How has your KSP gameplay evolved?

[jonrd463]

I was thinking about this last night as I was starting a Remotetech sat net in my current sandbox session. I've noticed that I've evolved in how I build rockets since I first got the game. I was a relative latecomer, having first purchased KSP at version .23.5. At first, I would slap together whatever and brute force my way into space. As I learned the game, I'd do all the tricks, like monster asparagus stages and things that would get Whackjob's nod of approval. But then, something changed. Over the course of my playing, I began to learn more and more about real rocketry. I was inspired to really read up on and study how all of this works.

This was put into overdrive when I decided to dip my toe in Realism Overhaul. Suddenly, brute forcing my way into space wasn't the be-all solution. I figured the best way to approach this from a realism standpoint was to try to recreate real rockets by the numbers using various references available. This lead to many of my own iterations of Atlases, Deltas, and Falcons. I have to say, getting a reasonable facsimile of one those beasts built and getting payloads to orbit remains among the higher of the high points of playing KSP.

I noticed some of the design principles of RO creeping into my stock game, and now as I look at my collection of lifters, they all bear striking similarities with Atlas, Delta, etc. All generally have large boost stages with a smaller, more efficient upper stage. Some use small SRBs for the extra kick off the pad. Gone are the ridiculous asparagus stages and strut-covered monsters of my earlier games. In fact, when trying to figure out how to get large payloads up, I purposely avoid doing that stuff, feeling like it's somehow "cheaty". I now abide by a loose set of rules, and I find these artificial limitations make my gameplay more satisfying.

What about you guys? Have you experienced a similar evolution in how you play?

Edited January 16, 2016 by jonrd463

[Evanitis]

Yup, but I went to a different direction. Than I went multiple directions. Than I turned back.

It went like bruteforce > asparagus (bruteforce done well) > eyeball efficiency > meticulous planning with low leniency > back to eyeballing

Somewhere during this process I noticed the plethora of ways players play KSP, and I decided to give a try to many of those. And I had a fair share of fun with most. Spaceplanes, rovers, conventional planes, VTOLs... even a bit of boats and submarines. Though I have to agree - once one gets to a 'meticulous planning' phase, the stock Kerbol system becomes a relaxed place to explore, where the thoughest limiting factor is patience. RO and RSS are very cool ways to up the challenge, and I have a deep respect for those who didn't look back.

Though I chose to keep the stock(~ish) game interesting by -not- being too careful and thorough during planing and designing. That somehow preserves the 'whacky' kerbal side of the game for me. That my go-to mentality these days when I aim for space.

Of course, it might just be a phase for me, and I'll might prefer a totally different playstyile after the next longer KSP break.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Evanitis

[Slam_Jones]

I used to play often.  Now I just look at the forums.

[Ehco Corrallo]

I didn't play career before. 

Now I do slightly. 

Otherwise it's basically the same: I build semi-suicidal planes, semi-suicidal jeeps, and launch semi-suicidal Mun missions. Occasionally I go into space. 

Edited January 16, 2016 by Ehco Corrallo
Hedged.

[Sovek]

When I first started playing at .18, I too would brute-force my way to space. This stopped at somepoint as I learned how do things more and more efficiently. I've never done an asparagus rocket except once. I think my high point was launching a shuttle made out of B9 parts and KW parts, and sending a payload off to EVE that way.

Most of my rockets are built to be efficient as possible, this is mostly due to my RO-lite mod list of 3x Harder Solar System, Remote Tech, AJE, Real Fuels, TAC ect ect.

[Travman]

Looking back, I think about getting my first rocket to orbit in .14 with a big (for the parts at the time) rocket, I'd have to say brute force was my starting point. Now I build a payload, say that will never get to orbit because its too kerbal. Then achieving orbit anyway. For most things I plan maximum delta v for the mission its going on, then figuring out how to get it to orbit by tinkering. I've gone from brute force to rocket tinkerer. Fine tuning some things can do amazing things, like limiting thrust on one side of your rockets engines, and stabilizing its flight. 

 

Overall it's amazing the different amount and types of things you can build, and seeing others works is pretty awesome too. Thanks KSP!

[Just Jim]

I evolved in a slightly different direction. I definitely started brute force.  Watched every video I could find, and even though I hate the vegetable, I learned to love asparagus fast.... yeah, I'll admit it, I'm still an asparagus-oholic.  I think I just like watching them stage... lol...

But after I knew, more or less, what I was doing, I found myself building ships based on cheesy old sci-fi movies, ones I remember when I was a kid, and seeing if I could make them work.

This was my first, and is loosely based on the rocket used in the 1965 Godzilla vs. Monster Zero.
I was watching it a few months back, and thought to myself: I gotta try and build that.

I try to stay stock, and sometimes have to build huge asparagus rockets or skycranes to make them work. 
But I also enjoy seeing how small I can make something and still get the job done.
That's what I love about this game, you can get really, really imaginative and still make them efficient.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Greetings,

So far my KSP is evolving backwards due to some mods being incompatible; is this a bad thing? Well since I havnt got into the game where I want to be yet, maybe it wont be so bad - I dont see any real evolution but I did see one thing: Performance Increase in the new versions and I am still in 32 bit; so yes there is a reason to evolve, I just dont think I will ever get there (!); I still really need to play this game !

I may be kind of stubborn but I have real life issues too and cant do everything in the time alloted.

Playing other video games and streaming might help too ...

All in all once finished I know I will have a top-notch realistic space survival game for my Kerbalnauts !

Commander Zeta

[MagicFireCaster]

A lot i've been playing ksp for quite a while, i've changed the way i plan missions and build crafts, more complex and different every time, also the career unlocks helped me a lot, so i've been evolving trying all sizes and shapes, and who knows what is coming next. 

[HebaruSan]

Yeah, since installing 64K to alleviate my orbital delta-V guilt, more and more of my craft end up resembling a Delta IV Heavy. And if that's not enough dV, a little asparagus on top doesn't kill me.

I've also started lessening my efforts to make payloads as light as possible. Designing custom launchers is like half the fun for me, so if I build a lander with a less efficient part (Mk1-2 command pod, I'm looking at you) or extra crew capacity, then that's just a bit more fuel and thrust that I need to budget into the lower stages. It's easy enough to roleplay that this choice was mandated by Kongress or another design team. (Of course this can require mods to avoid part counts that give the game engine heart attacks.)

[maceemiller]

When I first started I was building what I can only describe as "ugly, over-powered brutes" just trying to get into orbit. After a while, when getting to Duna and back was "easy" I decided to look at the career mode and planes. I hated both of them TBH so went back into my faithful sandbox, only to start getting a little bored.

Re-tried both planes and career and havnt looked back since. Now, all my designs are as tight as possible with a lot more thought in them. Just love this game more everyday

[jonrd463]

One thing is for sure, Kerbal is a game that there is no wrong way to play. I love checking out some of the stuff people do, like @Just Jim's take on older sci-fi, or replicas of real life aircraft and other vehicles with procedural parts. I also do spaceplanes, and that has evolved for me as well. Mainly in the same direction as my rockets. At first, I was going big. I wanted to see what the biggest horizontally launched SSTO was I could make. I even put one together out of the B9 HX parts just to see if it could be done. Now, I've gone more realistic with that. I've settled on a shuttle that's basically the NASA design, with a slightly longer payload bay. I still have my OPT K-body mass hauler I break out when the need arises, but mainly I've been sticking with the Mk 3.

[Bubbadevlin]

When I first played, there were no 3m parts, so you basically HAD to do asparagus if you wanted to get any type of good payload into orbit. Then they added the 3m parts, and generally 3 3m boosters are enough to get my payloads into orbit, so that has been what I have used. I also have really started doing more planetary stuff, like SSTOs, rovers, and of course, I have lately been doing VERY complicated stuff (bearings and NBSDs) like my walkers 

[RA3236]

You'd think that from the first day this day last year to today (yes folks exactly one year) I'd have been able to learn how to land on Duna. In fact it is only now that I've figured out that the wiki is wrong and that I can land the Kerbal X on Minmus and come back with 500m/s delta v left (no kidding, I might make a thread after I validate Vens stock revamp). But considering my first rocket of my own got to space only a few months ago and I've even grabbed an asteroid, it proves how much I've changed my method of attack.

It started out on 0.90.0 when I was just playing around. I wasn't even thinking of a probe yet. Then a few months after that I went back to Minecraft and somehow it gave me more sense in doing things right. Within five months a probe has landed on Dres (I'm thinking that I'm the only one who chose Dres as its first interplanetary trip), an E-class asteroid has landed on the KSC VAB (not with my help, it did that on its own, I had looked at it and mined it) (that wasn't pretty), and A space station has been built in orbit of the Sun. I'd say that my gaming experience has evolved greatly.

[The Optimist]

70,000 dollar suborbital rocket -> Scott Manley vids -> 60,000 dollar orbital rockets -> more Scott Manley -> Mun rockets -> Watching random documentaries -> Interplanetary rockets -> Cool helicopters I saw online -> self -made helicopters -> Blenders -> A machine that crushes kerbals with a piece of metal

We've come a long way boys!

Edited January 17, 2016 by The Optimist

[RizzoTheRat]

My designs are definitely more efficient than when I started, I try to keep the weight down as much as I can on the payload (usually landers) so the launch stages are a fair bit smaller for equivalent missions then they were when I first started.  I do asparagus but I've never done anything with a second ring of asparagus stages (ie my biggest are 6 asparagus booster around a single core), I prefer that that approach to very tall rockets that tend to be wobbly.

I've started down the route of increased realism too.  I love the limitations of RemoteTech, and having to set up communications relays and plan probe manoeuvres so that they have a communications signal.  I'm very tempted to have a go with a life support mod at some point, and I think the full Realism Overhaul looks like fun but might have to wait for a PC upgrade first.

[DunaRocketeer]

An interesting question. Obviously we get more efficient as we play, but it's interesting what directions that extra ability takes us.

I started off with a bunch of clustered kludges in the Demo.

If anything, by the time I bought the full version (0.22) the greater choice of parts made things worse:

Soon I got more of a clue about how to design a vehicle for a set mission, and began to find mods more and more necessary. Things started to become more realistic as a result, which is a trend that continues today.

Today, I try my best to find designs and mission architectures that aren't done to death. My game is now quite heavily modded, both visually and in gameplay. When 1.1 lands this will probably become even more so. I also haven't been beyond Eve or Duna in about a year, and I suspect I'll venture further out again soon.

 

 

[Frank_G]

Playing to get the mission done somehow has changed into playing to get it done most effectively and with style.

Nothing beats a good looking spacecraft fulfilling its purpose with minimum requirements.

[Kenobi McCormick]

I started out in 0.13 doing the usual 'slap SRBs under a capsule light fuse and laugh' thing. Got bored, stopped playing until roughly 0.17.1 launched. By the time 0.18 dropped I had:

 

learned how to orbit

Developed a standardized lifter(The Munar III) that I still use to this day*

Learned how to do interplanetary flight

Learned how to package rovers

Learned how to mod the game

Learned how to mod the mods

Dabbled with modding the meshes of mods

Developed a 1.25m variant of the Munar III to use when the payload is so light that the Munar III itself barely gets the boosters emptied before reaching space.

 

 

My general technique hasn't changed much. I never asparagus'd. I always found it stupid, disliked the community's obsession with overly complex vehicles that violate several geneva conventions related to torture the moment the physics engine kicks in. I could put anything my processor could handle on any planet in the game with the Munar III, which is a simple three-stage rocket. It puzzled me that people would shy away from simple and reliable, still does.

 

Even today I still rely on the same design. With the new aero it can put even more mass in LKO, or get the same mass even farther out into the stars. I've taken to removing about a fourth of the fuel carried by the lifter because it was sending transfer stages to planetary surfaces.

 

* Basic design of the Munar III:

 

Lift stage: 4x Rockomax Mainsails strapped radially to the main stage, fuelled by an orange tank and a X32 Rockomax tank. Originally it was just three of the X32 tanks, the orange tank just lets me drop part count. These light first, and when heavily laden, do the bulk of the lower atmosphere lifting.

 

Main stage: Basically a carbon copy of one of the boosters stuck under the transfer stage. This lights when the boosters drop away and does most of the actual getting into LKO work when this thing is heavily loaded. While not intended, this stage can be lit at launch if the payload is particularly heavy. Doing so means an in-orbit refuel for interplanetary stuff, though. Engine can be a mainsail if needed, was in the original design, but these days it's usually a Skipper. It often also retains a few hundred m/s of dV so it will do a lot of, if not all of, the kicking when leaving Kerbin. Needless to say there's quite a few of these in solar and high eccentricity Kerbin orbits in my 0.17 save.

 

Transfer stage: 1 X-32 fuel tank and a poodle strapped to the base of the payload. Pretty trustworthy setup, mostly used for either exiting, or if there's enough dV in the main stage(Often there is) the transfer stage is repurposed into a deceleration stage upon arrival at the destination body. This can be omitted if the destination is LKO, instead the payload itself will mount here.

 

Odds 'n ends:

 

It is equipped with RCS throughout. In the early days of my time playing KSP I needed this active from launch to keep it from flipping out, but refinements in the design, my piloting ability, and MechJeb have led to the RCS being mostly a vestigial organ. For the most part. Since the transfer stage is bulky it does get used for aligning to interplanetary ejection nodes. The tanks for this are kept in the transfer stage.

 

Fins. I love the 50s retro-futuristic look that huge fins on a rocket give you. they also tend to help this thing avoid going out of control when it's either overloaded or too lightly loaded. Also, sometimes, the payload I've got equipped is too awkward to fit in an aeroshell. These payloads also tend to make the aerodynamics go haywire. the huge fins on the transfer stage tend to help the craft force the payload through the air rather than the air force the payload off course.

 

Aero nosecones. Not necessary in the souposphere, but in new aero there's nosecones on the booster stages. Aeroshells go over some payloads but not all of them.

 

Strap-on solid boosters also come into play once in a while, but generally they're not necessary. It's hard for me to get a payload heavy enough to need them yet light enough on part count for me to get enough of a framerate to actually send it up. I tend to not fly missions that give me less than 12-15FPS and that's in the 200 part area.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Kenobi McCormick

[Guest]

Yeah, same here.  I started really playing in 0.20 (even though I bought the game at 0.17) and played pretty heavily since then.  Around 0.23 I got into RSS and Real Fuels, actually making the 6.4x Kerbin (which eventually became 64K) and playing that for some time before transitioning fully over to Realism Overhaul in like, 0.25?  Aside from checking out how terrible career mode is every new update I haven't played much of stock/vanilla because, well, it's too damn easy and there's no sense of accomplishment anymore.  Seriously, after playing so much RO my main concern in stock is wobbly joints, not "can I actually make it there and back?" or other silliness.  I literally slapped together a shuttle in less than an hour this weekend and got it flying good enough to place it into my desired orbit after two hours of tweaking and building a station.  I've built a hybrid shuttle type of craft in RO (sort of an STS/Buran remix from engine layout) that got five tons to orbit reliably, but that was a process of several nights and I never managed to survive reentry with it (I now know where I went wrong, but ... still).

Yes, the stock game is fine for casual hung-over Saturday morning play but nothing compares to a finely-executed procedural Vostok replica launch into the Lunar plane followed by a perfect transfer burn and landing.

[Tourist]

I keep adding more rules to myself, for instance having enough living space for kerbals on long duration flights, trying to launch as much as I can via spaceplanes, only permitting crew transfer between certain modules. The terrible thing is I keep adding more.... I just spent an entire session refuelling a mothership via ore mining/refining on minmus. It took several return trips. My original plan was to prove the system works, in other words do it just enough times to ensure the plan was not fatally flawed and that it was only a matter of repetition, then just hyperedit the fuel into the ship. But... I couldn't do it. I just couldn't make myself do it..... I think I have a problem. So in answer to the question.... I think my play style has adapted to be more OCD.   

[FyunchClick]

Going from eyeballing everything to discovering KER really changed things up for me as I found out I was really over-dimensioning some stages while other components fell way short. Those tools not only helped prevent nasty surprises like running out of fuel halfway through a mission, it also made my designs much more efficient and actually left more room for payload as I wasn't lugging a lot of unnecessary fuel around in later stages.