Sign in to follow this  
Worst at Video Games NA

Are funds fulfilling their desired goal?

Recommended Posts

The Grand Tour is visiting all of the planets in one launch.

Hmm... I suppose new players since 0.23 don't have to deal with the spaghetti rockets that plagued me when I first joined. I did blow up a lot of stuff before I got something in orbit. I think I would have burned through all my funds pretty quickly.

Ok. Count me in to the newbie club - I didn't even think it's possible in KSP o_O

I also don't know what's the spaghetti rocket. You make me feel like a total newbie, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're spot on with your 'humming metropolis' goal for sandbox games like SimCity and indeed KSP. It needs a well-running ecosystem. I don't think that immediately requires extensive bases or anything like that, but at least some interconnectivity on a smaller scale would already help. Unless you roleplay, stock missions are always standalone missions. This reflects real-life quite poorly. The lunar landings first had a series of mapping orbiter probes and then a few lander probes to test everything. Missions to Mars are also always envisioned to be multi-tiered, with robotic landers, orbiters and what not.

A few mods show the way. While RemoteTech is a bit too complicated for stock, but it does do setting up a communications network well. If we needed some sort of link to Kerbin through a orbiter/lander network for science transmission then that would add some extra planning to unmanned missions (they'd need a buff though, because otherwise no-one would ever go near them with all their current shortcomings vis-a-vis manned missions). Instellar has a great tech progression and has a few interconnected parts. Animatter engines are very useful, but require you to setup antimatter collectors in orbit. Same goes with beamed power and other super propulsion methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok. Count me in to the newbie club - I didn't even think it's possible in KSP o_O

I also don't know what's the spaghetti rocket. You make me feel like a total newbie, lol

Haha, sorry, I can't do it either, not many can! I think you need to pick a very specific launch window, and be a bit magical abut gravity assists. That, or have a complete monster of a spacecraft (and PC to handle it)

Rockets in KSP used to be, ahem... pretty flexible. Like in this video:

. Everything needed to be strutted to high heaven, or it would fly into pieces. It made the first few launches a lot more challenging.

And I'm hardly an old hand, only been around for less than a year myself. I don't even remember the infamous forum crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something to consider when using stock. Don't know if you knew, but with the debug menu (alt+f12) you can deactivate the "revert to.." and quicksave/load functions. This will make it way harder because any rockets which fail and eventually crash are lost and so is the money and so is the Kerbal (if you deactivate kerbal respawn there as well).

Personally I think this should be on by default in the new career mode. There are already the sandbox and science modes if you don't want to play that way, and this would add real risk, make the player more careful with their money, as well as make you weigh up risk vs reward with regards to the contracts you accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Contracts also, to some extent, seem like another "help new players along" tool. If I launch a mission to Duna on mission 3 the game won't reward me for the accomplishment unless I happened to have a contract for Duna. If I am technically capable of going to Duna, and do so, and return, I won't even earn reputation for performing the feat of landing on Duna while my space program is still in its infancy, which seems like a reputation-worthy feat!

This is a point I'd like to reiterate. Contracts should be there to guide the player. Right now, the guidance / tutorial contracts are buried along with unnecessary clutter (rescue missions, part testing).

I propose that Mission Control be a place for guidance where Gene Kerman makes suggestions for future missions. Perhaps you can commit to these, increasing Rep when completed. Much as contracts are now. If you go to Duna on your own, Gene will still reward you with Rep. The tutorial section could be eliminated by being merged into Mission Control.

Now, as far as Rep deterioration is concerned. The current talk is about amount of contracts per month /week. Again, this leads to reliance on the current contract system. A system built around randomness and not player choice. I would suggest that as long as you do something (put a satellite in orbit, land on another planet, etc.) the game would see this as worthwhile advancement. This would hold your Rep in place until you made another worthy achievement. Mission Control could have an archive of your achievements (orbits, landings) much as the Science Archive now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contracts are there so you have fun, not as a tutorial for new players, also they are intended to encourage more outlandish or "Kerbal" designs, and in this regard they are in fact working as intended by the Squad developers :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the solution for that is just to add more predefined contracts to go alongside the procedurally generated ones, and have them available at the start (maybe under an "advanced contracts" tab that you have to click to open, to avoid confusing new players). You have your big goals guiding long-term progression(Land on Duna, orbit Jool, etc.), you have sub-goals building up to them, which get you a proportion of the total reward (think Gemini program stuff for people who aren't ready to go full Apollo), and then in between you have your "test part", "rescue Kerbal", and "launch satellite" goals to keep your funds topped up and encourage Kerbally designs.

Edit: Now with its very own suggestion: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/87012-Another-contract-structure-suggestion

Edited by peadar1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like it if you could adjust the difficulty, which would simply scale the cost of parts. That is, if the cost of parts ever gets balanced/changed. $3000 pressure sensors which get very little science, lol.

Some of the costs of parts makes no sense. The cost of liquid fuel should steadily get cheaper as you buy larger and larger containers of it. That seems to be partially implemented, on some containers. How long would it have taken to balance these parts, even approximately? 2-3 hours to calculate a scheme, and another hour or two to change the cost of the parts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with the procedural contracts now is...well, some examples. Setting off SRBs at unreasonable altitudes. Decoupling / activating an engine at a speed and altitude that isn't optimal. Jet engines on the Mun. Being asked to deploy a parachute at speeds above the terminal velocity.

These contracts are possibly 5 to 1 to the contracts that would advance a players skill. Altitude goals. Orbit goals. Reaching other planets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My biggest problem with the procedural contracts now is...well, some examples. Setting off SRBs at unreasonable altitudes. Decoupling / activating an engine at a speed and altitude that isn't optimal. Jet engines on the Mun. Being asked to deploy a parachute at speeds above the terminal velocity.

These contracts are possibly 5 to 1 to the contracts that would advance a players skill. Altitude goals. Orbit goals. Reaching other planets.

Arguably the part testing contracts advance the player's skills in different ways, since they have to figure out how to use a part in a situation that they might not otherwise even consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be some government-based fund changing through reputation low rep will result in budget cuts, high rep will result in funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My biggest problem with the procedural contracts now is...well, some examples. Setting off SRBs at unreasonable altitudes. Decoupling / activating an engine at a speed and altitude that isn't optimal. Jet engines on the Mun. Being asked to deploy a parachute at speeds above the terminal velocity.

These contracts are possibly 5 to 1 to the contracts that would advance a players skill. Altitude goals. Orbit goals. Reaching other planets.

I actually think this is fine. I would never normally test a jet engine on the mun and many of these contracts make you do things you would not otherwise try. They actually increase player skill by having to figure out how to achieve these weird requirements. I just wish it was harder to progress and make money. I hope we get daily/monthly costs and some difficulty settings. Currently the money is irrelevant. I can afford to build whatever I want and have never had to watch my budget even from the first craft I made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the points made about contracts forcing us to solve a problem.

Firstly, What I'd argue is for contracts that teach valuable lessons on how to actually play. What is a gravity turn and why should I fly on the 90? What are those symbols on the compass? Why should I fly slower at higher atmospheric pressures? Every occasion I've sat a newcomer in front of the game, the compass has been a problem. The only reason I know what a gravity turn is is YouTube. Mission Control is an ideal way of teaching people how to play the game. Mission Control could slowly introduce new mechanics to the player. Having someone go through the tutorials all at once can be overwhelming. This could solve that.

Secondly, provide loose mission parameters that would still allow player freedom in what they want to do and where they want to go. The game could even allow us to submit proposals to the Kerbin government. We could make judgments on what we can do, in how long we can do it, and for how much. Succeeding would increase Rep, thus increasing monthly Funds. This would be end-game content, of course, placed after the general tutorial contracts in Mission Control.

I'd rather not beat this drum to loudly. These are just my thoughts as of now. I still need to play more and I can understand the appeal of the current setup. It just may not be for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been some great points here. IMO the newcomer is the most valid point. Not everyone can start this game and build a successful rocket. IMO the contracts in the beginning are pretty balanced when keeping a new player in mind. Just because some people can do a trip to Duna on tier 2 parts, doesn't mean the tech tree needs to be 500% harder. I know the counter to that is to have them start in sandbox to learn the game, but that's not always how people start games that they aren't familiar with. On top of that, KSP has a much steeper learning curve than many games. I've had several friends try KSP only to get frustrated and quit just before they would have started enjoying it. Personally, I'm in day 38 and have about 500k. Mostly because I refuse to transmit science in the Kerbal system. I've been either bringing back every rocket, or for Mun I currently have a small science ship parked in orbit.

Sal hit it right on the head though. Over the last couple days, I've built some of my most kerbal designs yet (almost 1600 hours played) for some of the testing contracts. :D

Edit: I had no idea how much $ transmitting science was.

Edited by Beachernaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the contract system was boring after a bit. It's a shame I need to run contracts in order to generate cash to launch anything, feels like grinding. Also not too thrilled about a "monthly budget" for the same reason; I get to launch a few craft and then I have to timewarp to next month, screw that. I didn't buy this game to wait.

Almhuran is spot on, we need something that acknowledges our achievements instead of asking us to do things in a set order. That would work much better for a sandbox game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the contract system was boring after a bit. It's a shame I need to run contracts in order to generate cash to launch anything, feels like grinding. Also not too thrilled about a "monthly budget" for the same reason; I get to launch a few craft and then I have to timewarp to next month, screw that. I didn't buy this game to wait.

Almhuran is spot on, we need something that acknowledges our achievements instead of asking us to do things in a set order. That would work much better for a sandbox game.

Then play sandbox, not career?

Seriously, it's not supposed to be a sandbox game, it's supposed to be a tycoon game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then play sandbox, not career?

Why? I like the idea of budgetary restrictions for challenge.

Seriously, it's not supposed to be a sandbox game, it's supposed to be a tycoon game.

Even in Career Mode KSP is still very much a sandbox sort of game where you set and meet your own goals. If that's also a hallmark of tycoon style games, great, but I still call it a sandbox game because of that. You can also deny contracts by the literal boatload to find the one you want. The problem is that, as Almhuran points out, the game doesn't acknowledge your achievements in a meaningful manner aside from giving you a contract. Why don't I have alternate revenue streams to contracts? Why do I get the certain contracts only after I've achieved what's in the contract? I landed on the Mun and then received a contract to plant a flag on the Mun, WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps OP is right and it's just not "difficult" enough, but I don't think that's entirely it. If you ramp up the difficulty it just means I'll spend more time waiting for gravity slingshots, more time doing tedious science grinding.. basically more "not much fun" gameplay in order to complete whatever objective it is I want to complete.

I wanna point out that I don't think the problem is difficulty; I think the difficulty is actually fine. It's still a really complex game with a really high learning curve. The problem as I see it is that funds didn't actually change the way anyone played. The effectiveness of funds to introduce new gameplay was watered down by how cheap everything is and how easy it is to get money.

It's not about difficulty, it's about whether or not funds succeeded in changing the game significantly.

Just for clarification :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem as I see it is that funds didn't actually change the way anyone played.

My disappointment is that contracts did change how I play. Instead of setting up satellite networks, building orbital stations, and landing bases, I'm building ridiculous ships for ridiculous tests. This, all in order to do the missions I want and feel are more appropriate for a Space Program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also not too thrilled about a "monthly budget" for the same reason; I get to launch a few craft and then I have to timewarp to next month, screw that. I didn't buy this game to wait.

Almhuran is spot on, we need something that acknowledges our achievements instead of asking us to do things in a set order.

My belief in monthly / weekly budgets isn't about making you wait, it's about the time frame between launches. I would argue that this game does require a degree of patience as it is.

I agree with your second point. We do need some record of our achievements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the contract system was boring after a bit. It's a shame I need to run contracts in order to generate cash to launch anything, feels like grinding. Also not too thrilled about a "monthly budget" for the same reason; I get to launch a few craft and then I have to timewarp to next month, screw that. I didn't buy this game to wait.

Almhuran is spot on, we need something that acknowledges our achievements instead of asking us to do things in a set order. That would work much better for a sandbox game.

I'm not surprised to hear that from you, I still remember the time we argued about whether or not some model of "Contract gameplay" was likely to be grindy or give you so much money it didn't matter. (as far I'm concerned contract-only has exactly the flaws I predicted)

But now, aren't you hypocrite about not wanting to wait ?

You are NOT actually waiting for ANYTHING thank to Timewarp, you are not waiting for orbital transfer, you are not waiting during failsafe slow approach.

The word you seek is not waiting, its "planning".

What difference is there between waiting for the next budget and waiting in a strategy game to get enough resources to build something in time ?

My answer : a strategy/planning aspect to the game.

As of now unlocking the tech-tree is only dependent on the money you make from Contract, not time and decision.

Then on the matter of acknowledging your achievement I agree completely. But contract is actually the right step in this direction because the Devs worked hard to create a system that allow you to tell the game what you are going to to, then be told how to make it recognize through actions you would have done anyway (sending report by radio for manned-mission at least, myself I want unmanned-mission sooner)

Not there's just to trust the Devs are truly adding incomplete-features with a goal in mind. Personally, even if I fear they randomize contract to avoid "actual work" I know they definitively created the means to reward/guide/acknowledge players achievement.

That's always the problem of playing a game in continuous development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But now, aren't you hypocrite about not wanting to wait ?

You are NOT actually waiting for ANYTHING thank to Timewarp, you are not waiting for orbital transfer, you are not waiting during failsafe slow approach.

Well, yeah, I am waiting while timewarping. Unless I install some mods like RSS and KAS that let me timewarp faster and not miss the window.

The word you seek is not waiting, its "planning".

No, it's not, don't put words into my mouth because you literally have no idea what I'm talking about nor will you even try to understand my point of view. Planning is entirely different than waiting.

What difference is there between waiting for the next budget and waiting in a strategy game to get enough resources to build something in time ?

I'm not playing a strategy game here and there are plenty of other things to do in games that involve resources. Dwarf Fortress, for instance, is the epitome of micromanagement whilst also involving a lot of "waiting"; there is plenty to keep me engaged and occupied while "waiting". I don't play games to sit around waiting, I play games to actually play. KSP already has plenty of lull time, there's no need to add in some arbitrary wait time between launches or getting money to stack on even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe money/funds are total useless as long you can revert a (failed) flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for the sake of this thread I will not restart a quote-war with you Regex.

However WAITING is a perfectly acceptable game mechanism, and In My Humble Opinion KSP is now lacking a planning aspect that encourage parallel (non revertible) mission and decision making, to expend to new level the feature introduced by "0.24 First Contract"

Maybe money/funds are total useless as long you can revert a (failed) flight.

Only if all missions happen in a sequential way.

You would accept a loss if you had done other things in parallel and didn't wanted to lose them. There also some case where the game can't automatically revert without a quicksave : when you split a spaceship into two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this