My wish list is very short

[Zeiss Ikon]

Aside from bug fixes, there's really only one thing I'd like to see changed in the stock game (if only because I can't afford a computer with enough horsepower to run major mods, and including them into the game would make it unplayable on my computers).  I'd like to see a more realistically ordered tech tree progression (wings and jets before rocket parts, RCS before reaction wheels, etc.) (yes, I know, there are mutliple mods for that), with the ability to research single parts.  That is to say, if I need a retractable landing gear, but don't have the 90 science on tap to research that entire node, for, say, 20 or 30 science, I could unlock just the retractable gear.

That is all.

[Chel]

Well, some mods do allow you to research single parts. I've seen Scott Manley research particular parts in his videos, but I don't know what the mod is.

[Zeiss Ikon]

22 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Well, some mods do allow you to research single parts. I've seen Scott Manley research particular parts in his videos, but I don't know what the mod is.

I'd be very interested in which mod(s) does that.  I'm considering installing a parts mod that gives two-Kerbal pods, plus "Realistic Progression" (RP-0); that would be a good time to add single-part tech nodes or partial node research.

[klgraham1013]

You mean, a game should have it's tech tree balanced before release?  That's crazy talk.

[regex]

On 10/14/2017 at 4:49 PM, Zeiss Ikon said:

I'd like to see a more realistically ordered tech tree progression (wings and jets before rocket parts, RCS before reaction wheels, etc.)

No thanks, I prefer going to space instead of flying airplanes.

On 10/14/2017 at 4:49 PM, Zeiss Ikon said:

(yes, I know, there are mutliple mods for that)

Tech tree mods should be resource-light, go download one.

[harrisjosh2711]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 7:49 PM, Zeiss Ikon said:

Aside from bug fixes, there's really only one thing I'd like to see changed in the stock game (if only because I can't afford a computer with enough horsepower to run major mods, and including them into the game would make it unplayable on my computers).  I'd like to see a more realistically ordered tech tree progression (wings and jets before rocket parts, RCS before reaction wheels, etc.) (yes, I know, there are mutliple mods for that), with the ability to research single parts.  That is to say, if I need a retractable landing gear, but don't have the 90 science on tap to research that entire node, for, say, 20 or 30 science, I could unlock just the retractable gear.

That is all.

That's funny, a better computer can actually do worse on KSP. My computer can run most games on extreme settings. My computer runs harder playing KSP than any other game. Ksp will only use one processor no matter how many you have. KSP just has issues. A better computer wont really help.

[Geonovast]

1 minute ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

That's funny, a better computer can actually do worse on KSP. My computer can run most games on extreme settings. My computer runs harder playing KSP than any other game. Ksp will only use one processor no matter how many you have. KSP just has issues. A better computer wont really help.

Depends on how it's better.  There are so many factors.  Like you said, it uses one processor.  So while most people would say an 8 core processor is "better" than a 2 core one, if that 8 core is running at 2 ghz, and the 2 core is at 3.5ghz, all other specs aside, KSP will likely run better on the 2 core.  This is why, when I bought a new computer with KSP in mind, my main concern was clock speed.

This is especially a concern with laptops, as most consumer laptops I've seen have had fairly low clocks, even with multiple cores.  I'm assuming this is because of heat and battery life.

[The_Rocketeer]

I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the research concept. I always find it hugely hampers my game having contracts to go explore Mun right after I've just spent huge science points learning to retrieve atmospheric science reports. The system just feels badly thought through - the easiest way to get the parts to do a mission the way you want to do it (in my case the way it seems like it should be done, with permanancy, recycling and re-use in mind), is to do the same mission as a disposable one-shot using whacked-together parts that aren't really fit for purpose.

And then the mission's done, and there's no reward for doing it again!!! So frustrating!

[Zeiss Ikon]

4 hours ago, Geonovast said:

Depends on how it's better.  There are so many factors.  Like you said, it uses one processor.  So while most people would say an 8 core processor is "better" than a 2 core one, if that 8 core is running at 2 ghz, and the 2 core is at 3.5ghz, all other specs aside, KSP will likely run better on the 2 core.  This is why, when I bought a new computer with KSP in mind, my main concern was clock speed.

This is especially a concern with laptops, as most consumer laptops I've seen have had fairly low clocks, even with multiple cores.  I'm assuming this is because of heat and battery life.

Upgrading the desktop computer I have would almost certainly improve my game experience -- I'm running a Core2Quad at 2.7 GHz.  Almost any reasonably current Core i-something processor at comparable or higher clock will perform better in KSP, because it will do more per core (real or virtual), per clock cycle.  I recently bought a laptop with a mobile Core i5, dual cores at 2.9 GHz, and it significantly (like 15%) outperforms my desktop machine even in multi-core tasks -- for work like BOINC tasks, it does better per virtual core than the Core2Quad, same RAM size and the desktop machine has an SSD while the laptop has a platter hard disk.

Naturally, it runs KSP at least as well as the desktop, even though I'd expect the desktop machine to have an advantage on graphics (nVidia GTx 750 vs. Intel something-or-other in the laptop).  So, if I could get even a dual-core i5 for my desktop at, say, 3.5 GHz, it should run circles around the current Core2Quad.  Then again, I installed the Core2Quad as an upgrade (from Core2Duo) about eight years ago; I've gotten a lot of good use out of that tech.

That doesn't, however, have anything to do with my wish for a more sensible tech order and the ability to research individual items instead of whole nodes at once.  I may have to go digging through the mod catalog and see if there's one that breaks up the nodes.  Realistic Progression is something I definitely need, though I'd have to restart my career to gain anything from it.  Does anyone know of a mod that breaks up the tech nodes?  Or would I have to get one that lets me make my own entire tech tree, and go through it item by item?

[Spricigo]

8 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the research concept.

Which research concept?  KSP have only a bland minigame based on visiting places to collect abstract points.

It's a weird system but meet its purpose: make the access to 'technology' gradual in career and science games. 

May also serve as a measurement of the player "progress" (have you explored all KSC micro biomes, found all Kerbin's 'rare biomes', etc?). But in the end of day is just a game abstraction that have nothing to do with real scientific research. 

[Zeiss Ikon]

True, but it still bugs me that (for instance) we have reaction wheels before RCS, and don't get anything you could call a wing until we've got the rockets that can go to the Mun.

In the real world, we had thrust vectoring (jet vanes in the German A-4) before RCS (one early helicopter prototype, modified F-104, X-15, Mercury) before reaction wheels (long term satellites, still not used for manned vehicles AFAIK).  We had high-subsonic aircraft before rockets that could leave the atmosphere, and the first manned flights that needed RCS were winged.  We had liquid fueled rockets boosting men (Redstone, Atlas, Titan) before we had solid boosters that large.  That progression is much more interesting to me...

[NSEP]

19 hours ago, regex said:

No thanks, I prefer going to space instead of flying airplanes.

Tech tree mods should be resource-light, go download one.

^^This.^^

Not all mods slow down KSP.

[The_Rocketeer]

11 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Which research concept?

The one where completing short-term goals rewards you with points you can spend on new research nodes. This could be a perfectly legitimate research concept in another game - works ok in a lot of RTS games I've played - but I don't think it suits KSP's style, it's too proscriptive.

In KSP, difficulty doesn't naturally correlate to progression, so there's no balance to be struck between gamestage and power-ups/unlocks (like there is in a RTS game, where your opponents are getting tougher too). Unlocking the tree just makes the game more complete and delimits your options. To me, that's at odds with the sandbox exploration concept. I'd prefer a progression system that acknowledged and documented particular achievements more, and that allowed the player to customise their adventure without having to conform to narrow and arbitrary 'families' of progress, or else toil like an under-achiever doing fun things the boring way until the parts are unlocked, and doing the mission the fun way isn't going to be rewarded anymore.

[Spricigo]

38 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

In KSP, difficulty doesn't naturally correlate to progression, so there's no balance to be struck between gamestage and power-ups/unlocks . Unlocking the tree just makes the game more complete and delimits your options.

Yes, that is the issue. The very nature of KSP prevent the research system to be more meaningful.

The 'board', and the 'rules' of KSP are there when you start the game and remain the same. Research allow the use of new 'pieces'  you didn't start with. The end result is that the game ''advance' it become easier. This is not in itself a bad thing, it induce the player to start with more modest goals and move to greater ones as new 'equipment' become available.

So, there is no solution, at least not without a complete overhaul of carrer/science modes itself. What can (realistically) be done is to make the system more bearable. For this we have a lot of mods that change the tech tree and how science is generated. Many of those are light enough that even if your computer is hamster-powered the little critters will not notice.

Another 'solution' its change how you face the 'problem', don't thing about KSP's "science" as something it is not, but like the game gimmick that make access to 'more advanced' technology gradual. At this point you will be a lot more comfortable to change science rewards, automatize the gathering with mods or even use "cheats" to get/block access to technology. It's your game, you don't need to keep the rules you don't like.

[The_Rocketeer]

2 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

This is not in itself a bad thing, it induce the player to start with more modest goals and move to greater ones as new 'equipment' become available.

I am sure this has been the mentality behind the system we have, but it isn't very sensible. My 'modest goals' are to develop (and I mean develop, by building, testing, improving, field testing etc) surface rovers and atmospheric aircraft before I launch satellites to orbit or fly to the Mun - staying on Kerbin is pretty modest, right? The game punishes me for wanting to take that approach, by putting rover wheels and roll-on-roll-off cargo bays far too high up the tech tree, by making early landing gear far too weak and silly (brake or steer... hmm) for rough-terrain landings around Kerbin, and by making early jet engines incapable of reaching the altitudes required for atmospheric experiments and part testing.
 

16 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

So, there is no solution, at least not without a complete overhaul of carrer/science modes itself.

Yes, all of this would take a bit of an overhaul to fix... but then again not so great an overhaul as all that. The tech tree and contracts have already been fixed to the point of total customisability by modders in their spare time. What's lacking is a balanced reworking of both, together, to make a rewarding game experience. That's left up to the player to trial-and-error, which never happens because it's far easier and ultimately more immersive (crazy, right?) to cheat your way out of an unforeseen problem than put up with and work around it - still more than to try to improve the game by rigorous method. This is where the game developers ought to be earning their money, by doing the work of making the game wholesome enough that the cheats become a silly sideshow instead of a vital tool.

18 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

It's your game, you don't need to keep the rules you don't like.

I would discribe this as a very millennial attitude, and I don't hold with it. The rules of a game are the game. If you break them you're no longer playing the game, you're playing something that might look a lot like it, but it isn't it.

It's not that I don't get the whole 'KSP is like LEGO, you can build and play whatever way you want' attitude - I do, that's really kinda central to my point. It should be possible to play KSP in career *with this mentality* without the game making you feel like you're doing it wrong.

[Spricigo]

17 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

It's not that I don't get the whole 'KSP is like LEGO, you can build and play whatever way you want' attitude - I do, that's really kinda central to my point. It should be possible to play KSP in career *with this mentality* without the game making you feel like you're doing it wrong.

Unfortunately, I can only offer my sympathy.  I have the very same gripe with the game.

Just, I try enjoy the game for what it is. My advice to break the rules is not because we are entitled* to "our game", but I'd rather prefer a loss for not playing The Game than a loss for playing it and not having fun.

 

*maybe not the better word (non native speaker here)

[The_Rocketeer]

29 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

I'd rather prefer a loss for not playing The Game than a loss for playing it and not having fun.

Ditto, tho your approach seems to be to play with manual adjustment, and mine tends to be to just stop playing.

[regex]

2 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

3 hours ago, Spricigo said:

It's your game, you don't need to keep the rules you don't like.

I would discribe this as a very millennial attitude

It's not, people have been home-ruling games since pretty much the introduction of complex games like Squad Leader and role-playing games, and as soon as video games hit the PC a computer system where things could be easily edited people started modding them in one way or another (look at the sheer number of roguelikes that have been spawned from that codebase or one of its descendants, every one of them changed the rules in one way or the other). The amount of work that Squad has gone through to accommodate modders should tell you something: It very much is your game, and it has been from at least when I started playing (and modding) in 0.20. This is very much in keeping with the sandbox nature of KSP as a game.

Core features simply aren't going to change in a meaningful way anymore, we're into the DLC phase of development where bugfixing and compatibility are the only real ways forward for the main game. Any fundamental changes to systems will have to happen through player mods, regardless of how "broken" the core systems are.

[The_Rocketeer]

Thanks for the history lesson, @regex, but you're not really telling me anything I didn't already know. Changing the rules has always changed the game. Take Poker for example - you can call it Poker, but that doesn't mean it's the game everyone else plays.

I won't engage on the broader demographic point.

KSP should be a game that stands on its own without mods, and certainly without the cheat menu. If it met those criteria, it would probably be a successful console game, and it could hardly hurt PC sales. Unfortunately you may be right about the economic stage of development, but hey, a man can dream...

[regex]

1 minute ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Thanks for the history lesson, @regex, but you're not really telling me anything I didn't already know. Changing the rules has always changed the game.

Well, then you should have no problem with the stock game as it stands. If you want to play "KSP" then you need to adhere to the rules as given because they're not going to change at this point (or rather, the chances of the base game changing fundamentally are about the same as me transitioning to an infomorph state and motoring off to live in the Kuiper belt).

1 minute ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I won't engage on the broader demographic point.

No, you really shouldn't, because I've been home-ruling games and "making them my own" since my teens (hell, the Palladium system was damn near unplayable without house-rules of some kind) and I've been modding computer games for nearly as long, and people much older than me have been doing the same for just as long. It has precisely zero to do with a "millennial attitude".

1 minute ago, The_Rocketeer said:

KSP should be a game that stands on its own without mods, and certainly without the cheat menu.

It does, and the fact that this little indie science game has sold (at least) more than two million copies proves it. You just don't like the rules as presented.

1 minute ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Unfortunately you may be right about the economic stage of development, but hey, a man can dream...

Even I had to be convinced of that.

[nobodyhasthis2]

 

Stock game changes are never going to happen now. So lets look a DLC opportunity. Essentially extentions that do rewrite the game.

The mission contract system was a bit problematic through much of development. We finally got something that works as stock. If that is not enough fine tuning is available via the mod Configure Configure. Yet even that holds us back when doing a history simulation. You see it is possible to program the whole thing again but it is awkward to do so. Even if a mod author does it for you it might not be exactly what you want. So lets stick in a GUI on the process and anyone can write contract progression. This way everybody wins by getting the contract progression they want.

Now consider tech tree mods. There are all essential the same thing. I can tell you that coding a new tree is a pain. Doing the later part placement is easy but really time consuming as well. Yet at there heart evey variation of tech tree is doing the same thing. So I would say that a second idea for a DLC (which is of course econmically dependent on the first one currently in progress ). Is to again automate the process. Make each tech node an object that can be moved in relation to other nodes. Drop the automatic assignment of parts to a fixed tree position. Allow a default in the parts.cfg as normal but that can be overruled in the tree GUI though a look up table. Of Partname = newnode. As an extra bonus. Allowing players to reset costs via the same table mechanic also solves another problem. Game balance then becomes completely user defined.

This way anyone can move things at will. This way everybody wins by getting the tech tree progression they want. People can start with rockets or do planes first. Whatever they want. Plus they can change things around at will to keep things fresh. We also get a flourishing of ideas here on the forums for new challenges. Where new custom setups are recommended. No need for tech tree mods anymore.

Today the current situation is all of the above can be done right now. Every choice discussed in the thread so far. However it takes some programing knowledge and lots of time to achieve personal choices. The system I am proposing is a method where all barriers are removed and anyone is free to create their game own experience.

Edited October 17, 2017 by nobodyhasthis2

[The_Rocketeer]

@regex no, I have a problem with the game, not the rules. Those who have a problem with the rules can flout them as they like. I am comfortable with rules. I am uncomfortable with the quality of a game that requires you to break them, and exert godlike powers over the narrative universe, just to make up for defects in the progression and reward systems. This craps all over narrative continuity and immersion. What is the point in trying to establish a tourism infrastructure if I can reward myself with a bazillion kerbucks and skip the whole space-travel element completely? I can't really overstate this - career is the one place where this really monumentally matters in KSP. From responses like yours it seems like its not really ok for me to point out that it matters, because... too late? vOv

 

Its ok for me to still be critical of the game even tho its been around 6 years. It would be a better game if it had seen more imagination go into the career mechanics. I don't have to be happy with the stock game just because I don't like to cheat or use mods and my own time to fix issues that the devs should have fixed before now.

Its also ok for me to say that in my opinion a remark sounds like a millennial attitude even if the remark also applies to other demographics and individuals. Just because it applies to people like you too doesn't mean my opinion is invalid, tho I guess it might mean its incomplete. Maybe I should say "millennials and regex" next time.

[Zeiss Ikon]

11 hours ago, NSEP said:

^^This.^^

Not all mods slow down KSP.

No, but trying to find a mod that does what you want does.  I spent all my (very limited) playing time yesterday trying to find a suitable tech tree mod.  I found three tech tree mods, total, of which one looked likely to be close to what I wanted.  I had thought there was once one called "Realistic Progression", but searching for that, or reasonable variations of it, yielded nothing.

1 hour ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

So I would say that a second idea for a DLC (which is of course econmically dependent on the first one currently in progress ). Is to again automate the process. Make each tech node an object that can be moved in relation to other nodes. Drop the automatic assignment of parts to a fixed tree position. Allow a default in the parts.cfg as normal but that can be overruled in the tree GUI though a look up table. Of Partname = newnode. As an extra bonus. Allowing players to reset costs via the same table mechanic also solves another problem. Game balance then becomes completely user defined.

This way anyone can move things at will. This way everybody wins by getting the tech tree progression they want. People can start with rockets or do planes first. Whatever they want. Plus they can change things around at will to keep things fresh. We also get a flourishing of ideas here on the forums for new challenges. Where new custom setups are recommended. No need for tech tree mods anymore.

Today the current situation is all of the above can be done right now. Every choice discussed in the thread so far. However it takes some programing knowledge and lots of time to achieve personal choices. The system I am proposing is a method where all barriers are removed and anyone is free to create their game own experience.

I like this idea, but it sounds as if the only chance of it happening is to buy a previous DLC I'm not at all sure I want/need.  I don't like that idea; my game budget is limited in more than just time (the list of things I'd like to do and don't have free money for is about as long as the list of things I'd like to do and don't have time for -- and they overlap a lot).

I'm not a programmer (I'd done a little programming over the past nearly 40 years, but if you're not doing this stuff every day, you can't even keep up with the tools, and the last time I tried to relearn ANSI C -- yes, useless for mods, but nice for original programs and I'd actually used it previously -- I found myself bogged down with a bug in my project that I couldn't kill and then my "play" time evaporated).  I've edited config files for various things, but I gave it up a while back, when the complexity level started to get out of hand (I won't even try to dig into my browser's configs, for instance).  Furthermore, see above about time limitations; there's no chance at all that I'll create my own tech tree mod if it's more involved that dragging items from node to node and/or resizing nodes.

Bottom line, I might, possibly, pay for a tech tree mod like you describe, @nobodyhasthis2, but I won't let that desire make me buy DLC I don't want or need (or, in this case, know anything about).

[regex]

23 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

@regex no, I have a problem with the game, not the rules. Those who have a problem with the rules can flout them as they like. I am comfortable with rules. I am uncomfortable with the quality of a game that requires you to break them, and exert godlike powers over the narrative universe, just to make up for defects in the progression and reward systems. This craps all over narrative continuity and immersion. What is the point in trying to establish a tourism infrastructure if I can reward myself with a bazillion kerbucks and skip the whole space-travel element completely?

You can't have fun with the base game, you refuse to use mods to correct the failings in it, you claim you must cheat to enjoy the game but can't enjoy it if you cheat, and we're far past the point where the developers are going to do anything about a system that is set in stone.

Maybe we can get back to the topic at hand, that being a tech tree tweak that isn't going to happen either?

23 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Its also ok for me to say that in my opinion a remark sounds like a millennial attitude even if the remark also applies to other demographics and individuals. Just because it applies to people like you too doesn't mean my opinion is invalid, tho I guess it might mean its incomplete. Maybe I should say "millennials and regex" next time.

No, don't bother, it's just terrible, idiotic ageism, ascribing motives and values to an entire generation of people off-hand.

[nobodyhasthis2]

45 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

No, but trying to find a mod that does what you want does.  I spent all my (very limited) playing time yesterday trying to find a suitable tech tree mod.  I found three tech tree mods, total, of which one looked likely to be close to what I wanted.  I had thought there was once one called "Realistic Progression", but searching for that, or reasonable variations of it, yielded nothing.

There is your problem. Your own personal design is not catered for. With a modular build system this it gets fixed. Everyone gets to do their own design and can share them with each other here. I really hope you, me and everyone else gets a chance to move things around to our hearts content.

45 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

I like this idea, but it sounds as if the only chance of it happening is to buy a previous DLC I'm not at all sure I want/need. 

@nobodyhasthis2

There no reason for for one DLC to depend on another here. Unless there a compelling reason to share previous assets. Given the nature of things now and how contracts have beeing developed in the past. It is not likely that new content will have a tech tree dependancy that some how prohibits modification later.

Yet we have to wait to see how the current work is implemented to know for sure. Right now modding support has been promised and the DLC is completely optional. As far adding more later on goes. The only thing I will point out again is the limiting factor of economics. That has nothing to do with coding. It is just fact of life that there would be need to be a commercial success across all platforms on the first DLC release.

The bottom line for you personally here is skipping a DLC is likely to have no effect long term. A new DLC option to self mod the tech tree is a possible fix but a long time away. I hope you get it at a decent price.

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by nobodyhasthis2