Play KSP without Quicksaves to fully appreciate it

[Kermanzooming]

After playing Career mode a lot with Quicksave/Quickload enabled, I decided to start from scratch without Quicksave/Quickload. What a change!

In my experience, Quicksaving/loading makes you lazy; it makes the game more a trial/error experience than fully trying to account all the variables. And it also makes losing a Kerbal something much more emotional... like when I killed Jebediah in one of my first sub-orbital flights. 

What do you think? Have you given it a try this way?

 

[eddiew]

Too many ways to explode/lose a ship that are not my fault. Quickload is my way of getting around the "oh look, you exploded for no reason" bug, the "your orbit was going to take you here but now it's not" bug, and a host of others.

[RCgothic]

I've between trying to do this recently. Building in safe abort modes is a cool challenge. But having an EVA glitch whilst on 4x warp kill Jeb was most unwelcome.

Edited April 21, 2016 by RCgothic

[Superfluous J]

When the game stops crashing or eating my ships for no reason, I'll start an Ironman save.

Edited April 21, 2016 by 5thHorseman
Swypeo

[klgraham1013]

The Kraken appreciates this thread.

[soulsource]

I've been playing 1.0.* for quite a while with quickloading disabled. That didn't stop me from quicksaving regularly though, what really came in handy when bugs in KSP's thermal system started to cause random explosions, especially in combination with FAR... On the other hand it's then really, really tempting to just load the last quicksave if something goes wrong, and I did exactly that after I managed to crash on Duna due to a particularly stupid mistake during landing...

In my opinion KSP without mods is also too hardimpossible to play, as there is a severe lack of information regarding aerodynamic stability before you actually launch a craft. FAR is imho a must have if one tries to play without quickoading and reverting.

[WinkAllKerb'']

 

1 hour ago, Kermanzooming said:

Play KSP without Quicksaves to fully appreciate it

 

How dare you chalenging yourself ownself ? :3 :3 :3

Edited April 21, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[TK421d]

i prefer the simulation part to the corporate part.  quicksave/load for life.

[Frozen_Heart]

I've been playing KSP since 0.17 and have yet to quicksave or quickload. I don't even know the keys.

[KSK]

39 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

When the game stops crashing or eating my ships for no reason, I'll start an Ironman save.

This. I may conceivably play an Ironman save using nothing but rockets. For any game involving planes - forget it. Life's too short and new kerbals are too expensive.

[Lukaszenko]

I also played an earlier version in Ironman mode, and I concur that it gives you more enjoyment from the game. Makes you be VERY careful about how (or if) you aerobrake and how much extra fuel you bring, makes you more meticulous when it comes to testing, especially manned, and gives you reason to build in escape systems....all just like in real space programs. Lately though there was too much dancing around with all the shifting variables in the game, so I reverted to quicksave/ load mode.

Even in Ironman though I recommend saving often, in the very likely case that you lose the mission because of a bug. 

[Kermanzooming]

I fully agree with all said above; planes are not feasible without quicksave/quickload/revert and they are  essential to avoid raging over bugs destroying all your work. 

 

[Curveball Anders]

I'll never start any form of game with any other rules than my own.

RL is challenge enough, I've never needed one in a game

[RW-1]

You mean some people save and revert?  Blasphemy!

 

Just kidding, I don't care how you play   hehehe ... just enjoy yourself, but don't abuse the privilege. 

[Curveball Anders]

3 minutes ago, RW-1 said:

just enjoy yourself, but don't abuse the privilege. 

I rather put it "be aware when you cheat or abuse the privilege".

In a non-networked, single-player game, you are the only one to judge your own actions.

[pandaman]

I often forget to quicksave, which has the same effect as deciding not to do it 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

1 minute ago, pandaman said:

I often forget to quicksave, which has the same effect as deciding not to do it 

Nothing like being 3/4 through a complicated mission and realizing you haven't saved once.

Then it's do or die time!

[pandaman]

I have played without quicksaves and yes it really does add to the sense of danger.  And yes it is realistic in that RL doesn't give you quicksaves either.

I justified losing missions to kraken attacks as being 'unforseen circumstances'.  The game, rightly IMO, doesn't include random failure, so having the occasional bug wreck a mission I treated as just such a problem.  Fortunately for me I had very few such issues compared to what many players are reporting, but I still planned my bigger missions with spare vessels and crews etc just in case.

Now though I do use quick save (when I remember).

[Geschosskopf]

On 4/21/2016 at 8:51 AM, Kermanzooming said:

What do you think? Have you given it a try this way?

I think the game is too unstable to do without quicksaves.  The Kraken kills WAY more of my Kerbals than I do.

[kBob]

Sorry, but for me this would cause  "fist through monitor syndrome."

[Tyko]

1 hour ago, pandaman said:

I have played without quicksaves and yes it really does add to the sense of danger.  And yes it is realistic in that RL doesn't give you quicksaves either.

I justified losing missions to kraken attacks as being 'unforseen circumstances'.  The game, rightly IMO, doesn't include random failure, so having the occasional bug wreck a mission I treated as just such a problem.  Fortunately for me I had very few such issues compared to what many players are reporting, but I still planned my bigger missions with spare vessels and crews etc just in case.

Now though I do use quick save (when I remember).

I had a philosophical debate over reloading and came to this conclusion:

If I forget something stupid or run into a problem and can come up with an in-game solution - for example: After the fact I realize that my plan won't work and need to come up with an alternate way to get my kerbals home

I'm allowed to reload because I'm one guy and the "real" program involves hundreds of people all cross checking each other. I also think back to Apollo 13 where they were royally screwed until a "steely eyed missile man" came up with a solution. They got to run simulations on the ground until they came up with a workable solution. So I'm allowed to try solutions too. Instead of feeling like I'm cheating, it's actually more rewarding for me to come up with a workable solution

[magnemoe]

On 21.4.2016 at 4:12 PM, eddiew said:

Too many ways to explode/lose a ship that are not my fault. Quickload is my way of getting around the "oh look, you exploded for no reason" bug, the "your orbit was going to take you here but now it's not" bug, and a host of others.

This and kerbal eject at escape velocity after hitting the ladder after spacewalk on Gilly and hit the ladder with 0.3 m/s but wrong angle and breaks all solar panels also the once on the backside of another 2.5 meter stack. 
I enjoy Skyrim and Falloout 3-4 without quicksaves but KSP has to much weirdness for me. 

[suicidejunkie]

The way I see it, is the problem is not the quicksave.

It is the quickload and instant revert.

 

Non-Kraken disasters can be strongly mitigated by buying sim time in KCT, sending your renewable supply of greyshirts to do the prototype testing, building in safety margin, and building out infrastructure for rescues.

Rescue and repair actions seem to me to be grossly underrated fun.

[GarrisonChisholm]

21 hours ago, pandaman said:

I have played without quicksaves and yes it really does add to the sense of danger.  And yes it is realistic in that RL doesn't give you quicksaves either.

I justified losing missions to kraken attacks as being 'unforseen circumstances'.  The game, rightly IMO, doesn't include random failure, so having the occasional bug wreck a mission I treated as just such a problem.  Fortunately for me I had very few such issues compared to what many players are reporting, but I still planned my bigger missions with spare vessels and crews etc just in case.

Now though I do use quick save (when I remember).

This is Exactly the way I have played, and for the same reasons.  Also fortunately, my glitches are rare enough (1 per 8 years of game time roughly) that a probe blowing up just by switching to it is just a "mission fatal anomaly".  And when I am too lazy to "simulate a new launch", and it fails to make orbit for a stupid reason, its on me.  And when I am in the middle of a long nuke-engine burn and Mission Control falls asleep? ...well, mission control has a "process review", and we watch that probe go wizzing by Sarnus beyond imaging range.  - and I Certainly don't then admit such a thing on the Forums, gracious me...

[Randazzo]

I will happily play X-COM or X-COM 2 on Ironman mode, but not KSP.

Whatever floats your boat.