Missions & Tutorials Feedback Megathread

[Westinghouse]

7 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Rants like this is exactly why it should stay. So people can be irrationally angry about something completely minuscule and irrelevant to gameplay. A gameplay that in itself is incredibly boring for average person (given the target audience for the game, which is quite literally everyone, not just "serious grown-ups"), so there are the funny bits to brighten up the experience.

Hear me @Just Jim? Keep em coming!

I hugely disagree with this, it sounds like you're advocating keeping things that don't fit the game simply to annoy people.

I'm the same as @Dakitess, I find the humor a bit forced and even cringeworthy at times. It adds to the kiddie vibe of KSP2 that I don't particularly like.
It also doesn't make sense how you have to go to Mission Control and 'tell' her that you've accomplished a mission. Surely she would know this already? "Oh gosh, you've landed on the Mun?" What exactly is she doing sat there in Mission Control in front of rows of computer banks drinking coffee, has she really not being keeping track of your current mission?

I also agree with what other people have said, the Duna missions come far too early. Rendezvous and docking missions in Kerbin orbit need to come before anything interplanetary.

[Spicat]

22 minutes ago, Westinghouse said:

I also agree with what other people have said, the Duna missions come far too early. Rendezvous and docking missions in Kerbin orbit need to come before anything interplanetary.

I hardly disagree, rendezvous and docking are much harder mechanics to learn than interplanetary.

I agree that those type of missions are severely missing from the game though (Would be good as a secondary mission)

The only thing missing from the primary missions are setting up a satellite in orbit to detect signals (Especially before the Duna one), but that would be much better if kerbnet was in the game for that so I can kindly wait.

[The Aziz]

32 minutes ago, Westinghouse said:

kiddie

Lighthearted*

Well maybe because it partially is for kids, which I already said.

And btw you can easily make a Duna landing and return mission without single docking.

[Icegrx]

There’s a big learning curve from the Minmus missions to the first Duna mission. 
 

Y’all are pushing hard in KSP2 for players to leave Kerbin SOI, that’s fine! 
 

you really need a tutorial for:

1. Building and staging an interplanetary craft. 
2. Planetary SOI ejection angle. 

[Westinghouse]

6 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

And btw you can easily make a Duna landing and return mission without single docking.

16 minutes ago, Spicat said:

I hardly disagree, rendezvous and docking are much harder mechanics to learn than interplanetary.

Maybe you're both not understanding - the problem is that it's forcing the new player out of the Kerbin system way too early.

@pschlik explains the problem about five posts down in this thread. The rendezvous missions serve the purpose of training the new player to maneuver and operate in orbit. 

The 'save a kerbal stranded in Mun orbit' missions from the first game got tiresome after a while, but the first time doing them they were very fun and exciting.
Teaching the player how to perform a rendezvous is explaining how an efficient Hohmann transfer orbit works, which is exactly what 'the correct angle' interplanetary transfer window talk  is all about.

[Spicat]

1 hour ago, Westinghouse said:

Maybe you're both not understanding - the problem is that it's forcing the new player out of the Kerbin system way too early.

And what's the problem of that? Remember that the game is supposed to lead us to interstellar across at least 3 additional solar system (with several colonies). Spending 300 hours in Kerbin SOI is clearly not the goal of ksp2.

1 hour ago, Westinghouse said:

@pschlik explains the problem about five posts down in this thread. The rendezvous missions serve the purpose of training the new player to maneuver and operate in orbit. 

Interplanetary learn you to fine tune with maneuvers, and mostly only that. Rendezvous is the part that make you learn approximately the same thing (Much harder to aim). But you also need to learn the docking part which make another thing to learn in the same mission. There is way too much info at once for new players. It's probably the hardest mechanic to learn.

If any primary mission need docking, it would need to be after interplanetary. And like I said, there should be secondary mission of docking (Don't care about the order if it doesn't lock stuff up)

Edited February 7 by Spicat

[The Aziz]

4 hours ago, Westinghouse said:

Maybe you're both not understanding - the problem is that it's forcing the new player out of the Kerbin system way too early.

What else is there to do? You've conquered the LKO, Mun and Minmus. Next logical step is one further, the easiest interplanetary mission you can get. The whole purpose of the game, is to send you out to explore, further and further, until you land on a most extreme planet around another star. It's not about stalling in one place like us humans do.

If there's any docking missions, they should remain secondary. So you can try them at your own pace without blocking progression behind the need to learn how to dock (which is quite hard, I'd say harder than most one-way landing missions outside Kerbin neighborhood).

[Superfluous J]

On 2/5/2024 at 5:34 PM, Meecrob said:

Also, what is up with the sightseeing missions on Kerbin requiring a Lander Can? Why would you encourage players to use a part designed for use in a vaccuum on Kerbin?

1000 times this.

[dmsilev]

16 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

You've conquered the LKO, Mun and Minmus. Next logical step is one further, the easiest interplanetary mission you can get

The current sequence isn't quite "the easiest interplanetary mission". Not only do you have to get a craft to the Duna system, you have to land something on the surface. That landing has to be extraordinarily precise, or you have to design/land a rover or you need to spend however long it takes to walk a Kerbal to the (quite small) target zone. 

There really should be an intermediate mission, similar to the ones already in the sequence for Minmus and Jool, where the goal is just "get an orbiter to Duna with a good antenna". If, in a future update, there's some sort of planetary-imaging/mapping part, require that as well. That gets the player to learn about interstellar transfers and so forth. The craft itself isn't that much of a size/capability leap from something that can go to the moons; the hard part is in the mission planning. Once the player has managed that, the next step adds in the landing requirements. The interplanetary maneuvers are the same, just with a bigger craft, and then there's new stuff to do upon arriving at Duna. 

[Superfluous J]

5 hours ago, Spicat said:

rendezvous and docking are much harder mechanics to learn than interplanetary

I'm not sure I agree with this, but in any case rendezvous and docking are also more prevalent than interplanetary. If you can rendezvous and dock at will, interplanetary becomes easier (as you don't need to send everything at once) and once you are interplanetary, subsequent missions can use the infrastructure you've already sent up.

The next mission after "get into orbit" should be "rendezvous 2 ships" and the second you unlock docking ports there should be a mission to dock in orbit.

All IMO of course.

30 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

If there's any docking missions, they should remain secondary. So you can try them at your own pace without blocking progression behind the need to learn how to dock

I agree with this, but I kind of think that nothing should block anything else except for the story missions, which by design must flow sequentially.

[The Aziz]

6 hours ago, dmsilev said:

There really should be an intermediate mission, similar to the ones already in the sequence for Minmus and Jool, where the goal is just "get an orbiter to Duna with a good antenna". If, in a future update, there's some sort of planetary-imaging/mapping part, require that as well. That gets the player to learn about interstellar transfers and so forth. The craft itself isn't that much of a size/capability leap from something that can go to the moons; the hard part is in the mission planning. Once the player has managed that, the next step adds in the landing requirements. The interplanetary maneuvers are the same, just with a bigger craft, and then there's new stuff to do upon arriving at Duna. 

So we do agree on that - it's something I pointed out in my first post in this thread. Interplanetary flight isn't a problem here, it's the need for precision landing during first attempt at interplanetary flight. So mission to Duna can and should be where it is now - but not necessarily a "pinpoint land at high latitude" mission to Duna.

[Superfluous J]

9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

So mission to Duna can and should be where it is now - but not necessarily a "pinpoint land at high latitude" mission to Duna.

I agree 100% with this.

I fully expect the mission thing as it stands now is a framework that will be filled out - a LOT - as major updates come out. They just put the bare-bones skeleton of it in with the minimum number of missions to hit the major parts that are in the game right now. I'd be a bit surprised if by the end of this all, the pinpoint landing on Duna mission didn't come until after you were at least setting up colonies somewhere, if not on Duna itself.

[dmsilev]

10 hours ago, The Aziz said:

So we do agree on that - it's something I pointed out in my first post in this thread. Interplanetary flight isn't a problem here, it's the need for precision landing during first attempt at interplanetary flight. So mission to Duna can and should be where it is now - but not necessarily a "pinpoint land at high latitude" mission to Duna.

Yes, definitely agreed. 

I would frame the broader question of progression this way: Once the player has demonstrated the ability to do precision landings on both moons, what are the reasonable next steps? Two things come to mind: Either go further out in the system or build bigger things locally. For the former, a basic "get to the next nearest planet" mission is the obvious next step. The latter would be a mission sequence of rendezvous->docking->space station assembly.  I think ideally both mission lines should be in the game, but it makes sense to prioritize the exploration line with the initial set of missions that we got with 0.2.x. 

[Meecrob]

.

Edited February 8 by Meecrob

[Meecrob]

On 2/7/2024 at 2:23 PM, The Aziz said:

Lighthearted*

Well maybe because it partially is for kids, which I already said.

And btw you can easily make a Duna landing and return mission without single docking.

The game is not for kids. I don't know where you got this from, but it is a complex simulator. Sure, kids play KSP, and I'm sure there are some kids that are extremely talented at it, but that doesn't mean they are the target market.

This game is roughly on par complexity-wise with MSFS 2020. Are there kids playing it? Undoubtedly! Are there kids shooting CATIII ILS approaches? Programming flightplans into the FMS? Heck, even flying flights longer than an hour? Certainly not the majority of kids. Most of them hop in a cool plane and mess around aimlessly for a bit.

The issue is that, like MSFS 2020, KSP is a game of delayed gratification. Something kids are notoriously bad at. Its usually older people who have the concentration to actually utilize the top end of these types of games.

 

Also, yes, you can land on Duna without docking, sure. You were the one upthread who mentioned that lots of the game was boring. I dunno, a rendezvous and docking seem to break up the boredom, and make your craft way more efficient too!

[The Aziz]

Building bigger things is inevitable considering what's introduced in the next milestone update. Cuz yes that includes orbital colonies/bases/whatever you wanna call it. Pretty sure before we're able to use BAE, we're gonna have to launch and connect stuff manually.

17 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

It makes the game seem like its for kids.

4) The target audience is definitely not "quite literally everyone." A game like Mario Party could be considered for "everyone." I'm sure I don't need to list the differences.

 

2 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

The game is not for kids. I don't know where you got this from, but it is a complex simulator. Sure, kids play KSP, and I'm sure there are some kids that are extremely talented at it, but that doesn't mean they are the target market.

The target of developers is to get everyone play it and become interested in space exploration and yes, everyone includes kids going to primary school. And how do you appeal to younger audience? By doing what has been done. If your "adultness" can't handle it, then maybe this game, ironically, isn't for you, play something that's more manly instead.

[DunaManiac]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

If your "adultness" can't handle it, then maybe this game, ironically, isn't for you, play something that's more manly instead.

I feel like I should say here that gameplay is a subjective experience. Some people like KSP2's style, others don't. The way I see this is that this sort of argument boils down to "if you interpret this in a way I don't like then get out." I'm sorry, but I see this all the time and it's still a non-argument. What might be "lightheartedness" for you might be "kiddieness" to others, and that's a fact of life. Respectfully, I think people shouldn't be going around telling people to "go play another game" just because they point out their dislike for the style of the game.

I think I should say I agree with the take that KSP2's humor is overbearing and simply doesn't work for me. I'm someone who focuses on the realism. Different people have different play styles, some who emphasize realism and others who don't. I don't see why we can't try to accommodate as many play styles as possible, and if the developers are trying to accommodate everyone they should take the people who offer constructive criticism into account. 

That's not to say I don't appreciate KSP's lightheartedness and kerbalness: that's exactly what makes it special and sets it apart from other games. I think KSP1 nailed the balance between realism and lighthearted fun that allows a serious colonization campaign of the solar system and someone like Danny2462 to coexist in the same game. How many other games are like that? On the other hand I think there is a difference between "lightheartedness" and overly cartoonish. The bright color pallettes and silly faces and in my opinion uninteresting story are things I don't find enjoyable. I think KSP2 is trying to lean heavily into the lighthearted aspect of KSP but I think at the cost of some of that emphasis on realism that I play KSP for. And if people are reading this just to respond "go play orbiter, nerd" then I think you should consider how everyone here has a passion for KSP: otherwise none of us would be here in the first place.

[Meecrob]

5 hours ago, The Aziz said:

snip

Ok, look, you are trying to argue me on a diction issue, so let me be more clear. Yes, they want to attract players of all ages, that does not mean they are the target audience.

Lets use some logic: Lots of adults have $50 USD spare. Lots of kids do not have $50 USD to spare. 

The game is very complex. You can enjoy the game at a more basic level. No offense meant by that, I was playing the game at a basic level for a few hundred hours til it clicked. I'm not sure lots of kids would want to push through the learning curve. I doubt enough to target them as the biggest market.

My point is that you cannot market a complex simulator to a demographic that has no money or attention span.

Also, you need a beefy computer to run it, this isn't something for iPads and whatnot, its for desktop computers and gaming laptops.

5 hours ago, The Aziz said:

If your "adultness" can't handle it, then maybe this game, ironically, isn't for you, play something that's more manly instead.

Can you comment on my comment instead of commenting on me? It is a forum rule, after all.

If you are trying to antagonize me, try harder, and on topic.

Edited February 9 by Meecrob

[Meecrob]

4 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

And if people are reading this just to respond "go play orbiter, nerd" then I think you should consider how everyone here has a passion for KSP: otherwise none of us would be here in the first place.

Amen, Its the hardcore players that come up with the ideas for mods that in the future make it into the game.

Edit:sorry, thought it would merge with above.

Edited February 9 by Meecrob

[Superfluous J]

I personally like the tone of the game, and I absolutely love that all the Kerbals look different than each other while still looking like Kerbals, even if they are cartoonish. Or perhaps especially because they're cartoonish.

I can't speak on the tutorials because - well - I don't need them and the one I tried I got bored being told how to do something I can do with my eyes closed, so I quit doing it.

However I think the tone in the missions is perfectly fine.

Maybe they could have a localization filter for non-comedic speech, for those who prefer that. No reason you can't "localize" to gameplay preferences, other than time and effort involved.

[Meecrob]

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I personally like the tone of the game, and I absolutely love that all the Kerbals look different than each other while still looking like Kerbals, even if they are cartoonish. Or perhaps especially because they're cartoonish.

I can't speak on the tutorials because - well - I don't need them and the one I tried I got bored being told how to do something I can do with my eyes closed, so I quit doing it.

However I think the tone in the missions is perfectly fine.

Maybe they could have a localization filter for non-comedic speech, for those who prefer that. No reason you can't "localize" to gameplay preferences, other than time and effort involved.

I think that the cartoonish part of KSP can be  incorporated into the experience...I'm not trying to say they aren't cute kinda thing. My point is that after you hook people in to playing the game, if they do like it, they will probably want challenging things to do. But not as big a jump as is currently.
 

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, Meecrob said:

I think that the cartoonish part of KSP can be  incorporated into the experience...I'm not trying to say they aren't cute kinda thing. My point is that after you hook people in to playing the game, if they do like it, they will probably want challenging things to do. But not as big a jump as is currently.
 

Agreed.

I though think that the developers already intend to do this by 1.0 and what we see now is but a tiny shadow of what the mission system will eventually be.

[regex]

Just some general comments, understanding that I've really only done the missions up through the main Duna mission (sorry, Starfield came along and I needed a few months to play that).

1. The huge Minmus craft mission is great practice for the later Eve and Tylo missions I've heard about but needs the science rewards rebalanced (I see no reason to do it, ever). Related, it should probably arrive later (after Duna) in order for the player to get larger parts. Players need to learn how to launch enormous things in this game and that was a good idea of how to introduce that concept.

2. Emphasize quick-saving if you're not going to give us trajectory tools beyond the orbit stuff. I had relatively little problem landing near the target on Duna but I've played a ton of KSP1. (Pro-tip to any newbies reading, Duna doesn't have enough atmosphere to really mess up your trajectory, what you're really compensating for is planetary rotation, and you really only have to aim slightly ahead of the target).

3. Emphasize missions that are optional or can be slept on better. Emphasize that self-direction is perfectly fine and expected. This is and always has been a sandbox game, promote it as such! If you put in a series of missions then people are going to think that's the game rather than look around for other things to do that can gain them expertise.

4. With interplanetary missions maybe add some missions to land on the easier targets like Gilly and Ike early on. That gives the new player more confidence in how to do landings and transfers, more practice with estimating fuel requirements and dealing with the unexpected, and so on. In fact, you guys need to add more easy missions (and maybe rebalance the rewards across the board accordingly) in order to better prep new players.

5. You absolutely need tutorials for interplanetary transfers and maybe even a diagram or something for the best transfer times. Ejection angle isn't really an issue because you can drag the maneuver node around on the orbit but that needs to be shown to the player and we also need better controls for node manipulation in an overview like when setting up a transfer.

6. See above, docking tutorials, which kind of introduce the concept of an interplanetary transfer. Docking tutorials first before interplanetary transfer.

7. A side thought, maybe emphasize that having extra fuel for plane changes is a good idea, your missions require that a lot.

8. See 7. The missions as they stand are a crash course in a ton of concepts all at once. They could be spread out better to introduce things to new players in a better fashion.

On a personal note, the humor is fine, at least it's not the dumb junkyard stuff from KSP1 that made me feel like the game was completely unserious. I also like the light-hearted Kerbal tone much better than the previous game, it has personality divorced of historical human actions and gives me no expectations on how I should proceed into space. I've railed against the dumb idea that Kerbals have to follow the U.S. path into space before and you guys are doing a good job making them their own thing rather than a reflection of U.S.-centric thinking. Thank you for that.

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Ejection angle isn't really an issue because you can drag the maneuver node around on the orbit but that needs to be shown to the player

Ejection angle is absolutely an issue. I remember in the last dev stream they asked what the ejection angle for Duna is. People gave numbers, and devs applied those number I think correctly because the mission worked - but nowhere in the game does it say what the current angle is and how to find it. Where is 0⁰? Where's 90⁰? You won't know unless you learned it somewhere else. And guess what, over the last decade, I haven't. I just sort of guessed based on "going inside, sunny side, going outside, dark side" rule of thumb.

[regex]

9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Ejection angle is absolutely an issue. I remember in the last dev stream they asked what the ejection angle for Duna is. People gave numbers, and devs applied those number I think correctly because the mission worked - but nowhere in the game does it say what the current angle is and how to find it. Where is 0⁰? Where's 90⁰? You won't know unless you learned it somewhere else. And guess what, over the last decade, I haven't. I just sort of guessed based on "going inside, sunny side, going outside, dark side" rule of thumb.

Are you talking about phase angle? Because that is very important, that's the relationship between the two planets and where they are in their orbits.

Ejection angle is like you say "going inside, sunny side, going outside, dark side" but since you can drag the maneuver node on the orbit knowing what it is exactly isn't an issue (compared to phase angle, for instance, which is crucial). It is very easy to set up a basic interplanetary maneuver and then fine-tune the ejection angle, and that was my whole point. Your rule of thumb there is about all you really need to know once you grasp how to manipulate maneuver nodes.