KSP 0.9 is NOT fun to play

[sjohnson0684]

I personally still have fun playing 0.90, but not career mode. I've been playing science-sandbox, but cheating in enough science points to unlock the entire tech tree and resetting the science back to 0 at the very beginning of the save; basically it makes my game sandbox with science points as a scoring system. I play heavily RSS 6.4x with a good number of difficulty mods, so the tech tree and other career mode components is way more out of balance than the stock version.

As for career mode, I hate to say, was poorly implemented. I know the game is still in development, and the devs are working hard to improve the game, but there is a lot of work needed to make career mode balanced and fun. There are so many good ideas floating around the forums that I think could really help improve the career mode experience. I don't have time to elaborate on them at the time, but I sure hope Squad does something before the release, because current career mode feels like it is not even 5% complete and only filled with placeholder mechanisms; I don't feel like I'm running a space program, but just grinding to get funds and science.

Edit:

I don't understand all these comments about the game's economy being broken. There are difficulty sliders that allow you to change the reward/penalty multipliers, you can tailor the difficulty settings to suit you and how "grindy" you wish it to be. Completely pointless thing to complain about when you the player have the options available to you to change this.

Difficulty should not be how "grindy" the game is. There is nothing difficult about having to do a ton of satellite contracts to get more funds, it's just more time consuming and redundant. Hard difficulty should incorporate things such as life support, random part failures (makes you plan for part redundancy), deadly reentry, harder contract deadlines with construction time, less forgiving aerodynamics (mach effects and aerodynamic failures), basic "remote tech" mechanics such as LOS, etc.

Edited February 9, 2015 by sjohnson0684

[Alshain]

I don't understand all these comments about the game's economy being broken. There are difficulty sliders that allow you to change the reward/penalty multipliers, you can tailor the difficulty settings to suit you and how "grindy" you wish it to be. Completely pointless thing to complain about when you the player have the options available to you to change this.

The key word is "Balance". The difficulty sliders don't alter balance, they just raise or lower the threshold. So you can lower the slider which may make the SRB's more reasonably priced but then the mainsails are too cheap (that was an example, not a statement that those two are unbalanced). The difficulty sliders can't fix that.

[Vanamonde]

Please, people. You can disagree with each other without resorting to accusations and calling each other trolls, okay?

[Marclev]

So Ive only had KSP 0.9 for a few days now but right away starting a new career game from scratch there are many aspects of this game that make it tedious and not fun to play.

Top of my pet peeves are the changes to the SAS system. I want to start off by saying that I absolutely HATE them. I dont know why, but since 0.9 all my rockets seem nearly impossible to fly without SAS and the fact that only OCTO probes and pilots have SAS with no means to externally add it in majes for a very frustrating experience as getting into orbit is so TEDIOUS if not nearly impossible. Regardless of whether I have FAR or not i get craft that rotate or drift shortly after launch, and I have checked and re-checked to ensure proper symmetry and mass distribution etc. As someone else said, the new "point at" buttons are gorgeous no matter what though!

Forget about gravity turns. Its hard enough to keep it going straight up (heading of 0) , but pitching the rocket ever so *slightly* causes it to go completely out of control and tumble about all over the place. It is far worse if you try to use 2 boosters (180 degree symmetry). I have had to resort to modding all the probes to re-introduce SAS since this is now the only way to have SAS as the reaction wheels are no longer capable of SAS even if I mod the cfg file. I never enjoyed manual piloting and always depended on SAS for launch, but now it feels pretty much impossible to get anything done without SAS.

My second issue is the sheer cost of things vs how little you earn. Starting from scratch feels completely nerfed and it is just so tedious to have to amass massive amounts of credits to unlock the most basic of skills like collecting soil samples.

All in all those 2 issues are enough to severely limit my progress and the amount of fun I gain playing KSP. The SAS issue alone is enough for me to want to go back to an older version.

All in all I am NOT HAPPY with KSP 0.9

SAS hasn't really caused me any real problems, but it does sure make it more difficult initially to stay on course with probes. I sort of don't mind it as it mirrors the progress of the space programme. Having said that, I never played the game with MechJeb or similar and learnt to fly "stick" from day 1. Getting the probe core with SAS was definitely one of my research priorities though. Edit: As someone else said, the new "point at" buttons are gorgeous!

I agree completely about the nerfed start-up difficulty, and previously created a topic on exactly this in the suggestions forum, suggesting that some sort of "accelerated start-up" is introduced as I nearly got completely put off by the start-up grind: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107749-Configure-upgrade-level-for-buildings-at-start?p=1678370#post1678370. It's definitely not fun as it is (and yes you can tweak settings and edit configuration files, but that just feels like cheating to me and is hardly "out of the box").

Edited February 9, 2015 by Marclev

[Whirligig Girl]

0.9 was pretty fun, but yeah, it's missing a lot of features. Struts were added for the first time, and the stagin was reworked, so at least it's better than 0.8 or 0.7.3.

[Marclev]

I've been playing KSP for a while but the feeling of acheivment when I managed to do my first kerbal rescue with no SAS, no targeting, no flight planning and an 18t tonne/30 part limit was the greatest in a long time.

Agreed. It was actually the first challenge in a long time. Like a test that you were paying attention to what was going on during all the hundreds of hours you've played!

I have no idea how someone new to the game would pull that off though, rescue missions seem like they really shouldn't be in anything apart from "Hard" mode until manoeuvre nodes are discovered.

[Nitrous Oxide]

0.9 was pretty fun, but yeah, it's missing a lot of features. Struts were added for the first time, and the stagin was reworked, so at least it's better than 0.8 or 0.7.3.

Squad set themselves up for that, 0.90 and 0.9 are the same mathematically. It makes more sense to refer to the old version as 0.09 now that we have a 0.90.

[sjohnson0684]

Squad set themselves up for that, 0.90 and 0.9 are the same mathematically. It makes more sense to refer to the old version as 0.09 now that we have a 0.90.

In software versioning, 0.9 != 0.90. These version numbers do not represent a decimal number, but are a series of integers separated by periods to represent the major and minor version numbers.

Edit: oops, sorry, missed the point of your post... my eyes read something different (long day)

Edited February 10, 2015 by sjohnson0684

[AbacusWizard]

Squad set themselves up for that, 0.90 and 0.9 are the same mathematically. It makes more sense to refer to the old version as 0.09 now that we have a 0.90.

Yes, but it's not like we confuse February 9 and June 27 because 2/9 = 6/27.

[Renegrade]

In software versioning, 0.9 != 0.90. These version numbers do not represent a decimal number, but are a series of integers separated by periods to represent the major and minor version numbers.

True, but I think Nitrous' point was that the average joe won't know version number systems (and some systems DO use fractional numbers, even though that can paint 'em into a corner numerically), so Squad kinda stepped in it in that respect.

Plus the huge, unjustified jump is bizarre. Beta my foot. 0.26 (or maybe 0.27 if you consider 0.23.5 to be a full release) plox.

My own preferences these days is often just to give a bare number as a version (usually just the highest SVN number) - I'd call this simply "26". Or.. uh... 529? whatever the build number was.

Yes, but it's not like we confuse February 9 and June 27 because 2/9 = 6/27.

2/9 is September 2~ uhh.. do we have a :trollface: emote?

Edited February 10, 2015 by Renegrade

[Nitrous Oxide]

True, but I think Nitrous' point was that the average joe won't know version number systems (and some systems DO use fractional numbers, even though that can paint 'em into a corner numerically), so Squad kinda stepped in it in that respect.

Aye, I know the difference, but most people don't. But whatever, it's such a non-issue because everyone knows you probably mean the one right now anyways.

And this isn't exactly the 90th minor release, so it's a little silly... most developers at least have a scheme... Squad's is pulled out of a magical hat... should have gone with 0.99 imo.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Nitrous Oxide

[Caelib]

My only advice would be to embrace the change because you're the only person I have seen complaining about it. It may not be what you're USED TO, but consider that it may be better than what it used to be and you just haven't adapted to it.

Career mode is meant to be a progressive experience so you're not going to get technological advances right away -- if this is what you're expecting, then stick with Sandbox or create a new save and give yourself enough science points to buy the probe cores with the features you want.

[Jr6150x]

Personally I understand what you are saying OP, as feedback, but I don't understand it. I felt the lack of control in the beginning was great and added to the CAREER part of career. Spaceflight didn't start out how it is today. As for your issues, can you post pictures of your rockets so we can help you? With the science/funds part I'm slightly confused. Do you gave it set really difficult? I myself had no problem sending simple missions into orbit unlocking many need parts.

Just my 2 cents, hope you fix you 0.9 downers.

[BaronVonchesto]

Try to balance a hammer on your hand: it will be easier with the heavy part on top.

More specifically. Your control forces (thrust vectoring, and/or winglets) are applied at the bottom of the craft. The torque they produce on the rocket is greater when the CoM is higher because the moment arm increases.

See this accurate professionally-made technical schematic:

http://i.imgur.com/1dguJ3n.png

P.S: by the way, that's the reason why SpaceX is putting small winglets near the top of Falcon 9's first stage: they need to control the rocket also when it's falling down engine first, and since all the fuel is gone, the CoM is near the bottom => you need actuators near the top.

P.P.S: please note that it also applies to Stock, not just FAR.

This is a very good example. Another way to think about it would be to look at a See-Saw. The position of the Centre of Mass determines the fulcrum (pivot) point of the see-saw. The closer the pivot point is at one end, the easier it is to move the see-saw frm the other end.

[BudgetHedgehog]

2/9 is September 2~ uhh.. do we have a :trollface: emote?

No, but we do have countries other than America present.

[sedativechunk]

OP, you are preaching to the choir. Many people have bashed the new career mode for everything you said (including myself). Although the pilot thing is somewhat annoying, it doesn't make the game impossible to play though.

[Joonatan1998]

I don't really have any issues with the SAS, flying a mission without a pilot should be hard and

the first probe cores aren't really meant for entirely unmanned missions, they mostly seem to be for the probe contracts.

But I agree that there are problems in career, the beginning is the hardest part, after you get to the Mun/Minmus it either gets very easy or very grindy, depending on your settings.

The building prices shouldn't be combined with the same slider that has the failed contract penalties.

[Wallygator]

Dont care if you think im a troll. Im entitled to share my viewpoint with the devs via the forums. I also dont care for people whose only response is the generic "you must be doing something wrong"

You're not wrong on this - with the nerffing of the probe cores and ASAS it leaves the very early moments of career mode quite problematic for very new players. It's like it needs to come with a health warning whereby you are encouraged to play in sandbox until you feel comfortable with your piloting skills. Regardless, its all about flight practice and effective mission planning.

Good luck out there!

[Yukon0009]

KSP 0.9 was certainly not fun, there was no mun, no timewarp, no EVA, no Mainsails, no SPH. The dark old days of KSP.

oh, you meant 0.90

[brdavis]

My point is that I can get it done (with a LOT of tedious effort) but its simply not fun.

Here's why, perhaps, the Devs have a really tough job. My experience with 0.90 is exactly the opposite: I loved the fact that early in the tech tree, I now have to fight for a good manual ascent, and the nerving of the reaction wheels as well. It made the game more challenging in a *less* grind-like way for me. The weak reaction wheels and tech-tree progression of control strategies… exactly what you are feeling put-out by… was one of the biggest things I *enjoyed* in 0.90.

To each their own?

[wasmic]

This one's a simple problem: If this is correct, then I assume that your rockets are very top-heavy, and once the CoM shifts out of line with the rest of the rocket, it will indeed flip out of control. Try for heavier bottom stages or lighter payloads, or especially both.

Wrong. A-top heavy rocket will actually fly straight. A bottom-heavy or top-draggy rocket will tend to flip out. This only matters when playing with FAR, though. A good way to lower the center of drag is to add winglets or fins to the bottom of the rocket.

[Barefoot Friar]

Okay, pedants, you've made your point. Seriously, we all get it. Can we focus our pedantry on spelling and grammar, or something else now?

[Caelib]

I would say this argument is comparable to somebody complaining in a math course that they have to write out equations rather than just use their calculator -- even though they already know how to do it. While it might be annoying, this is the path of career mode and until you get past the basics that are meant to teach new players how to control without SAS, you're just going to have to push through it.

[Renegrade]

No, but we do have countries other than America present.

Eh? That wasn't an American interpretation I used there. I was specifically teasing the American style there.. (Errr... they still use MM-DD-YYYY, right?)

[Xavven]

Eh? That wasn't an American interpretation I used there. I was specifically teasing the American style there.. (Errr... they still use MM-DD-YYYY, right?)

Off topic, but yes we use MM/DD/YYYY, which is frankly nonsensical. I prefer YYYY-MM-DD since it alphabetizes documents into chronological order correctly on a computer.