Funds to science Admin Strategy is really overpowered

[DoomtrainInc]

Meecrob has it right IMO. I start a fresh game every version and when I started playing .24 it just felt...broken. I was capable of landing rovers on Eve and Duna but still was struggling to unlock the last 1/3 of the tech tree. .25 has introduced a flexibility to the system that allows someone like me to enjoy career mode. I agree that some of the conversions could be scaled back but doing this too much will ruin the fun and flexibility that this new system makes possible.

[liweih]

Yeah, I found this method quite powerful even though I played in hard mode. I chose to convert half of my fund income into science. Then I launched a small probe into LKO with a thermal meter and an antenna. After that, I accepted no mission except the one who wanted me to beam back science from orbit near kerbin. The payment was quite well with 9450 fund and 295 science point. With this method, I could unlock my entire tech tree in very short time without any worry about losing money or reputation.

[Geneborg]

I think we should come to terms with the simple fact that SQUAD didn't put any serious thought into balancing this system. Its not their focus right now, and why should it. They may change something in the next patches. We will have to be patient for that or use mods.

[Sky_walker]

Its not their focus right now, and why should it.

This discussion was already done. Response to that question is: Because it's an early access game.

[Geneborg]

...since when does early access mean "balanced game"? I'm following many ErAc games and that never was a criteria for any of them. Better not start a discussion about ErAc...thats a deep *-pool.

[Laie]

No, it's not. Suppose you want to play "sandbox with funds and contracts" because you don't like unlocking the tech tree.

You use that strategy to unlock the tree ASAP and you play the way you want to.

If, instead, you want the challenge of slowly unlocking the tech tree, you choose a different strategy, or no strategy at all.

That's pretty much what I'm doing right now. I have the science tree mostly revealed before I even go for the Mun; but I do not have all the parts unlocked. That would take, like, what? One million funds perhaps? That would be a lot of science from Kerbin orbit... however, I was able to unlock those high-tech parts that I really care about for my munar lander, and I'm happy that the game lets me do it.

ya - this is just a question of a new feature that came and QA missed how easily it could break the game

[...]

This clearly just needs to be scaled down

Why is it broken, why must it be scaled down? You seem to to think it's obvious, but I don't get it.

[Onekone]

That's pretty much what I'm doing right now. I have the science tree mostly revealed before I even go for the Mun

Mostly revealed? How about fully completed tech tree in 4 game hours (3 of which I spent on rendezvous with kerbal that got stuck in orbit), going on average 90km away from Kerbin?

[AmpsterMan]

I think we are forgetting that the tech tree was meant to be a sort of training wheels for newer players (of which non of us on this thread are). As stated before, the challenge wasn't ever there for vets because it wasn't designed with vets in mind.

That said, arguments could always be made for balance not being achieved. Right now the best balancing tool I see is the funds from contracts slider since it is the only one needed in every flight AND the only resource that can make you "lose" the game.

[PatPL]

[tater]

We have sandbox. We have "science" careers. Difficulty sliders at career start are one thing, but within the career, these strategies functionally negate the career global difficulty setting. It is by no means clear, except by experimentation, that you can so easily muck with how quickly things are unlocked, etc. As it is, on "hard," without using strategies it feels little different than 0.24.2 to me. Do contracts, roll in science/funds/rep. Easily, and unless you are trying to throw away money, not different than .24. With these strategies, it's a force multiplier.

Career mode is in bad need of a serious rework (using the tools they have now added in, plus ideally a few more).

[zynar]

I assume the people maxing out the "science for funds" are playing on normal. I recommend trying it on hard or less that 50% income to make it harder. On 60% it hard to abuse the "science for funds" as you aren't completely rolling in the funds.

A big mistake I made was to try doing 50% of my income for science. I went to get some contracts and they were all wanting me to pay them to do the missions lol. (hard -60% admin -50%) great science though

[tater]

I think we are forgetting that the tech tree was meant to be a sort of training wheels for newer players (of which non of us on this thread are). As stated before, the challenge wasn't ever there for vets because it wasn't designed with vets in mind.

That said, arguments could always be made for balance not being achieved. Right now the best balancing tool I see is the funds from contracts slider since it is the only one needed in every flight AND the only resource that can make you "lose" the game.

Yeah, exactly. A career should be a story arc that drives the player. Currently, the only reward is tech tree, so that's what people work… It is the ONLY reward that differs from sandbox, and players gravitate to reward structures, it's kind of the point of a career/campaign game.

KSP needs an end game---which would segue into a paid KSP follow on (devs gotta eat!). My thought would be that KSP is sort of 1950s to later "exploration" space travel in scale, with the follow up concentrating on exploitation (resources, commercialization). Goals should be manned exploration, and manned presence (science bases and stations).

The devs ave said we'd at some point track astronaut careers, but that's pretty pointless unless their skills actually matter somehow. A science modifier just makes the current compressed career mode worse (accelerating science gains, when the whole tree can be unlocked with an apollo type program easily). Really, kerbals need to be able to do some actions autonomously (not "MechJeb, but just "Jeb" actually flying if the player wishes). Then having skilled astronauts is at least an implicit goal (so you can let them do some tedious stuff while you concentrate on designing awesome bases, rockets, etc). This is entirely consistent with the player as manager, BTW, and those who would howl that the player should always pilot… they can always choose to do so, it's not forced.

Clearly the tech news to be expanded a little into the near future, since as soon as you unlock all the tree, or all you care about, the game is then not "like" sandbox, it IS sandbox. If you like sandbox, then just play sandbox. if you like unlocking the tree, then as soon as that ends, the game is "over." For replay, every campaign is like the last… yes, yo can make different "sandbox" choices, but you might as well skip career mode for that, you can self-limit tech used for early launches as much as you like there, as well.

[tater]

I assume the people maxing out the "science for funds" are playing on normal. I recommend trying it on hard or less that 50% income to make it harder. On 60% it hard to abuse the "science for funds" as you aren't completely rolling in the funds.

A big mistake I made was to try doing 50% of my income for science. I went to get some contracts and they were all wanting me to pay them to do the missions lol. (hard -60% admin -50%) great science though

I am set to hard, and I am rolling in funds, at Mun landing stage of career (like 4th-5th flight, to get to that lofty point, lol).

[nadreck]

I think we should come to terms with the simple fact that SQUAD didn't put any serious thought into balancing this system. Its not their focus right now, and why should it. They may change something in the next patches. We will have to be patient for that or use mods.

I think they put the right thought into balancing this for an early access game: leave it to the players to balance it. They gave us a great set of tools in 0.25 to do just that. I am a few hours of play time in, I set my game as I intended to at 50% each for funds, science and reputation rewards, 100% funds penalties and 200% reputation penalties, and all the hard mode toggle options. I have so far tried one strategy which is the 50% commitment towards aggressive negotiations, I intend to go 50% in on enhancing recovery stuff once I get the parts for reusable big boost stages. My personal strategy in 0.25 is one of slightly more caution than usual(though I have already destroyed the launch pad once at a 64,000 funds cost) and so far have not done as many simultaneous flights as in previous versions and am letting the Kerbal clock move forward faster than usual. I am finding funds easy to acquire still, but also want to make sure I have a buffer against some accident that wipes out a more expensive facility. I was surprised how easy it was to destroy the launch pad (a staging error that had me drop a 1.25meter parts first stage that had un-ignited boosters from about 20 meters). I am also aiming in my strategy to not have to hire any Kerbals (I have two rescued recruits so far and hope to have enough Kerbals to do simultaneous interplanetary flights in the not too distant future). Oh and while I have got a sandbox game set up, that I intended to try new designs in, I am thinking that as long as I have sufficient funds I may try to play with development activity in the career game as an extra level of difficulty.

[Sky_walker]

I think we are forgetting that the tech tree was meant to be a sort of training wheels for newer players (of which non of us on this thread are)..

That was truth ages ago, now "training wheels for new players" are tutorials or sandbox mode.

I think they put the right thought into balancing this for an early access game: leave it to the players to balance it.

Having an option to manually change the game balance isn't an excuse for poor balance in default settings.

Democracy 3 already made that mistake and paid with bad reviews, though the "bad" balance out there was nowhere near as bad as what we have here now in KSP.

KSP needs an end game---which would segue into a paid KSP follow on (devs gotta eat!). My thought would be that KSP is sort of 1950s to later "exploration" space travel in scale, with the follow up concentrating on exploitation (resources, commercialization). Goals should be manned exploration, and manned presence (science bases and stations).

Yes, KSP might need that in a long term perspective, however devs are very much opposed of such idea - resources, life support, basically: everything that makes player-build bases on another worlds along with rovers a useful thing in the game.

Heck - so far we can't even get them to make probes genuinely useful and an integral part of game progression. Everything is purely kerbal-centric and there's literally no advantage in sending one-way probe mission over one-way kerbal mission. Quite contrary: sending kerbals everywhere (regardless if one-way or returning) is the most optimal way to progress through the game.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Sky_walker

[TMS]

On the plus side... this is the first career mode that I've enjoyed!

With a 10% commitment to funds-to-science on hard mode, there's been very little grinding, and very few spurious part testing 'quests' - just those that fit into the mission profile. Got to the spacestation and docking parts in what I would consider and acceptable time frame and onto the fun stuff.

I must admit that it seemed trivially easy, but it makes such a change from progress and 'difficulty' being based around drudgery and mindless clicking.

Optimistic for the future.

[juanml82]

That was truth ages ago, now "training wheels for new players" are tutorials or sandbox mode.

The first time I've opened sandbox I was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of parts. Which engine should I use? What was all that stuff in the utilities tab? And the structural parts?

You need a filter to start slowly. Pick one command pod, choose between a pair of very different engines, etc. It's either that or go check youtube tutorials or read the wiki, and this is a videogame - you should be able to learn it from the game itself.

[mckamx]

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/24992/20141010-7wud-8kb.jpg

If I am reading this right, you can take the contract, then fail, and the negative penalty will yield you a profit. Good work if you can get it.

[Sky_walker]

The first time I've opened sandbox I was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of parts. Which engine should I use? What was all that stuff in the utilities tab? And the structural parts?

You need a filter to start slowly.

Filters along with search functionality have been suggested numerous times.

KSP interface is far from optimal. But that got relatively little to deal with game modes, so please, don't mix topics.

Besides: You can learn parts just fine from toying with the sample crafts that are included in sandbox. That's how I took my first steps in KSP, so it obviously works.

And finally: Devs said that they will expand tutorials, so expect more and better introduction to the game as we'll get closer to 1.0. Right now they're working on a core part of the game. Sandbox is already done.

If I am reading this right, you can take the contract, then fail, and the negative penalty will yield you a profit. Good work if you can get it.

It's an old problem with a roots in a fact that someone somewhere had an idea that player shouldn't be able to bankrupt.

Noone fixed it yet.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Sky_walker

[tater]

No, it's not. Suppose you want to play "sandbox with funds and contracts" because you don't like unlocking the tech tree.

Then you start a new career, and give yourself all the starting science that the slider allows.

The strategies should not be designed to do something that could easily be done with the difficulty sliders, that makes no sense. There could simply be a radio button to unlock the tech tree, as well. The career needs a ton of work.

[Kerano]

I agree about the Funds -> Science strategy being too powerful relative to the other strategies. Before reading this thread I'd completed one return from the Mun and had about 12 techs unlocked. After reading this thread, I tried the Funds -> Science strategy at 100%, and unlocked the full tech tree in about 6 flights / 25 contracts without leaving Kerbin. Not a single science gathering instrument needed, the Funds -> Science strategy gave me more than I could ever need.

Now I actually like this new style of playing - transmitting/recovering science from instruments has always been a bit grindy to me, and I much prefer advancing through the tech tree by designing random crafts to satisfy contracts. The rewards just need to be scaled back a bit, that's all... by a factor of 10 or so I think. Something like 200-500 funds to 1 science feels about the right ballpark. (And vice versa for converting science to funds once the tech tree's finished - 1 science to 10 funds is a pittance, 1 science to 100 funds would be much more reasonable.)

I'm still unsold on any of the conversions involving Reputation, especially since there seem to be several bugs in the maths.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Kerano

[boolybooly]

You can scale back the rewards by putting the difficulty sliders for research and finance at 10%. It becomes quite a challenge but I am enjoying it. I nearly lost the game at one point, I could not even afford to put a $6K orbiter in flight after losing a returning craft and pilot in the ocean. I recommend accepting the challenge these sliders offer, it really changes the game.

Though I will agree that the current difficulty settings for these two sliders should be about halved. Probably best achieved by halving the base rate for everything and leaving the sliders alone, mind you 10% would then become incredibly difficult.

Edited October 11, 2014 by boolybooly

[nine_iron]

Conspiracy Theorist: "KSP is collecting all the data from every single variation and combination of settings in one huge difficulty experiment. We are doing the balancing for them!"

IMO Squad should be using us to find the idea difficulty settings, we have all the sliders, we MUST use them!

[Shogun Gunshow]

Squad should at the very least do a first pass before throwing it out there. All I had to do was *look* at the exchange rate to guess that it might be broken, and a few seconds of head math to confirm it. 'Oh, but you can make it harder on yourself' is not an excuse for poor design. It's silly this wasn't caught, but I have faith that Squad will correct ... eventually. Until they do, I'm hoping for a mod that un-bungles the rates, or just staying away from the feature.

[webkilla]

A thought:

Having Strategies and their availability be something you can switch on/off at difficulty selection - that way, a normal difficulty game that doesn't need them, can be rid of them...