tater

Yeah, get into the capsule, and accelerate time. At 66km, the capsule WILL reenter.

I think my ideas are fairly rational, I was posting about "intuitive" more as a reply to a claim I was OT than anything else. If they are entirely OT, I'll take them elsewhere, I have no desire to mess up your thread . So far, it seems to me that most threads in this section of the forum disappear without much discussion, so a stickied thread on the tech tree seemed like a decent place to post about the tech tree as I think that discussion often produces novel solutions to problems as people feed off o new ideas, and think a little outside the box.

I don't even pay attention to funds, it's never an issue in my experience.

That image is pretty bad. It's likely a larval form, perhaps a cicada.

The SEES, LES, ACES and Sokol suits are for IVA, and orange to show up for rescue on earth.

Life support profoundly changes game difficulty, IMO. It also changes gameplay, but of all the basic "realism" mods, it's the only one that changes difficulty IMO. You need to think about discrete missions, or actually plan. Past Kerbin SoI becomes far more complex when you need a years LS. Rescue missions become time critical. I see that is "harder." Failures also increase difficulty. That's why going to the moon was difficult. The upper stages needed engines that would almost certainly function since any failure would be fatal, or require a backup system (even if improvised like Apollo 13) to function. I think the devs should really reevaluate failures. They think it would be frustrating, but having to extemporize solutions is FUN, and it provides a role for skills.

I'm not arguing for intuition, but the thread title is

I put this in the intuitive tech tree thread, and someone thought it was OT, but it seems more on topic here: An alternate paradigm: Example of play: 1. You take the "Explore the Mun" Contract. (you just did a "Get to Orbit" contract). 2. Go to the research facility, and pick the parts you think you want to complete that mission that you do not already have in your VAB. These would have a cost in funds, not science, and you are unlocking them for a contract, so they have a provisional marker of some kind for this process. 3. New "contracts" are now automatically generated (and accepted) for fully unlocking those parts. For example, in your upcoming Mun mission, you want the Mk1-2 pod, the Mk1 Landercan, the X200, Clamp-o-tron, and RCS parts. The test contracts might include "Test the Mk1-2 by reentering Kerbin atmosphere at 2200+ m/s after putting it in orbit." The clamp-o-tron might require a docking test (put 2 in orbit, and dock). The landercan might require landing a probe on the Mun (testing dust, yada, yada, yada). RCS might also require a docking event (could be done in 1 mission with the clamp-o-tron). After testing, THEN you buy the parts, and complete the "real" contract (which only becomes fully active after your parts are tested/unlocked. This would allow the player to drive his program from day one. There might be "build an SSTO spaceplane" contract, which then sets you on a path to test the various required parts, so you can build the plane and go... It could mitigate the requirement to "grind" science to get tech so you can do missions you want to do. This would have the player pick the missions, then work on the intermediate steps to get the tech to do the mission they want to do. The steps would be much the same, but it would have an intuitive path you'd be following. Why am I doing orbital missions that are just docking tests, and testing parachutes? Because I am testing spacecraft for getting to Duna, and chutes to land there... Science then is not a currency for parts (some science spending might be part of it, though). Science could perhaps be the currency you use to buy contracts. Since science is mostly planetary, your expertise convinces investigators to want your program to run their science missions to more distant (expensive) worlds.

It's only funny til he puts someone's eye out with that thing.

It's not off topic, IMO. Science is the only currency to buy tech, so the science system is very connected. The contract system is also quite entangled, so that is in the mix as well. Elements of the current contract system look rather a lot like what one would intuitively connect with engineering development (some of the parts testing contracts). An intuitive tech development system/tree should match what our guts tell us technology development is like in the real world (since our intuitions are not based on the game, otherwise the extant system is the way we should intuit engineering in KSP). I just can't see changing 1 of the 3 parts alone and getting anything more than a slightly different version of the same broken system. Based on pure intuition, I'd drop the number of nodes to just a few. If you have an engine, you'll have tanks for it at the same time. Much of the tech in game would appear almost simultaneously. My intuition is that NERVA and RTGs are late 1950s, early 1960s technologies that existed well before the Apollo CM. They are at the top of the tree now. Vanguard 1 (1958) was solar powered (so 1958 is level 5 in KSP?). If we move all early 1960s stuff to maybe the 2d tier, the tree is gonna have shallow roots To make it intuitive, that's what I would expect, that I'd have most of the tree done before thinking about the Mun. It makes more sense to order the stuff as you likely suggest, grouping related tech, but much would be simultaneous, and it does't change the game much if the player can land 1 mission and unlock the lot in one go anyway.

Yeah, what is needed is less "science as points," and more "science tells me information so I can do more interesting stuff." The bones is there with the skill system, and facilities affecting astronauts (upgrade for EVA), actually. Anyone can look up data on wiki, so there is little "fog if war" in KSP, but some stuff couple simply be disallowed (or made less rewarding) without doing things in the right order. You don't get the points to land on the Mun until you survey landing areas FIRST. There could be some contracts for probes that come before the "Explore X" contracts… and the latter only appear after the former is complete. So there is an earlier "send a probe to Duna" mission, that has milestones that need to be accomplished before the "Explore Duna" mission pops up.

Yeah, which is why the contract system could actually educate players without having to watch tutorials. It would be neat if the contract could include a picture at the top, click it, and it shows a whiteboard, and on that whiteboard is some crappy (kerbtastic!) drawing like the IVA post-it notes. You could have a quick and dirty diagram of when the best time for a Mun shot is, or whatever. I suggested something similar for the VAB regarding delta v for new players. As simple as a line drawing of a curved kerbin surface, and a rocket flight path curve with a rough altitude written at the top that shows how far it might go. once it hits orbital velocity for the craft, it would just draw a circle. Add more, and it might show lines to Mun and Minmus with a ? (meaning either), or Duna, whatever it might be able to go to. This gives the "no data" feel the devs seem to like, but some information for new players.

Complexity is gameplay. Complexity of choices. Walk out the front door of your office building at KSP. Collect science! Meh. That's the game now. Accept contract, click crew cabin, broadcast crew report, collect science. Meh. The cart is before the horse. Science as collected in KSP is heavily weighted towards planetary science. There is no possible way to rationalize around this. Planetary science has little to do with spaceflight engineering. For spacecraft design, you need not reach the Mun, just operate the engines the right amount of time, inhabit the capsule, learn how to dock. Either the science needs to be far more discipline specific (which will make much planetary science worthless from a reward standpoint), or unlocking nodes could be linked to more specific actions than "spend science." And all that doesn't bother with the fact that the cart is before the horse. You are tasked with landing Jeb on the MUn, THEN you figure out how to do it, and order the parts needed. An alternate paradigm: 1. Take "Explore the Mun" Contract. (you just did "Get to Orbit"). Contracts are perhaps unlocked BY SCIENCE (unsure, this just came to me, bear with me)... 2. Go to research, and pick the parts you think you want to complete that mission that you do not already have. 3. New "contracts" are generated for unlocking those parts. For example, You want the Mk1-2 pod, the Mk1 Landercan, the X200, Clamp-o-tron, and RCS parts. Contracts might include testing the Mk1-2 by reentering Kerbin atmosphere at 2200+ m/s after putting it in orbit. The clamp-o-tron might require a docking test (put 2 in orbit, and dock). The landercan might require landing a probe on the Mun (testing dust, yada, yada, yada). RCS might also require a docking event (both done in 1 mission). After testing, THEN you buy the parts, and complete the "real" contract. This would allow the player to drive his program from day one. There might be "build an SSTO spaceplane" contract, which then sets you on a path to test the various required parts, so you can build the plane and go... This would eliminate the requirement to "grind" science to get tech so you can do missions you want to do. This would have the player pick the missions, then work on the intermediate steps to get the tech to do the mission they want to do. The steps would be much the same, but it would have an intuitive path you'd be following. Why am I doing orbital missions, and testing parachutes? Because I am testing spacecraft for getting to Duna, and chutes to land there...

The contract system should explicitly point people to certain planetary missions when the launch windows from Kerbin are good. Instead of some arbitrary requirement like holds 18 kerbals, it should be "an ideal launch window is approaching for Duna on day 200, send a probe to gain science from Duna orbit." This would teach players where the windows are (you only need see the relative position once. A harder version of the same might be a sample return (manned or unmanned), and it might include the best window back to Kerbin.

I agree, the new contracts are mostly just more of the same, emphasis on the more part. Not only should they be progressive in some way, they should have internal steps that have an order. Ie: survey a certain area, which then marks areas of interest to get samples, etc. These would be counted up, and after a few are completed, you might then get a contract for more samples in one of the previous areas surveyed… THEN you get a contract to build a base in that area. In the base building series, the contract designer would obviously need to make such areas at least viable base locations (a flat spot to land a few km wide). Different companies might have different goals along those lines, so you'd end up with different progressions with different contract writers. Generally, I think the game should have a broad choice, right at the start of the game. One would be to be the "space program" (NASA/ESA), the other would be to be a private company (Orbital Sciences, SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc). The first choice might present you with a budget, though the current game is so time accelerated this would not work terribly well (you'd get a year's budget and do 10 years worth of launches in 2 months). In the KASA version I suppose substantial money could be awarded in advance by contract, but the contracts would be called "missions," and they would be "Achieve Orbital Spaceflight," "Explore the Mun," "Send a lander probe to Duna," etc. Some of the survey stuff would also be there, but maybe a different progression. The KASA version might force you to use stuff you might not want to, as well. You have to use brand X engines (because the CEO gave money to someone in government, or the factories are in the right congressional districts ).

He-3 might be useful at some point when we have fusion power. I guess we will know in a couple years if Lock-Mart is talking out their posteriors.

Oh yeah, forgot about that. That'd only turn it off for translation, then it uses both for attitude.

Stranded kerbals is a rick anyway. You have infinite as long as you reenter the capsule, but if you run out outside… you are stranded. They need to have just enough for 1 EVA per astronaut, plus one extra, maybe. So 2 EVAs for a mk1, 4 for a mk1-2, etc (unless you have an RCS tank, then as much as you have there). If they had kerbals drain the mono tank, maybe they could let them use RCS while grabbing (which would be a huge exploit right now).

I play in a window, so zero.

You can hold the f key while you are using RCS, as that kills SAS while held down, right?

Stranded kerbals are great, it just means a rescue op is required, and that;s already a stock thing anyway.

They are dictated by broken physics.

I've barely noticed FAR installed, but I don't make idiotic looking rockets. The idea that they shoud not fix the fact the game is broken because it encourages pancake rockets (which are rediculous) is pretty silly. Making them is simply exploiting the way the game is broken. One aspect of upgradable, destructible buildings is that perhaps they can allow them to be constructed someplace other than KSC. If so, you could make a VAB/launch facility on the Mun, and launch your pancakes from there.

I always forget about that. I am fine with going inside with the camera, as long as it isn't clipping… I'll try that.

Yep. I listened to kerbalcast for the first time in a while, and they were talking about how "hard" 0.90 was on career. I'm baffled. I don't revert or use quick saves except if there is a bug (I had a ship stick to the launchpad, and later got it aloft and the payload docked to a minmus station then stuck there, as well (after another one had all the radial parts explode). Anyway, I only revert rarely (like I get to the pad and realize there is crew in an un-crewed launch, or I forgot the solar panels as I look it over on the pad, etc). I had a couple failed launches (no loss of life!), too. I ended up turning a few ships into probes (one a"light" impacter). I'm in no way being careful about funds, or even thinking much about it. I'm aiming for a day 248-270 set of Duna missions (doing a sort of mars direct thing), and I have everything unlocked except a few plane parts (which I have no interest in), and all buildings fully upgraded (not strategies cause I don't use those, or the runway or hanger, cause I don't use those, either). As of last night I'm day 191. I think I need Kerbal Construction Time next career. The FP contracts contain some good/fun stuff, but they are as badly thought out as stock in many cases. Making contracts "hard" for no reason is sort of goofy. Why would I need to observe some random area below 5400m, and others above 7000? Why are the related surface science components not below the area I had to observe (there are like 3 EVA/surface things close to each other, then always a below XXXXm someplace utterly different). You get the idea.