anyone else have a problem with this?

[Sovek]

So recently I've started playing with the 3x Harder Kerbal System. Everything is 3x bigger, and KSC is no longer on the equator. Due to other mods as well I've started playing with the x64 workaround (because Lord knows I tried to get things working in Linux... it doesnt) and the bug of upgraded buildings (but not really) hit anytime I tried with the Harder System installed.

Then it hit me. The "upgrading" buildings mechanic does nothing other than add frustrations. The T1 buildings, Stock is horrible. No surface samples... even on Kerbin (wut?) no EVA, 25 parts, 18t on the pad, the runway is a literal death trap, can't plot anything... 2 contracts at a time, and the HR building is limited to what you can do. T2 is a HUGE jump, but drains money like crazy and the R&D is limited to 100 science. To upgrade the stupid thing is like a couple million. No, Just no.

Our other solution is to use science mode... but that doesnt include contracts, which give purpose to the game, and a direction. I like career mode, but seriously, re-work the balance on the buildings, or add in option on new saves "Start with x level buildings".

Anyone else annoyed with the limiting mode and grinding problem of this?

[tater]

Set a custom difficulty level, and give yourself enough funds to upgrade the required buildings.

[Mastikator]

The upgrade cost is linked to contract failure fund penalty. Set it to an appropriately low number. You can also start off with enough funds to buy the upgrades from the start. The option you want kind of already exists.

[Sovek]

15 minutes ago, tater said:

Set a custom difficulty level, and give yourself enough funds to upgrade the required buildings.

Can't do that, max you can start at wont even upgrade your first level of the R&D, let alone the T3 version

11 minutes ago, Mastikator said:

The upgrade cost is linked to contract failure fund penalty. Set it to an appropriately low number. You can also start off with enough funds to buy the upgrades from the start. The option you want kind of already exists.

Actually its linked to reputation, which is weird (unless that was fixed in 1.05), and that messes with the contracts.

The option DOES exist, kidna, but you have to go in to your save file and fix it manually, which I did. This should prove to be actually fun with a low fund income and yet still have to pay for unlocking the parts. Now I dont have to worry about upgrading buildings.

[NathanKell]

No, it really is linked to the failure penalties slider in Custom Difficulty options. 100% failure penalties = 100% building upgrade cost.

[Geschosskopf]

Sarbian has a mod called "Custom Barn Kit" which allows you to set your own pricetags for building upgrades.  And hiring Kerbals, and some other nifty stuff.  Highly recommened.

[Mastikator]

The total cost for maxing all the buildings is 7 135 000 funds.

If you set the fund penalty to 10% then it will only cost 71 350. You normally start with 25 000, instead start with 93 650 funds, you can upgrade all the buildings before going on a single mission with precisely 25k left.

[Sovek]

27 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

No, it really is linked to the failure penalties slider in Custom Difficulty options. 100% failure penalties = 100% building upgrade cost.

Thats what I meant, But in 1.04 it was linked to the reputation penalty, not the fund penalty. That might have changed in 1.05, I havn't tested it.

[NathanKell]

@Sovek Nope, it was linked to failure penalty in 1.0.4 as well.

[samstarman5]

If you are unable to give yourself enough funds at the start with custom settings to upgrade buildings, that is definitely something to bring up with the one who is making the mod, as there is no issue with such in the stock game.

[GoSlash27]

Sovek,

 Not really. The career system was intended to work with a stock installation, not one that's "3 times harder".

Best,

-Slashy

[Violent Jeb]

On 1/2/2016 at 8:30 PM, Sovek said:

Anyone else annoyed with the limiting mode and grinding problem of this?

I absolutely agree 100%, and I have a problem with it. I'm actually offended that squad just tries to smooth out flawed mechanics with some quick modifiers and that people support that course of action.

On 1/2/2016 at 9:57 PM, NathanKell said:

No, it really is linked to the failure penalties slider in Custom Difficulty options. 100% failure penalties = 100% building upgrade cost.

Why on earth should the cost of a building be labelled or related in any way to "failure penalties"???
Have you ever seen a construction company called "John's failure penalities & renovations?

What if I want cheaper buildings, but the default cost for failures? What if i actually want a stock install? (LOL)

The modifier for building costs should be under a "building costs" label, I know that's an unbelievable concept. They could even relabel it to: "Failure penalties / Building costs", but i digress..
Let's take a step back though, and imagine the problem without the band-aid of building costs being tied to failure penalties simply because they scale in the same direction.

Without the modifier, OP is absolutely correct.
The career on "NORMAL", should provide a player with a pleasurable experience which should require little-to-no grinding. Even with a "custom normal", where only funds are adjusted, you are nowhere close to what a "normal" difficulty should be. In most games, normal difficulty is quite similar to EASY difficulty, or is used in place of EASY.

A "custom normal", will yield 500,000 funds. Now, you could simply add a higher cap to the funds, and then you wouldn't need to tie the building cost to arbitrary modifiers.
But with a custom normal, 500,000 is nothing. 
Your first R&D tier will cost     - 450k
VAB with more than 30 parts -  225k
Doing EVAs off the ground? -   75k
Manuever nodes so you don't freeball your flights like no space program EVER??? - 150k

Total - 900,000
 

Oh, you wanted to change your contracts to get rewarded for exploring? another 563k, which you'll want to buy before you knock off the easy achievements in the kerbin SOI

Normal Beginning MINIMUM Upgrade Total -  1,463,000 funds.

So a "normal" campaign requires 1463 - 500 = 963,000 ADDITIONAL Funds just to get operations even remotely functional. That's almost twice the starting funds. That's not including the cost of craft or the insane cost of hiring Kerbals.

Now, given an average starting contract reward of 10k, that is going to be 96 grinding flights, or some combination of the above. If you cave and do a mun mission, the explore the mun pays apx 200k.
This means that you need at least 3 missions to foreign bodies to even have enough funds to start the game. 

Even if i could pound out the design and execution to under 1 hour, that would require MINIMUM 3 hours to simply acquire the funds to start doing what I want in this game.

 

There are posts from dec 2014 talking about the extremely broken costs for facilities, and they have continued to avoid admitting their mistake and continue to throw modifiers and solutions at this problem because some of the 1337 members just swear up and down that normal is easy and can be maxed out in 2 flights. Normal is NOT easy, and it IS annoying. Glad that there is at least a way to adjust the cost, even if it is broken. My suggestion is to simply raise the starting funds cap from 500,000, up to between 3 & 5 million. Let it default at 50k still, but let people play the game how they want.

OP, you are not alone. I use the "Science Funding Mod" to help and make the game be more "balanced". Using this mod I am able to start a "500,000 custom normal", and not have to grind. Wish SQUAD could figure it out too.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Violent Jeb

[Evanitis]

On 2016. 01. 02. at 2:30 AM, Sovek said:

Then it hit me. The "upgrading" buildings mechanic does nothing other than add frustrations.

If I look at it this way, being limited by costs and locked technologies does nothing either than adding frustrations. Though I'd rather use the word 'limitations'. And someone on a gaming forum once told me that limitations create challenge, and challenge creates fun. I keep these words close to my hearth ever since.

 

I just accepted the fact that if I want to enjoy every hour of a career playtrough, I need to tailor the income rates of various resources to go along with the goals and limitations I set to myself, and the mods I use.

Though since KSP can be played -so- -many- -ways-, preset difficulties will only cover a fraction of the possibilities. I don't mind that I have to tailor the rewards to meet my preferences. That doesn't mean I don't hate it when I miscalculate, and a certain resource becomes irrelevant or too limiting, thus forcing me to grind (or to edit the save).

Edited January 11, 2016 by Evanitis

[regex]

On 1/2/2016 at 5:30 PM, Sovek said:

Anyone else annoyed with the limiting mode and grinding problem of this?

Yeah.  I mean, upgrading buildings should be a part of any space program, for sure, but some of the "progressions" and costs really annoy the crap out of me.  They weren't well thought out, IMO.

[swjr-swis]

53 minutes ago, Violent Jeb said:

What if I want cheaper buildings, but the default cost for failures? What if i actually want a stock install?

Since you're already playing a modded game, not fully stock: install Contract Configurator, and make yourself a single contract asking to achieve a trivial feat with the starting situation, that gives you whatever amount of funds/science/rep you need to start off the game at the level you want.

When you start a career in which you want specific failure penalties and such, but don't want to deal with grind and upgrades, do that one contract first. When not, just ignore the contract. Best of both worlds.

Code example of such a contract (for stock, but easily adaptable):

//---This Contract Configurator config by SWJr-SWiS---\\
//---The mod Contract Configurator http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/101604 by nightingale is required to use the configs.---\\

CONTRACT_TYPE
{
    name = swisConStrutYourStuff

	title = Show us your contraptions!
	description = It takes more than an assembly building (shed?), a launchpad (grass field?) or runway (dirt road?), and a flag for us to choose to fund you as our primary space program. Prove to us your creativity, resolve, and aptitude by placing any somewhat space-worhty looking contraption on display, and if it even half-way looks like it could go places (with or without purdy 'splosions), we may provide a generous starting grant to encourage your creativity and spirit of adventure.
	synopsis = We want you to build... something. Anything really. That doesn't simply explode when we sneeze at it. Pretty much.
	completedMessage = Oh.. uhm.. wow... erhm.. that almost looked like .. something. Maybe your next design could at least attempt at looking like an actual spaceship?

	// agent = SWiS (SandWorms in Space)
	agent = Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spacecraft Parts Co
	
	minExpiry = 5000.0
	maxExpiry = 5000.0
	
	cancellable = true
	declinable = true
	
	prestige = Trivial
	
	targetBody = Kerbin
	
	maxCompletions = 1  // or set higher to your liking
	maxSimultaneous = 1
	
	// change to your liking or mod situation
	// keep in mind these numbers get modified by your career settings
	rewardScience = 50000.0
	rewardReputation = 1000.0
	rewardFunds = 10000000.0
	failureFunds = 0.02
	advanceFunds = 10000.0

	// the success parameters
	// literally all you need to do is place a single part on the pad or runway
	// don't even need to stage it
	PARAMETER
	{
		name = ReachState
		type = ReachState
		
		situation = PRELAUNCH
	}
}

1. Edit to your liking
2. Save as cfg in GameData
3. ???
4. Profit I mean, stock building tiers circumvented

Don't come complaining to me about feeling cheaty afterwards.

[Sovek]

I just thought of what would fix alot of it though.

• Increase the amount of tiers from 3 to something like 6
• Weight is now linked to the pad alone, but it should be able to handle more than 18t.... I mean good grief, there are tanks that weight more than that and have 0 problems being stable.
• Size is now determined by the VAB, possibly add in tech restrictions. Part count should be thrown out, along with the restrictions on action groups. That one is the most irritating mechanic in the VAB upgrade system. For example Mercury spacecraft had an LES but didnt have the VAB that NASA has now. There is literally no compelling reason for this.
• SPH, ditto,
• Tracking Station... add in a remote-tech lite, Antenna can only transmit data back so far, and the tracking station cant reach past LKO at T1. Range is increased further as you upgrade the building.
• Mission Control is now linked to new mode: ACTIVE MISSIONS. As you upgrade the building, more and more missions can be ongoing at one time. If you find yourself needing to free up space in the control room, you have to end probe missions. For Kerbaled flights, the kerbals are listed MIA, and any current tracking on the spacecraft ceases. It may be possible to reaquire the signal at random intervals and return the crew then, but its not going to happen very often.
• R&D. Possibly add in KCT-Light... You can't unlock nodes right away, they must first be researched. This could be problematic if the tech you wanted for a mission takes longer to research than the deadline for that contract and you are forced to launch anyway.
• The Astronaut Complex.... not sure how to tackle this... deff reduce the costs of kerbal hiring, cause egads. Not sure what kind of restrictions I would put in place other than cap at how many you can have at one time.
• Admin building now linked to contract restrictions... and the better the building is, possibly increase the rewards of contracts because of all the sweet talkers that are in the building as it grows. And completely rework the "strategy" system... I saw a mod that would fix that right up.

[swjr-swis]

Hmm. So, big rant about arbitrary restrictions tied to building upgrades. Lots of reasons stated why horribly bad idea.

Conclusion: replace by other arbitrary restrictions tied to building upgrades.

Well ok then.

[MaxL_1023]

I have no problem with the tracking station or mission control upgrades - you easily get enough to upgrade this by launching trashcans straight up. However, I do think the capabilities of the tier 1 buildings should be increased slightly.

Tier 1 Mission Control : 3 Contracts instead of 2

Tier 1 R&D: Surface samples from Kerbin only (same as tier 1 EVA), 160 science cap (lets you get up to exactly that tech level) instead of 100 (weirdly between nodes). 

Tier 1 VAB: 63 parts instead of 30. 

Tier 1 Pad: 25 Tons

It makes things slightly easier, but not trivial. Additionally, the capabilities of tier 1 and 2 buildings could scale with difficulty. Easy = the above, Normal = the old settings and Hard = slightly more arduous ones. 

Edited January 11, 2016 by MaxL_1023

[Sovek]

55 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Hmm. So, big rant about arbitrary restrictions tied to building upgrades. Lots of reasons stated why horribly bad idea.

Conclusion: replace by other arbitrary restrictions tied to building upgrades.

Well ok then.

Its not entirely arbitrary, and is based on some form of reality.

[Violent Jeb]

3 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Since you're already playing a modded game, not fully stock: install Contract Configurator, and make yourself a single contract asking to achieve a trivial feat with the starting situation, that gives you whatever amount of funds/science/rep you need to start off the game at the level you want.

When you start a career in which you want specific failure penalties and such, but don't want to deal with grind and upgrades, do that one contract first. When not, just ignore the contract. Best of both worlds.

Don't come complaining to me about feeling cheaty afterwards.

I already have to use the configurator to eliminate the infinitely spawning pointless contracts that I don't want/need.

However, I am going to complain in advance. I don't want to feel "cheaty". Stockalike is the name of the game. I want to sit down, and play this game like it had a nintendo seal of approval from the 90s and not have to open up a debug menu, or code something into the game myself to make gameplay fun. Is that not clear? I don't want to lose penalties just to have affordable buildings. The mod I had referred to is what i imagine the administration building program would be if you had the funds in the beginning to purchase it (which you don't). I don't need to complete a bullplop contract for "infinite money". I want to do real science, real research, real operations, and get funds. If i am careful designing, and recover parts where possible, I can easily accrue funds and focus on the actual game. If i waste Ships, I won't. Simple & it works. 

As it stands now in a vanilla game you will CONSTANTLY be fighting the game to have enough funds to do what you want, for at least the first few hours of the game. Given the frequency of updates and reinstalls, there should be a way to simply start a career and go. Most games call that "easy" mode. The only way to do that here is to just give up on career mode alltogether, which is a shame.

I'm p sure the OP wants the same thing. To be able to start a career, and not have to manipulate the game, one time or many, hacking your save, or grinding contracts, just so that you can simulate a space program, and decide what you'd like to do in the solar system while getting paid modestly for it. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Violent Jeb

[swjr-swis]

So you have to type a few characters in a text file. How is that somehow more 'manipulative' or 'cheaty' than clicking a few toggles and sliders on an official GUI to get the exact same starting point? I used that word tongue in cheek btw - there is no cheating in this game.

 

There's annoying things in this game that I cannot change for the better because it absolutely requires a coding change that I have no access to or any way to influence. I get vocal about such things, because I can't go around the devs to do anything about it and am forced to live with it.

Slightly below this on the list are things that I can only solve with a plugin, making me depend on another party besides SQUAD. If the annoyance is big enough, I'm perfectly fine using a mod to solve it.

Then there's annoyances that due to the official, build-in way the game uses text files for almost everything in the game, I can change to my liking with a couple of keystrokes. Would I prefer it to be a nice shiny GUI that I can click on? Sure, I'll take it, thank you, why not. I will even vote for the request if anyone voices it. But in the scheme of things that I really 'need' the devs to take notice, seeing as it's likely things that I cannot change at all may suffer in attention if I am too loud about these, I can live with using the official, build-in way to change things to my liking.

And then there are things like this, which are so subjectively different per person, that we can spend months debating different sets of criteria by which one or the other decides what is a more 'realistic', or a more 'playable', or a more 'hardcore', or a more 'goofy' way of playing. I am all for the game allowing diversity and customizability in-game, but I just don't see how we'd get any kind of consensus on what the once-and-for-all set of sliders and toggles would be that would please everyone, let alone that we'd agree on ONE set of settings as The Proper Default(tm) for a career.

What I offered above, with a tongue-in-cheek comment about 'cheatiness',  is a way to customize it the way you like it, without having to bicker or lobby, no hard feelings from anyone else, and not having to wait on the devs to fix it. You look at how you want to play the game, decide what exact amount of funds, science and rep you need even with all game-settings set the way you wish to get your preferred starting point, and you're done. Hey, and you can even change it at will for another game. It does everything you just mentioned you want, without affecting the things you said you don't want changed. The power is literally in your own hands.

 

Full disclosure: I happen to not see how the currently available career settings are so horrible. I play in career mode exclusively, even though much if not most of what I do in the game is probably best suited for sandbox. I like the contracts mechanism, even in all its glorious stock brokenness. It is almost trivially easy to make funds, science and rep in a 'normal' game, the stock unmodded way. There's a good number of threads in this forum detailing different strategies to do so.

And on the days that I absolutely wish to shortcut the bit of grind it takes to kickstart a new career to a specific point... one text file is all I need (or a few keystrokes in my save file when I'm playing unmodded, even easier).