What sort of KSP player are you?

[MythicalHeFF]

Definitely a rational type guy, although occasionally I’ll go full Danny and break the game, most of the time by accident.

I say rational mostly because I don’t like building ridiculously huge rockets or space stations/bases in a single launch, it feels like cheating to me and is less rewarding in my opinion.

This is a change of pace from my old play style, which did involve massively overbuilt rockets and single launches, until I finally completed my first Eve return mission, when I decided to begin building things that weren’t absurdly ridiculous. Of course, sometimes I’ll break that rule, but for the most part I wouldn’t count on myself launching a 400 ton fuel station to Duna in a single go, I’d take my time and do it over the course of 5-10 launches.

One time I was using a 5x rescaled system with sigma dimensions and finally taking multiple launches to construct an interplanetary vessel felt normal.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Jack Joseph Kerman

[Pi_]

I definitely like testing stuff first, and building rockets that look like they'll fly in real life.  But rational?  Not so much.

[Nivee~]

I am a confused player. One minute I am planning missions, the next minute I am thinking about my mod, and how it would fit in the mission and in the next moment I open up my Wngs3D to start modelling...

[KerikBalm]

I don't do military stuff, I try to avoid bugs, not cause them.

I don't try to do "crazy" things (although crazy is in the eye of the beholder). I can do rational but extreme things.

I do try to push the limits of what my SSTOs can carry to orbit. I do push limits of stock parts by playing in a scaled up system with stock parts (currently finding 3x to be a pretty good fit for stock stats, but I wonder if I may want to move up to 4x).

Overall, I do think that I'd be the rational type

[LordFerret]

Irrationally rational. Real life like, test test test, automated probes first, followed by manned.

[MisterKerman]

I just try the best I can to get places in one piece, though aesthetically/funtionally I try to model my program after NASAs.

[Sᴄɪɴᴛɪʟʟᴀᴛᴏʀ]

I over-engineer everything, often thinking about multiple possible avenues of expansion for each launched ship or craft that I don't intend to return home immediately. My space programs are rarely cost-effective because of this lol.

"But what if I need to dock it with a craft that has different docking port types?"

"But what if I need to draw more power from it in the future?"

"But what if I move it further away from the sun and the solar panels become ineffective?"

"But what if I need more life support capacity for a mission extension?"

"But what if I run out of life support on another craft and the kerbals need to squat on the communications satellite? I'd need to keep supplies and seats on it then right?"

"But what if I need to be able to land the space station on a planet? What if I need to launch the surface base into orbit?"

[GoSlash27]

Definitely "Rational". I carry my planning and analysis to what is probably an unhealthy level

Best,
-Slashy

[IncongruousGoat]

Somewhere between rational and Scott. I don't fly a mission till I've tested every lander and atmospheric craft and completely mapped out the delta-V budget for the mission.  Also, everything has to look like an actual rocket/spacecraft to the extent possible, all the way from the fineness ratio of the booster to the positioning of antennae and fuel tanks, which I mostly attribute to RSS/RO/RP-0. Then again, this doesn't stop me from trying to then do completely nuts, non-realistic things. Like a no-ISRU, no-refueling single-launch grand tour. Or a Duna/Ike manned landing and return mission with a completely tier 1 space center. My rockets may have to be well-planned and look realistic, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go do realistic things with them.

[Klapaucius]

I'm rational on space missions, but with planes, the weirder the better. Part of that is finding out what you can get away with. What will fly and why?

[Chelsey]

I tend to be rational 

[TeslaPenguin1]

I push physics to the limit, and when physics breaks, I find a way to fix it.

I have built a huge rocket that the first stage (with asparagus) is enough to get into LKO. I only ditch it because it is so long that I can't turn around in time for my maneuvers.

[MDZhB]

I play a more rational style, but without the realism. I don't mind silly looking rockets or designs, but I do want to test them to make sure they work. I guess I'm not concerned as much with realism as I am mastering the game and doing cool stuff in that scope.

[Athen]

I'm rational most of the time, but when I'm board or tired of doing contracts, I'll become a Danny, and blow stuff up. I don't think many of our rockets would work in real life though, since, in real life, you need a lot more DeltaV because everything is huge.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Athen

[JadeOfMaar]

On 6/9/2018 at 5:51 AM, Ho Lam Kerman said:

Or are you a rational guy, always testing stuff first, and building rockets that look like they'll fly in real life?

I guess I'm the Rational sort. I'm always tuning or adding to a mod, and occasionally I build intricate designs for stations and motherships.

I largely design spaceplanes and stations, not rockets.

[Atkara]

I consider myself a rational player, who tests his designs and doesn't send Kerbals to their deaths. And while, like most of us, I have real life examples to follow (I was around when Skylab was still in orbit) I do my own thing in the game. When it comes to rockets, this means that, as long as the payload:

1. has a launcher that can hold and lift it to orbit with minimal torque
2. can fit in a fairing
3. is what I want to use

It goes up.

When it comes to spaceplanes, I'm  more of a traditionalist. For example, you won't see me flying a quad-wing in orbit -propably

[Epicdreamer]

I'd say an overengineering rationalist....which I can be playing science career most of the time.  I like having a lot more Dv than stricly needed for a self stated goal. It's allways better to leave a filled fueltank you don't need in orbit around say Dres (do I go there? Yes actually) than not being able to make it home. Gotta take care of them weird little green fellas!! And I never know what I can use that extra fuel for in the future. Can come in handy someday.

The challenge for me is to design such rockets/ships with the least amount of parts possible, because of system performance (a new overpowered rig would be nice ). 

[KerbolExplorer]

Im the kind of player that does stuff realisticly until my next destination is Duna.From that part is ITS SSTO`s and all kinds of futuristic looking crafts

But i fell if i find a procedural universe mod i will go full space exploration(Basacly enable infinite fuel and add warp drives to my craft and go exploring every world there is)

At the end i think im a pionner.Exploring all planets of the Kerbol Sistem(Fits perfectly my name)I just wish there was more things to explore at the sistem

[HansonKerman]

I'm caring, a person who thinks of Kerbals as real living creatures who deserve respect, and a 

On 6/9/2018 at 5:51 AM, Ho Lam Kerman said:

rational guy, always testing stuff first, and building rockets that look like they'll fly in real life

.

And a bit of a Danny- and Scott- guy.

Shouldn't this also be a Poll?

[Mahnarch]

Rational.

I haven't lost a Kerbalnaut since 2016.

All debris self-deorbits and/or smashes to wee bits - unless it absolutely cannot be avoided.

I, usually, try to only go with what's needed - except the Science™. If I'm going for "get Temp at..." I'm getting everything under the Sun.

 

Kerbals will only spend so much time on a mission (orbital/habitat stations, etc). Then they get to come home and retire - sipping Mai Tais on the Kerbin Shores and regaling the youngins' with tales of adventure and danger.

[Kernel Kraken]

On 6/9/2018 at 10:03 AM, Geonovast said:

I just kind of wing it.  I have no idea who this "Danny" is, and I have never seen a Scott Manley video.

https://youtube.com/user/Danny2462

Prepare to laugh your lungs out. 

I'm more of a Scott Manley kind of player, and I definitely take my builds to extremes. Most of them are ginourmous hypersonic nuclear bombers, or humongous airliners. Very rarely do I build a normal sized build, and even those are a bit too big.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Kernel Kraken

[CaptainHaywood]

Somewhere between rational and Scott. I build sensible rockets... AND THEN I SLING THEM AROUND THE SUN AND EELOO JUST TO GET TO DUNA. I'm serious. I built a Near Future, nuclear powered, 300 part mothership and then sent it corona skimming.

Edited August 15, 2018 by CaptainHaywood

[-M-TheDoctor]

Testing? What's that? Strap em in, light the fuse, and run like hell!!  No but seriously, my play style is less calculated and more "this probably wont RUD on me..." I might test a component a few times to make sure it does what I made it to do, but a lot of stuff I end up figuring out on accident. Or there is an accident.... Most of what comes off my runway and launch pad could theoretically be seen in real life. I try to play with as much realism as I can, though that revert button is getting worn out. It might explain the slow process I have, and it might explain why I've played this game off and on for years and yet I've never had a Kerbal intentionally leave the Kerbin SOI, and I've only ever landed probes on Minimus.

[StarStreak2109]

Well, I read about KSP in a news article on the net. I thought okay, sounds interesting and forgot about it... Then a few months later I stumbled across a Scott Manley video on YouTube (no idea how that ended up in my playlist) and that kicked me over the edge down that rabbit hole that is the world of KSP. I must have watched every KSP video he ever made including his Reusable Space Program series, Tylo/Eve or Bust! and last but not least KSP Interstellar. So naturally I wanted to do what he did. I also learned a lot from @Felbourn (Bob Fitch), who did awesome KSP series.

At some point I found that trying to emulate other guys is not the way to go. Since then I try to find my own way, playing mostly sandbox. Whether it is in 2.5x scale using the fine BDB and Tantares sets (amongst other things) or in 1.0x scale using all sorts of near future / scifi parts packs, my focus is on the engineering side of things. I love building space stations and assembling them in orbit. Lately I have discovered the joys of space planes. Sometimes I tend to meticulously fiddle with parts from dozens of different parts packs until I find the one that perfectly fits my preferences!

[GrandProtectorDark]

Diverting a bit from all the rationalism.

I'm experimental-beyond reasonable but mindful.

Few of my missions resemble reasonable designed real world crafts. (Using a lot of mods)Rockets are 95% of the time oversize superheavy ssto BFRs and few payloads are less than 200tons. 

But I try to avoid loss of life as much as It's possible. Dead kerbals are bad for business..