Does ANYONE remember the old way to play KSP?

[Bev7787]

Ive played since 0.25 and all in my stock saves, everything I build is cheap and over engineered. But there is also my RSS only save...

[zarakon]

Yes, I remember having tricouplers branching off into more tricouplers, no struts to tie everything together, engine stacks waving around like some kind of crazy squid rocket monster

 

Then I remember building silly 20-stage asparagus pancake rockets with more delta-V than god

 

These days I like going a bit more minimalist, with rockets that look like rockets

Edited March 24, 2016 by zarakon

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Are you calling me a noob? Because, sir, I very much enjoy launching planes into orbit to send them on voyages. I feel damn well insulted. and salty. And angry

 

[Superfluous J]

8 hours ago, SpaceplaneAddict said:

Are you calling me a noob? Because, sir, I very much enjoy launching planes into orbit to send them on voyages. I feel damn well insulted. and salty. And angry

 

I'm moderately sure you can get your spaceplanes into orbits with less than 0.5 eccentricity.

That said, "Noob" is among the words that must die a firey death and I give the OP no quarter for using it.

Edited March 25, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

Its a matter of perspective. I think the OP was fondly remembering climbing the learning curve.

I remember my first couple of weeks in a sandbox game. After the Mun, and putting a bot on Duna, I saw Laythe for the first time. And I HAD to splash a probe down in that ocean. I didn't know Isp or dV were, or even the nuke, so  it was just trial-and-error with a series of progessively larger  LFO interplanetary stages. (the one that  finally worked was the big Kerbodyne Tank and a Mainsail). 

the satisfaction of just watching that thing bob in that ocean, big green planet in the sky....

But yes, the OP thinks we're all having fun wrong.

[EladDv]

we're all doing it wrong! we are all having fun the wrong way! we must align ourselves with the views of the OP! he is the one to rule us all and determine what fun is, now really everyone is having fun in their own way- i enjoy writing kOS scripts, blowing things up and messing with the kraken- all 3 are totally unrelated from each other does that mean i am doing it wrong? HELL YEAH! does that mean i should change the way that i play? HELL NO! should you or anyone frankly care how i play?again that's a HELL NO!(you know other than the devs if i discover a bug)

[Guest]

I remember the old way to play. It didn't involve heat shields.

[GoSlash27]

Okay, so what I get from the OP is this: Too much focus on hardware and techniques, not enough focus on exploration.

I think this is a fair charge...

I work around it by staying within the "career" framework. Exploring the system is easy in sandbox. It's more difficult when you try to do it on a budget with a limited set of parts.

Best,
-Slashy

[Vermil]

I must have had KSP for like a year before I started to play it in earnest. Initially, I bummed out because i figured I'd do sandbox and immediately would build *awesome* spaceships with mods and all. It wasn't particularly fun, successful or satisfying. So the game lay dormant on my harddrive.

- Here's it: The reason I got hooked, was I finally approached the game as an exploration. I started taking one step at a time. Focusing only on the next step.

I play 100% stock except for KVV to make occasional portraits of my rockets. I navigate and fly my rockets manually, with help of SAS and navigation modes. I progress gradually towards a new planet/moon by explorative missions, develop rockets by guessing requirements and test them as well as possible on Kerbin, get additional knowledge/confirm with unmanned probes which try land and return. Then it's the big event, the manned landing.

Then I repeat the manned landings (for new areas and new things to try) and progressively tweak the rocket to work better and better.

This iterative, progressive adventure of exploration, which starts by just going up a bit and dangling down again in a parachute, is the entire game content for me. The reason I enjoy KSP. My main and only game objective. And I don't do try&reload gameplay. I do use F5/F9, but rather conservatively. And I'm very concerned about the safety of my Kerbals. I keep them alive.

I see others play the game differently, using mod components that allow them to do all kinds of things, using Mechjeb to fly and Hyperedit to test, and I think to myself, - hey, it's a software toy, let them play any way they want. But I do suspect some are missing a huge deal. And I do suspect it's a big pity.

That said, I still think it's awesome to see the ways some people have found to play this game. Like land trains, aircraft design and Star Wars. But it feels to me they are actually exploring in a similar way to what I do. This game is made like a software toy. That's its big strength.

But for one of OP's points, I do lack obvious next goals. Eve is it currently, but it appears a bit too challenging so far. Currently I'm not working on it, focusing more on exploration of worlds I routinely land on. And I do think there's a - for a designed game - curious lack of progressive intermediate challenge goals between Duna and Laythe, and between Laythe and Eve. The gap between Laythe and Eve is particularly big, I feel. (Of course, if you use mods, mechjeb and hyperedit, I'm sure it's very possible, and would require much less hard work, but it would spoil it for me.)

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Vermil

[Red Iron Crown]

One hopes the devs will return to adding celestial bodies once 1.1 hits and the memory limit isn't so onerous.

[r4pt0r]

27 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

One hopes the devs will return to adding celestial bodies once 1.1 hits and the memory limit isn't so onerous.

I second this, and oops, I've accidentally tagged @SQUAD themselves 

I understand not wanting to crowd the system, but there are definitely some things that could be added. I would like a (about gilly sized) comet slinging through the system for one, and a second gas planet with moons.
Also I never did get to visit that magic bolder, as it was mostly before my time, so throw that back in.

Aside from that, surface improvements would be great. caves,caverns, geysers ect...

[Tourist]

On 25 March 2016 at 9:48 PM, 5thHorseman said:

I'm moderately sure you can get your spaceplanes into orbits with less than 0.5 eccentricity.

That said, "Noob" is among the words that must die a firey death and I give the OP no quarter for using it.

Can we also consign hardcore to the flames while we are at it? It had little enough meaning to begin with, but really shouldn't be used anywhere outside of a playground.

[OhioBob]

I enjoy the exploration part of KSP as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I have to wing it.  I like to plan out my missions and design a craft that will accomplish my goals most effectively.  I get a thrill out of landing on the surface of some body I've never been to before and watching the sun rise and set.  But I also get a thrill out of successfully completing a mission just as I planned it with only my safety margin of fuel left in the tanks.  There is no reason a person can't enjoy both.

[GoSlash27]

3 hours ago, OhioBob said:

I enjoy the exploration part of KSP as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I have to wing it.  I like to plan out my missions and design a craft that will accomplish my goals most effectively.  I get a thrill out of landing on the surface of some body I've never been to before and watching the sun rise and set.  But I also get a thrill out of successfully completing a mission just as I planned it with only my safety margin of fuel left in the tanks.  There is no reason a person can't enjoy both.

Absolutely, this. It's very gratifying to plan an entire mission on the back of the envelope, design the vehicle to the requirement of the plan, and then have the whole mission work out the way you expected it. KSP is sneaky like that; if you don't keep an eye on it it will teach you rocket science

-Slashy

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

Absolutely, this. It's very gratifying to plan an entire mission on the back of the envelope, design the vehicle to the requirement of the plan, and then have the whole mission work out the way you expected it. KSP is sneaky like that; if you don't keep an eye on it it will teach you rocket science

-Slashy

One of the things I find most interesting about space flight is the mathematical part of it.  The fact we can take paper, pencil, calculator and a few equations and compute what will happen before we ever do it, I think is really cool.  I like the feeling of having mastery over what I'm doing, rather than feeling like I just got lucky.

Isaac Newton is my hero.

[Tanner Rawlings]

*old man voice* I remember back in the day when we didn't have the advanced crap y'all take for granted, we didn't have any of them there fancy smancy struts or symmetry, when we went to the moon, we didn't have patch comics or even a map mode, we saw the moon rise and we just kick the tires and lit the fire and 1/10 times we hit it....dang younglins...

[Joshwoo70]

*burn towards space* *90 degree turn in ksp souposhere* yeah good times.

[moogoob]

18 hours ago, OhioBob said:

One of the things I find most interesting about space flight is the mathematical part of it.  The fact we can take paper, pencil, calculator and a few equations and compute what will happen before we ever do it, I think is really cool.  I like the feeling of having mastery over what I'm doing, rather than feeling like I just got lucky.

Isaac Newton is my hero.

I have troubles with mathematics myself, but a huge respect for it. Reminds me of Neal Stephenson's novel Anathem: "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs, I said. We have a protractor."

They figured out an approaching starship's trajectory (Brachistochrone, of course) using a protractor, a length of string and some careful measurements.

Spoiler

Of course, it didn't help them when said starship dropped a Tungsten rod into a volcano, but hey.

 

[nosirrbro]

I remember it, sure, but not fondly. I feel like this mindset makes the game fake. Not like real life, but like some weird general masses space game that to the public due to this mindset looks like this is a space game for fans of call of duty. And you can play it that way, but I hate that the way the game is perceived is that mindset of "OH LOOK GIANT ROCKET BOOM WOO!"

Play it however you want but for f***s sake don't say that is the best way and don't make it seem like that's what the game is about.

[Guest]

#MakeKSPGreatAgain

[wumpus]

I have to admit, when I downloaded the demo over the Christmas holiday (and somehow got the old .18 demo), I had a chance to re-experience a more "pure" kerbal experience.  I still prefer the modern game (and the unforgiving nature of a "real" atmosphere makes me highly recommend KER to beginners) and won't be uninstalling mods anytime soon, but it did help to come down to kerbals, boosters, and more boosters.

The thing that the demo really brings is the part limitation.  With the full suite of KSP parts, there is nearly always a bigger engine to lift whatever you want efficiently.  With the demo, it pretty much comes down to asparagusing parts over and over until you have enough delta-v.  Then there is the issue of not knowing your amount of delta-v and simply overbuilding so you can get to the Mun and back.  There is a fundamental disconnect between players and Squad over this, but I suspect that 1.1 will finally admit to the amount of delta-v in the rocket.

So I would recommend that even the most hardened KSP players consider trying the demo* once again.  Try to remember when the game was more about kerbals and less about delta-v.  When getting to orbit was a challenge, and getting back from the mun was still a long-term goal.  This is what grabbed you into your KSP obsession, go visit what it was (even Scott Manley mentions in a recent GDC video with the kerbal animator that "kerbals made KSP take off while Orbiter stays obscure").  There is no reason to give up the modern game that allows you to put a flag on every planet, just don't miss the extra experience with the fun little game that was (hint: a great time to try this will be during the horrible interim when 1.1 drops (and steam updates) and before the mods are ready).

* warning: you may need a dummy steam account.  I noticed that it wouldn't let me download the demo since I already had "KSP".  Also downloading directly from steam is what gave me .18.  To download the 1.0 demo, I had to go directly to the Squad website.

[regex]

4 minutes ago, wumpus said:

So I would recommend that even the most hardened KSP players consider trying the demo* once again.

No thanks, the older versions of the game were lackluster and frustrating compared to what we have now.  No way in hell do I want to suffer through stitch-strutting and floppy rockets again.

[OhioBob]

Other than kicking the souposphere to the curb, I really don't see that the game has changed all that much.  What has changed is the players.  The old days felt different because we didn't know anything and were fumbling about.  Every new accomplishment and discovery was exciting because, well, it was new.  We can try to play the game like we use to, but we can never unlearn what we've learned and go back to being newbs again.  Those days are gone forever because we've outgrown them.  That's nobody's fault, it's just a fact of life.

[pandaman]

I  started with v18.3 so yes I do remember the 'old' game to some extent.  I look back on it with great fondness and nostalgia, I had immense fun learning how to do stuff.

I think though that a game that does teach 'rocket science' should do it sensibly, which the current game does.  For example the old aero worked for what it was, but taught the wrong lessons (since when did NASA go straight up for 10km then turn hard right on purpose?).  Now at least we learn the right basics.

And yes the build it, fly it, if it doesn't work add more boosters and fuel approach worked fairly well and was fun, and its not a bad way to get the hang of the game's basics, and I do look back at that time with very fond memories, but once I wanted to go beyond the Mun I at least wanted to know if my design had a fair chance of getting to it's destination at the design stage.  Going to explore Duna in any more than a flags and footprints way takes planning,  and I didn't want to spend ages designing my missions and ships for it without a clue if I had enough fuel.  So that's when I really wished those Dv and TWR tools were in stock, and (eventually) installed KER.

 

Edited March 27, 2016 by pandaman

[GoSlash27]

5 hours ago, wumpus said:

So I would recommend that even the most hardened KSP players consider trying the demo* once again.  Try to remember when the game was more about kerbals and less about delta-v.  When getting to orbit was a challenge, and getting back from the mun was still a long-term goal.

wumpus,

 Actually, I started KSP with the .18 demo myself and (as you point out) I *was* hooked.

But even then it was about the math for me, including the DV. I walked through NASA's learning curve using a slide rule and a crash- course in rudimentary astrophysics and aerospace engineering,

 I learned how to orbit and recover safely, then how to intercept and rendezvous (no docking in the demo version), and then finally a full round trip to the Mun. I bought the full version the next day.

None of that has changed for me since then, there's just a whole lot more places to go, things to do, and challenges to overcome. I still plan out my missions and engineer my ships same as I always have... although these days I use spreadsheets instead of a slide rule.

KSP is still the same as it has always been, there's just more of it. You are always free to play it how you enjoy it most, and that's what I do.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited March 28, 2016 by GoSlash27