What is the rationale behind playing completely stock?

[Greenfire32]

There are many reasons for going completely stock:

1)computer is low end

2)user doesn't have the know-how to install, unzip, whatever

3)game is more stable with stock

4)user preference

5)stock is standardized

6)stock is officially supported

7)stock is always available for download

8)more probably

[Tankman101]

Because I feel like it.

[Enkiel]

I only installed 1 mod (Kerbal engineer). It's not a purist thing, or a ressource limitation, i just feel it makes me play the game the dev intended me to play.

i use it for two things ;

- to see my AP without hitting M every 5 seconds while going into orbit.

- to see my delta V while building (or more specifically, seeing if what i'm doing actually improve my craft or not)

I didn't want to use it at first, but i quickly realized it saved me alot of trial and error.

[Jart]

The reason I mod a game is usually because I have played it long enough and a bit bored with it.

I start installing a few mods, hey this looks/is great!

A few more mods later, and I am soon spending more time looking at mods, testing/playing with mods and the game play becomes secondary.

modded game revisited months later and nothing works...

Loving KSP at stock...

[John FX]

Playing stock is fine and there is nothing wrong with wanting to not bother with mod updates, incompatibility, and the other issues with using mods. It's fairly sensible.

What is not fine is thinking you are better than others for not using mods or saying that people who do use mods are in any way cheating or not playing the game how it should be played. There is no way the game should be played, everyone plays their own game.

Myself I don't have many part mods at all. I mainly install RPM, FAR, EVE, RT, KCT, ScanSat, RWsaturatable, persistentrotation, KAC, KER, MJ, Proc Fairings, Proc Parts, some contract mods and some mods that fix errors the stock game (claws bug fix, turn off temperature gauges etc)

It's nice to not need some mods I used to use like solarpanelfix, DRE etc. Now their behaviour is stock the game is better for it.

A nice surprise is the new heating system.

I like mods because they make the game harder and more pretty. I landed a kerbal on every body in the system within 4 weeks of buying the game all stock. Then I thought "Oh, is that it?" and looked at some mods.

EDIT :

The reason I mod a game is usually because I have played it long enough and a bit bored with it.

I start installing a few mods, hey this looks/is great!

A few more mods later, and I am soon spending more time looking at mods, testing/playing with mods and the game play becomes secondary.

modded game revisited months later and nothing works...

Loving KSP at stock...

I can still play all my old modded games. Each version still exists in it's own folder and still works fine as the mods are compatible with that version. They will never get better than that and the features are fixed and the bugs will always stay but they don't go changing themselves into non functioning games simply due to time...

Edited May 30, 2015 by John FX

[GoSlash27]

*snip*

I have to agree with many of you when you say that there is a different kind of challenge here, especially those few of you that forgo using mechjeb or ker. There is a certain level of guess work that adds an level of mystery almost.

Actually, not so much. I see this assumption expressed fairly often in this forum by folks who use KER, but it's not actually so.

Playing stock and knowing your DV aren't mutually exclusive. Just because the info isn't directly displayed on the screen doesn't mean it isn't available.

All the mission planning, DV budgeting during build, optimization, etc. that KER users take advantage of is still available to us stock players. There's no more "guesswork" involved in playing stock than there is in using KER.

Now... there are people who choose to play that way and more power to 'em, I'm just saying that you don't *have to* just because you're playing stock.

Best,

-Slashy

[Plume & Akakak]

What strikes me is that the "knowing-your-delta-V" thing comes out so often. As a preponderant criterion, it's just narrow.

No matter how you get the information (the mental arithmetic vs any kind of "calcul-o-tron 2000" argument... or is it a competition ?), I don't think KSP is exclusively, or even mainly, about that.

[Red Iron Crown]

What strikes me is that the "knowing-your-delta-V" thing comes out so often. As a preponderant criterion, it's just narrow.

No matter how you get the information (the mental arithmetic vs any kind of "calcul-o-tron 2000" argument... or is it a competition ?), I don't think KSP is exclusively, or even mainly, about that.

In fairness, delta-V is probably the most important concept in spaceflight. Once I understood how delta-V worked the game got much, much easier.

[Plume & Akakak]

In fairness, delta-V is probably the most important concept in spaceflight.

Agreed. But again, the scenario of a nation of goofy little green men trying to build rockets opens up for many different options.

[GoSlash27]

In fairness, delta-V is probably the most important concept in spaceflight. Once I understood how delta-V worked the game got much, much easier.

I agree with RIC, but that's not central to my point. I'm just saying that while KER makes it easier to know your DV, it doesn't make it *possible*. It is still possible to know your DV and design efficient vehicles without KER. It is possible to fly well without MJ. It is possible to know your transfer windows without using KAC.

A fair amount of folks who use these mods assume that folks who play stock don't have access to the information that they provide and are therefore flying blind, but that's not correct.

How important it is to know all this stuff is a different subject. I personally can't imagine planning or running missions without it, but I know there are people out there that do and are successful. My hat's off to them.

Best,

-Slashy

[pandaman]

For ages I played pure stock and got on okay without deltaV info in the VAB though trial and error. I just reached the point when I felt I would benefit from having that info readily available, and for me it's made designing and building more enjoyable. I can now 'design' rather than just stick it together and try it, which makes going to other planets a lot less frustrating for me.

Incidentally, I recall a conversation I heard several years ago. One person was describing a game (don't know what) to a friend, who's first response was 'what mods can you get for it' as if that were more import than the game itself. Each to his own, but I don't understand that logic. To me mods add something to the game to enhance your own enjoyment, not until you try it can you judge what mods you may want.

[GoSlash27]

For ages I played pure stock and got on okay without deltaV info in the VAB though trial and error. I just reached the point when I felt I would benefit from having that info readily available, and for me it's made designing and building more enjoyable. I can now 'design' rather than just stick it together and try it, which makes going to other planets a lot less frustrating for me.

Pandaman,

You didn't *have to* resort to trial and error just because you were running stock. You could've still properly designed your rockets, it would've just been less convenient than using KER (Nuthin' wrong with that).

Not saying you should or shouldn't do things any differently than you do, just saying that running stock and having access to all the important information aren't mutually exclusive. You describe it like you can do things now that you couldn't have done then, and that's not accurate.

It is possible to do everything that KER allows without using KER (and indeed things that KER can't do), it's just more of a hassle to do it.

Best,

-Slashy

[Plume & Akakak]

I agree with RIC, but that's not central to my point. I'm just saying that while KER makes it easier to know your DV, it doesn't make it *possible*. It is still possible to know your DV and design efficient vehicles without KER. It is possible to fly well without MJ. It is possible to know your transfer windows without using KAC.

A fair amount of folks who use these mods assume that folks who play stock don't have access to the information that they provide and are therefore flying blind, but that's not correct.

How important it is to know all this stuff is a different subject. I personally can't imagine planning or running missions without it, but I know there are people out there that do and are successful. My hat's off to them.

Best,

-Slashy

Don't want to give you the false impression that I misunderstood your post and was taking it as target.

Yes, how important it is to know the technical stuff is a question you didn't raise. It is surely a more intimate and delicate subject.

In game terms, it depends on how you like to roleplay your kerbals. A sensitive area : ), yet still relevant regarding this topic.

I've only joined the forum recently, and well yes, it sometimes saddens me to see that the level of technical knowledge appears, here (in this thread) or there, as an underlying standard of judgment. And sometimes this gives me an itch.

Cheers

Edited May 30, 2015 by Plume & Akakak

[quasarrgames]

The rationale is compatibility.

It's just more satisfying to know that i'm playing the same game that everyone else it playing. Almost everyone, even people with modded games, can share my experiences and acheivements.

As well, sometimes it just gives me a greater sense of achievement to accomplish something with stock that i could accomplish easily with mods. For instance, making a fuel truck would be so much easier with Kerbal Attachment System, but it's more fun to just use the klaw (i find) and to successfully drive up to the refuelling platform and attach to it with the klaw is more satisfying.

[Mister Dilsby]

Regarding the 'possibility' of knowing dV without KER, I think a lot of people get turned off by the math and don't realize there are some handy approximations you can do in your head: a ship' available dV is basically a function of (1) engine Isp and (2) full/empty mass ratio. If your ship masses about 3 times more full than empty (2.78 to be precise) then your dV is about 10x the engine Isp. If the mass ratio is more like 1.7 to 1, then you have about 5x the Isp. Memorize a few points like these, and you can interpolate between them on the fly.

[GoSlash27]

Regarding the 'possibility' of knowing dV without KER, I think a lot of people get turned off by the math and don't realize there are some handy approximations you can do in your head: a ship' available dV is basically a function of (1) engine Isp and (2) full/empty mass ratio. If your ship masses about 3 times more full than empty (2.78 to be precise) then your dV is about 10x the engine Isp. If the mass ratio is more like 1.7 to 1, then you have about 5x the Isp. Memorize a few points like these, and you can interpolate between them on the fly.

All true, but again... it misses my point. Yes, the math is daunting and it's certainly not for everyone. It's easier (for the most part) to use a mod to make the info more readily accessible and I don't suggest that anyone else should make their lives harder on my account or that they're somehow less worthy because they choose not to saddle themselves with the math. How they play their game is their business and whatever gives them the most enjoyment is what's "right".

All I'm saying is that it's fallacious to assume that people who play stock don't have access to all the info that these mods provide and are therefore resorting to guesswork or flying blind. There's a lot of us out here who run stock and are doing all the same things as the people who use info mods. We have all the same info, it's just not in a popup window in-game.

Best,

-Slashy

[pandaman]

@slashy. You are absolutely right, it was all through choice. On many occasion I sat down to start a spreadsheet or chart to give me an estimation on what dv I had without constantly doing calculations, but as much as I enjoyed thinking about it and working out what approach to take, and I know it would have been a valuable learning experience too, I just found I had more fun playing.

[Plume & Akakak]

Regarding the 'possibility' of knowing dV without KER, I think a lot of people get turned off by the math [...].

And some may be turned off by admitting they will hug their Jeb plushie close at night. : D

[GoSlash27]

And some may be turned off by admitting they will hug their Jeb plushie close at night. : D

You kiddin' me?? If I had a Jeb plushie, I'd hug it every night!

/too old for petty concerns like "shame"

-Slashy

[Nando]

Regarding the 'possibility' of knowing dV without KER, I think a lot of people get turned off by the math [...]

and some get turned on...

I just landed on the mun (better: just came back), KSP 0.12 .... no persistence, no maneuver nodes, no mods, no fancy schmancy 1 point ooohh ... just you, jebediah, bill, bob and excel...

it was wonderful..

Edited May 30, 2015 by Nando

[boxman]

In fairness, delta-V is probably the most important concept in spaceflight. Once I understood how delta-V worked the game got much, much easier.

In my experience trial and error kinda makes you just know if the rocket has enough delta-v to get where you want. I personally find it alot more fun than using some mod that tells me the exact numbers.

And I have also seen streamers who are dependent on such mods fail often due to fuel lines/asparagus setups not being calculated properly.

[r4pt0r]

In my experience trial and error kinda makes you just know if the rocket has enough delta-v to get where you want. I personally find it alot more fun than using some mod that tells me the exact numbers.

And I have also seen streamers who are dependent on such mods fail often due to fuel lines/asparagus setups not being calculated properly.

Thats how I play too. returning to kerbin with an almost empty tank is exciting. If I already knew I could make it that would kinda suck the fun out.

[sal_vager]

Oh man, memories, one of the best flights I ever did in KSP was to the Mun and back with as little fuel as possible, got there and landed using 8 tanks (fuel came in one size back then, it was the style at the time) came back on RCS, barely, I was on vapours as I got my periapsis below 70km.

Not knowing if I'd make it added a lot to the suspense.

[tater]

It's not like knowing launch dv means you will know you can make it, though, unless you massively overbuilt the ship (in which case you'd not be returning on fumes anyway).

[Red Iron Crown]

It's a tradeoff. It's true that some suspense is lost when you make a node and can easily determine if you have enough fuel to execute it, but at the same time I find little satisfaction in starting a multi-hour mission that is mathematically excluded from success before I press the spacebar. It's not a particularly gratifying way to fail (there's no explosion, the ship just goes inert), and you don't discover it until near the end and can only start from the beginning again.