Sign in to follow this  
Aethon

Reddit post from HarvesteR

Recommended Posts

I'll take it! It lets us know he at least considering that there is a perceived problem that some people want to start with planes before rockets. Even if nothing comes of it, he's thinking of it.

EDIT: Also this is exciting.

but really, after the new update is out, it's likely that this issue will become much less of an issue than it is now... just wait and see :)
Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It lets us know he at least considering that there is a perceived problem that some people want to start with planes before rockets.

Where does he mention this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll take it! It lets us know he at least considering that there is a perceived problem that some people want to start with planes before rockets. Even if nothing comes of it, he's thinking of it.

EDIT: Also this is exciting.

but really, after the new update is out, it's likely that this issue will become much less of an issue than it is now... just wait and see

It is... it is indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does he mention this?

Right here. He talks about selecting a field of research, I would interpret that as rockets, planes, etc.

I have to say I do like the science suggestion though, maybe not necessarily in the same way you described it, but it might be an interesting idea to, instead of purchasing techs with previously acquired science, to have to first select a field to research, which will then require a certain amount of science to be earned to complete its research. I've seen other games that do this, and it does work well as a more 'directed' tech unlock system. Mind though, that it is also much more 'grindy', and requires you to really focus on researching each specific node. But the finer details of that are adjustable through balancing. It's not a bad idea if you replace the requirement of waiting with a requirement for new Data.
Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not seeing anything on planes :)

It's a technique called reading between the lines. Don't worry, not everyone is skilled at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those opportunities for inventiveness would be lost if we only had one wing section you can bend and twist to make any wing

Let's just say that I fundamentally disagree with that. There is nothing stopping people from making weird contraptions with multiple dynamic parts the same way they make weird contraptions with multiple static parts. What currently limits opportunities for inventiveness is more so a lack of detail by the simulation than too much freedom, right now there is no thinking involved with making a wing in the game, practically any configuration will give the same results. And as such the base game has no real need for the detail dynamic parts allow in this case.

When it comes to customizing pods, engines and so on the game is however more susceptible to allowing the users more freedom to make the smaller detail choices dynamic parts allow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's just say that I fundamentally disagree with that. There is nothing stopping people from making weird contraptions with multiple dynamic parts the same way they make weird contraptions with multiple static parts. What currently limits opportunities for inventiveness is more so a lack of detail by the simulation than too much freedom, right now there is no thinking involved with making a wing in the game, practically any configuration will give the same results. And as such the base game has no real need for the detail dynamic parts allow in this case.

When it comes to customizing pods, engines and so on the game is however more susceptible to allowing the users more freedom to make the smaller detail choices dynamic parts allow.

I can see both ways personally. I like piecing together wings for example, the stock wings and the B9 wings are preferable for me. I do however like what B9 has done, as well as the landing gear mod featured this week where you can alter the configuration aspects slightly to reduce overall part count and also change things without ripping apart the entire craft. I think there is a balancing point for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see both ways personally. I like piecing together wings for example, the stock wings and the B9 wings are preferable for me. I do however like what B9 has done, as well as the landing gear mod featured this week where you can alter the configuration aspects slightly to reduce overall part count and also change things without ripping apart the entire craft. I think there is a balancing point for me.

That's my hope with the new gizmos they will be releasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I do not have a reddit account....

@HarvesteR

On the life support issue , you are being somewhat hypocritical. We already have a feature in game that we start with low non renewable supplies of and that the tech advancement gives first bigger supplies of and later generators of it : electricity. Unless you are planning to remove electricity of the game because it "would become a chore where you'd have to babysit all your ongoing crews as your newest mission speeds its way out to the outer solar system" to avoid depleted electrical charge issues, that excuse is not a excuse ( not saying that your point about feature creep is not right, though ... but this bit about life support is not supported by your own previous actions ). Oh and as we are speaking of electricity, how about a fuel cell part, that burns LF and O and produces electrical charge and zero thrust ? ;)

On your point against randomness, well , I'm thorn. I do understand your argument and while i do not disagree with it completely, I do not see how balancing the issue of parts with different reliabilities is any different of choosing between a LV-909 and a 48-7S.: simple risk management, not different of any of the cost benefits analysis we already do in game, even if unconsciously. And beware : you are making a game that has a strong group of science educated players, that can easily understand that kind of argument against using randomness as you assuming they are so limited they can't stomach randomness. Believe me: I've seen other developers going that way and it is not a path you want to go ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy with Harvs response. I agree with random failures. I'm not touching it! Imagine getting to laythe only to have a decoupler fail! I would probably ragequit the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be fine if it were just a difficulty setting, but it's not. You would have to include all the parts for maintaining it, not only would the devs have to spend time making them, it would eat resources for a rather divisive feature.

How much time did they spend animating and hyping the destructible buildings?

And you may say "well that was a side effect of implementing another feature"

Guess what, so is life support: create a method to allow resources to be generated or consumed while a ship is on rails so I don't have to sit and wait for fuel to be generated in your "deep space refueling feature". Apply that to life support. The end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They mean that life support requires a lot of new systems to add to the game, and these would have to be tested and balanced. It would not add enough gameplay past the current ones, fuel+electric+science etc. So for now, it's waaaaaaay down on the priority list, possibly under "not sure if it will even be fun or too complicated to manage".

So they are concentrating in other areas, right now adding more of the "sim" to the space centre. I'm sure they will go back to other mechanics (atmosphere, heat shields etc) when the rest is finished. They mentioned new and better atmospheres is definitely in the list. With heat shielding depending on the difficulty curve and gameplay changes (I would guess, just like life support, if it's too difficult/complex it may be dropped for something else or entirely).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread re-opened. The suggestions and development discussion-type posts have been moved here. Go there to continue with that, or carry on here to discuss the Reddit post!

Edited by technicalfool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thread re-opened. The suggestions and development discussion-type posts have been moved here. Go there to continue with that, or carry on here to discuss the Reddit post!

No offense man but you should read the reddit post before moving posts that were about stuff he said in it. The first one you moved was specifically in reference to Harvesters last paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's just say that I fundamentally disagree with that. There is nothing stopping people from making weird contraptions with multiple dynamic parts the same way they make weird contraptions with multiple static parts. What currently limits opportunities for inventiveness is more so a lack of detail by the simulation than too much freedom, right now there is no thinking involved with making a wing in the game, practically any configuration will give the same results. And as such the base game has no real need for the detail dynamic parts allow in this case.

When it comes to customizing pods, engines and so on the game is however more susceptible to allowing the users more freedom to make the smaller detail choices dynamic parts allow.

100% agree with this..., I don't get that loose of opportunities. I made a cup using DYJ procedural wings. no way I could do that with fixed parts!!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the content of the reddit post:

The lead in comment regarding the community being split in multiple directions regarding various proposed changes is clearly a symptom of poor expectation management. In the NON KSP world, Business change requires that all stakeholders either fully support the changes or at the very least are not actively campaigning against it. Difficult to fully address with 100k stakeholders (!) however, throwing nearly completed ideas in the forum-space and expecting support is ludicrous (not in the Rap context). If it is the intention and desire of the Dev team to garner and assure higher levels of support for proposed changes then the "Game-feature/change conceptualisation and pre-production lifecycle" should be assessed for opportunities to open up earlier dialogues around significant changes. Lesson learned on the Kerbal experience bit. (I do this kind of this for a living, transforming business processes and managing strategic and tactical change so I have a higher than basic understanding of the complications here)

Concerning the "action" of reddit posting (not the content but rather the communication channel)... In the forum navigation bar we see Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Youtube. I would have NEVER known about Harv's comments without this thread - How many other social media channels are not linked in the forum nav bar? The UX for KSP is rather ok, but the UX for the KSP community not so much - referencing the above comment, this constitutes a high potential failure point in the "Change communications" process.

All that said, in regards to the technical description Harv posted, I tend to agree and support his logic.

(Now... watch while we land on this here comet thingy...)

Edited by Wallygator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right here. He talks about selecting a field of research, I would interpret that as rockets, planes, etc.

Sorry I don't see it. It says nothing about the tree, just something akin to different types of science currency or something. It's a real shame that he didn't address the very first point in that post. The tech tree is abysmal.

Now this here:

Some players absolutely love parts of the game that other players absolutely dislike. And weird though that may seem at first, it's actually pretty great to have it like that. It means KSP truly is a game that has something for everyone.

That's some serious spin worthy of a politician. Is that really were we're headed? It doesn't mean there's something for everyone. It means there's something to hate for everyone. That's not a good thing. Honestly I'm a little offended.

however, throwing nearly completed ideas in the forum-space and expecting support is ludicrous (not in the Rap context). If it is the intention and desire of the Dev team to garner and assure higher levels of support for proposed changes then the "Game-feature/change conceptualisation and pre-production lifecycle" should be assessed for opportunities to open up earlier dialogues around significant changes.

Thanks for putting my feelings into words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a technique called reading between the lines. Don't worry, not everyone is skilled at it.

I read that as "you'll pick a tech node on the current tech tree, and then get science points until it's unlocked. Then you'll pick another one.

You're not reading between the lines. You're drawing lines of your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one further point...

As snipped from the reddit...

Harvester types: "As for random failure events. This is one idea I'm very much against. It's something we designed out of the game on the very earliest design docs nearly 4 years ago now. The moment you (the player) realize that a failure happened through no fault of your own,..."

I would suggest here that Reliability and Risk are two CORE concepts in space systems which if ignored lead to a highly unrealistic perspective of the whole systems view of managing a space program.

Reliability should be fully under the control of the player (and any decision to ignore it) If a player does not put enough science and/or testing contracts behind the final unlocking of a part then there should be in increased change of mishap when using that part. A player selects the desired reliability level based on the amount of risk they are willing to take. For example: If you select a low reliability ion engine for a probe to Eeloo and it fails to operate then what is surprising about that?

OK, make it part of the difficulty settings - I'm fine with that - "brutally hard mode".

So on that specific point, I must respectfully disagree with Harvester. I recommend a requirements change control be initiated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read that as "you'll pick a tech node on the current tech tree, and then get science points until it's unlocked. Then you'll pick another one.

This is also how I read it. There seemed to be a slight science cost connected with picking a research node too from what I read.

"The idea of having to wait a certain amount of time to research a node wouldn't work, because what's to stop you from simply warping ahead to skip the wait?"

I`m currently playing with Kerbal Construction Time which makes you wait for nodes you unlock so I can answer that question. You can put upgrade points into that so they get unlocked faster too. It does it well and it does it in a way that enhances gameplay. I don`t feel the urge to warp to node completion because my ships take time to build which provides pace. Without pace there is no reason at all to not warp to node unlock. Now is the same as 30 days from now. While there is nothing stopping me, the game mechanics are designed to make it not appealing. i`d rather launch and get craft in position for my next mission. Earn money from company satellite launches or ground research etc etc.

Having craft take time to build also helps to provide pace and removes that big gap between your last Minmus/Mun mission and your first Duna/Eve mission. You don`t get the feeling of `Come on, I`m waiting` that makes you warp to the next thing that will happen, you have stuff happening.

This is what there is to stop you Harvester. Better paced game mechanics.

People only warp to `the next thing that will happen` so don`t make `the next thing that will happen` be years into the future or that is the point people will warp to...

I completely agree with the rest of the post though. No life support, no random failures and procedural parts given consideration before implementation but not ruled out.

IMHO Procedural fairings are a no brainer though. They don`t change physics or flight profiles (unlike proc pods/engines/wings/fuel tanks) and add a lot to the game.

EDIT : I would not object to random failures as an option for the insane ;) I`d prefer gradual wear to be implemented so that after a year in space your batteries only had 80% capacity or your NTG was at 90% output.

I would also be supportive of partially unlocked nodes where you get the part but it is not at full capacity until you do further research on the node to bring the part to 100%

Edited by John FX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reliability should be fully under the control of the player (and any decision to ignore it) If a player does not put enough science and/or testing contracts behind the final unlocking of a part then there should be in increased change of mishap when using that part. A player selects the desired reliability level based on the amount of risk they are willing to take. For example: If you select a low reliability ion engine for a probe to Eeloo and it fails to operate then what is surprising about that?

So long as every single part has a way to get 100% reliability out of it, I'm cool with this. However I'm in the same camp has HarvesteR, I don't want my Jool 5 mission to fail after 40 hours of gameplay because the internal D100 rolled double 0's and a critical piece of the return craft failed in a totally unfixable way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with DYJ, I don't think having a massive list of parts of different sizes but with similar textures makes any sense. I don't see how implementing something like Procedural Wings/Parts negatively affects the game in any way. Why would I use 3 fuel tanks with one that's half full instead of having one that's exactly the size I need? Same goes for wings, PWings allows for a lot more innovation since you can literally make them any shape you want, doing that with stock will make it look ugly from all the joints and places they just don't fit together. I know Squad doesn't want realism in KSP, but seriously who makes wings out of other wings?

The great thing about KSP though is that squad seems to be endorsing mods and as long as that's happening, everyone can play the game they want (or close to).

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