Devnote Tuesday: Everyone Pitches In

[Darnok]

Still no stock delta-v?

[DocMoriarty]

Not sure i like this 'awareness of what contracts I like' feature because it might be pretty missleading and actually make me see less of the missions that i really like to do.

[StrandedonEarth]

7 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'd love it if the contracts offered for non-Kerbin-SOI bodies was tied into an integrated transfer window planner.

"A Moho transfer window is coming up in X days. It should take about Y days to Hohmann transfer there. Here are some contracts for Moho."

Or, how about tabs so there are always 6-10 contracts for every major body? You want Moho, go to the Moho tab. You want Dres, go to the Dres tab.

Tabs sounds like a great idea. With a blinker on the tabs for approaching transfer windows

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, Darnok said:

Still no stock delta-v?

At this point, I'd rather they just put links to MechJeb and KER on the main menu with the message: "These mods aren't cheating!"

[Redneck]

Squad some of us modders would like some info on a new PartTools. What new features can we expect? What will change from the 0.23 version? How soon after release of 1.1 can we expect a new version? 

Edited January 20, 2016 by Redneck

[The White Guardian]

Squad should hire Danny2462 to stress-test the tutorials, if there's an expert at breaking the game (with often funny-as-hell results), it'd be him.

[Terwin]

10 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'd love it if the contracts offered for non-Kerbin-SOI bodies was tied into an integrated transfer window planner.

"A Moho transfer window is coming up in X days. It should take about Y days to Hohmann transfer there. Here are some contracts for Moho."

Or, how about tabs so there are always 6-10 contracts for every major body? You want Moho, go to the Moho tab. You want Dres, go to the Dres tab.

The 'tab per body' is probably the most workable system I have seen thus far.  Perhaps starting with one or two 'fly by' and 'explore' types, then offering more contracts once those are done

One thing that people keep forgetting when they ask for a coherent contract system is that KSP is, at it's heart, a sandbox game.

If you had exactly the same game, but the contract system was a linear set of contracts that never varied, you would have greatly reduced replayability, and anyone who had come to the end of the pre-planned contract list would have reason to consider their game 'finished' and would be more inclined to move to other games.

If you want coherent contracts, you have the 'World Firsts', if you want 'I run my program my way' then you have the world firsts and any contracts that happen to fit into your pre-planned mission for your funding.

If you want a game with incredible replayability, you need significant random elements in the game.  There is nothing random about the rocket science or flying a well designed rocket.  It would be incredibly difficult to have a balanced random science system(either a random science tree or random science acquisition).  That leaves Funds as something significant to which they can add an element of randomness.

While the starting funding as well as significant mile-stones can and are rewarded(see World Firsts), everything else is random, but in a more or less believable way.

I think tourist contracts are very realistic, including the ones where they make unreasonable demands for what they are willing to pay.  It would be nice if we could make counter-offers(I'll take you to Minmus, Duna and Lathe, but not landed at Eve), or offer to only take part of a group of tourists(I'd be happy to take the 5 of you to the Mun, Minmus, and Kerbol orbit, but I'm not taking that other guy to Tylo), but I would not expect them to be accepted 100% of the time.

I also think the Explore contracts are a nice supplement to the World firsts(not to mention good hints for what to do next for newer players).

Kerbals needing rescues at any body here you have already sent manned missions seems perfectly reasonable as well(even if the 'craft' are a little silly, at least they have a low part-count and are believably 'stranded').

Some of the more involved methods mentioned above(setting up preferred contract types, preferred destinations, etc) are adding a lot of complexity to a game that already has a steep learning curve.  Raising the bar for new players is against the best interests of both Squad and the community, so if you want such added complexity, use mods as it would be a bad idea to add it to stock unless it was behind a switch that defaulted to off (at which point it is almost a mod anyway).

I think the current plan to 'lean towards the types that the player is already accepting' is a good idea to reduce the number of waiting contracts that the player does not care about without adding more complexity to the player's side of the game.

Something that I found helped greatly, especially later in the game when I was looking to expand my operations, was to go into the persistence file and increase the max number of contracts being offered.  I actually think it would be a very good idea for squad to start with perhaps a slightly more limited number of contracts available at first (sort of like you only have 2 to choose from at the beginning, but obviously more than that) and then increase the number available as you upgrade Mission control(ending with 20+ at the highest tier) to support launching multiple interplanetary missions while still having things to do around Kerbin while they transit.  This way you start out simple, but you end up with lots of choices when you have the capability to handle several complicated missions at once.

 

 

[Hotaru]

4 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Some of the more involved methods mentioned above(setting up preferred contract types, preferred destinations, etc) are adding a lot of complexity to a game that already has a steep learning curve.  Raising the bar for new players is against the best interests of both Squad and the community, so if you want such added complexity, use mods as it would be a bad idea to add it to stock unless it was behind a switch that defaulted to off (at which point it is almost a mod anyway).

You make a lot of good points, but I have to disagree with this one. A preferred contract/destination system could be completely ignored in the early game (not unlike the Admin building) because it would simply default to having all available options selected. By the time you're sending missions anywhere outside Kerbin's sphere of influence, you're a sufficiently advanced player to handle two extra tabs. The minor increase in complexity would be well worth the additional control over your own destiny in the late game.

[regex]

16 minutes ago, Hotaru said:

You make a lot of good points, but I have to disagree with this one. A preferred contract/destination system could be completely ignored in the early game (not unlike the Admin building) because it would simply default to having all available options selected. By the time you're sending missions anywhere outside Kerbin's sphere of influence, you're a sufficiently advanced player to handle two extra tabs. The minor increase in complexity would be well worth the additional control over your own destiny in the late game.

It could also be encapsulated to some extent, group contract types together.  For example, the player could choose a commercial, government, or scientific space program, which would all encompass certain contract types.  This makes it easier for the new player to tailor their experience without overwhelming them.  The player could also be given the option to define their own space program and be given full control, if they wanted it.

To reduce the early complexity, only reveal tabs for specific celestial bodies after the player has left or entered a certain SOI; treat it like the "Explore this" contracts or something.  You could do the same with selecting a "mission statement", only allow the player to select one after they'd managed to leave Kerbin SOI or something (of course that ruins the early game with those infuriating part test contracts, but still).

Edited January 20, 2016 by regex

[regex]

30 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Something that I found helped greatly, especially later in the game when I was looking to expand my operations, was to go into the persistence file and increase the max number of contracts being offered.  I actually think it would be a very good idea for squad to start with perhaps a slightly more limited number of contracts available at first (sort of like you only have 2 to choose from at the beginning, but obviously more than that) and then increase the number available as you upgrade Mission control(ending with 20+ at the highest tier) to support launching multiple interplanetary missions while still having things to do around Kerbin while they transit.  This way you start out simple, but you end up with lots of choices when you have the capability to handle several complicated missions at once.

More available contracts is a no-brainer and they will naturally be limited early on if you increase the average number available from the start.  I usually go for 30.

[smjjames]

7 hours ago, *Aqua* said:

There's a gap in the ground. Is it new? I can't recall a gap at all.

That's been around for as long as I can remember, not sure what it's function would be. The ingame VAB is based off of the real world VAB

[ThePerpetual]

18 hours ago, capran said:

Neat. This made me come up with a suggestion. How about making each planet feel a little more unique and interesting by having each planet/Mun have it's own theme soundtrack? Maybe even have different songs play depending on altitude! Perhaps a more sedate tempo when in high orbit, and a more attention-getting one when in low or sub-orbital flight?

Oh yes, oh yes I back this idea.

Edited January 20, 2016 by ThePerpetual

[Aethon]

18 hours ago, SQUAD said:

 

The game will now not only learn which type of contract you prefer (for example satellite deployment over tourist contracts), but also which destinations float your boat. 

I worry about this.  Often I'll decline a contract because the time to do it is not quite right.  I would hate to see something I plan on doing or an entire style of contract not come up again because of a 'smart' contract system.

[Engineer of Stuff]

Kill those bugs!

[regex]

2 hours ago, Terwin said:

One thing that people keep forgetting when they ask for a coherent contract system is that KSP is, at it's heart, a sandbox game.

Depends on how you define "coherent".  By the classical definition, the career system is not a whole, it is a bunch of pieces stuck together in what appears to be a fairly random fashion.  Coherent doesn't mean "writes the story for you" or "guiding by the nose".

Ideally, what I'd like to see in career mode is time being a factor.  I've played some RP-0 with KCT and I think it should be the template for career mode.  Seriously.  Building upgrades should take time.  Researching a new tech node should take time.  Hell, craft should take time to build.  The player should have a budget to work from per year, or per quarter, whatever, set by their reputation.  Building upgrades should reduce the budget for however many quarters it takes to build them.  A hard mode option could involve program upkeep.

ADD A FREAKIN' ALARM CLOCK TO THE GAME

Early contracts should focus on world firsts, getting you to orbit, and KSP already does that pretty well.  After you get to orbit, you should be able to define your space program, set a "mission statement" that informs the contract generator.  It needn't be anything like "Provide high-quality commercial launches to Moho" but like what I mentioned above ("Commercial Space Program", "Scientific Space Program",etc...) where the player chooses a direction to tailor the contracts to what they'd like to play.  Make it moddable.  Let the player change their mission statement with some penalty (making new contracts and retooling, things like that).  Change strategies over to something you want to use from the beginning, let those strategies steer the space program rather than shuffle around points.  Organize contracts per celestial body and generate more of them.  Give the player options, choices, make it easy for them to tailor their experience.  Those sorts of tools make a good sandbox.

Right now we have a slot-machine that doles out side quests.  I want a career.

Edited January 20, 2016 by regex

[Gojira1000]

I'll have to see the weighted contract system before I can judge its playability. If you can make it work, it'll be impressive as that's a hard thing to balance.

Very excited to see all the U5 goodness

[TMS]

18 hours ago, SessoSaidSo said:

Will the freezing/stuttering be fixed for 1.1?

N...n...n...n...

Which stuttering?

is this different to the one that's been present since 0.5 and is probably GC-related?

[eddiew]

39 minutes ago, regex said:

Organize contracts per celestial body and generate more of them.  Give the player options, choices, make it easy for them to tailor their experience.  Those sorts of tools make a good sandbox.

I definitely agree with this... Having more to choose from - and running concurrently - would be really nice. A lot of people play many missions in parallel, and it's not at all difficult to max out your allocation and have nothing new to choose from. Contracts already have expiry dates, so why not always have 10-20 on offer, regardless of how many are currently accepted and in progress?

Also sorting contracts by celestial body - yes. Very yes.

And please sort out the "explore body" contracts so that they definitely actually HAPPEN

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, regex said:

 Seriously.  Building upgrades should take time.  Researching a new tech node should take time.  Hell, craft should take time to build.  The player should have a budget to work from per year, or per quarter, whatever, set by their reputation.  Building upgrades should reduce the budget for however many quarters it takes to build them.

Yes to all of this.  Giving time value would only improve the game.

[Skalou]

17 hours ago, CliftonM said:

Just saw that.  I think that's another mod killed.  I'm fine with that though, as I'd rather not need a mod and have it die than needing it.  Even if it's mine.  @RoverDude has some really good points about that.

 

yep QuickSearch, from malah!

An other one really usefull: is QuickScroll ( scroll the part list with the mouse wheel),

even if maybe it's not time to add feature and more bug hunting, it's a really good  and simple one for the future:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/85834-1045-malahs-quick-mods/

Edited January 20, 2016 by Skalou

[Wallygator]

16 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'd love it if the contracts offered for non-Kerbin-SOI bodies was tied into an integrated transfer window planner.

"A Moho transfer window is coming up in X days. It should take about Y days to Hohmann transfer there. Here are some contracts for Moho."

Or, how about tabs so there are always 6-10 contracts for every major body? You want Moho, go to the Moho tab. You want Dres, go to the Dres tab.

This ^^^ and an option to sort by expiry date.  Please GIVE ME THIS.

[Laie]

3 hours ago, regex said:

Ideally, what I'd like to see in career mode is time being a factor.  I've played some RP-0 with KCT and I think it should be the template for career mode.  Seriously.  Building upgrades should take time.  Researching a new tech node should take time.  Hell, craft should take time to build.  The player should have a budget to work from per year, or per quarter, whatever, set by their reputation.  Building upgrades should reduce the budget for however many quarters it takes to build them.  A hard mode option could involve program upkeep.

Great statement overall, just one minor nitpick: time isn't exactly a scarce resource.

The one downside I see with RP-0 is how it takes years to spend the windfall of your early successes. Once you sucessfully launched your first satellite, arguably the best move is not to play. Sit tight and do nothing until all the unlocked tech is researched, and all the already paid for buildings are constructed. Boring but sensible.

Now, if world firsts became less lucrative over time, this would be a different matter. Or, dunno, if you dawdle too long, a window pops up to tell you that someone else has done the first manned orbital? Jebediah Kerman's Race into Space -- my major gripe with the idea is that it's not exactly a new concept. Also, I really like how career eventually becomes sandbox, and I don't see how to mate that with a race-themed career.

 

3 hours ago, regex said:

ADD A FREAKIN' ALARM CLOCK TO THE GAME

My name is Laie and I endorse this message.

[regex]

49 minutes ago, Laie said:

Great statement overall, just one minor nitpick: time isn't exactly a scarce resource.

The one downside I see with RP-0 is how it takes years to spend the windfall of your early successes. Once you sucessfully launched your first satellite, arguably the best move is not to play. Sit tight and do nothing until all the unlocked tech is researched, and all the already paid for buildings are constructed. Boring but sensible.

vOv  Not really how I played it, I guess.  I was doing satellite contracts while waiting for techs to unlock, building up cash for upgrades and ensuring I could always afford mission hardware, sending out probes to other planets as soon as they were even barely feasible, that sort of thing.  But that's what makes a sandbox game so good, everyone can find their own best way to play it.

Quote

Also, I really like how career eventually becomes sandbox, and I don't see how to mate that with a race-themed career.

I'm not really into a "race-themed career" either, I prefer to sit back and just play at whatever pace I want to.  RP-0 is just as much a sandbox as KSP, there's no racing involved.  The thing is that it makes time more of a consideration than KSP's current meta of completing the tech tree before year 1 is over.  I'm, what, five or six years into my RP-0 campaign and I'm maybe starting on tier 3~4 tech, got a few building upgrades, tons of satellites around the moon, some geosynchronous, and I've also sent probes on their way to Mars and Venus.  Just started doing crewed flights.

Perhaps the statement should have been that KSP should borrow the general idea from RP-0 rather than ape it because that's pretty much what I meant.  RP-0 changes the tech tree in dramatic ways, providing many more parts at the beginning to get you going.  It also has proper scale, which means a lot of the ways it does things may not work for stock/vanilla.  And that's okay, but the contract layout and the ways in which time becomes important are what should be looked at.  We shouldn't really be looking at time as a resource anyway, but it should be a consideration beyond "transfer window now".  For instance, if you had to deal with a yearly budget you'd be a lot more careful about how you spent your funds with an upcoming transfer window.  That's the kind of thinking and planning that I feel is missing.

Edited January 20, 2016 by regex

[mcirish3]

5 hours ago, regex said:

 I've played some RP-0 with KCT and I think it should be the template for career mode.  Seriously.  Building upgrades should take time.  Researching a new tech node should take time.  Hell, craft should take time to build.

I like a lot of your ideas, but I can't say this is one of them.  I have used KCT  and played  RP-0 and frankly it was the only part of RP-0 I uninstalled.  I hated it.  I know it adds a lot of realisim.  I get it and it makes sense in RP-0 but it real really would slow down stock game play and frankly would kill a lot of the fun for a lot of players.

 I do hope that some day Squad will partner with all the creator of the realisim overhaul and RP-0 to creat an optional expansion DLC if for another reason than to thank them for the contributions they have made to the KSP community and to the success of the game.

 But I do not think very many of the main features of RO or RP-0 should make their way into the stock game, Especially, the heavy emphasis on time to construct.  I think the expiration date of the of the contracts could be shortened up to create a sense of urgency but  the whole time delay thing really slows down game play way too much especially in the early parts of the game to make sense in stock when not every player really wants too much realisim.

[regex]

1 minute ago, mcirish3 said:

I like a lot of your ideas, but I can't say this is one of them.  I have used KCT  and played  RP-0 and frankly it was the only part of RP-0 I uninstalled.  I hated it.  I know it adds a lot of realisim.  I get it and it makes sense in RP-0 but it real really would slow down stock game play and frankly would kill a lot of the fun for a lot of players.

I get that.  I played a lot of sandbox KSP for a very long time, and I love sandbox games, so I'm used to setting my own goals and motivating my own gameplay which means that sitting around timewarping isn't exactly on my agenda; I do stuff while I wait.  I realize a lot of people may not enjoy that.  Unfortunately KSP lacks so much in the planning department, outside the VAB at least, that it doesn't feel like I'm running an actual space program.  Aside from tearing the entire thing down and starting over I'm not sure how to make it better other than what I've seen and played.

And, tbh, I really don't like KCT outside of RP-0.  Timewarping to build rockets, and especially rollout times, really hack me off, but they make sense in terms of managing a space program.  Even if we don't want build times for craft, which I agree don't make that much sense in the stock/vanilla game, research taking time, facilities construction, and period-based budgets are all things that I can solidly support as adding planning to the mix.