Quickload to the latest save before you launched

[Uberubert]

Please, Saving the game when not really caring is great!

Quicksaving and quickloading as appendums are magnificent!

After some quick saves/loads I've realized that this feature is magnificent and needs to stay in the game.

This feature is so great that, in fact, I rely upon it for some very important occations.

The problem with this magnificent feature comes when you are not paying properly attention:

I launch a craft, it flies great!

I save when reaching orbit.

I land.

I launch another magnificent craft.

It fails.

I reload.

I'm stuck on the previous craft-reaching-orbit-save

Potential rage....

What is a problem without a solution? Just a problem that everybody hates.. My solution:

Launching a new craft will overwrite your latest possible save/quicksave. If you launch a new craft then your previous endeavours were good enough to not need saving.

[RenevB]

I think changing this would be a bad idea. It's very likely other people are already used to this situation and expect to load the orbiting ship. It may take some getting used to, but that's all and there's nothing wrong with that.

For the specific situation you describe, you should rely on "Revert to Launch" or "Revert to VAB/SPH" options. You could also get into the habit of quicksaving every time you land or just before launching.

Another hint is that you can make multiple quicksaves with Alt+F5 and load them with Alt+F9.

[BudgetHedgehog]

The problem with this magnificent feature comes when you are not paying properly attention

Why would changing the way the game behaves fix someone not paying attention? The players mistake is the players mistake, not sure the onus is on the game to fix that.

[Jouni]

Why would changing the way the game behaves fix someone not paying attention? The players mistake is the players mistake, not sure the onus is on the game to fix that.

Because KSP is one of those games that are supposed to be fun, not a military boot camp.

[BudgetHedgehog]

It's not supposed to hold your hand and protect you against every mistake you could ever possibly make either. Like not paying attention to it while you're playing it.

[Jouni]

It's not supposed to hold your hand and protect you against every mistake you could ever possibly make either. Like not paying attention to it while you're playing it.

Why not? I've never understood why people should pay for their mistakes. It's a misguided attitude that just makes things harder for everyone.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Because I don't want the game to hold my hand through everything, that's all. Sure, teach me the basics, the key bindings, but I want to be free to explore, to create, to succeed and to fail in this game. In every game, in fact. Knowing that I don't need to worry about mistakes makes for boring gameplay for me - especially in KSP. If I forget solar panels on a craft and I get to Minmus before I remember, I don't want to be like 'meh, I'll just reload and start again' because that removes some of the challenge and excitement for me. Random failures don't particularly interest me because they're random but yes, I do believe that mistakes should be learnt from.

[Kegereneku]

Why not? I've never understood why people should pay for their mistakes. It's a misguided attitude that just makes things harder for everyone.

Actually, giving an (punitive) incentive for the player to try his best is a very fundamental and necessary gameplay mechanism. That include both gameplay and the possibility to save.

Are we really playing if nothing we do have any consequence and we are sure to "win" anyway ?

What was described here was a player mistake that could have been avoided if he had knew about "revert to launch" or saved before doing something risky as normal players do.

[Jouni]

Actually, giving an (punitive) incentive for the player to try his best is a very fundamental and necessary gameplay mechanism. That include both gameplay and the possibility to save.

Are we really playing if nothing we do have any consequence and we are sure to "win" anyway ?

I thought behaviorism was supposed to be ancient history by now.

More seriously, the default changed from "the player is expected to lose" to "the player is expected to win" in the 90s. Old games were often artificially hard to compensate for the lack of content. Eventually this became unnecessary, as computers grew more powerful and development budgets got bigger. As people generally feel steady progress more rewarding than a continual struggle, games became easier and more enjoyable.

[BudgetHedgehog]

games became easier and more enjoyable.

The two, in my mind, are not mutually exclusive. Yes, they become easier and sometimes, that can result in a more enjoyable experience (e.g Bioshock Infinite which automatically quicksaved at almost every possible major event), but in KSP, this means you just simply cannot fail and given the indispensable nature of kerbals, I don't feel much remorse when things end up FUBAR. It just means a 'sigh, revert to launch and let's not repeat that mistake'. I don't like playing like that, is all.