we would face in the real world. For me the value of KSP is the orbital mechanics (even if they are "only" using patched conics), not dealing with logistics.

So once again, not to say anything against anybody who plays stock but I do want to know how you do without a mod like kerbal engineer or kac?

I try stuff. I experiment. I build and launch things to see what they are capable of. Having a good understanding of the maths (which I have learned through KSC without any mods) really helps drive my individual designs. For instance, I will ask - "Do I really need RCS? It will add a lot of dead weight and not much Delta-V." and come up with a design that maybe relies on more efficient use of RCS - one great example:

In sandbox, I made a very Apollo like Mun Lander using pure stock. It had all the bells and whistles - ascent stage, with SRBs, booster stage, separate command and landing vehicles, and the Mun lander had a descent vehicle and the lander can could return to orbit on its own. Then it came down to RCS on the lander can. I asked "This think needs to dock, but does it need RCS?" After thinking about it, the answer was "No! The command module already has RCS and it can dock with the lander can assuming the lander has established a circular orbit near by." No mod in the world would have helped me make this decision any quicker or easier.

Also, what are some of your favorite mods to use, because I would love to add some more to my list.

My favorite mod is Kerbal Space Program 1.0.2 (Ha! Another loaded question! =p )

=p Don't be offended by my poking at these loaded statements. I just like pointing out phrases that have assumptions built-in, so we can all know what the heck we are really talking about. Your core question really is a good one, "I have the most fun with Mods, and can't imagine playing otherwise. How do vanilla players get the same enjoyment out of KSP as I do?"

My Answer: "I enjoy figuring things out through experimentation and failure more than I would if I relied on a number given to me by a dashboard of some kind."

Edited May 26, 2015 by EtherDragon

[WinkAllKerb'']

2 or 3 cp more:

- mods can't be without stock to be

so on playin stock most of the time is a good way to help and contribute to both stock and mods as well as it's nice to play modded installs too.

- as said also mostly see the game (as well as each mods) as an artwork (wich includes it's creator(s) sensibilities and devoted time) with choices made on purpose as updates goes in parrallel with time that could be spent polishing existing adding new thing by squad team, providing a nice moddable environnement is also a large part of this work in term of dev time sink that could have been spent elsewhere or not ... (I wonder if Harv and pal are aliens with 8 pairs of hands each and drink something else but coffee xDr?)

- (@slashy difference between fps ai and nyancat® remain in mp fps you have to face random players reaction, ksp environnement has no random event to face in term of piloting ; in ksp you don't play against someone or an ai just yourself and law of physics for a much larger purpose wich is often even harder than playing against others is playing with & for others). I don't see really anithing hard or to be so proud of long term in facing non random event regarding gameplay abilities, you like it or not and that's all ...

Edited May 26, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[Jr6150x]

Frankly because these past couple of years I have enjoyed stock so much I haven't felt the need for mods yet. Your starting statement is also very biased towards mod ksp players.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Jr6150x

[martinborgen]

What's the point of playing if you can be sure you'll have enough fuel to get there?

[falloutaddict]

Why do you need a rationale for enjoyment of the stock game experience? It's an entirely subjective opinion to like the game without mods, as much as it is subjective to want mods. I can think of no objective reason for either mode.

PS: I'll pose a similar question: What is the rationale for playing KSP?

PPS: I enjoy minecraft without mods. In fact, I enjoy the older versions more than the new because it provides fewer tools to survive on.

Because I wanted to hear what peoples subjective opinions are on the matter. This is the right forum for discussing the game right? (End snark ). I play KSP because it is fun. Scratch that. Hopelessly addicting.

- - - Updated - - -

Take docking. For those that do it manually, how long did it take you to be able to plot a close rendezvous using maneuver nodes? How long after that to maneuver the ships in visual range, with the navball? How long after THAT to line the ports up, cancel relative velocity, and get that oh-so-satisfying 'click'? Anyone who has done all that is rightly proud of the achievement, and knows that every routine dock that comes afterward is only possible because of the hours spent doing the first one.

As someone who spent hours learning how to rendezvous and dock and can now do both with ease, this speaks to me on a spiritual level

[hobbez]

i play stock because it's a standard measurement of difficulty equal for all players who download the game, and a constant over time (except of course when patches come along). Meaning i can safely compare my crafts, records, and difficult situations with others players.

The only mods i enjoy, are the ones that add planets, but i keep a copy of the game for those.

[Caelib]

Stock is fun. As long as I'm not doing anything too technical, KSP is fine on its own.

Once it gets technical, I rely on KER.

Yup. I can do a full career on Normal in stock, but I found Hard-mode to be a little too unforgiving without being able to see delta-V so that is why the only mod I use is KER.

[falloutaddict]

Loaded statement is loaded! =p First, this statement comes with a built in assumption that playing with mods is inherently better than playing without. I challenge that assumption, and give you a modification - it's better for you, because you find more enjoyment out of the mods than you would otherwise.

Still a heavily loaded statement =p. This time with two built in assumptions: 1. That mods are better than stock, and 2. that the mods were too complicated. It's true that some mods make the game more fun for you, but not necessarily for everyone. A well built mod should be easy, and add the kind of value someone is looking for in KSP that KSP stock does not already give them.

Yes, and I'm one of them. In fact I post four videos per week of stock KSP play on my YouTube Channel. Now, that we've disabused ourselves of the built in assumptions in the very loaded statements above (again... =p) let's get to the heart of your question: Why would anyone play stock when there are such great mods that make game-play so much easier?

Answer: Because I want to focus on a particular style of game-play, one that KSP stock happens to offer.

My comparison:

With Stock - I have to experimentally try different rocket configurations, sometimes failing to achieve a goal several times, before I come up with a design that succeeds. Along the way I've learned a great deal about rocket design, and how certain things affect rocket performance, when and why to use certain design techniques to overcome the limitations.

With Mods - I would just be given a number, and rely too heavily on what that number said instead of discovering for myself why things behave like they do.

I submit the following possibility - you can't do without the mods, because you have not learned how to play without them. It's possible, I've been doing it since just before Science Mode came out. What I think is more accurate for you to say is - you can't imagine having as much fun without the mods as you do with them. Which is a perfectly valid thing to say!

In my case specifically, rather than rely on what some gauge tells me my Delta-V is, I learn what a particular rocket is capable of by testing it. Sometimes its maiden voyage is just a fly by and return trip. Often times I end up stranding someone while being shy by maybe 100 dV. For me, failing to master every flight the first time is much of the fun, and I couldn't do without that.

"Warp To" removes my need for this mod. When I have multiple missions going at the same time - I'm going to watch them carefully at the tracking station. But my style is usually one mission at a time.

I don't even know what these do. I've been able to play career modes all the way to a Jool grand tour without them. =)

I understand the allure of more realism in KSP such as life support. It's a practical planning issue that we would face in the real world. For me the value of KSP is the orbital mechanics (even if they are "only" using patched conics), not dealing with logistics.

I try stuff. I experiment. I build and launch things to see what they are capable of. Having a good understanding of the maths (which I have learned through KSC without any mods) really helps drive my individual designs. For instance, I will ask - "Do I really need RCS? It will add a lot of dead weight and not much Delta-V." and come up with a design that maybe relies on more efficient use of RCS - one great example:

In sandbox, I made a very Apollo like Mun Lander using pure stock. It had all the bells and whistles - ascent stage, with SRBs, booster stage, separate command and landing vehicles, and the Mun lander had a descent vehicle and the lander can could return to orbit on its own. Then it came down to RCS on the lander can. I asked "This think needs to dock, but does it need RCS?" After thinking about it, the answer was "No! The command module already has RCS and it can dock with the lander can assuming the lander has established a circular orbit near by." No mod in the world would have helped me make this decision any quicker or easier.

My favorite mod is Kerbal Space Program 1.0.2 (Ha! Another loaded question! =p )

=p Don't be offended by my poking at these loaded statements. I just like pointing out phrases that have assumptions built-in, so we can all know what the heck we are really talking about. Your core question really is a good one, "I have the most fun with Mods, and can't imagine playing otherwise. How do vanilla players get the same enjoyment out of KSP as I do?"

My Answer: "I enjoy figuring things out through experimentation and failure more than I would if I relied on a number given to me by a dashboard of some kind."

Don't worry, no offense taken in fact I really appreciate your honesty!

No point in responding to all of this since you and are pretty much on the same page. I think my main point was yah this game is more fun for me with mods, so I was kind of curious what reasons people had for playing stock. Not to refute anyone or tell them that's stupid, just to know why.

I submit the following possibility - you can't do without the mods, because you have not learned how to play without them. It's possible, I've been doing it since just before Science Mode came out. What I think is more accurate for you to say is - you can't imagine having as much fun without the mods as you do with them. Which is a perfectly valid thing to say!

Pretty much this. It's not that I don't know how to calculate the dV or maneuver modes, it is just not fun for me.

[Vasious]

I am playing a stock game.

Reading this thread it makes me;

a liar, as no one would ever want to do that

A Cheat as I don't have life support/comms/whatever install to make it harder/more realistic

Stupid as I can only cope with "too easy" a game

Delusional/irrational fanboi as that is the only way I could be happy with the base game.

Could have sworn this was a game to play as a way of having some enjoyable down time from the hum drum of work.

Sorry I was wrong on that I shall uninstall it immediately so as to not offend any one else with seeing it that way.

[regex]

Maybe so, but I haven't seen it. I've seen people say that calculating dV by hand helps get a better grasp of how it works and people should try it (heck, I've probably said that), but never that using mods to calculate it are cheating.

Oh you haven't? It's all over the place, attempts by people to make themselves look better than others. Builders look down upon procedurals because they're not "creative" ("You have any part you want, that's not creativity") and planners look down upon ENG or MJ users because they're not doing the math themselves. Hell, just using a mod that shows the maneuver ejection angle could be reason to look down on someone because they're not properly "winging it KSP style". That's the way things go around here; there's no direct competition so people have to make it up. Really has nothing to do with the word "cheating" either.

That's what threads like these are great for, people putting others down by claiming their way is better, or more skillful, or more creative. Intentional or not it always boils down to that one fact.

[falloutaddict]

Frankly because these past couple of years I have enjoyed stock so much I haven't felt the need for mods yet. Your starting statement is also very biased towards mod ksp players.

Yes I had another poster point that out, I apologize if I came across that way, that was in no way intended. I love stock. I love mods. I love ksp. I hate when I right click my buildings to upgrade and it doesn't work though.

[Jr6150x]

What's the point of playing if you can be sure you'll have enough fuel to get there?

And here I am saying What's the point of playing if you already know you will succeed and how you will succeed, no hard work to fix mistakes.

[falloutaddict]

I am playing a stock game.

Reading this thread it makes me;

a liar, as no one would ever want to do that

A Cheat as I don't have life support/comms/whatever install to make it harder/more realistic

Stupid as I can only cope with "too easy" a game

Delusional/irrational fanboi as that is the only way I could be happy with the base game.

Could have sworn this was a game to play as a way of having some enjoyable down time from the hum drum of work.

Sorry I was wrong on that I shall uninstall it immediately so as to not offend any one else with seeing it that way.

Really? I've read the whole thread and aside from a few snarky but well intended and humourous comments all I've read are a bunch of awesome reasons to enjoy stock KSP without mods. Some I may not agree with, like personally I don't think downloading and installing mods is particularly difficult but there was a time when I didn't even want to do that. So yah, to each their own.

- - - Updated - - -

And here I am saying What's the point of playing if you already know you will succeed and how you will succeed, no hard work to fix mistakes.

No amount of mods will make sure I remember to attach solar panels, much less extend them... Oh wait, there probably is a mod for that. oh well some things just make the game TOO easy. xD

[LN400]

Much of the debate over what's cheating, I feel, ultimately boils down to

For whatever my opinion's worth: Cheating is only when you play the game in a way that gives you the feeling you are cheating in your own gaming session. If KSP was a MMO game then things would have been different but since it's not and your way of playing has zero influence on the outcome of my game, calling someone else's way of playing 'cheating' is just silly.

As for the original topic: I wouldn't mind playing stock at all and in fact I did for a long time before I got tired of doing the same calculations over and over again and got KER. Saved me tons of paper too. Another thing is, to get to know the game, I don't think there are any better ways than to start stock. You get to know the mechanics and whatever peculiarities or bugs you find. It makes zero sense getting the game, first thing then download a containerload of mods then complain the game is acting funny. This can take a good while. Then, after playing stock-ish, I wanted a different experience and got more mods. Parts mods mostly. I also got mods like KOS which I managed to incorperate in my real life studies. KOS gave me a good platform to toy around with PID controller theory.

Edited May 27, 2015 by LN400
it's 2 AM which affects my coherence

[Jr6150x]

Yeah, and that's really why I live stock.

[worir4]

Oh you haven't? It's all over the place, attempts by people to make themselves look better than others. Builders look down upon procedurals because they're not "creative" ("You have any part you want, that's not creativity") and planners look down upon ENG or MJ users because they're not doing the math themselves. Hell, just using a mod that shows the maneuver ejection angle could be reason to look down on someone because they're not properly "winging it KSP style". That's the way things go around here; there's no direct competition so people have to make it up. Really has nothing to do with the word "cheating" either.

That's what threads like these are great for, people putting others down by claiming their way is better, or more skillful, or more creative. Intentional or not it always boils down to that one fact.

My way is best, blow up everything.

[Xyphos]

Many people have different reasons.

Myself, I'm masochist that loves a good challenge; stock parts suck and yet I prefer to use them.

[GoSlash27]

2 or 3 cp more:

- mods can't be without stock to be

so on playin stock most of the time is a good way to help and contribute to both stock and mods as well as it's nice to play modded installs too.

- as said also mostly see the game (as well as each mods) as an artwork (wich includes it's creator(s) sensibilities and devoted time) with choices made on purpose as updates goes in parrallel with time that could be spent polishing existing adding new thing by squad team' date=' providing a nice moddable environnement is also a large part of this work in term of dev time sink that could have been spent elsewhere or not ... (I wonder if Harv and pal are aliens with 8 pairs of hands each and drink something else but coffee xDr?)

- (@slashy difference between fps ai and nyancat® remain in mp fps you have to face random players reaction, ksp environnement has no random event to face in term of piloting ; in ksp you don't play against someone or an ai just yourself and law of physics for a much larger purpose wich is often even harder than playing against others is playing with & for others). I don't see really anithing hard or to be so proud of long term in facing non random event regarding gameplay abilities, you like it or not and that's all ...

WinkAllKerb,

Ah, but that's the rub: People *do* play against each other. Not just in the forum challenges, but anywhere you see people comparing notes. Most of us are just looking for advice or passing on knowledge, but others...

They're judging themselves and others by how well they overcome similar obstacles. *These* are the people who accuse each other of "cheating" and concerning themselves with how others choose to play the game.

Best,

-Slashy

[lost_in_space]

I play stock because after a hard day of programming, I don't feel like messing around with installing mods and getting them to work.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, ok, I just installed a mod ... Chatterer. It was recommended by someone in this thread. I hope I like it.

[pincushionman]

I like stock because keeping up with all the mod updates and bugs for stuff I *might* want is a hassle. I make an exception for KJR ane KER, though.

I'm going to try an install with KCAN after 1.0.3, though to see if that makes it better. But I do know even that doesn't always play nice with Ferram.

[falloutaddict]

I play stock because after a hard day of programming, I don't feel like messing around with installing mods and getting them to work.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, ok, I just installed a mod ... Chatterer. It was recommended by someone in this thread. I hope I like it.

I keep seeing this point come up and I just want to say one thing, I am no programmer, modder, developer, computer whiz, it guy, or anything of the sort, but it seems like 99% of the time it is simply a matter of download from curse/github/kerbalstuff/etc and then unzip into gamedata folder. No messing around, no fuss. Takes up maybe .1% of my KSP time managing mods. But then I guess I get to spend time figuring out how they work in game, so yah there's that but that's fun to me . Thanks for the input!

[Tank Buddy]

People play stock for dozens of different reasons. You can even see it in this thread. Saying that they do it because they are "just happy with the game that the developers have released" is a nonsense.

I used to play stock for that very reason. Don't judge the way other people want to play a single player sandbox.

[Rainbow-Dashie]

1. The hassle of mods breaking after every big update

2. If a "Part Mod" stops working and I have to delete it, I lose every ship that used one of those parts.

3. Never had a moment where I thought the game lacked something enough, to require me to find a mod.

4. Mods are a plot to control the cybernet by the Illuminati

5. To lazy to go through the limited trouble of installing mods

6. Scared I'll break something

7. Enjoy KSP perfectly fine in stock form.

[falloutaddict]

1. The hassle of mods breaking after every big update

2. If a "Part Mod" stops working and I have to delete it, I lose every ship that used one of those parts.

3. Never had a moment where I thought the game lacked something enough, to require me to find a mod.

4. Mods are a plot to control the cybernet by the Illuminati

5. To lazy to go through the limited trouble of installing mods

6. Scared I'll break something

7. Enjoy KSP perfectly fine in stock form.

1. Yah, stupid updates ruining my game!

2. People re-use their ships? Crap I just keep making new ones.

3. I don't think the game lacks anything, I just think it needs life support, more realistic dishes, and more snacks.

4. Can't argue with you there.

5. You can never bee to lazy.

6. I would be scared to break something too if I had hooves for hands.

7. BLASPHEMER!!!

This was all in good humor, all good reasons really, just wanted to have a bit of fun.