Queeg

I too think that biomes and science remain a bit too hidden right now.

I'm not sure from your reply if you'd be in favour of a "launch window kalendar" or not. I can see you'd want a protractor. As is my usual reply, I'm questioning whether people's reticence for new ideas is because the idea is bad... or just because people have a "well, it's always been like that" attitude. For me, a protractor is half the tool required to plan a launch window. Guides I've seen and read tend to point to websites and addons which will interpret the phase angle for you and give you the information you need for a launch window. All I'm suggesting is that if the idea is to include within the stock game all the information you need to be able to play without referring to 3rd party addons or tools/websites, then just including a protractor doesn't do that. Although maybe a protractor like window in game and recommended phase angles included in the science archives or some form of codex about each planet might be a compromise? I understand that existing players have always taken pride in the fact they can calculate interplanetary transfers based on phase angles or estimated phase angles done visually. But invariably, that is a result of those experienced players knowing that the phase angle to Duna is {xxxx}, that the phase angle for Eve is {yyyy}. And that information (in a lot of cases) came from wiki's and websites and isn't within the game either.

To simply it further, why not just add a Kerbal Kalendar? Day 17 - Launch Window for Duna. Day 23 - Launch Window for Eve. etc. At the heart of it, that's what we as players are interested in. Unless you like protractors, slide rules and calculators.

I think the impression that a lot of us either use MechJeb for this or that others want it is a good reason to include something like it in the stock game. Personally, I'd like to see a "1 step" or "2 steps" backwards on the time warp rather than a full stop - both to give someone who accidentally warped too fast a chance to recover before finding themselves in deep space (or on another unnecessary orbit), but also those people who aren't really paying attention and just went AFK at time warp. So if you're approaching an SOI at warp6, it steps down to warp4 - giving you time to do something if you need to, but still allowing you to completely ***k it up. Maybe another one of those things to add to the options menu, so players can use it or not use depending on their preferences.

Like everything else, opinions vary. I personally would like to see the low orbit stuff gone. Though I can see the sense of high orbit being there. Where I'd like a sweeping change is for biomes to become landmasses, not "types" of terrain. Without referring to a wiki page, it's not always clear where biomes are. Biomes on the Mun and Minmus are (mostly) about geographical locations, I think biomes would be much improved if that applied to Kerbin in a much more obvious and easily understandable way too.

Right now, I'd like the tech tree to be fully viewable right at the beginning of the game. But the more I think about it, I think that's pretty much because parts are all over the place - sometimes, without a logical connection. I want to be able to see the whole tree, because as a new player I want to have a vague clue where I'm heading (in terms of tech). However, I agree the tree should be hidden from a gameplay point of view. But for that to happen, the tech tree needs to make sense. More than that, someone who isn't familiar with the tech tree in detail should be able to guess the consequences of picking one tree -vs- another. Not as someone pointed out earlier, find that they can't actually put wheels on their plane. Other examples: MK16-XL parachutes are in the Rocketry tree. MK25 parachutes are in the science tree. The PB-Ion engine requires Stability and Survivability, but not General Rocketry. Maybe the naming of the categories need tweaking. Maybe the layout of the trees. I don't know. But right now, it doesn't feel right.

I think ambient light at least should be an option in the base game. I've no doubt some people will always want it on, some will always want it off. But at least the choice should be there without resorting to mods. I personally do want it. Not much. Not bright. Just enough that I could at least see the basics of my ship while on the dark side of a planet/moon due to refracted/reflected light. Maybe just enough that I can see that thermometer on the of the capsule or that mountain below me when it matters.

I like the idea of the science archive... it's a definite step in the right direction. However, at the moment, it's one of those great solutions that has the advantage of being completely accurate and not all that useful. As a log, it's complete. All the information is both technical and precise. The filtering helps a little. As does the "progress" bars. In the case of "do I need to go back to [x] for more science?" it's relatively handy. The ability to sort by Value to see which science still needs to be completed is also handy. Each science experiment has maximum and a current value... so show those. In effect, simplify things by replacing "Current Data Value:" and "Science" with a simple "Collected: x of y". The "Data Value" is one of those fields that has significance to the programmers and background calculations, but as players I'm not convinced we really need to know it. And whilst "Science" as a "how much so far" is simple enough, it's biggest use it by comparing it with the overall total. For example, I can sort by "Science", but sorting doesn't really give me any new, useful information. Even sorting by experiment name isn't that useful, since the names all start with the type of experiment. As I say, accurate but not all that helpful. I'd also like to see experiments that haven't been started yet. Perhaps show them grey'd out, etc. But if people are going to have goals, those goals need to be presented to the player within the game. So whilst I may not have done a surface sample at the Mun Polar Crater, it would be nice if the game let me know I could/should. Without going outside the game to wiki's, etc. Not least because right now, the game has no way of letting new players know what biomes are available. Plus little stuff, like "did I forget to do a lower atmosphere experiment around Minmus?" or "now that I have my Gravity Detector, where should I go use it?". Next, some of the Biomes aren't unique. For example, my current archive include TWO "Kerbin's Shores". I thought I'd seen other examples, but I restarted recently - so I'm not 100% certain. Also, a tiny comment. Right now, there's no way within the game to know what biomes exist and where to go looking for them. I realise this is something for the far future, but I wanted to highlight it mainly because it's one of those things that needs to be at the back of your minds. It can't be an afterthought. I suppose at the heart of it, it's the difference between a single player campaign and a sandbox game. Sandbox players, especially early adopters are happy to refer to wikis and youtube videos. Future campaign players are going to want everything that's relevant to them to be within the game. Right now, that's not the case. Any chance we could we get a "hide complete" toggle for experiements that are 100% complete? Although tbh, that would only be of use if experiments that hadn't been started were shown by default. Otherwise you're into the confusion of "is it not shown because its complete or unstarted?" Finally, a bit of feedback about the diminishing returns nature of experiments. In my experience so far, the 1st experiment generally gets you to about 75% complete. The 2nd to about 95%. Then the 3rd to 100%. As someone who likes to see things completed, it's a little disheartening. Firstly by the nature of needing to do everything 3 times to be 100% complete. Secondly because the 2nd and 3rd science rewards are fairly trivial compared with doing "something new". It's not quite right, although I'm not sure how to fix it.

If you knew how many times I failed my English language exams (I'm british) - you'd be amazed I spelt anything right. Ah ha... This is excellent. Thank you. New suggestion: Move "Run in frameless window" to the display options.

It's been a little while and I'll be honest, I'm not really much further along than when I originally posted. Thanks to a helpful post on the forums, I'm a little more aware of details for docking in orbit. However, for the most part, I'm awaiting 0.23 before I throw much more time into the game right now. Most of my concerns were about Career mode and it's clear that 0.23 will be revamping the whole thing - so I'm awaiting that. However, a couple of other bits of feedback, based on my game time so far.... UI It would be incredibly useful if the size of parts were reflected in their icons. I'm sure the expert players know where everything is... I'm still in the "pick something up, realise it's too big/small, put it back" stage. All too often I mistake Rockomax X200-16's for FL-T200's as one example that is just the tip of a huge iceberg of adaptors, tanks, decouplers and docking ports. Maybe different coloured borders around the icons. Maybe a "S", "M", "L", "XL" mini icon in the corner of the main icon. Something to make the UI parts selection a little less daunting. Whilst I'm already finding swapping between parts tabs a little annoying, I think a few more categories would help people like myself. Something like separating Propulsion into Fuel Tanks/Others Tanks/Engines. Similarly simplify Structural and Utility a little. On a similar vain, I'd also really like to see two or three user custom tabs. Something I could drag parts I use regularly together according to my own whims. I think I've seen some youtube/twitch users with custom parts tabs like this - undoubtedly added via an addon. However as a newbie player, I can already see the advantage to including that functionality into the core UI. Again, I'm sure the more experienced players wouldn't see why I'm having problems. But I am. If my feedback can make things better/easier for future newbie players like myself - then that seems to be kind of the point of this sub-forum. Keep up the good work and THANK YOU.

I'm pretty new to all this myself. Not quite sure what to suggest about running out of fuel to the point where you can't take off from the Mun again. But I can point out that when flying off the Mun surface, you probably want to get into a low circular orbit and then create a maneuver node to accelerate in such a way that your exit path from the Mun is parallel to the Mun's orbit itself, but backwards in the opposite direction than the Mun is travelling. From what I can tell from watching Scott Manley's videos, this is the most efficient way of getting back into a Kerbin orbit. Personally, when I'm setting up the maneuver node, I keep an eye on "next" orbital path once we leave the Mun's sphere of influence to watch the Kerbin periapsis and try to make my Mun escape burn put me in a Kerbin orbit that might graze the atmosphere (about 50-60k... I could be wrong - but below 70k anyway). That way, if I still end up running out of fuel, the orbits around Kerbin will slow me down each time I fly through the atmosphere so that eventually it'll bring me down and I can rely on the parachute. As for getting there, etc. I can only recommend looking at the top speed and ISP of each engine. The higher the ISP, the more efficient the engine. Some are good in atmosphere (ie. lifting off from Kerbin), others are better in space (in a vacuum). Personally I go with a multistage rocket with ever smaller fuel tanks and engines. That way, I'm using the smallest, lowest power engine (and hopefully most efficient) to land on the Mun, with enough fuel to get me back into Mun orbit and then finally back into Kerbin orbit.

Honestly, I'm thinking about a lot more than a few and not just front loaded. The more I think of it, the more I think Theme Hospital would make a good game to compare what I hope career mode might be. It had structure, goals, but how you achieved those goals gave the appearance of choice to the player, whilst realistically were a relatively narrow combination of solutions. Yes, they could have written it so I could start with a huge plot of land and build the best/worst/most efficient hospital I could imagine. But I didn't have that sort of imagination, so instead the game started me small, introduced new equipment, gave me a reason to use that new equipment and then kept giving me more and more complex goals to achieve. The reason I'm thinking "more than a few" is that Theme Hospital didn't just have a few training hospitals at the beginning of the game. The scenarios never ended, they just got harder than my ability to complete them. I'm don't know if Theme Hospital had an end, but if it did... it probably wasn't "and here's a huge area of land... do whatever you feel like". Which is kind of a hard sell to an existing community who already like their huge plot of land and have the imagination to make excellent use of it. Especially when my example screams "theme park". Maybe I should have chosen another game as an example. Squad are going to create the game they want to create. In the meanwhile, I'll try to offer feedback from the newbie perspective.

Aye, perhaps. In which case, my apologies. And yes, I too wouldn't want a linear A -> B -> C -> D. But equally I wouldn't want "nebulous objectives" either. I've made the case for early unmanned flights in another thread, without repetition. Honestly, I don't know if that would be good or bad in gameplay terms - but for me, it would "feel" natural. Again, I don't know if Apollo is the right Earth progression to mirror - but it would be something familiar, even friendly. I doubt it's possible to mirror Earth tech anyway, not least because jet aircraft are harder to build and fly than rockets within the Kerbal universe. As you say, you *KNOW* you can can fly a rocket. You *KNOW* rocket designs that will and won't work in specific circumstances. So far, I don't. And my assumption is that future new players won't either. I'm not trying to hold you back, I'm just trying to think of ways to ease the next poor sucker like me into the game at a time when the game itself is how players will learn to play (rather than forums and youtube).

As a brand new player, I can tell you that I personally am looking to career mode to give structure to the overwhelming sense of too much too soon that I feel with the Sandbox. In my opinion, a single game has to be self contained. It can't rely on new players watching hours upon hours of videos on youtube or twitch.tv. It has to introduce new stuff and do it's best to teach a new player how to use it, but also give a clear goal that requires that new stuff too. You are absolutely right that the game right now has a solid sandbox, at least as far as I understand the term. A lot of early adopters and clearly some very talented people have created many rewarding challenges amongst the community and steered the game's direction well, helping shape the game's mechanics and toolset to be both unique and excellent. For me, the forums are a challenge. Because the forums are full of people who love the sandbox mode and have made the best of it. People who've played for a very long time. Who've forgotten they never knew what a descending node was and how to dock two spacecraft in orbit. Who see the strengths of the sandbox and want those same elements to be in the career mode... ...Except career mode and sandbox modes aren't the same. It doesn't surprise me that people here on the forums want a sandbox-like career mode, but those same people already have that... it's called sandbox mode. A career mode needs a different basis, a different ruleset. It can't just be the sandbox with a tutorial. For me personally, that means structure and limits and a path to follow, a career to build and a progression curve. I'd like to think I'm going to be fairly typical of new players, but obviously I can't know that. Likewise, I can't see the whole picture either - all I can do is hope the Squad team have a clear view of the direction they want to take career mode and the follow that up by hoping it matches my own aspirations. I can see people don't want to give up what they love about the sandbox. But keep too much of the sandbox and all you get is sandbox-lite which won't please anyone. Except, you're talking about existing players. The sort of people who would play an early access game without career mode and limited (but ever growing) mechanics. The sort of players who, as you rightly point out, don't need a story and are happy to create their own narrative. But will new players want the same thing? That structure I personally want from career mode might easily be achieved by locking me into a certain story. I have no doubt that my opinion right now is in a minority. But would that still be true around the time 1.0 is eventually launched? I don't know. I'm not suggesting trying to make the game all things to all people. But the existing playerbase is a niche and getting beyond that niche will mean a lot more hand holding than I suspect most of you ever needed. Only time (and Squad) will time.

I too would like to see a more intuitive solution, rather than a "gamey" one. Diminishing returns seem to be solving a gaming problem. Transmission quotas... same thing. Plus both add complexity that just ends up being confusing to new players (or a least confused THIS new player). Maybe the Science Journal/Log will help. Maybe the science redesign will help. I'll wait and see. But I really don't fancy seeing science turn into "kill 10 rats" type questing. Neither do I fancy needing to do advanced calculus to figure out if I should be killing 5 rats or 15. I like the idea of data transmission and physical return. I like the idea that thermometer readings and crew reports are data and goo samples and soil samples are physical things that need returning to Kerbin (or a space station with the necessary science equipment) for analysis. That seems legit to me. It fits in with my view of how experiments are done. I'd even accept transmission errors, where reports are corrupted during transmission and needed repeating, with a greater chance of corruption the more links there are in the communications chain. But a flat percentage penalty doesn't feel fun, diminishing returns doubly so. Fingers crossed for a "keep it simple" solution.