ScienceDefs.cfg

[regex]

So, I avoided reading the descriptions, but I did read the settings. Then I edited them.

baseValue and scienceCap can be set to double values (decimal). For the crew report I changed them from 5 to 0.5 and from 8 to 0.8 respectively, and received roughly one tenth the science value of a stock science report (stock received 3.5, one tenth received 0.4). This means you can make science a bit more "meaningful" (or "grindy", whatever you prefer).

dataScale appears to translate directly into the Mbits value in the game.

Time to hand-roll some configs...

[MedievalNerd]

Science has diminishing returns for repeat tests. If you go and send goo in orbit it'll net 10 science the first time, and less and less each time after that. Might want to factor that in to your equations.

[regex]

People are maxing the tree in under five flights, I don't think there's anything to worry about if you drop the science gain by half or even quarter. One tenth might be really painful, though.

[HarvesteR]

If you're the sort of player who can max out the tech tree in 5 missions, then in all likelihood you already have a pretty good notion of what all the parts are and what they're meant to do.

The tech tree is balanced to introduce, not to restrict. If we made it challenging to veteran players, we'd be making it downright impossible for new ones.

That said, tweaking the definitions is not only something we expected already, but I'm actually looking forward to see what you guys come up with.

Happy tweaking.

Cheers

[Moon Goddess]

I really wishyou'd make the current R&D into a tutorial and make a actual tech tree intended for play not for introduction.

I agree the game really needs a tutorial for new players, but I feel like research really fits into the spirit of the game in much more ways than just for new players, introduction only needs to be done once, if it works into play then it's usable over and over.

[regex]

That said, tweaking the definitions is not only something we expected already, but I'm actually looking forward to see what you guys come up with.

I've been playing at 1/5 baseValue and 1/4 scienceCap using Yargnit's tree for a few hours and I think I made it just a bit too "grindy". I'm glad I didn't go with one tenth. I'm probably going to try 1/4 baseValue 1/3 scienceCap and see how that works tomorrow; I think the progression will be less frustrating.

I really wishyou'd make the current R&D into a tutorial and make a actual tech tree intended for play not for introduction.

I agree the game really needs a tutorial for new players, but I feel like research really fits into the spirit of the game in much more ways than just for new players, introduction only needs to be done once, if it works into play then it's usable over and over.

Get this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53192-0-22-TreeLoader-Custom-Career-Tech-tree-Loader-1-0

Then fiddle with the ScienceDefs.cfg until you get something you like. I'll happily send you my current file, but, as I've said above, I think 1/4 over 1/3 will be a better progression.

[Awaras]

If you're the sort of player who can max out the tech tree in 5 missions, then in all likelihood you already have a pretty good notion of what all the parts are and what they're meant to do.

The tech tree is balanced to introduce, not to restrict. If we made it challenging to veteran players, we'd be making it downright impossible for new ones.

That said, tweaking the definitions is not only something we expected already, but I'm actually looking forward to see what you guys come up with.

Happy tweaking.

Cheers

I have to say that the whole 'campaign as a tutorial' concept dissapoints me as I have been looking forward to campaign mode as a way to breathe new life into KSP for me... Oh well, I'm sure there will be plenty of hard core campaign mode mods comming out soon...

[Talisar]

I think it bodes well for things to come, and it should be an excellent way to accomplish 2 major goals at the same time.

First, putting in a tutorial that walks new players through the process of the game adds a bit of direction for those who want it as well as most likely helping to retain some players who would possibly just give up because throwing a sandbox style game with the learning curve of this one is daunting for many.

Secondly, it's a great way to introduce a new mechanic to the game that has the possibility of greatly expanding in scope. See what works and what doesn't. Imagine in the future when parts cost money, and the only kerbalnauts available to hire have a stupidity score so high that any science experiments they do cause you to actually LOSE science (looking at you, Bill)

On top of providing that, they gave it to us while taking nothing at all away from what we already had. Looked at from the long term, seems like a win/win to me.

[m4v]

I really wishyou'd make the current R&D into a tutorial and make a actual tech tree intended for play not for introduction.

eh, doesn't tech trees work like that in every game? what do you mean by a tech tree "intended for play"?

Edited October 18, 2013 by m4v

[maclypse]

Personally, I very much enjoyed the restriction on the sandbox, having goals to work towards, and actually having a reason to go somewhere I haven't been before. I very quickly realised that the tree is indeed an introductory thing, and I do hope the career will eventually include more things that will actually offer me a challenge.

Personally, I out-did Scott Manley by grabbing 454 points on the first mission, and maxing the tree at mission 4, with 5000 points left over. So... yea. I have embarked on a mission to make things tougher.

I immediately moved the SRB down one notch in the tree to make cheaty-explody-rockets unavailable to me, and adjusted the baseValues to reduce rewards.

While I *love* having something to do when I actually get somewhere neat, repeating the same experiment 14 times in a row to suck out the science goodness of the area gets sort of weird and tedious. At this very moment I'm poking at the scienceCap values to see if I can make the rewards diminish quicker. I really don't see the gameplay value of repeating the same experiment more than 4 times. 4 is a nice number, as it's high enough that you want proper power systems installed to collect data while dropping through atmospheres for example, but it's low enough to stop every landing from feeling grindy. I hope. Well, it's the general plan anyway. We'll see if I can pull it off.

Mac

[KerbMav]

Can anyone tell me where to find the values for the "recovered a craft that orbited/suborbital/..." rewards?

[KerbMav]

Did anything change in the sciencedefs in .23 or can I still use these files?

[regex]

Did anything change in the sciencedefs in .23 or can I still use these files?

If you're asking about the ones in my sig, I have no idea. I stopped playing career mode and probably won't play it until it's more meaningful. I guess it's time to take those out of my sig...