Crowzone

Hehe I just finished converting something similar to a google docs spreadsheet.

Oh I know - I have crunched the numbers on several different mission plans ( I try to plan two or three missions ahead ) I never claimed your way was a Bad way at all

I didn\'t mean there was only ONE way to do it - there\'s plenty sure, but there is one clearly Best way to do it. I\'m also going to suggest that the game works better when you don\'t post your stuff to the forums - it allows people to take advantage of information they shouldn\'t have (ie know how other people accomplished missions) it is better when you just email your submission.

Bummer, then it seems there\'s really only ONE good option for turn one missions I mean, it would make sense to have a salvage value on it since it would make the decision about when to take salvage 1 more interesting. I asked because the unmanned pod has a salvage value, so it seemed like an oversight.

Question: Is it on purpose that command pods aren\'t salvageable? (Set to 0%) Seems that would be a likely salvagable object.

Will be playing - Reading up now.

I just had another thought regarding the costs of Tech Levels. What if, during a campaign, you made it such that once a tech level was purchased by someone - the next turn, the price of development for that tech level was halved, as were all tech levels below it. This would mean that it would allow newcomers an easier time 'catching up' to front runners, and so reduction of the payouts for earlier missions wouldn\'t hurt them as much. It also makes a sort of logical sense - in the real world, once someone develops or engineers a technology, many other companies have an easier time reproducing said technology on their own. A company trying to stay on the bleeding edge of technology would pay that price, and more conservative companies could reap the benefits of being behind a turn but paying somewhat less. If multiple companies bought a tech level the same turn they would all pay the original price, and would be considered simultaneous discoveries. This reduction in cost would happen EVERY time a new tech level was purchased: After Tech 1 is purchased, at 1000, it becomes only 500 from that turn on. Once Tech 2 is purchased at 2000, it becomes 1000, and Tech 1 is halved again (as it is even more trivial now) to 250 Then Tech 3 comes along at 4000, it becomes 2000, and Tech 2 is now 500, and Tech 1 becomes 125 (And so on and so forth) If you played it out this way, you could PROBABLY increase the original costs of some of the earlier tech levels, though I feel like the later tech levels are priced appropriately.

No, you have to buy the techs in order.. What you may not have discovered yet is that you CAN stage without decouplers by using your SRBs to intentionally overheat the one below it causing it to blow up - this is a trick that we all learned in the early campaign. IE - Put your capsule on top of a stack of 3 SRBs, and set stages for each SRB so they fire one at a time. Then as the first SRB is about to run out of fuel (You have to time it properly) activate the 2nd SRB which forces the first SRB to overheat and explode, effectively removing that dead weight.

I really enjoyed my run in this campaign but I\'m officially withdrawing until the next one. I agree with a lot of the assessments here - and feel that after my previous setback I\'ve fallen into a kind of middle ground with no hope of pulling out of. So one of you guys hurry up and land on the Mun and win this thing My number one concern / reason for withdrawing is the cost/reward ratio - This particular campaign is working alright, but the way that rewards are paid out encourage ultra slim, fly by the seat of your pants, craft, and though there is definite skill involved in that, it means that there is very little differentiation between players as everyone ends up settled into one or two design choices for most missions. This kind of uber efficiency has a place, but my own enjoyment comes more from building neat ships to get the jobs done, not necessarily the cheapest one. This became exaggerated rapidly in this campaign after tech 4 which allowed people to drop the one craft requirement (ZOx) which drove ship prices down both in the cost of the component AND in the reduced weight not having to have that component meant. Basically once a few players got Tech4 they could accomplish new missions at much cheaper costs than people still at tech 3, and therefore drive rewards down for new missions. My suggestion for pushing the campaign away from this always build the cheapest possible craft would be to make missions slightly more complicated. The ZOx requirement was a good idea and step in the correct direction, and should be added onto. For Example: Included for ALL missions - a 1.5x multiplier if the mission is a Campaign First Depreciation for repeat missions is factored at 1 - 0.n X Reward where n=number of times a company has repeated the mission (0 for first time) Fly to a minimum altitude of 70,000m (Reward 7500) - Include Multistage Design (Bonus 1000) - Detach some kind of atmospheric probe at apogee (Bonus 5000) - Return to Kerbin with a max G-Force experience of < 2.5 (Bonus 2500) By including Optional objectives the missions become more diverse, and could be included in such a way that it is very unlikely that some could be accomplished right away (Example above is the atmospheric probe bonus - at low tech ranges you may not have access to a probe, therefore this mission would be valuable to revisit later for the 5000 bonus) **Note: Numbers are arbitrary in this example. **Edit: Accidentally submitted before finished.

Dammit Alchemist! You ruined my plan! I figured everyone seemed to be skipping that mission so I intentionally tried to build an expensive craft to do it and thus give us a cash cow mission, and you had to come along and do it cheap.

Not relevant to this particular campaign, but I feel like the decoupler and especially the radial decoupler costs are a bit out of whack. For now, they\'re fine because we\'ve all been working with them, but it does seem to force some weird design choices.

Turn Submitted, I have more fun writing mini press releases then anything else

I see, didn\'t see the condemmed module on the part list for tech 4.

I\'m confused as to some part costs and whatnot - I don\'t think there has been any funny business, but I\'m not sure how DonLorenzo\'s craft could cost only 2575 last turn when the the two required parts, (ZOxygen main tank, and Command Pod) total to be 2500 alone? Did I miss something where it was decided those cost less or could be reused? If so a LOT of my ships would have price adjustments...

Submitted, sorry for lateness.

Today\'s the first day I\'ve had time - Turn will be incoming shortly.

Turn posted.

Turn submitted.

This would be my choice - I am having more fun playing KSP with this campaign and would be sad to stop it. I understand that there will be issues and I can deal with them to be honest. That said I am also not objecting to any tweaking of the rules mid-game if and when something unforseen comes up.

CrowSpace industries presents the ever so economical Tech 0 35k Altitude Rocket: Turn Report (Turn 3) I will purchase no new tech this round – remaining at Tech Level 0 Available Balance: 8466 Craft Cost: 5622 Remaining Funds: 2844 Mission: Fly to an altitude of at least 35000m Altitude achieved: 38497m This craft took some tricky flying skills and excellent timing on the staging to achieve it’s max altitude for such a small cost (when factoring no money spent on tech upgrades) ******** Being behind a turn is frustrating but I\'m still having fun - Plus, there\'s some good accomplishment in doing this mission for so cheap. Craft File and screenshots/logs sent by email.

I have an idea for mission rewards that might appease everyone. Each mission has a base value that progressively gets higher as the missions are more difficult (though I suppose some missions could have identical values if they\'re considered to be of equivalent difficulties) From those base rewards, there are multipliers that improve OR reduce the payout, including being the first to achieve it, what level of tech was needed (efficiency), repeat mission penalty, and then of course the failures and/or mistakes. So a reward scale might look like this: Max Altitude 10000m Base: 5000 Expected Tech: 0 Max Altitude 16500m Base: 6500 Expected Tech: 0 Max Altitude 35000m Base: 8000 Expected Tech: 2 Max Altitude 70000m Base: 10000 Expected Tech: 2 * Being the first to achieve a mission pays a bonus of 25% * Repeating the mission progressively reduces payout by 15% * Completing the mission at lower then expected tech level increases payout by 10% per level (efficiency) * Completing the mission using higher then expected tech level reduces payout by 10% per level (overkill) Rewarding the use of lower tech to accomplish missions should naturally be balanced by increased costs associated with using more less advanced parts, but allows for clever designs and piloting skills to be more efficient, for example, if most players are using tech 2 to reach 35000m at an average craft cost of 5k + 3k for tech upgrades, but someone manages to reach the same altitude at tech 0 with a 6k craft, there should be a reward. However, the danger then lies in that they may end up spending 9k doing it at tech 0 which in the end is more costly then just upgrading their tech level. It should balance out providing the expected tech levels are properly set up. Additionally, using high tech to accomplish simple missions is trivial and should be penalized. Further to this, the tech level used should be calculated by the craft file, not what the player has purchased, so for example a player could buy up to tech 5, but then only use tech 4 or lower parts on a mission and thus they would be scored based on tech 4. This way being efficient with money (cost of your craft + r&d) is balanced with the challenge of the mission. And everyone can be fairly confident in what mission they are choosing to accomplish.

I already sent in my Mission 1 and 2 (same craft) for the current turn. I also have a pretty darn cheap mission 3 craft too but I need a bit more cash first.

This is the greatest game evar! I\'m really excited to participate, my only regret is I missed the first turn so I will forever be behind the front runners. This is especially troubling if prize money goes down since I\'ll never be the first to accomplish a mission.