Funds to science Admin Strategy is really overpowered

[Xavven]

Suggestion: Change it from "convert N% of funds into science". Instead, make it multiplicative: "get N% less funds (from everything), receive N% more science (from everything)." e.g. set the slider to 20%, I get 20% less money for everything that gives money, and 20% more science from everything that gives science.

I think a big part of what makes this feature seem "broken" to so many people is that it goes against a basic KSP game mechanic, which is "science is about discovery."

Squad did an absolutely brilliant job with the basic design of how you get science: by going places and doing new things. New experience = learning = science. Especially key to the design is the fact that you can't get more science by doing the same thing again. If I've got my seismic scan from a particular biome on Minmus, I can't get more science by doing that same thing again. I have to do something different. This is a great way to give the player an incentive to go lots of different places and do different things. The get-less-science-if-you-transmit mechanic is great, too-- it gives you a reward for doing a return mission, which is a bigger challenge.

The current turn-funds-into-science mechanic turns that on its head. No discovery is needed. Just turn the crank and out comes science, in fully-repeatable fashion. There's no reward-incentive for going anywhere.

By making this to a percentage boost to science, that means all the basic game mechanics still hold-- something that was zero science before is still zero science, all the rewards are still in place. It just makes it so the player has the option of making science a bit less hard, in exchange for making funds a bit more hard.

(And of course, one would need to tune the percentages for playability/balance-- i.e. likely the percentage boost to the one shouldn't exactly equal the percentage hit to the other-- but that's just a detail to work out.)

Wow... I hadn't initially thought of it that way, but this is really the heart of the issue. I like this even better than what I and others have suggested (changing the conversion ratio to 250:1, 350:1, or even 1000:1). This provides incentive to go out there and visit places, like the Science Game Mode. You can still unlock the tree through part test contracts if you really want to, but a Jool flyby is still going to yield more than an LV-N test on an escape trajectory from Mun. And BTW, welcome to the forums. Nice first post.

[Snark]

Well, but almost the same thing. Landing in one crater or another isn't all that different, really. But then again, some places seem to be more interesting than others... I can't tell you why, but I'm not as fed up with Minmus although I went there just as often as to the Mun. Likewise, Vall and Duna are still interesting while Tylo and Moho have been struck from the list after the first visit.

I hear ya on that one!

I think biomes are a good idea-- right now, there's not much actually to see on a given planet or moon ("Well... I landed here at Duna... now what do I do?"), so having biomes gives more of an incentive for repeat visits. (For some folks, at least. I'm a completist, I like to feel that I've milked each body for all its science. I maxed out on the tech tree just on Mun/Minus, and still went on to visit all the other heavenly bodies. I realize that wouldn't necessarily be everyone's cup of tea).

However, it can get awfully repetitive-- the almost-the-same thing that you point out. I like that it's there, and there's a fun challenge in building a planetary mission that's designed to land-and-take-off multiple times, and it's good to have some game-related reason to do that. But right now, with science easy to max out on just Mun and Minmus, it feels (to me, at least) like it wouldn't be all that fun if all they did was give the other planets the same treatment they've given the Kerbin system thus far.

What I'd like to see would be to add some diminishing returns for each heavenly body with biomes. Set up the math so that it's worthwhile to visit, say, three or so biomes on a body, and that visits to other biomes after that becomes less and less rewarding from a science point of view-- there's still some payoff (for the completists), but one doesn't feel as if one has to cover everything to get the benefit.

For example: Define a science "scenario" as situation + instrument for a given body. Right now, you can repeat each scenario (e.g. "Gravity scan while landed") for each biome, and it provides full science each time. Suppose each successive biome (on the same body) only yields 80% the science as the previous one for a given scenario. (Or 70%, or whatever number works.)

That feels like it would keep the benefits of biomes, while addressing the repetitiveness. Also, it just feels wrong that I should be able to max out the science tree without even leaving Kerbin and environs. I would find it more fun if, after visiting Mun/Minmus two or three times, I've got the tech to go to somewhere else (e.g. Duna) and then build from there.

[FirstSecondThird]

Your not alone.

Check out my post about it right here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96637-My-thoughts-on-the-subject-of-the-admin-building?p=1473381#post1473381

[Snark]

Well, but almost the same thing. Landing in one crater or another isn't all that different, really. But then again, some places seem to be more interesting than others... I can't tell you why, but I'm not as fed up with Minmus although I went there just as often as to the Mun. Likewise, Vall and Duna are still interesting while Tylo and Moho have been struck from the list after the first visit.

I hear ya on that one!

I think biomes are a good idea-- right now, there's not much actually to see on a given planet or moon ("Well... I landed here at Duna... now what do I do?"), so having biomes gives more of an incentive for repeat visits. (For some folks, at least. I'm a completist, I like to feel that I've milked each body for all its science. I maxed out on the tech tree just on Mun/Minus, and still went on to visit all the other heavenly bodies. I realize that wouldn't necessarily be everyone's cup of tea).

However, it can get awfully repetitive-- the almost-the-same thing that you point out. I like that it's there, and there's a fun challenge in building a planetary mission that's designed to land-and-take-off multiple times, and it's good to have some game-related reason to do that. But right now, with science easy to max out on just Mun and Minmus, it feels (to me, at least) like it wouldn't be all that fun if all they did was give the other planets the same treatment they've given the Kerbin system thus far.

What I'd like to see would be to add some diminishing returns for each heavenly body with biomes. Set up the math so that it's worthwhile to visit, say, three or so biomes on a body, and that visits to other biomes after that becomes less and less rewarding from a science point of view-- there's still some payoff (for the completists), but one doesn't feel as if one has to cover everything to get the benefit.

For example: Define a science "scenario" as situation + instrument for a given body. Right now, you can repeat each scenario (e.g. "Gravity scan while landed") for each biome, and it provides full science each time. Suppose each successive biome (on the same body) only yields 80% the science as the previous one for a given scenario. (Or 70%, or whatever number works.)

That feels like it would keep the benefits of biomes, while addressing the repetitiveness. Also, it just feels wrong that I should be able to max out the science tree without even leaving Kerbin and environs. I would find it more fun if, after visiting Mun/Minmus two or three times, I've got the tech to go to somewhere else (e.g. Duna) and then build from there.

[Sky_walker]

I'm not implying anything. I specifically stated, without reservation, that you are in no position to comment on what the adjustment to difficulty needs to be.

Well then, you have very much failed sir, cause what you say makes no sense.

Like: none at all.

Next time: try to use logic.

[Talavar]

I redownloaded KSP this morning... drank some coffee, ate breakfast, came back, fired it up and unlocked everything in 3 flights. *Roll credits*. Game over. Well, that was fun.. NOT.

[Talavar]

Honestly what this game needs is some SERIOUSLY overpriced endgame parts. That would balance it out. Something like Oh.. I dunno.. SPACE-STATION PARTS THAT HAVE MEANING. Final piece being something that allows you to VISIT A BLACK HOLE. Yeah.. I know.. unrealistic, but its a game. How about something tech that lets you get through the atmosphere of jool and land on it (somehow) we need SOMETHING to fix this. as of right now, It's REALLY boring. If you want to play and have fun, I'd suggest playing science instead of career. It takes away all the administration and mundane contracts. Makes it like an actual game again. Honestly, the career should have been based on the science collection. Goto the north pole and get a sample, or EVA over kerbin. NO BONUS SCIENCE. Administration should have been a building that dealt primarily with training your kerbals for their added perks.. The whole Career system is completely broken right now.

[Flight]

It's interesting how they made such an incredible engine for space simulation, with better-than-acceptable-realistic physics, good graphics, newbie friendly things like maneuver nodes and easy interface, interesting green guys that make you feel comfortable to sandbox around and explode things, and many other amazing stuff that makes KSP as awesome as it is, but at the same time they (in my opinion) failed so hard at basic game design when it comes to resources, progress, reward loop, etc. I wish they started science mode, tech tree and resource management from scratch

[John FX]

I have to admit, having this strategy is very useful, but yeah, very overpowered. Planted one flag on the Mun and got 950 or so science - and that's with the slider at only 20%! The other ones aren't so much - rep to science & funds to rep for example are more subtle in their effects.

This says to me that 10% should be getting close to the maximum setting (being 1 sci=400 funds or so)

I must admit that I thought you got 1 sci for every 38,462 funds and thought "Well I end up with millions, it must be designed for later in the game. Maybe you are only meant to get 1000 science this way total?`

Then realised it was 38 not 38,000 and I thought "Is this a `finish the game now` button"

I just played a game set to (IIRC) no quicksave, no revert, SCI 20% REP 10% FND 30% and I`ve `finished` it before I could get a probe to Duna. 500K in the bank 1200SCI spare and I never know what my rep is, it`s just always a little bar.

My main problem is, by the time you get the tech to enable you to go interplanetary, you have unlocked so much of the tree that there is no need to go interplanetary...

EDIT : We also need some SERIOUSLY overpriced (funds and sci) parts and nodes for the later tiers.

That or a slider (logarithmic of course, meaning the later nodes get MUCH more expensive but the first few hardly change) to increase pricing

Or a good tech tree editor so we can set them ourselves

Edited November 14, 2014 by John FX

[Talavar]

This says to me that 10% should be getting close to the maximum setting (being 1 sci=400 funds or so)

I must admit that I thought you got 1 sci for every 38,462 funds and thought "Well I end up with millions, it must be designed for later in the game. Maybe you are only meant to get 1000 science this way total?`

Then realised it was 38 not 38,000 and I thought "Is this a `finish the game now` button"

I just played a game set to (IIRC) no quicksave, no revert, SCI 20% REP 10% FND 30% and I`ve `finished` it before I could get a probe to Duna. 500K in the bank 1200SCI spare and I never know what my rep is, it`s just always a little bar.

My main problem is, by the time you get the tech to enable you to go interplanetary, you have unlocked so much of the tree that there is no need to go interplanetary...

That is exactly what it is.. A "You Win" button. lol

[Treldon]

Based on how you all explained the situation, the issue with the strategies is real.

I am playing my first playthrough. I have only used the rep->sci strategy on 40%, nothing with funds, because I was afraid of running out of funds - so I am recovering all the stages I can, etc.

Right now I am st the point that I have unlocked most of the tech tree, only the last tier is left, but I don't have much left to so on Kerbin. Current Contracts are all for Minmus, Duna, etc, no test contracts....and I have more than 6 million (or just 600k? not much difference) in funds, so I guess I managed to save a bit

At this time I have two choice

- I can do some real exploration by going to the other bodies

or

- I can mess around KSC, because even without special strategies there is enough science to be had to finish a couple more researches

I am trying to run something of a realist gameplay - okay, the difficulty is between Easy and Moderate, with Revert, Quicksave and indestructible buildings, but there are reasons for that

Revert: first time with the game. If every design I built were to fail, it would ruin the game and I would not play it. And since I have no way to test the designs (no wind tunnel or anything) all I have is to launch, see how it turns out and take notes from the failures.

Now if it is something like a simple test contract, who cares. C'est la vie

But if it were to be a big mission with half my funds in it, and it blew up on the launchpad because of a bug I haven't even heard of before? Of course I will revert

Quicksave: same as last sentence, really

Buildings: Yes, buildings can collapse when hit by moving craft. We have all seen at least one nasty IRL example

But really, who would build their launchpad, from which they plan to launch an interplanetary vessel, within a couple hundred meters of the rest of the center? Or build only one pad, which is so flimsy it will blow up from a sneeze? No thanks. We have the money (earned through hard work), we build for eternity. Might not be the most kerbal thing, but one has to make compromises

As for the sandbox being the learning tool, perhaps it is, though it feels more like the testing ground for new designs.

A new player - as mentioned before - sees all those parts and has no idea how to do anything. The learning curve for the first (perhaps even second) playthrough is perfectly set by the science tree (unless of course it is ruined by unbalanced strategies)

So overall, the difficulty settings by themselves can probably be used to set you up with the game experience you want. Strategies on the other hand are not

[foxkill2342]

Try some reputation strategies, that will balance it out (and trash your reputation).

[quantumpion]

I didn't realize the goal of career mode was to simply unlock the tech tree and you complete/beat/finish/win the game by doing so.

[Talavar]

I didn't realize the goal of career mode was to simply unlock the tech tree and you complete/beat/finish/win the game by doing so.

You're missing the point. There is no incremental increase. It's more like BAM! MAX TREE! There is nothing to look forward to in that department anymore. anyway, I've found what was mentioned earlier in setting it to what I deem is "correct/better" Ill paste it here.

1: go into your KSP folder and locate the strategies folder.

2: open strategies folder and edit strategies CFG (open with notepad or something similar)

3: Find this strategy:

name = OutsourcedResearchCfg

4: Find these lines under it (highlighted in blue):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

name = OutsourcedResearchCfg

title = Outsourced R&D

desc = Why do all the data-crunching ourselves when we can contract external research labs to help us process the data we receive. These services aren't exactly cheap, but their R&D facilities are very impressive.

department = Science

icon = Squad/Strategies/Icons/OutsourcedResearch

groupTag = Basic,C

minLeastDuration = 60

maxLeastDuration = 100

minLongestDuration = 1200

maxLongestDuration = 1600

requiredReputationMin = -500

requiredReputationMax = 750

initialCostFundsMin = 8150.0

initialCostFundsMax = 170000.0

initialCostReputation = 0.0

initialCostScience = 0.0

hasFactorSlider = True

factorSliderDefault = 0.05

factorSliderSteps = 20

EFFECT

{

name = CurrencyConverter

input = Funds

output = Science

minShare = 0.0

maxShare = 1.0

minRate = 0.027778

maxRate = 0.0347

// ignore income from recovery, because funds recovered were ours to begin with, therefore not income

AffectReasons = ContractReward, ContractAdvance

effectDescription = Income

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5: Change those lines by 1 decimal point (or more if you want it ridiculously hard)

So minRate = 0.027778 Would become minRate = 0.0027778

maxRate = 0.0347 Would become maxRate = 0.00347

6: close and save.. boot Ksp. (Note): I did this without already having any Administrative perks active in game. If you do, I'd shut them off before changing this (just in case))

This will change the amount you are allowed to get per mission to 10% of what it normally is. Which seems pretty balanced to me in my game.

Have fun guys!

PS: Im not responsible for anything you mess up if you do this and change the wrong stuff.. This is all on you.

[Wanderfound]

It's interesting how they made such an incredible engine for space simulation, with better-than-acceptable-realistic physics, good graphics, newbie friendly things like maneuver nodes and easy interface, interesting green guys that make you feel comfortable to sandbox around and explode things, and many other amazing stuff that makes KSP as awesome as it is, but at the same time they (in my opinion) failed so hard at basic game design when it comes to resources, progress, reward loop, etc. I wish they started science mode, tech tree and resource management from scratch

...because all of that is game-balance and final-polish stuff that they've always stated is going to be left for after scope completion (i.e. after .90 comes out in a few months). And this is for sensible reasons: there's no point in expending a lot of effort into balancing the tech tree before the parts list, funds and science-gathering systems are finalised, because you'll just end up having to repeat the job after you do.

The game development so far has been about reaching scope completion; i.e., making sure that all of the necessary ingredients are in the cupboard. Now that that is just about done, it's time to bake and decorate the cake. The oven is warming up right now.

[samstarman5]

...because all of that is game-balance and final-polish stuff that they've always stated is going to be left for after scope completion (i.e. after .90 comes out in a few months). And this is for sensible reasons: there's no point in expending a lot of effort into balancing the tech tree before the parts list, funds and science-gathering systems are finalised, because you'll just end up having to repeat the job after you do.

The game development so far has been about reaching scope completion; i.e., making sure that all of the necessary ingredients are in the cupboard. Now that that is just about done, it's time to bake and decorate the cake. The oven is warming up right now.

It is interesting how this point is missed so often by players of an early access game. And it is sadly an argument that early access is a bad idea, because it allows so much negative input that can derail the game in itself. The developers take on certain ideas, and then get assaulted with complaints of how the gamers are being ignored. There is not going to be any unanimous agreement on any single feature, but there will always be a self-entitled opinion that what one gamer thinks then all should think so. And that is such a wrong position to have, especially from those who have zero experience in developing a game of even this magnitude. Maybe you have computer experience, and maybe you have been to college for computer science or videogame development. That does not give you the badge to say you are right and Squad is wrong. It does give you the opportunity to give constructive criticism(which is being done in this thread), and to give ideas which may or may not be adopted(which also have been presented). In the end, whatever Squad does will be done. To sit and sulk because it doesn't fit your own image is petty and selfish. To present an alternative to those who might share that thought, through mods, is constructive and forward-thinking.

There has been plenty of arguments to both sides of this matter, enough to say that maybe there is credence to both, and also enough to say that perhaps the current formula should be kept or at least not changed so drastically that those who are enjoying it end up thrown to the curb. KSP should not become so insanely difficult that it discourages new players. We should remember that there should always be room for new players to the game, and they, like us, should be able to find their own way at learning the game's mechanics through tutorials, practice, or even mods. Those who argue only for tutorials for new players should stop and think how they would feel if that was the only way to gain entrance into the game. Yes, it can be a great help, but not all of us function that way. There are plenty of us, like me, who are more hands-on than that, who want to jump into the pilot's seat and go. And KSP is made for that. Failure has always been an option in this space program, and it is not right that that should be taken away from future players of the game. In the end, even with career and science mode, KSP is a simulator sandbox. There is no wrong or right way to play the game, in whatever mode you choose. Granted, career does demand a bit more from you but there is still no one way to achieve many of the opportunities. One should be able to choose to explore all of Kerbin first and then have the solar system at their fingertips. Or one can get out into space and explore all of the Mun to achieve all their tools. The tech tree does not have to be the game timeline. It doesn't have to represent chapters in a story progression, with the final tier being endgame. It can merely be chapter one, or the first part of your own storyboard, with plenty left yet to achieve. If it was going to be anything less with a stricter form of progression, then they may as well have sold the idea to TellTale Games. (Which is a fine company, but not one known for open worlds of this scope)

There is actually nothing wrong with tweaking administration options to be a little less generous, but they should not be constrained to a point where the game becomes a grind for a player looking to get somewhere. When the game hits release and work turns to expansions and such, mods will still be possible. The likes of Hard mod(e) will still be available to add to your game for that extra pinch in your difficulty. There will also be the option at just not using the administrators at all. It won't hurt their feelings if you don't, and you will be able to launch your space program with no help from anybody. It will be difficult, but it will still be possible.

Let's keep this game crazy as it is, allow for accidents galore and keep opportunities open for all to experience KSP how they want to. Cheers!

[Talavar]

It is interesting how this point is missed so often by players of an early access game. And it is sadly an argument that early access is a bad idea, because it allows so much negative input that can derail the game in itself. The developers take on certain ideas, and then get assaulted with complaints of how the gamers are being ignored. There is not going to be any unanimous agreement on any single feature, but there will always be a self-entitled opinion that what one gamer thinks then all should think so. And that is such a wrong position to have, especially from those who have zero experience in developing a game of even this magnitude. Maybe you have computer experience, and maybe you have been to college for computer science or videogame development. That does not give you the badge to say you are right and Squad is wrong. It does give you the opportunity to give constructive criticism(which is being done in this thread), and to give ideas which may or may not be adopted(which also have been presented). In the end, whatever Squad does will be done. To sit and sulk because it doesn't fit your own image is petty and selfish. To present an alternative to those who might share that thought, through mods, is constructive and forward-thinking.

There has been plenty of arguments to both sides of this matter, enough to say that maybe there is credence to both, and also enough to say that perhaps the current formula should be kept or at least not changed so drastically that those who are enjoying it end up thrown to the curb. KSP should not become so insanely difficult that it discourages new players. We should remember that there should always be room for new players to the game, and they, like us, should be able to find their own way at learning the game's mechanics through tutorials, practice, or even mods. Those who argue only for tutorials for new players should stop and think how they would feel if that was the only way to gain entrance into the game. Yes, it can be a great help, but not all of us function that way. There are plenty of us, like me, who are more hands-on than that, who want to jump into the pilot's seat and go. And KSP is made for that. Failure has always been an option in this space program, and it is not right that that should be taken away from future players of the game. In the end, even with career and science mode, KSP is a simulator sandbox. There is no wrong or right way to play the game, in whatever mode you choose. Granted, career does demand a bit more from you but there is still no one way to achieve many of the opportunities. One should be able to choose to explore all of Kerbin first and then have the solar system at their fingertips. Or one can get out into space and explore all of the Mun to achieve all their tools. The tech tree does not have to be the game timeline. It doesn't have to represent chapters in a story progression, with the final tier being endgame. It can merely be chapter one, or the first part of your own storyboard, with plenty left yet to achieve. If it was going to be anything less with a stricter form of progression, then they may as well have sold the idea to TellTale Games. (Which is a fine company, but not one known for open worlds of this scope)

There is actually nothing wrong with tweaking administration options to be a little less generous, but they should not be constrained to a point where the game becomes a grind for a player looking to get somewhere. When the game hits release and work turns to expansions and such, mods will still be possible. The likes of Hard mod(e) will still be available to add to your game for that extra pinch in your difficulty. There will also be the option at just not using the administrators at all. It won't hurt their feelings if you don't, and you will be able to launch your space program with no help from anybody. It will be difficult, but it will still be possible.

Let's keep this game crazy as it is, allow for accidents galore and keep opportunities open for all to experience KSP how they want to. Cheers!

There is some merit to this, but you have to keep in mind that there is Sandbox.. pretty much jump in and go It's what it's there for..(science not so much). The career path should present a challenge, which it lacks as it currently stands... However, a few of us have modified the CFG file to 10% of the current.. seems pretty solid. I expect beta will be somewhere along those lines.. Yes, we know its just alpha. But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be a challenge for those who are looking for one. Especially when all it requires to make it balanced is to add two 0's in the cfg! Before altering it, I unlocked the whole tree in 3 flights! (edit) actually as it stands, It's harder to unlock things in Science mode than career.. something wrong there!

Edited November 15, 2014 by Talavar

[ArmchairGravy]

Holy cats. Another one of these threads? If you think a game mechanic makes the game too easy then don't use the mechanic. It really is that simple. I've ground out the tree enough times so it's nice to be able to deploy a strategy that allows me to blow through it.

[Talavar]

Holy cats. Another one of these threads? If you think a game mechanic makes the game too easy then don't use the mechanic. It really is that simple. I've ground out the tree enough times so it's nice to be able to deploy a strategy that allows me to blow through it.

But that makes an aspect of the game completely worthless. Basically a waste of time. However it's fixable within the configuration file. 1% of it's current is a pretty good fix for normal mode. It keeps you from unlocking everything in 3 flights. and stretches it out to about 40. The mid game missions still pay out a good bit of science, even scaled at 1% .. If you scale the science to funds ratio to 1 to 1000$, it makes up for it. Then you can sell your science for a decent amount when you don't need it anymore to still have that sandbox feel at endgame. Seems to be working great so far after 2 days of play.. I still have over 1/2 the tree unlocked, but it wasn't so fast that it felt like a cheat. I'm comfortable at the current rate I've set it to. Of-course this is all in how you like to play the game. If your the sandbox type, you can leave it at it's norm and unlock everything almost instantly. I suppose tuning it may be more for the realism players, like myself.

[waterlubber]

I looked at it and thought, meh, I might need funds later...

after at least 12 interplanetary missions, 18 years into my career save, I set the contact to 20%, completed a testing contract, and completed every thing tp-tier 1000 node I had available.

My idea is:

TOO OP, PLZ NERF

[bitbucket]

Oh look, it's this thread again. Yeah, the one where someone realizes not everyone plays the game in the same way, then comes to the conclusion that they are all DOING IT WRONG and that this MUST BE STOPPED. Any game that's successful enough eventually becomes victim to a Broken Fanbase.

Yes, there are options that make the game easier or harder. You don't have to use them. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do things their way (or at least I certainly hope not). Options are good, and optional. Play it your way.

Edited November 17, 2014 by bitbucket

[Poryy]

I agree that it is OP and unintended by the devs.

....Therefore I exploit the hell out of it.

[Flight]

Oh look, it's this thread again. Yeah, the one where someone realizes not everyone plays the game in the same way, then comes to the conclusion that they are all DOING IT WRONG and that this MUST BE STOPPED. Any game that's successful enough eventually becomes victim to a Broken Fanbase.

Yes, there are options that make the game easier or harder. You don't have to use them. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do things their way (or at least I certainly hope not). Options are good, and optional. Play it your way.

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.

[metl]

So you've unlocked the whole tree. Good for you. Now actually try to pay for it using those same three missions. You can't do it. The mainsail is what? $60,000 funds? Something like that, just to unlock it. If it is too easy, play at a harder difficulty level. This game has options galore for making it easier or harder. I play on hard, and a couple of mistakes when trying to reach the Mun can empty my funds. The last thing i am going to do is commit 50% to science, because even if I unlock the tree, there is no way I can afford all of it.

[SorryDave]

I recommend another strategy and maybe convert science to funds instead of a nerf.

After all, what is the reward for completing the tech tree early? Completing the tree does not make it easier to go anywhere, you just need fuel lines and solar panels. It does not end career mode when completed.