Kegereneku

Easier said that done. I've seen more than enough "Let us build our own part", but none of these suggestion address the balance nor the radical change in the game-dynamic it imply. Jerry-rigging part into something else it much of the appeal of KSP, "the entire point of it" for many even.

The above solution is one of those things that is easier said than done... ...if it even was a good idea to do. The error is to assume that realism in the physic-model will lead to realism in (in-game) design as based on reality. But in game development the good way is to work backward, you have a range of design you want to allow to fly and you create the medium to make these design fly as you think they should. Your goal is to create the illusion of realism. The new aerodynamic model is good so far (or at least should be once the game get out of BETA...wait... until they fix the Release). But we lost in creativity in the process as many of us here proved, starting from OP, quite angered by it. Realism have nothing to do with it. Piloting-skill have nothing to do with it. Most of us wanted loopholes that allow to make anything we believe to be a sensible "REALISTIC" design to fly. We didn't wanted them too obvious/easy to keep the game balanced, but we wanted the physics to allow cool-looking design. And until a solution is found, we are entitled to say that compared to 0.90 we lost in creativity. So far, I think tweakable wing into purely-aesthetic part seem a workable cheap (but good) solution. ps: I doesn't support procedural wing, they wouldn't give the LEGO satisfaction.

So much condescension & kneejerking. Yet the point of Roflcopterkklol, Aanker and allmhuran were pretty simple : "we lost in creativity". (the negativity of hotdogging didn't help though) I have rarely built huge spaceplane, I have never built SSTO to Duna, and I don't dislike the new change in Aerodynamic, but I will verbally-fight for the ability to build Aesthetically pleasing or straight aerodynamically-unsound spacecraft even if I like that Skylonish-hotdog rocket work well. I think custom made wingbody would have stayed a thing if back there some loud people hadn't insisted so much on "REALISM". SQUAD delivered what we asked, less what we actually needed. But that's a classic in game-design. Now of course, I'm big on gameplay & balance first. As long as the parts are balanced, the plane are can be designed without a doctorate in Aircraft engineering AND are actually fun to design/fly, then we can -ultimately- mods-in advanced engine and lift/drag-less parts for aesthetic. For now I won't judge before the pre-relea.... post-release tweak & balancing run settle. Anyway I'm more bothered by the crappy grindy tech-tree.

Just wanted to say I saw Regex suggestion coming a while before the new Aerodynamic... FAR-lover were like : "SQUAD, WE MUST ABSOLUTELY MAKE SHAPE MATTER IN AERODYNAMIC, IT MUST BE REALISTIC !" And I was like : "Remember we want aesthetic stuff possible" But they were all : "Make the physic realistic and it will be aesthetic, a pancake rocket shouldn't fly, only sensible design should." Now, when it turn out you CAN'T keep the vessels aerodynamic and aesthetic as well we suddenly remember the benefit of simplified physics and now to build pretty we will need the weight without the (deactivated) lift. Don't get me wrong, it is still worth the new aerodynamic, but be glad if aesthetic can be made easy again through simple tweaks. For now we will have these "Why was adding aerodynamic stability removed?" topic. Sorry if my post seem to bring nothing to the subject, Myself I don't mind the idea of selectively deactivate lift without getting (completely) weight/dragless part.

Meh, Grinding time staying constant is ok. Grinding time constantly increasing is bad design usually used by bad game which confuse it with "increasing play time" or game which business model involve you paying for every second playing and thus want to make you waste as much time as possible. (I'm looking at you Eve Online and every MMO in existence) Of course, this frustration is increased in that you need to GRIND for part-bundle of 80% uninteresting parts just to get the 3 you needed to make a good rocket. Otherwise it MIGHT feel comfortable. I guess the right therm isn't 'exploit', more like "accidentally make the game too easy". As analogy : the way parachute make heat-shield practically useless (on Kerbin) but with the "right technology" rather than "OP/bugged tech" I recognize it would be improbable considering "more booster" is a valid solution to every problem. But I meant failsafe in that you cannot do tech-tree choice that turn a "easy game" into something very very hard because you choose the wrong tech. Ex : investing in the wrong technology making every RP point harder to attain. Since the only way to solve it is to do it the very hard way or restart the career mode (or cheat) you don't want it to happen. THE POINT IS, Even if SQUAD disappointed us and wasn't bold enough to make an really enjoyable Tech-tree (some player are still satisfied), they still delivered a system that "work" and there's many way it could have not if they tried different approach (including different model from the one suggested first-post here, other like budget-based or stuff). They even had this self-imposed time constraint (Alpha beta release...etc), so I can't blame them (too much). Even more since I wouldn't trust most Suggester here to design a video game themselves.

" The tech tree is just as bad as before. " I would like to attract anyone's attention on this suggestion, support it if you are interested. What it is about : - A "Tech-Explosion" where you get to chose parts according to what you need. (more fulfilling than grind and rigid bundle) - RP cost would be adapted to Parts importances, yet be overall less grindy. - Part evolution follow an intuitive technological progression - Little to no interdependency (less grind). - Technology are tiered to follow R&D building upgrade (no rushing best parts). - Ladder and structure to be no more absurdly costly part. The Schematic example was made a while back, before 0.90, but since SQUAD didn't really changed the tech-tree... it is still as valid. Rough tree outline. Nodes need breaking up.

You should be posting a proper bug report in the proper forum.

Give some credit to SQUAD, I don't think they take anybody for moron or don't wish themselves the Tech-tree to feel something fulfilling. But they have their own imperative and more at risk. First, they can only work on so much at once (AERODYNAMIC WAS QUITE IMPORTANT DON'T YOU THINK ?). Then... - The tech-tree must progress at a reasonable rate (hence the classic (but horrible) log curve on the RP cost) - It mustn't break or allow part-exploit too easily (which can happen if you could focus on a few parts) - The system must be failsafe regardless of how badly you spend RP. (hard to imagine I suppose but non-Kerbal value prudence first) And it must work on the first pass (1.0 RELEASE OBLIGE) since what we ought to replace is a system that ultimately "work", even if badly. Thing is, even though I support the idea we suggested here would take multiple balance path. The only thing I blame SQUAD for is not being bold enough (like Kerbal) to have tried, even for 1.0. Now I hope the 1.0 Release didn't cemented that ABOMINATION or a tech-tree. Tree can't grow on cement anyway...

This has been the subject of much discussion, so far this topic have a solution I would support. The grindiness of KSP is bad in itself. But the rigidity of its Tech-tree (which was supposedly revisited, but didn't really change) make it worse. For now I'm hopping they did make it moddable enough for modders to come up with a better solution. Myself I would favor a "Explosion-tree" where the player can research/buy part individually amongst technology-tier based on the level of the R&D building (see the link above). The question isn't (only) to admit whether or not a SPACE PROGRAM can come-up with groundbreaking invention like LADDER or SMALL CUBIC STRUT, but to have the players choose, with sacrifice : which road fit his immediate need and what he can sacrifice for now. So that at least, you don't 2,5m fuel tank and 2,5m engines/structures in the wrong order. Not to forget that there IS better than starting manned.

Hello everybody, Lately I had some problem trying to accomplish a contract that required to : -Test a basic jet engine -Altitude : 6000 to 7000 -At 500 m/s 900 m/s I took it as a tress test of KSP' new atmosphere. But it turn out you can't with the parts I had when I took the contract and I still haven't succeed with liberal use of SRB. Of-course I'm sure you know that feeling... Such impossible missions are frequents because contracts are procedurally generated (in a quasi-random fashion), same for the texts none us read anyway. Amongst all the problems still cluttering the KSP Alph... Bet... 1.0 full release, this one is (also) damn critical because it is the only way to win moneys in Career mode, and what every new players hope to give them intelligently made scenarios. So, questions : - Are you satisfied by the current Contract system ? If not : - Do you consider it's a question of fine tuning ? (like forbidding the generator from generating some requirement, reducing the requirement or increasing the reward) - Do you consider it can be solved by improving and adding new feature ? (like adding the ability to 'negotiate' your own mission) - Or do you think it need a complete revamp ? (ex : relying over 50% on a periodic budget (reputation-driven)) And a last one : - Baring what you wish, how would you fix what we have ? My opinion : I see procedural generation of contents as a cheap solution to generate content with minimal work, but it is cheap that misused it can turn out worse than if you painstakingly wrote a few missions yourself or asked a forum of amateurs to do it for you. And in the case of a video game that is already very very difficult, it can literally become a barrier : How would a new player know if a contract is possible/easy or not (the price isn't even an indicator) ? How does a NEW player know what the parts he is asked to test do ? I am no particular fan of linear progression (such as historical milestone objectives) but in our case I think it would have been better from the start, than the system we have now. Of course this forum would surely be asking to get "automatically produced (magically)awesome missions" but at least we wouldn't face the frustration of impossible contract, meaningless tests, non-rewarding contracts and the feeling to grind continuously since the few missions there would have would hopefully be tailored by intelligent game-designer. But enough badmouthing, this isn't sooooo bad. The framework is good, the game can keep track of (now) multi-step complex missions or "program" all with a relative freedom when the contract-generator isn't being a smartass. And this, is incredible enough. If you wanted to do any hand-made mission, the framework allow it. If you wanted to add a Periodic-Budget, the framework allow it. I can believe SQUAD is being hurried to finish the game yet still compensate with feature that can be modded/revisited easily (because apologizing for everything would lead nowhere). So if I had to propose solutions... - FILTER nonsensical parameters/parts. A jet-engine don't need to be tested in space or at speed it can't reach (or anymore in 1.0). - LESS USING ALL PARAMETERS ! This isn't because you can set all speed/altitude/place limits that you should. - Make it contextual ! Suggest the a good way of accomplishing the contract, propose contracts that get you RP from place you forgot. - Make it friendly so it can be punishing as well. If you always had chance of (very) highly rewarding contracts (or a periodic budget as a fail-safe), you could have actual penalty and down period in your space program. ps : Someone else have the feeling the Administration Facility is (still) pointless ? Aside from the time that ONE strategy was ridiculously efficient, the missions are so grindy and the gain from strategy so pointless I'm not consider using it ever. (the rigid grind-tree doesn't help) Your turn...

Sight... not to disrespect 1.0 which is quite a considerable improvement but frankly I don't know what SQUAD really changed in the tech tree. It's still as grindy (if not worse), it is made of absurdity like the ladder case or large structure before we have large tank, and it still force to simply grind for every parts mindlessly. At best maybe it did became easier for modder to turn it into a proper tech-tree.

On one side I'm proud to have just designed and flown a Mun-flyby on the first try (without maneuver node or even orbit intersection showing, all I am missing is a Heinlein-certified slide rules and a sextant) On the other side, DeltaV per stage and TWR are far too important for interplanetary planning mission or anything involving docking. So I'll be keeping this as a signature until I see both showing (at least after upgrade). Wasn't there a mention about Kerbal Engineer becoming the one giving those data or am I dreaming ?

Interesting indeed, maybe disorienting as we came to expect CoM to change with mass. I wouldn't know either how to make it more intuitive...

So far my old XP is bugging like hell, I can't access any building in KSP if I don't -force-opengl and I lag like hell as soon as atmospheric effect kick-in. Still looking for the right option to play normally. Edit : My problems was solved doing this.

Someone once said : I think this sum-up my opinion on this. I was never fan of trial&error either, we have enough of those even with Mechjeb.

I think we can agree for a long 0,625 long SRB.

I think anything close to commercial exploitation of space resources should be OUT OF QUESTION, for realism first (as it would take higher-technology and tremendous economy of scale to make it worth) and because it won't really fit a game where every single spaceship must be flown by hand. Same for Space colonization, it ask for technology beyond the modern-era KSP suggest. By that's my opinion, no doubt people will keep insisting it would be the next best thing since the wheels. On more reasonable subject, taking and storing physically sample in box, having experiments to deploy from toolbox to the surface of planet would be nice. But I would like KSP to be less grindy on science first. The ability to generation science from Space station will surely help, but at that point maybe we could actually automatize lesser experiments (thermometer / the various detector...etc)

Woah, I got to say I'm also disappointed by this SRB. I would be interested to know the logic which made them build such flea when everybody now SRB that fit on planes would have been be greatly appreciated.

I want to vote for the Rocketpunk Era but its not on the list, so I didn't vote.

Just to say Tater, in the last page you have been childish. But since it's because of my post I have to clear thing out : I wasn't patronizing you or anyone, and I never claimed objectivity. You on the other hand... You act as if your interpretations were facts when they are not (and overreact when called upon it, I don't need to read mind to see that.) Beyond your fixation on my purely evocative percentage you didn't get that I was agreeing with you : KSP did not "built right" its features, because Career-mode wasn't planned from the ground up like games we would consider "normal" who are. (btw, unfortunately grinding is considered normal those days, you can't blame that KSP even its a bad aspect). However unlike you Tater I don't consider it is because SQUAD didn't do thing like you would have liked personally. It also doesn't make your suggestion righter/better by default (subjectivity, again). Which made Fel remark about you entirely valid. Your opinions are not what I critic now, you are entitled to feel KSP is failing at being something (even if it doesn't make you right). I'm criticizing the way you phrased them which was nowhere constructive, no more in any case than I consider this very post to be, and it's not constructive to the topic. That's all I wanted to clear. And excuse myself if my phrasing feel itself inflammatory (you did get on my nerves). ps : I don't expect an answer to this, don't feel obligated.

I understand Fel point and (from the last few post) I also think Tater is mostly subjective in his vision of what the game should be, plus a feeling of entitlement. Which make Fel 90% right and Tater 50% wrong on different topic. Myself I agree that KSP because of its development story (remember what it started from) lack planning for an organic gameplay and deeply interlinked features. How KSP decided to call its "evolution mode" is purely semantic. Career mode don't necessarily equal "Space Race" and capitalism isn't the only model to base the evolution of space program on. On this I'm personally sure that we will only get a real space faring civilization once we get over such silliness and manage to put resources in common for the better of all. So does KSP feel a patchwork of half-made feature ? Yes. But I put that on its ALPHA -> BETA state because even AAA game end up (in my eyes at least) with gameplay that are WAY WORSE. Like ridiculously simplistic gameplay with procedurally generated content that bring nothing but the illusion of a gigantic game (Look at me ! I have 100 planets and 50 hundred weapon, don't mind that it make no difference had it been 10 planet and 5 weapon). And the worse ? Those AAA, MMO, F2P, ARPG games are considered GOOD by the majority of people (<Insert Godwin point here>). For my part, even if KSP 1.0 (and next) isn't very very good, It will still have been more than worth its price. Aside, to answer the topic question : KSP is trying to be a fun game for a wide range or age, not a complex simulator.

Myself I don't mind the change at all. It might make me use Xenon more. I don't sympathize with everybody for the loss, especially those who clearly used it for clipping but claim "compact design". And I'm not interested by procedural tank. I do like the lego feeling and the whole challenge of making what I don't have with what I have. (fully) procedural tank would simply hurt balance in our case.

Whether some people likes it or not, KSP is a game first, and would make for a pretty bad 'simulator' if it ever was meant unless you have quite low standard. (though considering the market we can all understand) I know I'm being harsh there, but I'm often quite exasperated to see some players daydreaming that what they are doing is serious rocket science, or player using that faulty logic to claim that adding their X realistic features make for better game (if it was actually the case it would make ORBITER the funniest space game ever made and not a difficult simulator) The error would be to believe that a game is inferior to a simulator... or that a correct simulation of some token aspects make for better game. Now, if your question is just to distinguish semantically KSP as a Game or a Simulator, I'm afraid reviewer and gaming website abuse the word so you'll never see anyone using it correctly and frankly we shouldn't care because games-developers know better than keeping the boring part of what inspire them. Defined correctly, a simulator is a software that simulate a process in a way that make it as close to what it is defined like as possible. Hence why you don't see X-plane deactivating deep-stall or reducing the planet size because it is actually more fun that way. So the only thing KSP simulate is a Space Program as defined in the Kerbal Fictional universe.

I support this suggestion.

ISRU (In situ Resources Utilization) will be for refueling from Asteroid and Planetary body. You won't make money that way. And realistically, minimum mineral like Platinum would be hardly profitable before we get to do it on a large scale with futuristic technology. KSP will have the refueling part that interest everybody, we can let mods add some ludicrously valuable MacGuffin.