Stock Game not very fun without Delta-V & TWR readout

[Kobymaru]

17 minutes ago, Dark Lion said:

I didn't realize we had to keep playing when we stopped having fun-- but why don't you just mod the game already, if that's all it'll take for you to have more fun with it?

I did, in fact, stop playing the stock game and the making history expansion for this very reason. But I'm just gonna quote myself, because I've written this too many times on this thread already:

On 17.3.2018 at 4:13 PM, Kobymaru said:

I did use KER (in 1.3 and before) and I probably will again in 1.4. I don't have a problem with KER, it's amazing. But that's not really the point of the discussion, I was just wondering how the devs envisioned the stock game experience, without any mods.

 

Quote

I don't mean "shut up,"

Quote

Why does this thread even exist?

A bit of a mixed message here  This thread exists becaue I've been using KER for so long that I forgot what its like to not have a dV readout in the editor. When I was reminded of it (trying to play stock for a bit), I got so frustrated that I started questioning where the fun in the (stock) game really is. Mind you: I'm not saying there isn't. I just couldn't find it.

 

Quote

Seriously @Kobymaru? You still don't think you'll really get it, do ya?

Oh, I do get it. Back in the day it was deemed too hard to implement, now they're just out of capable developers. In short: they just don't care.

 

ps.: I have one simple wish: 

Let all the devs, every single one of them, preferrably including the management do a Jool 5 mission (that includes a Tylo landing), completely stock, with no KER,  no KAC, no Transer Window Planner. Lets see how much fun they have when playing their own game.

I'm pretty sure the real reason that we keep having this discussion is that most of the Devs play time is limited to staying in/around Kerbin, or at most going to the Mun, if at all.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Kobymaru

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

21 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

ps.: I have one simple wish:

Let all the devs, every single one of them, preferrably including the management do a Jool 5 mission (that includes a Tylo landing), completely stock, with no KER,  no KAC, no Transer Window Planner. Lets see how much fun they have when playing their own game.

I know what you're going for here, but you picked a bad example. That's exactly how I did my Jool 5; and with the now defunct Mk1-2 for all landings. It was an absolute blast. Anyone who's played for awhile could do it. You can hit Jool blindfolded (nobody would really need a transfer tool for that), and once you're there, you can easily make all your transfers. The only tough part is your Tylo lander (as you alluded to), but that's what testing is for. I would imagine that, even if KER tells you your Tylo lander or Eve ascent vehicle will work, you still wanna test it out, don't you?

As I said, I get what you're saying, but do you honestly believe Squad just doesn't care about what players want? What they don't want is the headaches that would go along with it. If you told Cybutek or Sarbian that their mod didn't calculate your Delta V correctly, they could just shrug and say that if you use such elab staging, it's probably not going to be entirely accurate. If you questioned them further, they could just say "if you don't like it, don't use it". And what would you say to that?

Now imagine Squad implements KER-type info. They would have to support it and investigate every instance where it didn't calculate properly. It would be a constant, ongoing problem with no real end to it. And there would be a bunch of threads complaining that they finally put it in, but still didn't get it right. I don't think it's worth the hassle for them. If I were them, I'd just leave it to mods. As I said before, the only ones who are really hurt by it are the console guys. And really, if you're crazy enough to try to play this game on a console, you probably don't know what you're missing anyway. 

[Kobymaru]

 

1 hour ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

I know what you're going for here, but you picked a bad example.

I just want them to venture out of Kerbins SOI a little bit. I honestly don't think they do that. Maybe the QA testers do, but the devs and management doesn't.

 

Quote

As I said, I get what you're saying, but do you honestly believe Squad just doesn't care about what players want?

I think they used to care (nowdays not so much), but they didn't think it's a priority because "there's a mod for that". Unfortunately they also subscribed to the notion of "less information is better", and they believed that this is what players wanted.  I wish, however, that they would realize how tedious the game is without it. I don't know what their opinions are today, but they have been very actively avoid any mention of this issue for a long time.

 

Quote

Now imagine Squad implements KER-type info. They would have to support it and investigate every instance where it didn't calculate properly. It would be a constant, ongoing problem with no real end to it. And there would be a bunch of threads complaining that they finally put it in, but still didn't get it right. I don't think it's worth the hassle for them. If I were them, I'd just leave it to mods. 

This is the worst argument ever. The same thing could be said about literally any subsystem: contracts, aerodynamics, heating,  and in fact, any project in life ever. Not doing something because of the possibility of not doing it perfectly is ridiculous, and being able to take criticism is just a life skill. You can whine about it, or you can improve your work based on that criticism.

The aerodynamics are the perfect example: there was a mod for that, they implemented it anyway, "they still didn't get it right", but it's still in the game. And it's a lot better than nothing.

Besides, what makes you think that they can't pull off a deterministic, analytical calculation with at least two working reference implementations (KER and MechJeb) so that it's useful for at least simple vehicles?

Edited March 23, 2018 by Kobymaru

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

10 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

 

This is the worst argument ever. The same thing could be said about literally any subsystem: contracts, aerodynamics, heating,  and in fact, any project in life ever. Not doing something because of the possibility of not doing it perfectly is ridiculous, and being able to take criticism is just a life skill. You can whine about it, or you can improve your work based on that criticism.

Nope. Disagree. You're talking about adding something that is not currently there and isn't necessary. You're looking for a toaster that loads the bread for you, too. I would say it was unnecessary and not worth the hassle of building. You would say I was lazy cuz somebody else built there own. We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

And I like your comment about taking criticism. Do you read what other people say, or just post? What I often see on here is "criticism" that is rather vehement, one-sided, and as with most things people want, extremely self-centered. This is what I think, so this is the way it should be done. That's my world too, bud. It's gettin' crowded.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

[Spraki]

Hi. This is a shameless self-advertisement to the suggestion foruns, inspired by some of the debates of this thread.

What would you guys think of a middleground solution (not sure if somebody ever mentioned it) of an NPC kerbal scientist button; tells you witty kerbal dialog if this thing can make it or not to a selected planet, object whatever. And you can also select pitstop rendevous or do.

Think a bit like visual novel style or any other multiple choice dialog buttons interface.

The game does the math following standard dV map numbers. But doesn't reveal the values. So it stays trial-n-error. 

 

Here's the thread. 

But maybe it can help with the bloody noses debate on dV readouts in editors.

 

[Kobymaru]

Just now, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

and isn't necessary

This is where we'll have to disagree. I think it's about as necessary as an Apoapsis marker.

 

1 minute ago, Spraki said:

But maybe it can help with the bloody noses debate on dV readouts in editors.

That's very nice, and there are plenty of useful suggestions on how to do it. There's actually even consensus in this thread itself: implement it with a toggle.

The problem is, there's no comment from SQUAD ever, in this or any other thread about this topic. And I can guarantee that this topic will come up until the end of time or until SQUAD implements it into the game. Even if all people in this thread will collectively agree to never speak of this again, there's probably a guy buying the game right now who will ask the very same question in half a year.

[Bill Phil]

On 3/22/2018 at 8:06 AM, Just Jim said:

yes... I totally agree. 

For me, it's just a matter of game-playing style. I prefer the "trial and error" method because of the nail-biting situations you can end up in. For example, the other night I was landing a small colony base on Minmus... and found myself running out of fuel as it was coming down, and quite literally landing on fumes. Now I totally understand and respect that some players would want to know ahead, and probably would have added a couple hundred more units of LOX before launching it...

But at the same time... trying to land, freaking out watching my altitude and fuel both dropping at about the same rate, and not knowing if I was going to make it or not, was insanely exciting and nerve wracking... and really, really fun in a scary roller-coaster kind of way. And I think some of the folk 1000 miles from here at Squad could probably heard me shouting when it landed safely.

That's why I don't have a problem with it being added into the game... but with a switch, so I can turn it off, and sweat it out... it's just how I prefer to play is all.

I had the same experience on Tylo, only with my delta-V ticking down instead. 

The two values are related. Delta-v is a function of mass ratio which is a function of fuel and empty mass.

I think the option would be great. Those who want it can use it, those who don't can turn it off. The default could even be "off", like advanced tweakables.

[klgraham1013]

22 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

When the game begins, you don't have patched conics, you can't set maneuver nodes, you can't EVA, you don't have landing legs or docking ports or a ton of other things that might be considered "essential". You're meant to start very simply and progress. Unlockable KER-type info would go right along with the rest of the game. Unlocked automatically in sandbox; just like everything else. I don't see how this could be upsetting to anyone.

Mainly because I see this system of locks to be poor design.  I could write more on it, but I'm sort of losing enthusiasm for the same topic after so more years.  Basically, I don't feel like restriction in this way in a good teacher of anything.  DV and TWR are the first things the player should learn about launching a rocket.

[Wjolcz]

But I thought the game is meant to be played this way! It was intentional! And besides, it's a fully released game! How can a fully released game not have everything that should let you play it without getting frustrated!?

dV and TWR tools were meant to be implemented into the game long time ago. The team said "It's coming" then there was the "shmelta-vee" announcement and soon after that the team member who tweeted it got mysteriously fired aaaaaaand from then on I haven't seen anything hinting that the tools are coming.

There were also some intellectual property issues (if I understand that correctly: can't have KER code in the core game) but then we have more than one dV mods so who the hell knows what the actual rules of that are.

Anyway, it would be more than good to have it stockified. It's a very important and essential tool and the game is nearly unplayable without calculations like that.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Wjolcz

[Gaarst]

1 hour ago, Spraki said:

Hi. This is a shameless self-advertisement to the suggestion foruns, inspired by some of the debates of this thread.

What would you guys think of a middleground solution (not sure if somebody ever mentioned it) of an NPC kerbal scientist button; tells you witty kerbal dialog if this thing can make it or not to a selected planet, object whatever. And you can also select pitstop rendevous or do.

Think a bit like visual novel style or any other multiple choice dialog buttons interface.

The game does the math following standard dV map numbers. But doesn't reveal the values. So it stays trial-n-error. 

 

Here's the thread. 

But maybe it can help with the bloody noses debate on dV readouts in editors.

 

The worst of both worlds. Besides the fact that dV requirements to a same destination vary a lot depending on the situation, craft and ability of the player, people who want numbers will still not have any numbers and people who want to guess their rockets to orbit are spoiled the outcome.

[DerekL1963]

3 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

I know what you're going for here, but you picked a bad example. That's exactly how I did my Jool 5; and with the now defunct Mk1-2 for all landings. It was an absolute blast. Anyone who's played for awhile could do it. You can hit Jool blindfolded (nobody would really need a transfer tool for that), and once you're there, you can easily make all your transfers.

*Sigh*  This nonsense again?  Ok, once again, I'll debunk it from the top.

- It was a blast for you, cool.  But, as hard as this seems for people to grasp, different people find different things fun.  Don't assume that your fun is the same as the fun of anyone who isn't you.  Please stop presuming to speak for anyone who isn't you.

- I've played since .19, and I couldn't do it (a Jool-5) without MJ even today.  My Jool-5 was successful because I was able to use MJ to assist in designing and flying my vehicles.  I had far more fun working out the mission concept, vehicle design, and flight plan than I did flying it.  The actual execution of the mission was nothing more (to me) than proof that I'd done all the previous steps to near perfection.

- I can barely hit the Mun with eyes open, and forget Minmus.  Jool?  Without a xfer tool, I've only ever hit it by accident.  Once again, what you're capable of is what you're capable of has nothing to do with what anyone who isn't you may or may not be capable of.  Please stop presuming to speak for anyone who isn't you.

And don't even try to bring up "g3t guud" or "practice, practice, practice".  I am what I am and practice will no more fix my lack of eye-hand coordination than it will fix my nearsightedness.

As far as "the game is meant to be played this way" or "career mode does this" - next time you load the game and start a new save, take a gander at the "sandbox" option.  There's a lot of different ways to play this game, and practically as many playstyles as players.  This game is all about options even before you figure in mods.  Telling other people they shouldn't have the option to play in a way that displeases you or that you don't find fun is utter bilge.

[Spraki]

43 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

The worst of both worlds. Besides the fact that dV requirements to a same destination vary a lot depending on the situation, craft and ability of the player, people who want numbers will still not have any numbers and people who want to guess their rockets to orbit are spoiled the outcome.

Suppose one could have the accuracy entirely adjusted, with "error margin +-%" to keep stuff interesting. And, all can be optional. 

I've also had my fair shares of assuming dV maps and readouts would be spot-on, but it also required being the best pilot in the galaxy, which I for sure am not.

Either way, I just wanted to see more interactions by the kerbal while at the same time giving not too much away.

I have to disagree with your opinion as the point of the suggestion was to not get a super accurate value in the first place. Just something "for starters" to save people like the OP of doing math, stopping and doing math again etc.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Spraki

[Just Jim]

3 minutes ago, Spraki said:

Suppose one could have the accuracy entirely adjusted, with "error margin +-%" to keep stuff interesting. And, all can be optional. 

Oh... I had a thought...this could be a hilarious twist for the new Mission Builder...

Halfway through a mission a window pops up, and there's ol' Werhner von Kerman...

"Ahhh, Jeb, listen... we have as situation... someone goofed up and... well... misplaced a decimal point calculating your delta-V and... well... I hear Eve's nice this time of year..."

[WildBill]

I can see both sides of this debate. Like HarvestR once said, too much information could make the game too easy. But, as I found out the hard way, the more complex and advanced stuff is too frustrating without basic information to be fun. At least for me.

So it depends on how you're playing: as a game vs a realistic simulator. It depends on your own view, perspective, and goals.

In the real world, you would simulate the crap out of a spacecraft before first launch: for those folks information is essential. (this is me, by the way)

As a challenging game: too much information makes it too easy. (this is me too)

Trying to appease both sides is a challenge! Maybe some kind of Career-based gradual roll-out of information so the early game is fun and the later game is still fun? Add the ability to override as you wish and everyone wins.

[MechBFP]

Honestly the solution is this simple:

1) Add a checkbox that says “Allow delta V tech upgrade?”in the difficulty options when you start a new game. 

2) Implement the tech in the tech tree. 

3)Profit!!!

Edited March 23, 2018 by MechBFP

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

20 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Mainly because I see this system of locks to be poor design.  I could write more on it, but I'm sort of losing enthusiasm for the same topic after so more years.  Basically, I don't feel like restriction in this way in a good teacher of anything.  DV and TWR are the first things the player should learn about launching a rocket.

I would counter by saying how to click and drag a part onto the editor and put it together with other parts should be the first things you learn. And what these parts do. And how they work. What buttons to press to launch and stage and throttle up and down and what Ap and Pe mean. Basically , everything they teach you in the tutorials. I think most games have a progression, where you gain abilities and equipment as you go. Career mode is like KSP's take on it. If you want everything unlocked from the beginning, you're basically talking about sandbox; which anyone can play anytime they want. At that point, though, I think we're talking more about which game mode we prefer; which would be an entirely different discussion.

53 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

*Sigh*  This nonsense again?  Ok, once again, I'll debunk it from the top.

- It was a blast for you, cool.  But, as hard as this seems for people to grasp, different people find different things fun.  Don't assume that your fun is the same as the fun of anyone who isn't you.  Please stop presuming to speak for anyone who isn't you.

- I've played since .19, and I couldn't do it (a Jool-5) without MJ even today.  My Jool-5 was successful because I was able to use MJ to assist in designing and flying my vehicles.  I had far more fun working out the mission concept, vehicle design, and flight plan than I did flying it.  The actual execution of the mission was nothing more (to me) than proof that I'd done all the previous steps to near perfection.

- I can barely hit the Mun with eyes open, and forget Minmus.  Jool?  Without a xfer tool, I've only ever hit it by accident.  Once again, what you're capable of is what you're capable of has nothing to do with what anyone who isn't you may or may not be capable of.  Please stop presuming to speak for anyone who isn't you.

And don't even try to bring up "g3t guud" or "practice, practice, practice".  I am what I am and practice will no more fix my lack of eye-hand coordination than it will fix my nearsightedness.

As far as "the game is meant to be played this way" or "career mode does this" - next time you load the game and start a new save, take a gander at the "sandbox" option.  There's a lot of different ways to play this game, and practically as many playstyles as players.  This game is all about options even before you figure in mods.  Telling other people they shouldn't have the option to play in a way that displeases you or that you don't find fun is utter bilge.

Not sure where to begin here. I never wanna say something is easy in this game, so I'll just say this; without KAC, Jool is the one planet I can hit on the first try every time. There's no magic involved. When it's in about the right position, you go and you will hit it. It has a huge SOI that is extremely forgiving. Have you ever actually tried, or are you just denouncing it as sorcery? Although, since you also mention having played this long and having trouble getting to Mun and Minmus without a transfer tool, I'm not sure if the stock game will ever be right for you.

As for sandbox; yes, we all know there is a mode called sandbox and many players prefer it. There is also a mode called science, and many players prefer that. If you had a point, I have no idea what it was supposed to be.

As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Telling other players they can't have something? Have you actually read through this thread, or did you just feel like talking?

[Just Jim]

Hmmm.... here's an idea... see what y'all think.

Again, yes, I'm all for the off/on switch. But I think I like the idea of earning it in a career game, maybe when you upgrade the R&D lab or tracking station... and also making it  "error margin +-%"...

But what if this was a function of the scientist on board a ship, and the percentage was based on their experience? Obviously this would be for a career game... or maybe science... I don't play science games, just career. But in order to have a dV reading, you need a decent probe core, or a scientist onboard first. Then the reading depends on Bob's experience. If he's only 1-star... it's off by... idk... 10-20%... and down until he's spot on at 5-star experience....

I don't know if something like this is possible... or if it's something anyone would want... but it would not just add a challenge factor, it would give another reason to have a scientist... or perhaps make it a function of engineers... onboard your ship.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Just Jim

[GoSlash27]

12 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

But what if this was a function of the scientist on board a ship

^ Engineer. Sounds like an interesting concept; some will love it and others will hate it

Best,
-Slashy

[Just Jim]

38 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

^ Engineer. Sounds like an interesting concept; some will love it and others will hate it

Best,
-Slashy

Yeah, Engineer would be best. Gives them a reason to be on board. And it would obviously have to have an on/off option like the rest, and be just for career games. It's just an idea to make things a little more interesting.

[Jimmidii]

One argument against including a delta-v readout seems to be that trial-and-error is the intended way to play the game.

However, some of the game options, including the default hard settings, turn off reverting and turn on permadeath. Both of these stop trial-and-error being an option.

Due to this, while the game still gives you (just) enough numbers to calculate what you need to, I don't see trial-and-error as a valid reason to not include delta-v.

[Bill Phil]

26 minutes ago, Jimmidii said:

One argument against including a delta-v readout seems to be that trial-and-error is the intended way to play the game.

However, some of the game options, including the default hard settings, turn off reverting and turn on permadeath. Both of these stop trial-and-error being an option.

Due to this, while the game still gives you (just) enough numbers to calculate what you need to, I don't see trial-and-error as a valid reason to not include delta-v.

The game also tells you how much delta v manuevers cost. But not how mucn you have...

[Foxster]

1. A lot of people (not everyone) continue to play KSP only because of mods that show dV and TWR (see the download numbers for these mods)

2. Those mods may not continue to be maintained and without them a lot of players would stop playing KSP (see the console debacle)

3. Therefore that functionality needs to be in the stock game (with the option to turn it off)

[GoSlash27]

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

The game also tells you how much delta v manuevers cost. But not how mucn you have...

To be fair, computing the former is a much more straightforward process than the latter. Pinning down what constitutes a "stage" in someone else's design can be devilishly difficult.

Best,
-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

10 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

A bit of a mixed message here

To clarify, it's not like the Devs are following this discussion with keen interest, waiting for us to come to a consensus so they can run off and implement our decision.
 We should keep in mind that everything discussed in this thread is hypothetical and has no bearing in the real world. None of us has the authority to decide what goes into the stock game, so there's no sense in getting angry at each other about it.

 The devs will do whatever they decide when (and if) they decide to.

Best,
-Slashy
 

[Bill Phil]

19 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

To be fair, computing the former is a much more straightforward process than the latter. Pinning down what constitutes a "stage" in someone else's design can be devilishly difficult.

Best,
-Slashy

True. Even so, it's worth adding in. The potential problems from having delta v be innacurate already exist to some extent in maneuver nodes.