Funds to science Admin Strategy is really overpowered

[ArmchairGravy]

That's not the case here. It makes the science mode 100 times easier, allowing you to finish the tech tree in just a few launches. It's game braking, certainly not intended, and needs a fix. When you play an early access game you should report those things.

Game breaking? According to whom? I liked not having to grind out the tree for once and be able to have fun with parts I usually don't have access to until I get back from Duna. Just because you don't care for the feature doesn't mean the feature is at fault. No one is forcing you to use it, it does have a purpose for players like me who are tired of grinding the tree, and all you are trying to do is force people to play the game the way you perceive it should be played. So what if I have the tree unlocked earlier than you? What does it matter?

[WOODY01]

I am imagine this may have already been mentioned but I did not read all the post.

This game has plenty of options to increase or decrease difficulty without needing to alter any config files or not use a feature of the game because the devs provided you the chance to change these values in the options menu.

You can alter the amount of funds and science you start with. Science, funds and reputation rewards and penalties all can be altered with a slider.

Want to live with your mistakes, do not allow reverting.

With what the devs provided you can make the game so unforgiving that one or two failed launches end your career or at least make it difficult to recover from. On the flip side you can make the game so easy that you never worry about funds, building efficient vehicles and can unlock the entire tech tree after just 3-4 launches.

So I do not see the problem since settings are provided to allow for a wide range of difficulty options.

Then of course there are mods to enhance the difficulty of certain aspects of the game.

[metl]

I am imagine this may have already been mentioned but I did not read all the post.

This game has plenty of options to increase or decrease difficulty without needing to alter any config files or not use a feature of the game because the devs provided you the chance to change these values in the options menu.

You can alter the amount of funds and science you start with. Science, funds and reputation rewards and penalties all can be altered with a slider.

Want to live with your mistakes, do not allow reverting.

With what the devs provided you can make the game so unforgiving that one or two failed launches end your career or at least make it difficult to recover from. On the flip side you can make the game so easy that you never worry about funds, building efficient vehicles and can unlock the entire tech tree after just 3-4 launches.

So I do not see the problem since settings are provided to allow for a wide range of difficulty options.

Then of course there are mods to enhance the difficulty of certain aspects of the game.

well. Said.

[hazarada]

Most of the strategy thingies are overpowered/broken right now. I managed to unlock all tech, get max rep and get 40 million credits within the first hour of playing 0.25. I do like the overall notion of the strategies but I think they should be scaled back so that you could, for example, get the same amount of science as you'd get from all science instruments by sacrificing 100% of the funds on a contract (so for like "explore the mun" mission you'd get some ~2k science for all funds). Also, the amount of credit per science or rep that you get is underpowered

[Artophwar]

Yes it is true that there are settings to adjust the way the game is played BUT there should be a baseline that is fairly balanced. The current game obviously needs a lot of tweaking and I would hope that would be a major focus before the game hits Version 1.0.

Just telling people to not to use unbalanced features is a cop out. Sandbox allows people to play the game with no science if they don't want to worry about the tree. The Career mode should be the most "gamey" mode. It should have the most restrictions and balancing. The normal setting needs to be a good baseline to work with and then people can adjust it up or down with the difficulty menu.

[Flight]

Game breaking? According to whom? I liked not having to grind out the tree for once and be able to have fun with parts I usually don't have access to until I get back from Duna. Just because you don't care for the feature doesn't mean the feature is at fault. No one is forcing you to use it, it does have a purpose for players like me who are tired of grinding the tree, and all you are trying to do is force people to play the game the way you perceive it should be played. So what if I have the tree unlocked earlier than you? What does it matter?

OK, so according to this, Mario Bros should have a button to skip a level, and you can keep pressing it up to saving the queen and finishing the game right away. Hey, people will only press that button if they want, and they sould be able to skip levels they don't like. That's a feature, that's good game design. Right?

[Wanderfound]

OK, so according to this, Mario Bros should have a button to skip a level, and you can keep pressing it up to saving the queen and finishing the game right away. Hey, people will only press that button if they want, and they sould be able to skip levels they don't like. That's a feature, that's good game design. Right?

While you do have something of a point (most of which will be dealt with in the soon-to-come post-scope-completion polishing updates, however), there is an important difference that weakens your analogy: Mario Bros is a point-scoring level-beating competitive game that is based around "winning" and "losing". KSP isn't. There is no scoreboard, there is no victory condition, there is no Princess. The only way to lose is to not have fun.

Some people have more fun with tight game-imposed limitations; some people prefer the freedom of the sandbox. And a lot of KSP fans appear to enjoy a bit of both. Keeping it flexible and allowing everyone to play the sort of KSP that they want to play is a fundamental part of the game's success.

[Flight]

Yes, I was talking about Career Mode only. It has winning and losing conditions, and sort of "levels" to beat (the tech tree). I know they are very different type of games, but a button that makes the game 100 times easier should not be considered a "feature", that's my whole point.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Flight

[Alizerin]

To be fair, Mario Bros. had Warp Zones, which actually allowed you to skip levels. Then there was the "infinite lives jump on a Koopa repeatedly on the stairs" trick, which certainly made saving princesses easier.

I will admit though: in my next career game I won't be using the science boosts, I don't think. They really were easy-mode. Especially since transmiting zero science still counts as "science". I mean, I'm glad I have a reason for my space station to be there, but it made exploring the tech tree a bit easy.

[Ofuscor]

I understand that some people might want to unlock the full tech tree fast since they have already done that before. But I think that is the reason we have difficulty sliders, so you can customize your game to your liking. I do not believe this is the intended functionality of the strategies. If this was the case then all of the strategies would be gamebreaking as this one, and they are not. For example the convert reputation to funds is a joke and totally useless. If I were to follow the same reasoning then it should give me a crazy amount so I do not have to worry about funds ever again.

[ArmchairGravy]

OK, so according to this, Mario Bros should have a button to skip a level, and you can keep pressing it up to saving the queen and finishing the game right away. Hey, people will only press that button if they want, and they sould be able to skip levels they don't like. That's a feature, that's good game design. Right?

Talk about comparing apples to penguins. One of these games is an open-ended, mod-able, construction game that allows a player to pretty much do whatever they want, the other is a side-scrolling platform jumper. Again, the science strategy is completely optional. If you don't like the boost, either don't use it at all, or don't slide the slider up. If people want to complain about a broken feature, complain about the genuinely broken reputation system which never recovers if you spend reputation points. As far as I can see, the optional science strategy is working exactly as intended.

[hazarada]

While we're at it, lets also add a "give science" button. If you don't like it, don't press it!

Lets get real for a minute, the strategy thingies were introduced to add a little layer of tactics to the career mode. If they are unbalanced, as in "making all other means of getting science utterly pointless" kind of unbalanced, then they have failed their purpose and have to be adjusted. Managing the science and funds and reputation is a game in itself, a little challenge, tied to the rest of creative exploration that is KSP. Having to exercise mental gymnastics for that game to be fair does not make a good game.

[Wanderfound]

While we're at it, lets also add a "give science" button. If you don't like it, don't press it!

There already is one; it's in the difficulty menu. Along with the "give funds" and "give rep". The difficulty of career mode is fully customisable, and that is a good thing.

KSP works from kindergarten to NASA.

[hazarada]

I miss games where you could actually lose

[Flight]

I was under the impression that the admin facility was supposed to be a "strategic decision" thing, not something to be used to tune (or remove) difficulty in career mode.

[LethalDose]

I miss games where you could actually lose

http://i.imgur.com/AwDI1Uu.jpg

Apparently this is coming in beta. If your rep drops to -200 or something, you'll get a game over.

I was under the impression that the admin facility was supposed to be a "strategic decision" thing, not something to be used to tune (or remove) difficulty in career mode.

Frankly, I don't think Squad put that much thought into the purpose of the adminstration building. The concept was originally just an exchange (e.g. pay 100 rep for 200 science), but that wasn't 'fun' by whatever metric, so it because what it is now.

What purpose does it have...? it exists.

[LostOblivion]

I second this feature being completely overpowered. I think the whole conversion system is dodgy at best, and if it is staying, then it definitely needs to be nerfed with an H-bomb sized nerf bat. 1 science for 35 funds means a 200,000 funds contract will give you over 5000 science, and when the alternative is getting only 150 science (a lot!) from a long and significant mission that gives meaning and game value, you lose a lot of meaning and game value! It doesn't even employ diminishing returns! You don't have to play the game any more, because you've already unlocked all the parts by clicking on buttons!

In career mode, science points to unlock parts is the main goal. Money is cheap. Science is invaluable. Having a direct conversion of money to science directly means that science is also cheap, undermining the real value of science points. Getting enough funds to advance your space center in order to go further is just a step in this process to get more science. Science should not be something that can be "traded in" without actually going anywhere. It's not a currency. Science in a game about space exploration should only be gained by exploration, like it used to be before 0.25.

Strategies could be revised so that science cannot be traded in this easy from funds. If strategies are here to stay, sure, but then at least make it so that you must pay a significant amount of money to get a tiny bit more science, but only from the science you would get otherwise, not traded in from funds directly. I suggest removing the Outsourced R&D strategy and replacing it with a strategy that instead gives you a little more science for each science point you get from the contract, but even here it must be for a significant money cost, and with diminishing returns. For example, a contract gives you 20 science points. You can then buy into a strategy that would give you up to, say, 50 % more science for a significant cost (i.e. for this contract up to a max of 30 science points), and the cost would increase exponentially for every percent of science you would get extra. Space programs with plenty of money would obviously get a lot more science, but even then only at most 1.5 times that of the original contract.

Edited December 31, 2014 by LostOblivion

[xcorps]

The whole "science" thing needs to be looked at.

I get the idea that there needs to be some progression...it's a game.

The problem is the idea that running temperature scans and getting EVA reports allows you to unlock rocket parts...That is an engineering discipline, not a science discipline. I don't care how many probes you send to Venus, you are not going to learn new propulsion techniques from atmospheric scans and pictures of sulfuric acid clouds.

That said, I think that the current game balance implementation is perfectly fine. I like being able to process the funds into "research" so I can go about my business without sending a dozen flights to Mun so I can unlock bigger solar panels.

[Mister Kerman]

I'm struggling with science in my career. I want to be free to do things I like to do so I'm going to abuse this the first chance I get. I don't get a lot of time to play so I'm actually glad this strategy exists in the game, even if a lot of you guys think it's unbalanced.

I agree that science should be uniquely valuable instead of traded for other currency because of knowledge's nature of being earned through experimentation; but if that was the kind of thing that bothered me enough, I would slide one of the sliders provided or not abuse it.

[magnemoe]

I second this feature being completely overpowered. I think the whole conversion system is dodgy at best, and if it is staying, then it definitely needs to be nerfed with an H-bomb sized nerf bat. 1 science for 35 funds means a 200,000 funds contract will give you over 5000 science, and when the alternative is getting only 150 science (a lot!) from a long and significant mission that gives meaning and game value, you lose a lot of meaning and game value! It doesn't even employ diminishing returns! You don't have to play the game any more, because you've already unlocked all the parts by clicking on buttons!

In career mode, science points to unlock parts is the main goal. Money is cheap. Science is invaluable. Having a direct conversion of money to science directly means that science is also cheap, undermining the real value of science points. Getting enough funds to advance your space center in order to go further is just a step in this process to get more science. Science should not be something that can be "traded in" without actually going anywhere. It's not a currency. Science in a game about space exploration should only be gained by exploration, like it used to be before 0.25.

Strategies could be revised so that science cannot be traded in this easy from funds. If strategies are here to stay, sure, but then at least make it so that you must pay a significant amount of money to get a tiny bit more science, but only from the science you would get otherwise, not traded in from funds directly. I suggest removing the Outsourced R&D strategy and replacing it with a strategy that instead gives you a little more science for each science point you get from the contract, but even here it must be for a significant money cost, and with diminishing returns. For example, a contract gives you 20 science points. You can then buy into a strategy that would give you up to, say, 50 % more science for a significant cost (i.e. for this contract up to a max of 30 science points), and the cost would increase exponentially for every percent of science you would get extra. Space programs with plenty of money would obviously get a lot more science, but even then only at most 1.5 times that of the original contract.

In 0.9 i find money the main constraint. Science is easy to get, you get lots from contracts and Minmus / Mun is an easy source, here money is the main constraint as you need upgrades to be able to harvest it fast.

[ctbram]

I believe the other strategies are way under powered to the point of being useless!

7.1 funds per 1 rep or 8.1 funds per 1 science is just as horrible as outsourced science but in the opposite direction!

First, what orifice are they pulling these ratios out of? 7.1 to 1 for rep and 8.1 to 1 for science? You get rep at a rate of about 1/1000 of science yet they give you a lower ratio for rep then science? Secondly about 7 or 8 to 1 for either is way to low.

I have completely the entire tech tree and have barely over 900 rep. That would yield 6390 funds in an entire career run! And then lets look at the investment ratio. Only .1 increase per 5% additional investment!!! So if I put 100% investment of rep I'd go from 7.1 to 9 funds per rep. So for the same 900 rep I'd have gained 8100 funds. That is only a 28% increase for 20 times the investment???

Science for funds is just as bad. Lets say you need roughly 20,000 to complete the entire tech tree. at 100% investment that would yield about 200,000 funds. Barely enough for a level 0 to level 1 upgrade of a single building by the time you have completed the entire tech tree!

The last two strategies are also pretty useless. Why would I trade funds or science for rep? As far as I can see rep is pretty useless. The last strat the ratio of science or rep you have to give up to reduce launch costs or recovery costs are also just not worth it. Even at 100 percent you get barely a dent on the affect of your entire program. Therefore, outsourced research is the only strat the makes any sense at all and as pointed out that strat is OP.

Personally I would say to the devs fix the six broken strategies and then focus on the one that is OP.

Edited February 6, 2015 by ctbram

[Bioman222]

I don't know about you guys, but I hate grinding for science. That's just me, though.

[cpast]

I find money a bigger issue in 0.90 than science: I can unlock much of the tree with Mun/Minmus missions and contracts, but need 3.1 million to get the R&D facility fully unlocked.

[yafeshan]

I do not know if anyone mentioned it before. I will be surprised if no one did. On of the strategies saves you %40 (strategy %100 maximized )of funds on launching rockets and unlocking parts in R&D center. It requires 160 rep on each launch. It is far easier to farm rep than science and fund. I take good rep missions first, spend some expensive rockets, recover them while on launching pad. I will gain that %40 funds from recovery out of thin air. When I use up my rep, I go to my mission ship and gain rep back easily. This game is on hard setting and I have over 150 million funds. This is a clear abuse, must be fixed.

[tsotha]

I find money a bigger issue in 0.90 than science: I can unlock much of the tree with Mun/Minmus missions and contracts, but need 3.1 million to get the R&D facility fully unlocked.

Same here. In previous versions I would make sure to collect all the science I could. Now I don't even bother. Crew reports, thermometer, and surface samples. Between that and the contract science I have everything I need to stay ahead of my ability to upgrade the R&D building. In 0.90, at least on the default "hard" settings, the buildings are way too expensive. Everything else, including spacecraft design, is an afterthought.