Sign in to follow this  
Worst at Video Games NA

Are funds fulfilling their desired goal?

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty happy with how it works. Obviously if you're experienced with the game you'll be able to make lots of profit very early. But that's just a problem with how much of a skill gap there is between beginners and advanced players. There's genuinely lots of people sweating for cash in this new update, having to trim their spacecraft to do the missions they used to do with bigger rockets. So for them the update gives exactly the challenge it was supposed to give.

Also I like how the contracts can work at very different speeds. You can still accept missions to Duna/Ike after your first two flights. You can go to orbit in the first one, land on the Mun/Minmus on the second flight. But for beginners there's a whole sequence of missions around Kerbin that they can spend a long time with. As for me, the first few missions went very quickly and easily up until the moon landing. Then I did a kerbal rescue mission, and for me it was actually a challenge. And after the Mun landing I immediately got missions for Duna and Ike that gave me something to work towards (but first I'll get most of the science on Mun/Minmus).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as in reality, getting rich does not depend on how good you are at making/using goods, but rather on how well you understand the system and your ability to play the system.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/87138-failing-contracts-unlimited-funds

And as in reality, you have to decide for yourself whether it takes away from your accomplishments if someone else can get much richer much faster by being able to play the system rather than "working" within the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

Once again you've proven you have no idea whatsoever what I'm talking about. Waiting is a terrible game mechanic; if I'm ever alt-tabbed out of the game checking the forums and I haven't paused the game to do so then the game has failed to keep me engaged. KSP does about as much of this as bearable already.

Perhaps the word "inactivity" would get through your thick skull?

Planning is much different and it shouldn't rely on players waiting around while their ship is being built, for instance. Planning should involve real decisions that affect future flights and possibly your entire space program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again you've proven you have no idea whatsoever what I'm talking about. Waiting is a terrible game mechanic; if I'm ever alt-tabbed out of the game checking the forums and I haven't paused the game to do so then the game has failed to keep me engaged. KSP does about as much of this as bearable already.

Planning is much different and it shouldn't rely on players waiting around while their ship is being built, for instance. Planning should involve real decisions that affect future flights and possibly your entire space program.

This

With KSP, I spend a lot of time planning. I'm designing a ship for a specific mission, then I launch it into a stable orbit, inject into the transfer orbit I need, plot the next 2 or 3 correction burns, then I'm back in the VAB designing a ship for a new mission while the first one is en route to a burn node.

This is in direct contrast to my days of EVE Online, where I would be mining in such a way that the game only required my attention every 10 minutes or so, leaving me free to do whatever else (either have a second EVE client running a second account, or playing Call of Duty >.> )

I had 1300+ hours logged in EVE, and about 230 logged in KSP, and I would say I've had greater reward in terms of fun from KSP than EVE, because I'm actually DOING things instead of MONITORING things

Disclaimer: EVE is actually a really good game, if you like corporate simulators and internet spaceships, but it has a steep learning curve and is a HUGE time sink, so be forewarned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waiting is a terrible game mechanic.

I actually do think that waiting can be used effectively in a number of mediums, games being one of them. I also understand that some people don't play games, or enjoy them that way. Hitman: Blood Money is one of my favorite games due to it's slow, methodical nature, but some people prefer Call of Duty. That's fine. I personally feel that Kerbal is already leaning towards the methodical, and to deny that waiting is already an intrinsic part of the game is folly.

edit: I do agree that waiting is not planning. ...but, I also think adding some time limitations could increase the need for planning.

Edited by klgraham1013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually do think that waiting can be used effectively in a number of mediums, games being one of them. I also understand that some people don't play games, or enjoy them that way. Hitman: Blood Money is one of my favorite games due to it's slow, methodical nature,

You, as well, miss the distinction. One of my favorite games is Thief (the original) due to its slow, methodical nature. I was never really "waiting" in that game, though, I was planning, plotting, searching, I never wanted to alt-tab out and read some forums out of boredom with the activity in the game; it kept me engaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For most players they are forgettable after the first few contracts, if not before. The only reason most people are probably even doing contracts is for the bonus science.

In short, no, they are not. They barely do anything at all.

I just put up a large post on this, and I think from reading some of the replies here there is a fair number of people that agree career mode would benefit from mechanics that take place between rocket launches. After all, that's what is supposed to separate it from sandbox mode, but right now we have sandbox, and then sandbox with gates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know "waiting" doesn't sound interesting as a game mechanism and I'm certainly NOT defending that KSP should stay as it was (that's ridiculous).

But any game with suspense is basically you waiting to see if something bad or good will happen and enjoying the hell out of it.

Don't you have fun wondering if your probes will survive reentry or discovering where it will land ?

So, Regex, excuse me for being rude but shut the up. Saying superficiality don't make you smart, neither personal attack. By the way I excuse myself to have even asked you anything. (In retrospect there was no need to ask the obvious).

Now,

Planning is about to making choices ahead of time before losing the possibility, how is that the case now as time is inconsequential ? You can amass enough funds to build any massive rocket then timewarp to transfer windows.

This is why I suggested it needed to change !! Time must have consequences.

The Devs did a lot of work to allow the game-logic to detect achievement of many sorts, and gave some meaning

I think KSP need a planning aspect to give meaning to all this "waiting", and this is why Timewarp isn't the enemy of gameplay. It's what would allow planning over large time scale.

I agree that non-stop action is a perfectly reasonable concept for some games. But I do not think it's compatible with the themes of KSP. What are we supposed to do while your ship cruise to its destination ? Manage your company stock-options ? Play a life-support minigame ?

No, "wait" as in "plan design another rocket".

Parallel launch would also make it harder to just revert to VAB, making mistake more consequential.

To get back to the core of the topic, I think making periodic budget the leading source of money would help.

- It wouldn't deprive the player from being the one doing the progression

- It would make the amount of budget more linear with reputation.

- and arguably it would be closer to reality with a few rockets by week rather than 4 the first day, 10 the second, and monsters the 3rd day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you have fun wondering if your probes will survive reentry or discovering where it will land ?

That's an engaging part of the game. Timewarping while waiting for funding to come around or while waiting for your next rocket to build wouldn't be in the least bit engaging. Similarly, waiting for a Hohmann transfer to finish isn't terribly engaging but, mercifully, KSP allows you to do other things while you wait. This is, and always has been, one of my main objections to funding per timeframe suggestions. There are plenty more ways to engage the player in planning their space program than abusing the timewarp and introducing more waiting mechanics. Having mutiple launch sites, planetary axial tilt, and launch site turn-over time would add some great planning elements that don't necessarily prevent you from doing anything but also introduce the time element far better than some "lol is rocket built?" waiting game. Increasing the timewarp rate and adding a stock alarm clock would also go a long way there, but that just dodges the issue.

As usual, you've taken the argument to the extreme in your effort to hate me, or whatever. I think, rather than me shutting up, I'll just put you on my ignore list like I should have done a long time ago. Probably better for both of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrisy again... you are not describing anything that propose more choice than the "waiting" you keep attributing to me.

Launch site turn-over only mean you have to wait to use the launch-pad you need at the right inclination, along with planetary axial tilt that just adding fake difficulty, and trying to advertise your own little mods.

To paraphrase you attempting to mock me : "lol is launch pad ready ?".

There's more planning involved in deciding which contract you'll try to fulfill first to be on time with the limited funds (per time period) you'd have.

And beside the planning aspect you know perfectly well the "periodic budget" concept is also an attempt to resolve the flaws discovered on this first iteration of contract.

Ignore me if you want, it won't make the problems disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think both of you, Regex and Kegereneku, are bringing some interesting ideas to the table.

Regex is correct that whatever waiting we are doing needs to be fun. The worst part of sports games is waiting for the calendar to go by. If we did have a monthly income, what would we do while we wait for it? Could we have time warp continue while we are in the VAB / SPH? Perhaps Mission Control could have a map of the solar system. You could select dates to see future planet alignments. You could plan orbital maneuvers. See how much delta v a trip to Jool, Laythe, and back again would cost.

If a timed income is to be implemented, what we do while we wait should be considered.

edit: Kerbal Alarm Clock would be required to stop the warp once new funds arrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you dare appease a rivalry that will only end with one of us tied to the front of a booster facing the ground !!!

I admit that my phrasing can be hard to follow, I'm not fluent enough in english. It was never in my intention to say waiting had to be boring.

But I think the timewarp make the problem irrelevant.

We do not have to implement in-between features, launch-pad puzzle, or minigame which would only add fake difficulty. Because every time we would not be playing we would be timewarping for 10seconds and rarely more unless you really are waiting for a mission to Eeloo to arrive.

As you say :

A equivalent to "Kerbal Alarm Clock" would certainly be needed to ease the process entirely.

And in case of "periodic budget" a feature to "warp to the next payday".

I wouldn't be against in-game tools to know when the next optimal transfer windows to another planet is, but that's unlikely since a Dev is currently opposed to a mere DeltaV readout.

Anyway as far as Funds are concerned we only need to know when the budget have be renewed. For now it's instantaneous and thus we can launch rocket after rocket and get rich in less than a Kerbal week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BDl9TAR.jpg

i just brought back jeb from the second launch (didnt recover yet)

(after recovery i have 112k credits and 105 science this is after 38 ingame minutes...)

sadly Bill has died falling off a returning rocket on eva :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think the timewarp make the problem irrelevant.

We do not have to implement in-between features, launch-pad puzzle, or minigame which would only add fake difficulty. Because every time we would not be playing we would be timewarping for 10seconds and rarely more unless you really are waiting for a mission to Eeloo to arrive.

I actually don't have a problem waiting through a time warp. Just trying to see everyone's point of view. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue I see is a lack of difficult selection.

You have to make the amount of money you get forgiving enough for first time players, but if you do so it's no challenge for the old timers.

If you could select a difficulty level that cut the amount of funds and science and reputation gained by success and raised the losses of failure it would allow the experienced players to face a challenge without making it too hard for the new players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A suggestion to ease the fact that 'revert' removes a lot of the consequences of failure, while still allwing people to test and experiment:

Implement a 'test' launch and a 'mission launch. Tests would allow you to fire things up and see how they go; deaths are temporary; reverting allowed; but no science, rep, funds or contracts earnable.

Mission launches would be final, no reverting allowed; deaths permanent; lost funds are lost; but all credits can be earned.

Just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kerbal Construction Time has a good implementation for timed test flights. Squad could take inspiration from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the funds mechanic is a good one, but currently its one-size-fits-all nature means it can't suit everyone's experience level and play style. Meaning, I believe it has been balanced for new players who take a very "Kerbal" approach to launch count and kerbonaut safety: improve designs by watching old ones blow up, and kill a kerbal every time it does. Designing the Contracts system to allow this playstyle means that funds and reputation are very easy to manage, and experienced players who revert to VAB every time they hit a staging problem will not find them to be limiting factors at any point in their Career.

I suggest adding three difficulty levels to balance funds & reputation for different playstyles:

"Jebediah Kerman" - What we have now. Contract rewards and advances are high, prestige hits for dead kerbals are low, running out of money is difficult. "Launch ALL THE THINGS, kill ALL THE KERBALS!"

"Gene Kerman" - Contract advances and rewards are reduced significantly. Advances should be based on 0.5x-1x the cost of the minimal craft required to complete the task. Rewards should be ~2x this amount. Idea is that the advance barely (or does not) cover the cost of the mission - you must complete contracts to build a bank and invest that bank into completing future contracts. Design too big a mission or flub a couple launches and you should not be able to complete the contract due to lack of funds, unless you have slowly built up a large enough bank. Losing a kerbal should be a very large prestige hit, limiting your contract selection.

"Iron Kerman" - Contract advances as in "Gene Kerman", with slightly reduced rewards for completion. Prestige hit for lost kerbals is larger than "Gene Kerman". Reverting to launch/VAB is disabled - every launch counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~Snip~

"Jebediah Kerman" - What we have now. Contract rewards and advances are high, prestige hits for dead kerbals are low, running out of money is difficult. "Launch ALL THE THINGS, kill ALL THE KERBALS!"

"Gene Kerman" - Contract advances and rewards are reduced significantly. Advances should be based on 0.5x-1x the cost of the minimal craft required to complete the task. Rewards should be ~2x this amount. Idea is that the advance barely (or does not) cover the cost of the mission - you must complete contracts to build a bank and invest that bank into completing future contracts. Design too big a mission or flub a couple launches and you should not be able to complete the contract due to lack of funds, unless you have slowly built up a large enough bank. Losing a kerbal should be a very large prestige hit, limiting your contract selection.

"Iron Kerman" - Contract advances as in "Gene Kerman", with slightly reduced rewards for completion. Prestige hit for lost kerbals is larger than "Gene Kerman". Reverting to launch/VAB is disabled - every launch counts.

I like the idea, but I propose that "Iron Kerman" be renamed to to Neil Kerman, Yuri Kerman, or some other famous astronaut that accomplished something new or big in space. Heck, you could even name it after an astronomer such as Kepler or Kuiper. Iron Kerman seems too generic and I think that a continuation of the naming the levels after astronauts or astronomers would be much more fitting and keeping with the space and science theme of KSP.

Edited by Flymetothemun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all of this can simply be solved with a difficulty setting. Have you ever seen a new player play KSP?.... I can tell you that they are terrible and unfamiliar with the mechanics. The crazy amount of fund that you got right now are made for people that just crash and are learning how the game works. So again if you just have a difficulty slider every thing will be fine.

Gue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The crazy amount of fund that you got right now are made for people that just crash and are learning how the game works. So again if you just have a difficulty slider every thing will be fine.

There's that, but there's also this:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/87032-What-Is-Your-Finanical-Status?p=1290212&viewfull=1#post1290212

More costs are on the way and we'll also probably see a difficulty system implemented as well (the above is probably why there isn't one yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A suggestion to ease the fact that 'revert' removes a lot of the consequences of failure, while still allwing people to test and experiment:

Implement a 'test' launch and a 'mission launch. Tests would allow you to fire things up and see how they go; deaths are temporary; reverting allowed; but no science, rep, funds or contracts earnable.

Mission launches would be final, no reverting allowed; deaths permanent; lost funds are lost; but all credits can be earned.

Just a thought

I kinda ducked out of the conversation because it evolved to something outside of the scope I had set out, but I LOVE this idea. This, I think, provides some really fun and interesting gameplay, as well as realism, that KSP currently lacks. Maybe have the test center in the RND department.

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