Devnote Tuesdays: The "Welcome Back" Edition

[Alshain]

Are you guys talking to ferram4? Because you should be. If you don't, you'll be making one of the biggest mistakes of KSPs development. None of you have remotely the level of knowledge on the subject as ferram4 does. If, for some reason, you decline to take any advice or help he gives, can you please not lock the code down so much that it kills FAR? Read this:

In bac9s words: please don't do this.

Nothing I have ever seen from SQUAD makes me believe they are so careless as to permanently break a mod as popular as FAR. They know FAR exists, they know people will want to continue using it (unless they just implement it outright). People are getting just a little bit too worried about this.

SQUAD is not flawless but they also aren't Electronic Arts.

That said, I do support them talking to ferram4. even if they have to code the overhaul themselves he can provide a lot of insight.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Alshain

[Rakaydos]

Are you guys talking to ferram4? Because you should be. If you don't, you'll be making one of the biggest mistakes of KSPs development. None of you have remotely the level of knowledge on the subject as ferram4 does. If, for some reason, you decline to take any advice or help he gives, can you please not lock the code down so much that it kills FAR? Read this:

In bac9s words: please don't do this.

In the interest of getting the same kind of chorus the barn got, i support SQUAD talking to Ferram for aerodynamics.

[basic.syntax]

KSP is "realism lite" - I imagine the Aero overhaul will try to strike a hard balance, over the course of many spirited discussions in the office, between "more realistic" (but not reach as far as FAR,) and still be accessible, simplified... similar to how KSP orbital physics only considers the gravity effects of the current planet/moon sphere of influence on your ship.

- - - Updated - - -

.90 features trailer, with KasperVld's .90 playlist

[Nemrav]

Sadly I don't quite fit the moderator requirements, namely in the age departement

[tuckjohn]

I made a suggestion a while back in a discussion on the old plane parts like this. Keep using the bigger old parts and put fuel in them. Newer thinner wings wouldnt have fuel. So we could still have both.

This is a great idea...for a mod. KSP is aimed to be simple and having 3 pages of wings is far from simple.

SQUAD is not flawless but they also aren't Electronic Arts.

Nicely said. Very nicely said.

[Kerano]

Welcome back Squad! Sounds like you're all well rested and ready to get back into it.

Ted (Ted): I’ve been assigned the responsibility of balancing out the game, this includes finer things such as part config values (engine stats) as well as contract rewards and advances. Understandably, it’s a pretty monstrous task, so I’m whittling it all down into prioritized changes that we can make while planning and discussing the grander changes and refinements to be made. All-in-all, this is going to be a great new year! Hope you’re all looking forward to it as much as us.

Great news! A few suggestions for simple balance tweaks:

Admin

- Balance Funds to Science strategy: ~750 funds to 1 science (currently too powerful)

- Balance Science to Funds strategy: 1 science to ~500 funds (currently too weak)

Contracts

- Don't offer unprofitable contracts: Part test rewards in particular should at minimum cover the cost of the part plus a bonus

- Increase most part test rewards by 5-10x to be more in line with Fine Print contract rewards

- Gravity scans of Jool should pay out ~2x current value ($1,000,000+)

- Satellite contracts in low orbits around Jool should pay out ~2x current value ($1,000,000+)

- Satellite contracts in low orbits around the Sun should pay out ~10x current value ($2,500,000+)

- Class D/E asteroid redirect contracts to other planets/moons should pay out ~2x current value ($5,000,000+)

- Don't show class D/E asteroid redirect missions before at least one successful class A/B redirect mission

- Don't offer asteroid redirect missions to a new planet/moon before at least one other contract has been completed at that planet/moon

- "Explore new planet/moon" contracts should be heavily prioritized when appropriate conditions are met (I couldn't reliably get them to generate after Duna and Eve)

Continued here.

[KrazyKrl]

Welcome back Squad! Sounds like you're all well rested and ready to get back into it.

Great news! A few suggestions for simple balance tweaks:

(Snip...)

Continued here.

The contracts bit sounds amazing, but the administrative strategies are a little lame to say the least. As a placeholder, they work. But the current strategies are very flat for gameplay, for something as quintessential as the Administration Building.

I have a thread here about it...

(Repeated again for posterity).

This gives me an idea of how to rework the mediocre implementation of the administration building, and its strategies.

Of course, contract chains would be amazing when they are added; it's only inevitable with the current progression of KSP.

Strategies as they stand should not be tied to contract reward modifiers. Contracts should just reward their base, getting bonus science from them should be tacked onto the mission; possibly with extra experiments adding onto a "bonus science" section of the contract(along with the science you gain from the experiment itself.) Science/rep/funds would not be converted automatically via a strategy.

I believe that the Administration building should, well, function administratively.

The new admin building would have strategies for something like milestone research. The admin building would now denote contract prerequisites (along with milestones.) This would limit the tech tree a bit, and limit where your science points can go to some extent.

Rocket Structure and Staging

Aerospace and Flight

Data Acquisition and Transmission

Orbital Mechanics

Terrestrial Activities

Manned Operations

Unmanned Operations

Space Center Operations

Rendezvous and Docking

Now, the catch is... The new strategies contain a subset of R&D technologies, which after you gain X amount of science while having the strategy active; allows you to spend your science points in technology of your choosing, that is in the activated Strategy subtype. Tying KSC building upgrade prerequisites into the R&D tree limited by how much progression you have in a specific strategy would be neat too (of course you need the funds to purchase the upgrade for your facility buildings themselves.)

[basic.syntax]

The balance task is huge, because so much has been added to the game. The science tree in .90 is now much easier to fill out, with biomes on every planet, plus Fine Print contract rewards. I think the items could be spread out into more and smaller groups - not necessarily moving any items into a new, higher science tier.

[FlowerChild]

No offense to Ted intended, but man, this has to be the first time I've ever seen a game company assign balancing a whole game to QA.

I think Squad may be grossly underestimating the amount of effort required and what a crucial step in the game's development that represents.

[Linear]

No offense to Ted intended, but man, this has to be the first time I've ever seen a game company assign balancing a whole game to QA.

I think Squad may be grossly underestimating the amount of effort required and what a crucial step in the game's development that represents.

Really not that difficult. Most balancing issues already have their own threads, it'll take a couple weeks sure but most are hideously obvious.

[FlowerChild]

Really not that difficult. Most balancing issues already have their own threads, it'll take a couple weeks sure but most are hideously obvious.

That's entirely dependent on what one thinks qualifies as "balanced".

As a guy that's been working on a mod that largely revolves around balancing the game for over a year now I think that the idea that one guy can magically balance it in a few weeks is a rather absurd one.

[NoMrBond]

No offense to Ted intended, but man, this has to be the first time I've ever seen a game company assign balancing a whole game to QA.

I think Squad may be grossly underestimating the amount of effort required and what a crucial step in the game's development that represents.

I think that Ted would be leading and curating the balance effort, rather than working in isolation on it

There are already [some exhaustive] community bodies of work on balance with their workings clearly laid out, or at worst a forum PM away.

It would surprise me if a few people with demonstrable interest in this area were not tapped for their input.

[Wjolcz]

Hope they make 3 different aeros to choose from, or make a semi-realistic one so that feels like NEAR. Not as soupy as stock, yet not as drastic as FAR.

What about fairings? I assume introducing procedural ones would keep the part count low, but the hard ones would challenge to make things fit in them. Honestly, Im a fan of non-procedural fairings. Maybe they could get their own tab so aero tab doesnt get additional pages?

[Superfluous J]

What about fairings? I assume introducing procedural ones would keep the part count low, but the hard ones would challenge to make things fit in them.

Squad has said no procedural anything, which makes me sad. It's less of an issue now that you can clip parts into your rockets so they fit in non-procedural fairings, but still. A lot of procedural things make sense and fairings is just one of them.

Maybe they could get their own tab so aero tab doesnt get additional pages?

Naaw, just put 'em in Utility

[John FX]

If they want to have anything close to a good aero model then fairings will be very much needed...

[tuckjohn]

The balance task is huge, because so much has been added to the game. The science tree in .90 is now much easier to fill out, with biomes on every planet, plus Fine Print contract rewards. I think the items could be spread out into more and smaller groups - not necessarily moving any items into a new, higher science tier.

I saw THIS about a better tech tree in the form of tons of nodes, with 1-3 parts per node. The idea is that you unlock the parts that you need, and there is not one single "staring node". So if you want to have an aircraft-oriented program, then you can spend all of your science on aircraft development, and not have to unlock rocket parts to do so, as you have to do with the current tech tree. Also, there are plane parts on the first teir of tech, so you can start to build planes very early(would be very helpful for the wright brothers challenge).

Then I clicked the link at the bottom (Links to this) and realized that someone is making a mod to actually make that in-game. I want that mod to be stock. I think that it will make the game much more fun to play.

Devs, I would really recommend getting into contact with the guy that is making the mod and talk to him about incorporating that into version 0.91

[FlowerChild]

I saw THIS about a better tech tree in the form of tons of nodes, with 1-3 parts per node.

I think more nodes is one of the last things the tech tree needs, unless a lot of additional part mods are integrated.

Why I say this is because there are actually not enough key functionality unlocks to even justify the number of nodes currently in the stock tree. So, what you'd wind up with are a lot more "useless" nodes where you aren't unlocking anything that actually makes a difference to how you can build stuff, just slight variations on the same theme.

You already get a lot of that with the stock tree where you wind up with "what do I want to buy next? Whatever...doesn't matter anyways" decisions which I don't think add anything to gameplay, and rather take away from it. I strongly agree that the stock tree needs a massive overhaul, I just don't think more nodes solves anything, and that it would actually probably be better off with less.

[John FX]

I'd like it to be possible for nodes to be added and taken away by the user. I'd like to be able to click and drag parts and nodes in the tree editor. I'd like the 'tree' to not be forced into a tree shape. I'd like star shapes, straight line shapes, concentric circle shapes with rings of nodes. I'd like a tree to be savable, loadable, and shareable.

The things I would like for the tree make discussions about node numbers and part locations moot.

[Alshain]

I think more nodes is one of the last things the tech tree needs, unless a lot of additional part mods are integrated.

Why I say this is because there are actually not enough key functionality unlocks to even justify the number of nodes currently in the stock tree. So, what you'd wind up with are a lot more "useless" nodes where you aren't unlocking anything that actually makes a difference to how you can build stuff, just slight variations on the same theme.

You already get a lot of that with the stock tree where you wind up with "what do I want to buy next? Whatever...doesn't matter anyways" decisions which I don't think add anything to gameplay, and rather take away from it. I strongly agree that the stock tree needs a massive overhaul, I just don't think more nodes solves anything, and that it would actually probably be better off with less.

The link he is referring to sort of abolishes "nodes". Each node unlocks only one part with that design, presumably the science requirements are adjusted to fit that format. So your concern would be unwarranted in that case. I have some concerns about making it hard to follow but the dev says its easier than it seems, so we will see.

[FlowerChild]

The link he is referring to sort of abolishes "nodes". Each node unlocks only one part with that design, presumably the science requirements are adjusted to fit that format. So your concern would be unwarranted in that case.

That just emphasizes my concerns actually. I see that being about providing a ton more options at lower costs, but resulting in far less meaningful decisions for the player to make overall.

More decisions doesn't make for better or more interesting decisions. It usually just dilutes them into irrelevance for the player.

I understand what you guys are going for in making it about freedom of choice, but to me that's just heading in the direction of turning career into sandbox, whereas I see career being more about providing a more structured and balanced play experience for the player.

Edited January 9, 2015 by FlowerChild

[DuoDex]

lolwut

Je peux appliquer pour Moderator!?

[vexx32]

Probably a better idea to PM KasperVld directly, Duodex. And please; unless in the International section, keep messages in English.

[Guest]

Aerodynamics ... just make FAR stock ...

[asheft]

Aerodynamics ... just make FAR stock ...

I agree. I don't know why they aren't at least bringing in ferram4 as a consultant given that he has already produced two community liked aero overhauls...

[Wjolcz]

Aerodynamics ... just make FAR stock ...

Please no. I like my UI to be clear without any additional windows showing me if Im stalling or not. I'd rather prefer NEAR to be stock since it gives some sort of flexibility in designing aircrafts.