Do you want features to be removed?

[natsirt721]

34 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

If you think about it the removal of science points would actually allow for the fusion of Science Mode and Career Mode since your tech is depemdent on money, money on reputation and reputation on things you do (science, contracts, World's Firsts). Science experiments would simply yield reputation directly. Everyone would play one mode and simply choose their playstyle since everything you do yields reputation. You could do science experiments only or Contracts only or both and still progress.

Well, I think a sandbox mode in addition to 'space tycoon' mode would be retained.  Sandbox is a good way to start new players who need to learn how to build rockets properly, or for more experienced players trying out new things they couldn't otherwise afford/accomplish in tycoon mode.

[Leafbaron]

It would be nice if the parts you tested for contracts you got to keep after a successful test. Maybe in addition to the initial contract, completion of a bonus objective adds the part permanently to your inventory. 

[regex]

1 hour ago, razark said:

The animated main menu.  Damn thing is annoying.

This. Seriously this.

Also, remove career mode. Science mode could use a rework but career mode is just terrible.

[Ser]

15 hours ago, NSEP said:

Science points dont really make much sense either. Idk how researching something like deep space helps me research a fuel tank for example.

Deep space gives you knowledge of vacuum and low temperature environment properties that allow you to build more efficient tanks that can contain fuel in extra cooled state, for example. Also you get data to solve a RL problem: what materials and how much of them should be used to build structures capable to carry out required inner pressure while operating in space (Apollo-1 accident was kinda related to this). The more knowledge of space you have, the more efficient structures (incl. fuel tanks) you build. Anything can be explained, just need some imagination. Anyway science points or anything we would do in the scope of KSP is a great abstraction solving troubles and inconsistencies only to a known degree, just because the game is far from how things happen in RL. And science points aren't the worst model. You may think of them as of a common amount of un-systemized science data. Once you consume them for research they become systemized and continue to exist in the form of conclusions, scientific articles, blueprints etc, that are just not represented in the game but waiting behind the scenes for their time to be used to develop a new part.

How data on Kerbin's high atmosphere help to build a new kind of girder? Imagine that behind the scenes there are several teams, one working on girders and materials, another on atmospheric stuff. Getting science data from atmosphere you help the team working on atmospheric stuff, but as a side effect they invent something that pushes girder research forward. There are plenty examples when, say, bacteria research suddenly helps to develop new plastics, for example. In RL you never know where exactly your amazing data really shoot. All those effects are just abstracted in science points concept.

13 hours ago, regex said:

Also, remove career mode. Science mode could use a rework but career mode is just terrible.

Can't agree. Playing the game in science mode I always asked myself "what stops me from overusing parts and resources and from crashing rockets in hundreds?". Obviously, when things have their price (as in RL) it forces you to play efficiently. But yes, career mode implementation isn't ideal.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Ser

[Wjolcz]

3 hours ago, Ser said:

Deep space gives you knowledge of vacuum and low temperature environment properties that allow you to build more efficient tanks that can contain fuel in extra cooled state, for example.

In KSP you do whatever to get tech. Not, as in the provided example, measure the temperature in deep space and only then build better heat protection. I actually wish KSP's research system worked like this but it doesn't, so this piece of logic is ready to be thrown out of the window.

3 hours ago, Ser said:

Anything can be explained, just need some imagination.

I sure do. And a lot of it. Especially when I start thinking about devs' thinking processes when they were making career mode.

3 hours ago, Ser said:

Anyway science points or anything we would do in the scope of KSP is a great abstraction solving troubles and inconsistencies only to a known degree, just because the game is far from how things happen in RL.

And that is why certain aspects of the game are so messed up.

3 hours ago, Ser said:

And science points aren't the worst model. You may think of them as of a common amount of un-systemized science data. Once you consume them for research they become systemized and continue to exist in the form of conclusions, scientific articles, blueprints etc, that are just not represented in the game but waiting behind the scenes for their time to be used to develop a new part.

The problem is if you think about it the process of developing new tech would look like this:

R&D team sits browsing the internet and suddenly one guy stands up and says "Guys! I've just found this scientific article about Mystery Goo on the Mun and I have no idea how that helps us but let's built a RAPIER engine!"

In real life you need money and time to built new tech. Not data from bacteria observation over Jupiter's red spot in a sub-orbital trajectory or whatever. These bacteria won't draw you any blueprints. They don't have hands. You know who would? Someone who gets paid for it.

3 hours ago, Ser said:

How data on Kerbin's high atmosphere help to build a new kind of girder? Imagine that behind the scenes there are several teams, one working on girders and materials, another on atmospheric stuff. Getting science data from atmosphere you help the team working on atmospheric stuff, but as a side effect they invent something that pushes girder research forward. There are plenty examples when, say, bacteria research suddenly helps to develop new plastics, for example. In RL you never know where exactly your amazing data really shoot. All those effects are just abstracted in science points concept.

This makes almost no sense. Why would I keep two teams if one is obviously doing more than the other? If I'm waiting for one team to develop something that will allow the other to build a part then I can simply fire the other team and let the first one work on it. Also, what kind of advancement could the atmospheric team provide to make a better girder? I really need to know. Please explain.

If this kind of logic is needed to explain the research system then obviously there's something wrong with the game. This proves how more realism would actually be beneficial for the game. Otherwise we deal with plot holes and inane research systems.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Veeltch

[Moh1336]

The administration building.

I have never seen a purpose for this building. I used it once out of curiosity, but I have never seen a need for it in career. Maybe it is more useful in later careers?

[evileye.x]

32 minutes ago, Moh1336 said:

The administration building.

I have never seen a purpose for this building. I used it once out of curiosity, but I have never seen a need for it in career. Maybe it is more useful in later careers?

This building is for this:

 

[Ser]

@Veeltch Well, if it was you who answered let's go in order

22 hours ago, Veeltch said:

But ok. Let's take the wheels as an example. This is how I'd imagine it: IRL the first Martian "rover" design actually had skids/skis because they (the Soviets) didn't know what the surface would be like. In terms of gameplay it would work more or less like this: Land a lander (on any body because regolith on the Moon is similar to the one on Mars in terms of friction and stuff and to simplify things a bit) -> take a surface sample -> develop wheels needed to traverse other worlds.

Any body? So that automatically means that biomes would be ignored 100%. We cannot afford that because we already have too much abstraction and cannot afford to abstract from biomes, as they are important IRL: during Moon missions astronauts were driving away from their LZ to collect samples from different places, the same purpose is chased by the martian rovers.
Ok. What would we need to develop the next advanced wheels? The same experiments? So it would be enough to get to the same places and do the same things? Or would we need to do some additional things like, say, atmospheric experiments? Then what about the atmospheric experiments we have already done to develop, say, wings? Should they be performed once again to get more advanced rover wheels? I see that we end up here with the following:
1. We just wouldn't have enough experiments to perform. How much experiments do we have in KSP? We do not multiply this number by the number of bodies and biomes because they don't affect. And how many parts are there? Much more, and gets even more with every massive part mod installed. If every part requires several experiment types, say 3 per part in average, our number should be divided by 3. Thus we get just a few variants of "research process" and a bunch of parts to research.
2. If we'd require to repeat experiments for every next part that would be an abstraction as doubtful as having just science points. In the name of what should I collect the same science data to develop new parts? Ok, we may keep the stock mechanics when experiments can be done only once on the same body and biome. But that would be even more doubtful because we have researched simple rover wheels taking surface samples from Munar highlands and they work for every biome on every celestial body but we can't develop advanced wheels using the same samples as we need data from Midlands or Craters now to create wheels that would be able to operate on every celestial body though.

And the same question: what would make me go to Jool if I can do all experiments at Kerbin/Mun? Rep? But how many experiments can be done on Mun for the time required to reach Jool? So the same abuse is possible: unlock majority of parts using Mun and go to Jool for rep in a simplest way.

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Not, as in the provided example, measure the temperature in deep space and only then build better heat protection.

Hey, but what you think we do when we collect data and bring them back to R&D allowing to research a new tech? Yes the data aren't bound to the concrete experiments we've done, but that's an abstraction and can be explained by different teams constantly working.

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

The problem is if you think about it the process of developing new tech would look like this:

R&D team sits browsing the internet and suddenly one guy stands up and says "Guys! I've just found this scientific article about Mystery Goo on the Mun and I have no idea how that helps us but let's built a RAPIER engine!"

No. Have no idea why have you understood me that way. I've meant that in the process of research a lot of side results is generated, i.e. various theories and conjectures not having practical applications yet. They are accumulated as articles named like, say, "Theory of covergent combobulation" born from atmospheric studies. But then someone working on girders that should stand certain amount of twisting momentum recalls that there's such a beautiful theory, uses its applications in his work and gets astonishing results. In the game this process is abstracted in just some amount of science being consumed during insignificant winglet research, and then another research of girder that looks unconnected.

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

In real life you need money and time to built new tech. Not data from bacteria observation over Jupiter's red spot in a sub-orbital trajectory or whatever. These bacteria won't draw you any blueprints. They don't have hands. You know who would? Someone who gets paid for it.

Someone who gets paid and has appropriate data. As I've said, you never know what might give you a hint in your research. You may work on super durable synthetic fibers for spacesuits but some biologist suddenly finds that spider web is hundred times more durable then any fiber made by a human, etc, etc.
You see, real life is much more complicated than any game, there are different ways where you're research may come:
1. Projects that never end, which prove the fact that in common starting a project you can't say how much time, effort, experiments, money and "science" will it require to accomplish. Examples are quantum computers and energy-efficient thermonuclear reactors.
2. Projects that are done in the following way: "we need new fibers for space". Scientists begin to think and read books and after some time give you a material to test in space. After several iterations you make something of it. But the research continues and during 15 years you take different materials to space to test them and sometimes get some improvements.
3. Suddenly you get an invention as a side effect of another project. Examples? Cosmic microwave background radiation, teflon, smart dust.

Is your complain about that we don't pay for research in the game? That's an abstraction too. We also don't pay salary and insurance to astronauts, engineers, medics, astronaut training staff, taxes. I think if the game had all of these aspects we'd just got bored by accounting. I don't mind if research would cost funds, that's not the biggest problem we discuss here, is it?

P.S. hell lot of text, to be continued

Edited February 2, 2017 by Ser

[Ser]

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

This makes almost no sense. Why would I keep two teams if one is obviously doing more than the other? If I'm waiting for one team to develop something that will allow the other to build a part then I can simply fire the other team and let the first one work on it. Also, what kind of advancement could the atmospheric team provide to make a better girder? I really need to know. Please explain.

Because we both want to make the game closer to real life, don't we? In RL there are a whole bunch of different teams, bureaus etc. in the single space program, some of them even have the same goals but practice different approaches because you can't tell which one wins at the end. So, one team doesn't just sit while another one generates parts, the "atmospheric" team may do a lot of theoretical work while "materials" one works on a girder. And you don't wait for anybody. In the game everything happens momentarily and that's another great abstraction. So an order to develop a new tech may be thought of as start of a new "turn", or a research cycle iteration when science data are fed to R&D to be distributed and processed in a way you don't know. Say, 15 science points "transfered" for a girder tech may in fact contain 90% of atmospheric data and only 10% of material study. Those data are processed behind the scenes into "theoretical" aerodynamic results that might be used up later when you'll order to develop Advanced Flight tech.

I can agree that connecting instant research to real time flight is a problem. It makes things really look like we chase any atmospheric data to get ourselves a girder. But you may think of those data not as of data required for girder but as of data required to start next research iteration which would give you a girder, whose blueprints and technological processes were prepared during previous iterations from other science data.

"I really need to know. Please explain." - research may come from and end up in quite unexpected results

There's another problem:
In real life data collected from Mars are useful mainly to understand how the things may be done in Martian conditions and to create materials, parts, rovers and landers specifically for Mars, not Moon or Earth. In KSP parts aren't specialized at all, except for atmospheric and non-atmospheric ones. They vary, in general, only in size(mass) and power. In fact, we build rovers from your example every time. And that's another great abstraction that neither science points, nor your approach helps. I'd say, that's a totally different conception to what we have in KSP.

[regex]

8 hours ago, Ser said:

Can't agree.

I didn't post looking for agreement, I posted in response to the OP, who was asking for an opinion.

Edited February 2, 2017 by regex

[Ser]

1 hour ago, regex said:

I didn't post looking for agreement, I posted in response to the OP, who was asking for an opinion.

Wow. Did I say something offending?

[regex]

29 minutes ago, Ser said:

Wow. Did I say something offending?

No, I'm just expressing an opinion in a topic asking for opinions. I'm not here to debate whether what I said meshes with your opinion or how we could change our opinions to better work together.

Edited February 2, 2017 by regex

[Ser]

3 minutes ago, regex said:

No, I'm just expressing an opinion in a topic asking for opinions. I'm not here to debate whether what I said meshes with your opinion or how we could change our opinions to better work together.

Then we just might not debate instead of being rude or aggressive, right? What's wrong with you people..

[regex]

6 minutes ago, Ser said:

Then we just might not debate instead of being rude or aggressive, right? What's wrong with you people..

I don't understand how telling you that I'm not interested in agreement regarding my opinion is rude or aggressive, sorry.

Good day.

[Wjolcz]

@Ser that's a lot of text and I would have to do a lot of quoting which is sth I'm not fancy right now but I will say this: I got rid of science points, based everything on rep and money and reorganized the tech tree in my career game and it's much more enjoyable than the inane, half-assed career the stock game offers.

We can keep trying to derail this thread. You can prove your thing, I can prove mine and we can keep going like this until some mod comes in and takes us down. Let's agree to disagree.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Veeltch

[Ser]

34 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

@Ser that's a lot of text and I would have to do a lot of quoting which is sth I'm not fancy right now but I will say this: I got rid of science points, based everything on rep and money and reorganized the tech tree in my career game and it's much more enjoyable than the inane, half-assed career the stock game offers.

We can keep trying to derail this thread. You can prove your thing, I can prove mine and we can keep going like this until some mod comes in and takes us down. Let's agree to disagree.

I've tired of typing too, but don't think that I'm arguing just to argue. I find your concept interesting and tried to understand how do you solve some inconsistencies. I'd like to change the current system too but in the way that doesn't require writting a new game from scratch, you know, I feel kinda lazy to do that

Edited February 2, 2017 by Ser

[MinimalMinmus]

The problem with removing science points is that the resulting system may end being even more tedious (prototyping every parts? Blargh) or, well, more realistic but not as exciting.

Back on topic: the admin building is almost completely useless, except maybe to give a villain to KSP as Mort (BTW, did you know it means death in French?). Oh, and part test contracts are as ridiculous as tedious.

[StupidAndy]

the Admin building is good with strategia, so it isn't useless then...mods help everything!

[Enceos]

Remove the science labs or give them a different purpose.

[Blaarkies]

2 hours ago, Enceos said:

Remove the science labs or give them a different purpose.

The purpose of the science labs are to test players' self-control via the temptation to click the "Transmit science" button

[Tw1]

TBH, the tech tree always seemed dumb to me. Becomes too much of a goal in itself, when the goal should just be to build a prosperous, productive space program.

Science points also, should be something you can research for a long time at bases and long term missions, not just short fetch quests.

[Raphaello]

There's not much I'd like to see removed but quite a lot I'd like to see improved

One thing to remove for me would be all the biomes within KSC. How does temperature readings done by funny looking landing capsule on wheels push your research forward???

EDIT: I would not remove game elements I don't like. There are probably people who like them

Edited February 5, 2017 by Raphaello

[Sharpy]

Time warp limits. If I want to go at 1000x in LKO, let me! I need 20 orbits until I catch up to that other craft, why the heck do I have to go to KSC or other craft to be able to warp faster?

And the "inertia" of changing time warp, so that when you switch from 500x to 10x it goes to 10x immediately instead of "counting down" from 500 to 100, while your probe overshoots the node.

"Cannot switch vessel while..." crap. Recently I had such a situation. "Cannot switch vessel while about to crash." On Gilly. "Controlling" some long-forgotten piece of landing gear. Moving at 0.1-0.3m/s. Bouncing down a slope several kilometers long. Driving me crazy.

[Enceos]

@Sharpy Absolutely, dude! You're definitely not alone in this. I sign under all of your points.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Enceos

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

Isn't any reply to this, in some coded form "I don't like this feature and anyone who uses it is obviously wrong"?

I don't think anything should be removed because I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy this game in different ways to how I do.