Jamini

Quite frankly, I\'m really not bugged by the rate of tech. Small LE\'s, while powerful, are still a pretty big investment. The main catching point was that rewards just were not enough to make T0 crafts overly profitable. Also, why don\'t we just combined tech levels 1 and 2? Honestly, there isn\'t a lot of benefit for tech level 1 without the Lander Engine.

I also banked a LOT of cash by doing so. The 70km payout would have needed to be $1,550 over the 35km payout in order to compensate for the money I saved by going for the smaller, cost-effective rocket. That being said, I am curious what designs you and Alchemist used. (Did you guys use multiple small LFEs?) ************ Here is the list of current participants (sorted by tech level and banked cash.) Player - Bank Tech Level 2 Jamini - 9241 Sjwt - 8033 Zutha - 8011 DonLorenzo - 8011 STcatto - 7961 pit_muc - 7961 Alchemist - 7561 Tech Level 0 UmbralRaptor - 9561 Awaras - 8978 Rage - 8966 Nomad - 8916 CrowZone - 8466 RulerofNothing - 7998 AdmiralStewart - 6321 Honestly, I feel increasing the 35km reward by $500 and the 70km reward by $2,000 may be the way to go. That way things will remain competitive for all players without going overboard and giving the leading players a snowball effect.

I think you missed the post where I also protested the diminishing rewards for harder missions. If anything, both the 35km and the 70km people BOTH were shafted, as they made less than the 16.5km people even after the replay reduction. Either way, right now I\'m playing around with orbiting rockets for next turn. Assuming the (fairly tricky) 350km mission actually has rewards worth mentioning I should be able to get into orbit next turn. ... Also, I am curious what the plan is for partial crew survival. I know a TPK results in a 33% reduction, but what about losing only one or two Kerbals? This matters, especially for orbital missions.

Turn Report Initial Funds: $9,241 Tech: $4,000 Craft Cost: $4,672 Banked Funds: $569 Mission: Travel 350km horizontally, east, from KSP Distance Achieved: 436,894m Flight Log G\'day to all of you!

I honestly fully agree with DonLorenzo here, there is no good reason that a more difficult mission should pay out less. It costs between $1K and $2k more in price to go from 16km to 30km, and another $1k at least (actually, more) to go from 30km to 70km. Diminishing returns for a HARDER and more EXPENSIVE mission (for your tech level) just seems wrong.

You don\'t need to watch if you don\'t want too. ** Re. Togfox: Huh, that\'s odd. Next time I\'ll watch my warp settings. Still, it\'s strange that my chute snapped like that.

I would like to sign up for a run at the modded base.

Or violent explosions.

I don\'t see your name in the spreadsheet for day 1.

After many tries and a few close calls (two, actually, I\'ve determined that with my current funds I cannot hit 70KM up (no luck on the 750KM intercontinental travel either, yet.) so far it seems like I\'m stuck at 60KM unless I can get a x2 burn rocket or pay out for a decoupler. Still, 35km is pretty easy if you know how to fly. I\'m looking forward to reaching orbit next cycle. Good luck to you all! Cycle Report Initial Funds: $8,987 Tech: $3,000 Craft Cost: $4,672 Banked Funds: $1,315 Mission: Launch a craft above 35,000m Altitude achieved: 39,993m Survival: Yes (Cannot be a water landing.) Video Feed: http://www.twitch.tv/thimascus/b/315034509 Soundtrack: geoscape - UFO:Aftershock, UFO:Aftermath (Sorry about the quality. I suspect it is choppy because I was trying to play it from youtube. I had no choppiness when recording it.

I also would like to buy tech levels 1 and 2, if possible.

Personally I feel that anything that lands safely alongside your pod should be salvageable for 75% of the original value. Nothing else, parachute or no, can be recovered. Naturally any parachutes used would also count. The possibility to salvage adds more strategic depth to the game and encourages players to try different setups to maximize rewards and minimize costs.

It may differ depending on parts. I could see landing struts and winglets being worth full point value, while struts and boosters may be worth almost nothing. Zoxygen modules and LFT equipment, due to their fragility and complexity, might be worth something close to 60%... etc, etc ... Also, for the next turn I\'m going to have enough to take both tech levels 1 and 2 and still have enough cash to make a craft that hits 35km altitude (assuming minimum payouts and no returns on my salvaged command pod and booster.) So I will be taking both tech levels on the turnover.

All Zoxygen modules are very fragile. I\'ve found that very little force is needed to blow them up from any angle.

Honestly, I don\'t mind. It\'s more fun coming up with a new trick for reducing mass than it is being all secretive about a silly forum game. Fyi, it doesn\'t really work with liquid tanks. Just solid boosters. (Liquid tanks tend to damage everything around them when they blow up.) If a booster isn\'t already overheating, it takes roughly 20% of your booster burn length to force it to explode. You lose more fuel if you try and destroy an old module with exhaust as well as more velocity from gravity and air resistance.

For your viewing pleasure (and the pleasure at laughing at a nub to this whole KSP thing) I have decided to record my playtime as I participate in this so that you can watch both my radical successes, and my spectacular (and often hilarious) failures. Check it out. Edit: Whoops, accidentally placed too many boosters. See the fixed craft and her proper flight here Max Altitude Achieved: 18872m Overall Cost of Rocket: $4,722 Music: Planetside V2 playlist. By Don Ferrone

I think that the results and designs would be more interesting if the participant was left to choose. Especially if they mistook how high a particular ship might fly and did not bring a Zoxygen system.