Remove or Fix the Stayputnik

[Anquietas314]

I do that,too, but I admit it is not too usefull for anything else in the game. But if we remove all parts that have almost no use, where would we come?

Remove the Claw, it can just grap asteroid! Remove the Hex, the Quad and the Okto probecore, the flat Okto is smaller and better! Remove all engines except the Kerbodynes, bigger is better!

See the point?

I get that you're being facetious, but remember the claw can grab ships and kerbals, not just asteroids Plus, bigger is most certainly not better in the world of rocket science

[CaptainKipard]

What?! Are you joking? I don't like it - remove it... where is the sense is in this world.

Ok.

I don't like green kerbals - paint them into red.

I don't care about flags - remove them from game.

I don't use big engines - remove them from the game.

What the hell...

By the way... Capsules with 1 place don't have SAS when Scientist of Engineer controls it... I know... SQUAD, remove engineers, scientists and 1 man pods from KSP! Because they don't have SAS.

Maybe you should actually read what you quoted.

[sal_vager]

The Stayputnik Mk2 is perfectly usable and a fine probe, It gives players the option to try flying without SAS, just as a Mk1 pod with no pilot does.

Any player who finds this beyond their ability can just use a better probe or take a pilot on crewed flights, when they are later more skilled they still have the option to try flying craft without the benefit of SAS

[CaptainKipard]

It's really a question of balance. It's not good enough to say it's as bad as a pod with no pilot. We have pilots in the game from the beginning, but for some reason the first probe is a lot worse than that. It's like Squad desparately want you to use Kerbals. Is it because most people would use probes if things were more even? Probably.

[ddenis]

Maybe you should actually read what you quoted.

Maybe You should read what you comment?

Stayputnik without SAS is the same as Engineer or Scientist in one man capsule. Why would we left them if Stayputnik was deleted from the game based on assumption that it's useless without SAS?

If someone don't see something useful it doesn't mean that it isn't useful.

- - - Updated - - -

It's really a question of balance. It's not good enough to say it's as bad as a pod with no pilot. We have pilots in the game from the beginning, but for some reason the first probe is a lot worse than that. It's like Squad desparately want you to use Kerbals. Is it because most people would use probes if things were more even? Probably.

We have engineers in the game too, who can't hold position.

Edited December 22, 2014 by ddenis

[CaptainKipard]

Mhm. This is the second time you've not addressed what's actually being said. Have a look here and here to start your journey towards betterment I wish you well on your voyage.

[Anquietas314]

Mhm. This is the second time you've not addressed what's actually being said. Have a look here and here to start your journey towards betterment I wish you well on your voyage.

ddenis's argument is neither a straw-man nor a red-herring; these are examples of a red herring. It is possibly poorly explained perhaps though; OP's basis for removing the stayputnik is essentially that they don't like it without SAS, but phrased under the assumption that everyone agrees (or should). Lots of people however do like the probe as-is. Of course, as I said here another simple solution would just be to bump the probes' SAS abilities up a level each, so that stayputnik has basic SAS and the second octo probe has full SAS; as was said earlier those who like it without SAS could (but admittedly probably wouldn't) turn it off.

There are also plenty of other solutions to the memory issues KSP suffers; e.g. not loading every single part in full at game start; compressing meshes/animations (in memory) that are not currently on screen but may be loaded in the near future and compressing textures unilaterally (see the Active Texture Management mod; it does make some textures a little ugly but you could always use a different, less lossy compression algorithm - there are dozens to choose from). The performance impact of loading (suitably stored/cached) models, animations or textures from disk that aren't in memory should be a few tens of milliseconds at most in a typical case, assuming they're not absurdly huge, and most of that is due to seek time. That makes it practical to only load the models etc used in the active ship and any close enough to see without significantly affecting performance. How easy any of this is to do in Unity though, I don't know; it's not an engine I've worked with.

Edited December 22, 2014 by armagheddonsgw

[thereaverofdarkness]

It's really a question of balance. It's not good enough to say it's as bad as a pod with no pilot. We have pilots in the game from the beginning, but for some reason the first probe is a lot worse than that. It's like Squad desparately want you to use Kerbals. Is it because most people would use probes if things were more even? Probably.

Or it could be that the probe cores allow you to have a much lighter command module at the expense of having to automate it. It makes sense that probe cores require higher technology to have the same functions as Kerbals.

Speaking of same functions and higher tech, I think it'd be great to have a less compact probe core at the top of the tech tree which would have the ability to make crew reports. This probe would have a mass value almost as high as a Mk 1 lander can and its advantages would be in not risking Kerbal lives and saving a bit of mass, while its disadvantages would be high part cost, constant energy usage, and no EVA reports. Probes should be able to collect soil samples with advanced instruments.

[Kerbart]

The big criticism of the game was that it starts manned. I think there's even a mod that modifies the tech tree to get you started on unmanned probes first.

Now we're getting a game where it turns out that the Kerbals, in the earily phases of space flight, simply haven't figured out how to automate stabilization. Is that unrealistic? Before you answer that question, keep in mind that you're playing a space game with little green men with bulging eyes living on a planet with a 1200km diameter.

What everyone seems to forget is that it's perfectly possible to put a stayputnik into orbit with a SAS operated rocket; do it the Kerbal way. Let Jeb fly your vehicle, release the probe when it's in public and return Jeb. When done smartly you can probably combine it with one or more manned missions as well.

You don't need Jeb of course; these Stayputnik delivery runs can be done by any pilot who needs to build up some experience.

[CaptainKipard]

Oook. For those who still don't get it:

We have engineers in the game too, who can't hold position.

This is the red herring.

Engineers are not relevant to the argument, Pilots are. There are many other things in KSP that also can't pilot well, like girders and science equipment. We don't mention them because they distract from the topic which is the comparison between the first unmanned probe, and entry-level pilots, who can hold a vector. The comparison is clear as day.

The primary purpose of pilots is to fly.

The primary purpose of probes is also to fly. They should have comparable stats.

The primary purpose of engineers and scientists is not to fly.

And remember it's trivial hire a new pilot for the express purpose of holding a vector. The unmanned equivalent is a lot harder to get. The part is much too lame. OP made a valid point.

What?! Are you joking? I don't like it - remove it... where is the sense is in this world.

This is the strawman. The poster reinterpreted OPs post as stating an opinion of preference, in order to attack it.

Ok.

I don't like green kerbals - paint them into red.

I don't care about flags - remove them from game.

I don't use big engines - remove them from the game.

What the hell...

I don't know what this is supposed to be but looks like a combination of both strawmen and red herrings.

tl;dr

It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of game balance. I hope this has been enlightening. Let's try to elevate the discussion, thanks.

The big criticism of the game was that it starts manned. I think there's even a mod that modifies the tech tree to get you started on unmanned probes first.

Yeah, in a way. There are a few factors that contribute to Stayputnik being in the situation that it's in. If we had SAS probes about the same time as manned flight no one would complain about the Stayputnik. Then again, no one would even use it.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[ddenis]

Oook. For those who still don't get it

Oh my God...

I've used Hyperbole. Ok with that... it's about "I don't like green kerbals - paint them into red.".

Now about the OP:

Squad, memory space is already at a premium

Don't argue with this point, because don't care about it now.

why gimp a part into unusability and then leave it in the game?

Why OP says that Stayputnik is "gimped a part into unusability"? Is is only his opinion or it's everyone's opinion? I assume, that it isn't opinion of the majority.

If you don't want anyone to use the Stayputnik

Why does the OP think that no one will Stayputnik now? Because he don't want to use it, but did he asked other? Have he asked opinion of someone else except himself before making such statement?

then remove it all together

Based on the previous points he ask to delete something from the game because he think that his idea is the idea of not only the majority of KSP players, but of the whole community and he is doing such assumption without any pool, at least.

and save everyone some memory.

There're a lot of different ways of saving memory, not going to argue.

Without SAS, the thing is completely useless as a probe core.

It's useful for me and for many other, so, again, the OP says his opinion as it's the only possible truth.

And it's related to my links to engineers in one man capsule. OP says that Stayputnik is useless without SAS not taking into account other ways of using it, it's just the same as we would judge on usefulness of scientist based only on absence of SAS when the scientist controls one man capsule. The Stayputnik, the same as the scientist, has other features which are useful.

Roger that?

Edited December 22, 2014 by ddenis

[ddenis]

The primary purpose of probes is also to fly. They should have comparable stats.

Why do you to decide what is the primary purpose for anything in the single player game? Tell for yourself, don't tell for all.

That's the problem with the OP. It's written under the impression that his (OP's) point of view is the only possible and everyone who think other way are wrong or even that there are no people who has opinion different from his.

And you, making such statements go the same way.

Even if it's "primary" purpose, why do you think that "not primary" purposes are less valid? That they so invalid, that Stayputnik can be deleted from the game.

Edited December 22, 2014 by ddenis

[CaptainKipard]

No sorry that made very little sense, in fact you've made things even worse for your position. Here's a couple more links for your consideration. Irony and Moving the goalposts. Good luck.

[Anquietas314]

-- Added for context --

Stayputnik without SAS is the same as Engineer or Scientist in one man capsule. Why would we left them if Stayputnik was deleted from the game based on assumption that it's useless without SAS?

[...]

We have engineers in the game too, who can't hold position.

This is the red herring.

Engineers are not relevant to the argument, Pilots are.

Actually engineers ARE relevant to the argument; in order to train them and make them useful, you need to launch them into orbit; they don't have SAS to do that. If the OP believes that a SAS-less probe is completely useless, one would expect them to also believe pods that don't contain a pilot are completely useless (for flying rockets with) since that would be a consistent position. The fact you're doing this to train the engineer isn't relevant.

You can of course overcome the SAS problem in one of three ways:

1) Add a second pod and put a pilot in that, which adds dry mass to the rocket, as well as the cost of a second pod, making the overall rocket more expensive to launch.

2) Get a probe core that does have SAS and put it on the capsule. This is better than option 1 since a probe core is far lighter than a capsule, but requires you unlock an SAS-capable probe.

3) Launch the darn thing with no SAS.

Obviously a similar situation applies quite easily to a satellite made using a Stayputnik.

There are many other things in KSP that also can't pilot well, like girders and science equipment. We don't mention them because they distract from the topic which is the comparison between the first unmanned probe, and entry-level pilots, who can hold a vector. The comparison is clear as day.

Now this is a straw-man and a red herring; girders and science equipment can't pilot at all - they are not control parts! Additionally, the point was not that engineers can't hold a vector - it's that they can't figure out how to stop the ship from spinning.

The primary purpose of probes is also to fly. They should have comparable stats.

This is debatable; the primary purpose of probes could also be said to be not endangering lives. Being able to fly a rocket is really just a requirement of fulfilling that goal.

The part is much too lame.

This is your (completely subjective) opinion. I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion, but it should not be taken as irrefutable fact.

What?! Are you joking? I don't like it - remove it... where is the sense is in this world.

This is the strawman. The poster reinterpreted OPs post as stating an opinion of preference, in order to attack it.

This is not a straw-man! See my previous post, but to summarize: the OP was a statement of opinion. That opinion being that the Stayputnik is completely useless. In other words: they dislike it.

I don't like green kerbals - paint them into red.

I don't care about flags - remove them from game.

I don't use big engines - remove them from the game.

I don't know what this is supposed to be but looks like a combination of both strawmen and red herrings.

As ddenis himself (correct me if I'm wrongly assuming gender) said, it is (obvious) hyperbole.

tl;dr

It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of game balance. I hope this has been enlightening. Let's try to elevate the discussion, thanks.

Game balance is an inherently subjective matter; preference is unavoidably involved.

Now, can we please stick to discussing the matter of the Stayputnik probe itself instead of making idiotic claims that peoples arguments for or against are straw-men and/or red herrings? This is a forum for suggesting things in KSP, not for criticizing peoples argumentation skills. I'm sure the devs are quite capable of disregarding foolish arguments on their own.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Master Tao
comment removed

[RocketPilot573]

What we need is to have parts upgraded over time, so the stayputnik can be useless at first, and them later get SAS function.

[r4pt0r]

I like how they did it personally.

[Rusty6899]

The Stayputnik has plenty of function. You can stick a Remote Guidance Unit on it and fly it fairly well (it can also make use of gimballed engines for control). You can also use it for your first few satellite missions before you unlock a better probe core. You can use it for Kerbal Rescue Missions, by attaching it to an empty lander.

All in all it is a very versatile and useful part and a large number of my early game missions made use of it as the primary command module. I think that the decision to have the functionality of the probe core progress as the tech tree progresses is a fundamental part of the game. In previous versions of the game there was very little difference between the probes and their position in the tech tree seemed completely arbitrary. Now it makes sense. It offers a challenge. And by the debate that has been ignited here, I would infer that there are a number of players who agree with the inclusion of the Stayputnik in the game in its current form.

If it doesn't suit your style of play, you are able to research more sophisticated probes further up the tech tree and ignore the Stayputnik, but please don't ask for a part to be deleted, under the pretense of saving memory, just because you are unwilling to use it.

[Wanderfound]

A old saying about workmen, tools and blame comes to mind here.

It really isn't that difficult to fly without SAS; you just need to build your rocket accordingly, and be a bit conservative in your manouvres. Try it; you may find that you enjoy the challenge.

And, as a bonus, once you get the hang of it you can then start sending your engineers and scientists up for solo training flights without excessive risk. One atmospheric and one suborbital hop is enough to get them levelled up; very little piloting skill is required to go straight up and down.

[Bill Phil]

The reason for probes now is so you don't risk kerbals. This makes probes much more useful. So why make the first probe, like on Tier 4 of the tech tree, not able to keep up with a Level 0 pilot. I can understand the challenge of no SAS, but why can't they add another probe core at Tier 2 or 1 that has no SAS, and reinstate the Stayputnik's SAS status.

[CaptainKipard]

Actually engineers ARE relevant to the argument; in order to train them and make them useful, you need to launch them into orbit; they don't have SAS to do that. If the OP believes that a SAS-less probe is completely useless, one would expect them to also believe pods that don't contain a pilot are completely useless (for flying rockets with) since that would be a consistent position. The fact you're doing this to train the engineer isn't relevant.

You should put your money where you mouth is then and play through KSP on medium or hard difficulty, with no pilots, until you get your first SAS probe and only then use Jeb. See how ridiculous that sounds? Why would you do that for any reason that's not masochistic? It's a contrivance to have the probes and pilot skills arranged as they are right now and it's inconsistent.

You can of course overcome the SAS problem in one of three ways:

1) Add a second pod and put a pilot in that, which adds dry mass to the rocket, as well as the cost of a second pod, making the overall rocket more expensive to launch.

2) Get a probe core that does have SAS and put it on the capsule. This is better than option 1 since a probe core is far lighter than a capsule, but requires you unlock an SAS-capable probe.

3) Launch the darn thing with no SAS.

Obviously a similar situation applies quite easily to a satellite made using a Stayputnik.

This is a distraction. We're talking about the Stayputnik, not other parts.

girders and science equipment can't pilot at all - they are not control parts! Additionally,

Right and engineers aren't pilots. And Stayputnik is a control part. Where's the confusion here?

the point was not that engineers can't hold a vector - it's that they can't figure out how to stop the ship from spinning.

Seriously? You're going to split hairs about this? It's practically the same thing. How is this contributing to the discussion?

This is debatable; the primary purpose of probes could also be said to be not endangering lives. Being able to fly a rocket is really just a requirement of fulfilling that goal.

This is grasping at straws. Let's not play this game ok? Stayputnik is a control part.

This is your (completely subjective) opinion. I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion, but it should not be taken as irrefutable fact.

No dude. Compared to other parts it's lame objectively and by definition.

This is not a straw-man! See my previous post, but to summarize: the OP was a statement of opinion. That opinion being that the Stayputnik is completely useless. In other words: they dislike it.

Well OP was making a hyperbole. You understand those. I assume you do since they are "obvious". This looks like double standards. Also as I already implied, OP wasn't saying "like", he was making a specific point about the usefulness of it, and that's not subjective. This is not up for debate. It's right there. Don't spin.

-Quote Remove-

Game balance is an inherently subjective matter; preference is unavoidably involved.

This is unbelievable.

Even if you interpret this as a hyperbole this is patently false. Preference plays a minor role in game balance. It's mostly to do with how the game systems interact with eachother. That's the context for the Stayputnik. That makes balance objective by definition.

Now, can we please stick to discussing the matter of the Stayputnik probe itself instead of making idiotic claims that peoples arguments for or against are straw-men and/or red herrings? This is a forum for suggesting things in KSP, not for criticizing peoples argumentation skills. I'm sure the devs are quite capable of disregarding foolish arguments on their own.

With the exception or rhetoric, logic is your only way of convincing people in a discussion, which this is. What exactly do you expect to happen if you talk nonsense? You will be called on it, obviously. It's much simpler to point out the error in the argument than it is to refute it.

And don't hold the devs in such high regard. It's a little weird.

----------

To everyone else saying "just do it, it's not that hard". Those are excuses not arguments, and besides it will be very difficult to newbies.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Master Tao
remove quote

[Anquietas314]

*sigh* You know what? I'm not even going to bother to be thorough this time; you clearly just try to make everything a fallacy to falsify the argument. In a small nutshell:

Quote1: response is a strawman and frankly moronic. You need to train engineers (and scientists).

Quote2: no, that is not a distraction, it's finishing off an example to demonstrate engineers (or scientists) and stayputnik suffer precisely the same problems.

Quote3: your argument there as stated was a strawman; that was explaining why.

Quote5: *facepalm* no, just no.

Quote6: The fact you think something is lame is subjective: it is an opinion. Definition of objective: adjective (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Quote7: Whether or not the OP's opinion was exaggerated is completely irrelevant. Their opinion is clearly that they do not like the stayputnik. This is your beloved red herring fallacy. As for it being "objective", no: opinions are subjective by definition: different people can have different opinions.

Quote9: Game balance is subjective; different people have quite wildly varying opinions of how the game should be. A game is generally considered "balanced" when the majority of players are satisfied with it. There is no objective standard for how a particular game should be balanced.

Quote10: Pointing out the errors to this level of scrutiny is an absurd waste of everyone's time. Everyday language does not require this degree of rigor. As for the devs, clearly you must hold the devs in a very low regard if you feel they're incapable of rejecting stupid arguments.

Your closing point: This is a game about rocket science; it's not supposed to be easy. For many, many people the entire fun of the game is crashing and burning. Over, and over again. Obviously it gets frustrating after a point, but that's what tutorials and so on are for: to help you when you can't figure it out on your own.

Edited December 23, 2014 by armagheddonsgw

[Wallygator]

^ I am completely in support of kipard on this one. Well stated. Rep to you!

I consider the stayputnick a perfect early game basic probe. Well done devs for nurfing it appropriately. Adding too much sas capability early in the tree is out of balance imho.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Wallygator

[Specialist290]

Alright everyone, the temperature in this thread has risen way too high. Let's not derail the topic any further into discussing exactly who's stepping on whose toes, splitting hairs over who's committing what logical fallacy, or making other sorts of personal remarks that, among other things, are most definitely not within the scope of the discussion.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Specialist290

[CaptainKipard]

For the sake of everyone's sanity I suggest those who agree with OP add the SAS module to your Stayputnik.

Just add this before the final bracket in your probeStackSphere.cfg

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleSAS
}

Edited December 23, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[RedDwarfIV]

...

What the hell is everyone getting so worked up about?

You get the Stayputnik part in the Flight Control TT-node. What else do you get in Flight Control? The small in-line reaction wheel. If you put one right under your Stayputnik, you will have torque. It's not full SAS, obviously, but it's no worse than a command pod with an Engineer or Scientist in it.

I managed to send a rocket carrying a satellite and a (very) basic rover to the Mun, put the satellite (with a Stayputnik for control and a Small In-line SAS Unit for torque) into a contract-designated polar orbit, then landed the rover with my controls sideways with only a scientist on board.

Nerfing the Stayputnik a little does not make it that much harder to use!