Learning Curve

[Superfluous J]

9 hours ago, Pecan said:

He - and I - said Science mode!  You can't run out of money because there isn't any.  Without money 'no reverts' doesn't really have any effect, since you'd have to re-launch a failed mission anyway.  The biggest 'hard' in science mode is no quicksave/load, which means you can't, for instance, quicksave in orbit and just practice re-entry/landings from that point by quickloading again.  Instead you have to start again from launch which is a whole bundle of frustration (especially if you were practicing landing on Eeloo ^^).

Exactly. Re-entry is no harder on hard mode than easy mode. You just have to do a whole bunch more bull%@#$ to get to that point.

[tetryds]

On 12/16/2015, 3:36:25, bradwiggo said:

is this game fun when you aren't an expert?

As an experienced player I think that the game is more fun when you are not sure about what you are doing.
To me it started getting monotonous after a while, the feeling of achievement simply faded away and I found myself staring at the screen thinking "now what".
So yeah, learning and experimenting is the actually fun part of the game, IMO.

[Kraken1950]

I would say KSP has a long and steep learning curve ==> learning wall is a good term to define it. But behind the wall, there is another and taller wall... However, when you succeed in something, it is amazingly rewarding ! Hopefully there is a strong, willing to help community.

I think it's a bit frustrating too, as sometimes you think you are managing some mechanics but then realize that you have still a lot to learn and understand.

[justidutch]

On 16 December, 2015 11:08:56 AM, bradwiggo said:

Does this game have a difficult learning curve, for example, how long will it be before I am building moon bases and space stations?

In my experience as someone who knew absolutely nothing about the maths or physics or engineering of rocket science (in other words, I'm just a musician/web programmer), I found this game extremely fun to play right away.  But there was a big learning curve for sure, and twice I was at wit's end, almost quitting entirely.  But, within a few weeks of a couple hours a day I was building bases on Minmus.

 

On 16 December, 2015 11:36:25 AM, bradwiggo said:

is this game fun when you aren't an expert?

I think its more fun when you are NOT an expert!

 

On 16 December, 2015 11:43:32 AM, bradwiggo said:

Is it possible to learn this game by only playing it and doing the tutorials, no looking things up on the internet?

And does it have fiddly controls?

As mentioned in the first part of my response, I hit two learning walls.  One was getting a stable orbit, and the other was setting up a rendezvous for docking two ships together.  Those are the only two times that I searched the 'net and watched videos of other's playing the game.  So, I think it is entirely possible that you can do everything in this game without referring to other sources, as long as you have some patience and are willing to experiment.  A lot.

 

On 16 December, 2015 11:47:49 AM, bradwiggo said:

I never know what any of the parts do, is that easy to learn, and does the career mode guide you through the game?

Once you learn what one part does, you'll know how all the other parts in the same category work.  For instance, once you learn how to use and control a liquid fuel engine, you'll know how to use them all.  Once you figure out hot to attach things to a girder, then you'll be able to use them all.  Etc etc.  Personally I played only career mode for the first year of my KSP life, and I found it a good way to learn everything in a decent progression.  That was before there was a science mode though, and I can see how that would be better.

[OhioBob]

10 minutes ago, justidutch said:

That was before there was a science mode though, and I can see how that would be better.

The old career mode is the new science mode.  The developers implemented science/research before they did contracts/funds.  So before contracts/funds existed, career mode had only science/research.  When contracts/funds was added to career mode, science mode was created.

[pandaman]

Yeah, KSP is noted for it's learning cliff.

 I was grateful for some you tube tutorials (Scott Manley mostly) as it gave me some rope to help me climb it.  I would have got there without, but it would have taken much longer. 

Whatever route or methods you use to climb the cliff it is worth it.

[GarrisonChisholm]

On 12/16/2015, 11:36:25, bradwiggo said:

is this game fun when you aren't an expert?

I am about as far from being an expert as I am from the points on RIC's crown, and I enjoy this game ludicrously.  The engineering is more than half the fun.  Even after you've done something, you'll find yourself re-designing something similar later on to try to do better.

[tater]

I found KSP to be incredibly intuitive, but then again, the last time I had done any orbital mechanics before KSP I used pencil, paper and my HP-15C. Rendezvous took rather longer to get the hang of than getting to the Mun, though.

I told my daughter's science teacher about KSP, and he's apparently been playing, though I think he had a little more of the curve to climb, since he's a biologist (I think), so the concepts are not really in his wheelhouse.

Edited December 17, 2015 by tater

[Dunbaratu]

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Exactly. Re-entry is no harder on hard mode than easy mode. You just have to do a whole bunch more bull%@#$ to get to that point.

Choosing to label a slower pace of adding new parts with the disdainful word "bull%@#$" completely ignores the entire reason you're suggesting that a new user use science mode in the first place, when slowdown of part acquisition is the *goal* of suggesting science mode instead of sandbox mode.  So it's just a matter of degree how much to slow it down.  The very thing that itself was the goal of that suggestion doesn't suddenly become "bull%@#$" when there's a bit more of it.  It's just a matter of degree of how much to slow it down.  In a sense normal mode may actually be easier than easy mode here, because it slows down the rate at which you learn about new parts even more.  Hard mode might be taking it a bit too far, but not so far as to suddenly turn the previously desirable effect into "bull%@#$".

 

[Aetharan]

Spoken from a clearly subjective standpoint, of course:  I'd rate KSP somewhere between a heavily-modded version of Minecraft (one of the Feed the Beast, kitchen-sink modpacks) and Dwarf Fortress.  Some things just aren't intuitive (and, for me, absolutely ruined a lot of space battles in anime once I figured them out), but I lost a lot less hair learning to play KSP than DF.  I will say that one of the axioms from the dwarven community translates very well into the Kerbal one:  "Losing is fun."  Even the most spectacular failures in this game can still be giggle-worthy.

[WuphonsReach]

On 12/16/2015, 12:36:25, bradwiggo said:

is this game fun when you aren't an expert?

Add-ons like KER (Kerbal Engineer Redux) and MechJeb and DPAI (Docking Port Alignment Indicator) are just a few of the helpful mods and help take some of the guesswork out of vessel design and make orbits / docking easier.

(I'm a builder, so I like designing vessels to fit a mission, or put stations together in orbit.)

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Steven Mading said:

Choosing to label a slower pace of adding new parts with the disdainful word "bull%@#$" completely ignores the entire reason you're suggesting that a new user use science mode in the first place, when slowdown of part acquisition is the *goal* of suggesting science mode instead of sandbox mode.  So it's just a matter of degree how much to slow it down.  The very thing that itself was the goal of that suggestion doesn't suddenly become "bull%@#$" when there's a bit more of it.  It's just a matter of degree of how much to slow it down.  In a sense normal mode may actually be easier than easy mode here, because it slows down the rate at which you learn about new parts even more.  Hard mode might be taking it a bit too far, but not so far as to suddenly turn the previously desirable effect into "bull%@#$".

 

Learning slowly and incrementally ramping up difficulty so as to aid in learning is not what I was referring to.

Testing 37 random parts and ferrying 3 dozen people to Duna is what I was referring to. 1 part test contract teaches you stuff. 5 more might double what you learn. The 100 after that are grind.

[Red Iron Crown]

Science mode also has the benefit for new players of not penalizing failures as harshly as career mode does. Fail a few times in career mode (especially early on) and the player can find themselves out of money and unable to do anything; that never happens in science mode.

[Dunbaratu]

11 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

 The 100 after that are grind.

Thus why it's a good thing that's a massive exaggeration on your part.  Hard mode in no way requires that many uses of the test parts contracts.  Not even close.  You can do just fine only sprinkling in an occasional test part contract here and there among the other contracts, usually piggybacked onto them as an "also ran" thing to do on the side.

 

[wumpus]

A few notes:

The demo will tell you all you need to know if you need to play this game or not.  Play that, then you will know.

The Scott Manley "career mode for beginners" uses a roughly current KSP build (1.0.4, I think).  It has 8-10 hours total, which will probably reduce the time it takes to get to munar bases by at least 8-10 hours.  Just don't make a habit of watching all the other videos or you will find little time to play KSP. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYu7z3I8tdEkUeJRCh083UT-Lq5ZIKI75

Career mode has it's problems.  Consider sandbox mode, or at least running a sandbox game beside your "real game" to try things out.  Quick hint: getting to space isn't that hard, but surviving the way down is another story (best guess is that getting to a 45 degree tilt on the way up will give you a better chance of air braking to survive).

Minmus is probably easier to land on than the Mun.  Sure, its further away and at an incline to boot (one of those nasty things you need to learn, it is far better to launch on the right incline than try to fix it when you are up), but the landing is *much* easier.  Just aim at one of those big purple "seas" and you are done.  It is easy to crash on the Mun when you are looking for *anything* that is somewhat flat.  Note that in career mode I don't think you can get a contract for Minmus until you land on the Mun.  Try Minmus in sandbox using only the parts you have unlocked in career (you might need to upgrade your base as well, but that typically isn't a problem.  Just don't run so low on cash you can't make more).

Don't overdo career mode.  I got pretty burned out doing endless "launch yet another satellite" and spending way too much time keeping costs down (if you want reuse, use a mod.  Don't try to get your booster in orbit so you can land it for reuse).

[MrOsterman]

3 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

Thus why it's a good thing that's a massive exaggeration on your part.  Hard mode in no way requires that many uses of the test parts contracts.  Not even close.  You can do just fine only sprinkling in an occasional test part contract here and there among the other contracts, usually piggybacked onto them as an "also ran" thing to do on the side.

 

Ditto.

I find that I won't take on a task until I can count 2-4 contracts for it.  Want a moon base?  Well you're going to wait until I need science data from the moon and I've got two tourists who want to see the munar landscape while they're there.  THEN I'll launch the mission.

[Pecan]

4 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

Thus why it's a good thing that's a massive exaggeration on your part.  Hard mode in no way requires that many uses of the test parts contracts.  Not even close.  You can do just fine only sprinkling in an occasional test part contract here and there among the other contracts, usually piggybacked onto them as an "also ran" thing to do on the side.

 

I think you are taking things out of context simply to 'defend' career-mode; as if it needed it.
Would you care to explain why money, contracts, strategies, building-limitations and having to re-launch from Kerbin every time just to practice lunar landings helps a new user, who is just trying to learn how to fly and build?

[Superfluous J]

6 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

Thus why it's a good thing that's a massive exaggeration on your part.  Hard mode in no way requires that many uses of the test parts contracts.  Not even close.  You can do just fine only sprinkling in an occasional test part contract here and there among the other contracts, usually piggybacked onto them as an "also ran" thing to do on the side.

 

If. You're. Good.

This is a thread about learning the game. If you're learning then you're going to have to do a ton of boring contracts for 2 reasons:

1. You are not efficient.
2. You fail a lot.

Of course you and I don't have to do them. We're not new at the game. But for someone learning how to play telling them "The only ship you can afford can't even make orbit, so here keep doing these contracts until you can afford it" is - as I said earlier - bull%$@#.

[tater]

"Hard" career mode is in fact "grind" mode, IMO. For new players career is possibly the worst choice to play. Aside from learning curve, career adds a small level of difficulty that actually runs the wrong direction. Career in KSP is always hardest right at the beginning, getting easier and easier as you go. The only caveat might be taking really goofy contracts for giggles in the later game, but since I try for a career that at least feels roughly reasonable (realism wise, I usually play an upscaled system with life support) I don't take contracts I think are, well, idiotic.