Kerbal Space Program Extension Now Available • Hacker News Board

Re: Kerbal Space Program Extension Now Available

#71

Post by ada1981 » Wed, Mar 14, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

ada1981 wrote: post #37

koolba wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any ethics in the subject at all. If that's how much they were being paid then they're likely terrible negotiators but that doesn't make any part of the contract unethical. If they were promised equity, a bonus, or some other extra compensation that was not subsequently delivered then not paying that out would be unethical. But agreeing to a lowball amount and then complaining about it being a lowball amo…

Not sure why the downvotes..

Why do I get downvoted for saying I didn't understand why someone downvoted a post?

Is it the way I phrased my comment that is downvoted? Or my lack of understanding?

Re: Kerbal Space Program Extension Now Available

#72

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 5:38 AM UTC

Armisael16 wrote: post #69

TeMPOraL wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Half of the value of this game comes from the fact it forces you to learn a few things about real physics along the way. Beginnings ain't hard. You can easily get to orbit manually, and you can even eyeball your way to the Mün. That said, something like the per-stage ∆v display from KER (a mod) should IMO be stock, both during construction and in-flight - without that one piece of information, any trip pa…

KER gets latitude when it screws up, because it's a mod. The game itself needs to be damn-near perfect - and it can't be, because some rocket configurations are inherently impossibly to calculate total dv for (eg, a lunar-orbit rendezvous mission a la Apollo). I totally agree about not adding the autopilot. Mechjeb exists for those people.

> some rocket configurations are inherently impossibly to calculate total dv for (eg, a lunar-orbit rendezvous mission a la Apollo).

I think this fact should be communicated clearly. After all, the game has a bunch of "sorta but not quite" indicators already - like the burn time in maneuver nodes, or the orbit display that doesn't take into account atmosphere when deorbiting/projecting deorbiting with a maneuver node, etc.

Re: Kerbal Space Program Extension Now Available

#73

Post by tytytytytytytyt » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 6:19 PM UTC

King-Aaron wrote: post #12

tytytytytytytyt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only took a few videos to figure out how to do things, for me. But I sure wouldn't recommend it without those few.

Scott Manley's tutorials were absolutely invaluable in my learning with the game. However I've never before in my life played a game while having a pad next to me to make notes, haha.

Come on, you need a spreadsheet!

Re: Kerbal Space Program Extension Now Available

#74

Post by smrq » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 8:05 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #44

TeMPOraL wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Half of the value of this game comes from the fact it forces you to learn a few things about real physics along the way. Beginnings ain't hard. You can easily get to orbit manually, and you can even eyeball your way to the Mün. That said, something like the per-stage ∆v display from KER (a mod) should IMO be stock, both during construction and in-flight - without that one piece of information, any trip pa…

100% of the value of the game is that it's a sandbox that lets you play with a bunch of different things - rocket design, orbital mechanics, exploring a technology tree, resource management, etc. etc. To that end, any feature that makes it easier for different players to approach the game in their own ways will make for a game that appeals to more people. Let people who want to control the rocket manually control it…

That's a nice idea in theory, but in practice, players will take the most efficient method of completing a task, even if that method isn't fun. If you give players autopilot, they will use it, even if they would prefer the game without it.

I'm sure I've read research on this, but I'm not sure how to dredge it up from the internet. So I apologize for the lack of citation.

Anecdotally, in the Elder Scrolls series, I vastly preferred Morrowind's lack of unlimited fast travel. But I still used fast travel liberally in future installments, in no small part because the games were designed under the assumption that fast travel would be used. The takeaway is that you can't assume that players will ignore a feature just because they don't like it.