we NEED level design

[galactictaco]

I get that KSP is a sandbox game but sandboxes are only fun when you have a vague sense of purpose. I know a lot of work has been done on missions, but there is clearly a lot of room for improvement in terms of creating compelling gameplay that makes it feel like there is some reason to take a mission. I don't know if its story, or just giving us a proper checklist or what, but we need some reason to come back to the game other than 'what if i did this'. don't get me wrong i love building random excrements and putting it in orbit, but it gets old eventually. in sandbox you can put anything anywhere if you build big enough and in career you wind up just making the same science probe every mission. I'm not sure what i would do, but something along the lines of pushing you to build and maintain a station of some kind, combined with a sense of urgency at least to establish a lunar colony or something, if not explore the system. I recognize there are bigger issues for 1.2, and 1.3 is also probably being thought thru, but eventually we need something for the long time players who have no sense of importance in a world with no competitors, even a ticking clock (and the 28 year long missions aren't a very reasonable solution).

[Just Jim]

With respect, what are you asking?  Career mode does give you the option of building and expanding space stations and bases, and with deadlines, so there is some urgency to get them finished if you've accepted the contract.

As for science probes all being the same, I respectfully have to disagree with that as well.  Putting a probe over Kerbin is nothing like sending one to Jool, or Moho.  And given the differences in sunlight and temp, I can't really see using the same kind of probe for Moho that you would use over Eeloo.

 

[Wjolcz]

Yes, I agree with OP. The contracts are too random. It would be better if we were able to pick Programs that influence the types of missions generated, similarly to how Strategia does it except with more options (station per body, base per body, etc.).

14 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

and with deadlines, so there is some urgency to get them finished if you've accepted the contract.

The deadlines are too ridiculous. I accepted contracts that last for 60 years to get money many times, because I knew I would have already finished the tech tree by the time the contract deadline is over.

[Hodari]

13 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

 Career mode does give you the option of building and expanding space stations and bases, and with deadlines, so there is some urgency to get them finished if you've accepted the contract.

To be fair though, most of the time those deadlines are so long that there's no real rush to do them.  Especially since, without certain mods, actually constructing a rocket is instant.  You usually get several years to complete a mission that only actually takes a couple days.  So unless you're trying to fit multiple interplanetary missions in between when you accept the contract and when you actually do it, you'll easily be able to get it done in time.

But on the other hand, yeah career mode isn't perfect but it's hard to figure out exactly what WOULD be the best way to handle that(especially trying to find a solution for both new players and more experienced ones).  At some point, you probably will just have to turn to mods for an answer.

[Just Jim]

3 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Yes, I agree with OP. The contracts are too random. It would be better if we were able to pick Programs that influence the types of missions generated, similarly to how Strategia does it except with more options (station per body, base per body, etc.).

I believe this is what the new weighted contract system is supposed to address, although I would love to see some more control over it.

 

4 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

The deadlines are too ridiculous. I accepted contracts that last for 60 years to get money many times, because I knew I would have already finished the tech tree by the time the contract deadline is over.

I do agree with this.  Some of my contract deadlines are much too long, and you lose the urgency value.  If it was me, I would design them, if possible, so the higher value the contract, the shorter the deadline.  In other words, if the deadline for a 1-star contract for a space station has a deadline of say, 10 years, then a three star contract should only have maybe a 2-3 year deadline, or less.  This should massively raise the urgency rate.

[Wjolcz]

7 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

I believe this is what the new weighted contract system is supposed to address, although I would love to see some more control over it.

I'm really afraid it will be just another "tweak" to the contract system though. But I might be wrong (and I hope I am).

[Blaarkies]

24 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I'm really afraid it will be just another "tweak" to the contract system though. But I might be wrong (and I hope I am).

I haven't "felt" the weighted system yet(It really seems like placebo feature...aka a lie). My new superhard career forces me to fix contracts into every hook and cranny of my missions, so I am quite heavy into "put sat in that orbit" contracts, orbital station contracts, and some parts testing...but I keep getting tourist contracts. (got Duna station now, halfway through tech tree...but lots of building upgrades left)

I have only done one tourist contract yet, and after decided that the rep risk for killing a tourist is not worth it(it would put me back by 15contracts at least). Anyway, i just saw a contract of a tourist wanting to go to Duna orbit for 37 000 funds...I was like, "Call virgin galactic, they said something about space tourism. Good luck Asdf Kerman!"

[galactictaco]

I would say the best improvement to make is give the base contracts (get into orbit, fly by the moon etc) a realistic trajectory with specific instruments given for each planet as a point of interest. temperatures on eve, magnetometers around jool, graviolis around moho and dres. something like that. in real life certain aspects of planets are of higher importance and giving you a sense of purpose in sending probes, in my opinion, is huge. nasa doesn't send a probe to test the same experiments around every planet, why should KSP? presumably some degree of mix and match would be needed to give each play thru a sense of newness, but it'd be a huge improvement over the current system which doesn't give you any indication flight missions are impossible at first (speaking of tripping up new players) and asks you to do nonsense things to fund real missions, but those real missions tend to be for science not funds given the contract system leaves you high and dry a lot of the time.

 

you could correct for lower level players by simply having the trajectory follow logical paths, space, orbit, mun, minmus and then along the transfer windows as they pop up. gives advanced players the opportunity to speed run if they can design uber vessels while allowing newer players to muck about for months of game time before venturing past the mun.  rescue missions, in my opinion, along with redirect missions, should be mandatory maybe in higher play settings, given i can just ignore an astronaut floating in space for eternity if i don't accept the mission. that should be a consideration for making reputation an actual concern. that way higher skill players will feel a sense of urgency as well, as having a viable craft for a variety of scenarios is an inevitable necessity.

 

i recognize its a delicate balance, but giving a gratifying play experience to career mode shouldn't be impossible, i just think it was secondary to the game mechanics, which seem to be petering out of the future updates page is any indication.

6 hours ago, Just Jim said:

As for science probes all being the same, I respectfully have to disagree with that as well.  Putting a probe over Kerbin is nothing like sending one to Jool, or Moho.  And given the differences in sunlight and temp, I can't really see using the same kind of probe for Moho that you would use over Eeloo.

 

how often do you build a jool probe that is markedly different from any other probe bound for jool you built before?

Edited June 30, 2016 by galactictaco

[Just Jim]

16 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

how often do you build a jool probe that is markedly different from any other probe bound for jool you built before?

If two probes are going to Jool, then I might build them the same.  But a probe going to Jool needs a lot more solar panels than one going to Eve or Moho, and in that case, I would design them totally different. 

It also depends on the contract... Oh, I play strictly career.  Some contracts call for the probes to have different test equipment than other contracts.  In that case, why would you build them the same way?

Edited June 30, 2016 by Just Jim

[galactictaco]

15 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

If two probes are going to Jool, then I might build them the same.  But a probe going to Jool needs a lot more solar panels than one going to Eve or Moho, and in that case, I would design them totally different. 

It also depends on the contract... Oh, I play strictly career.  Some contracts call for the probes to have different test equipment than other contracts.  In that case, why would you build them the same way?

in my opinion the issue is that from one play thru to the next i know already what my lunar probes will look like, what my initial inter planetary probes will look like and what my end game ones will look like. i agree, the missions for specific instruments are fun and all, but its the same problem just fewer parts. this is why i think having vague models of planetary exploration that can be mixed around on each play thru would be beneficial for immersion. needing multiple magnetometer satellites in various polar orbits in the jool system one play thru and on the next maybe you need multiple resource maps of the smaller moons and gravioli detectors on the larger ones, some thing like that. so i can't preplan my entire space agency from the first contract is all. i have an issue where i start a new game, get half way thru the opening missions and go 'why bother, I've built these rockets a million times and done these missions a million more' as far as the kerbal scientific community is concerned there is no need to send more than a single well designed mission to any world. and thats the problem. but really the contract system needs to focus on kerbin and its moons given how annoying the transfer windows can be if you don't want to time warp for 15 minutes in real time.

it would be asking for a lot but i think even if (and this is probably a modder problem) we found a way to make the probes design central to the mission it would add a sense of variety. for example, ensuring all the instruments are facing the same direction for a fly by (a la new horizons) or keeping two instruments a certain distance apart (magnetometers and antennae, or nuclear engines for example). i feel this would also give you a sense of having to design something from scratch and can result in a variety of probe designs. 

[Just Jim]

30 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

in my opinion the issue is that from one play thru to the next i know already what my lunar probes will look like, what my initial inter planetary probes will look like and what my end game ones will look like. i agree, the missions for specific instruments are fun and all, but its the same problem just fewer parts. this is why i think having vague models of planetary exploration that can be mixed around on each play thru would be beneficial for immersion. needing multiple magnetometer satellites in various polar orbits in the jool system one play thru and on the next maybe you need multiple resource maps of the smaller moons and gravioli detectors on the larger ones, some thing like that. so i can't preplan my entire space agency from the first contract is all. i have an issue where i start a new game, get half way thru the opening missions and go 'why bother, I've built these rockets a million times and done these missions a million more' as far as the kerbal scientific community is concerned there is no need to send more than a single well designed mission to any world. and thats the problem. but really the contract system needs to focus on kerbin and its moons given how annoying the transfer windows can be if you don't want to time warp for 15 minutes in real time.

it would be asking for a lot but i think even if (and this is probably a modder problem) we found a way to make the probes design central to the mission it would add a sense of variety. for example, ensuring all the instruments are facing the same direction for a fly by (a la new horizons) or keeping two instruments a certain distance apart (magnetometers and antennae, or nuclear engines for example). i feel this would also give you a sense of having to design something from scratch and can result in a variety of probe designs. 

OK.... let me see if I understand what your asking.  You want something more complex?  Like instead of getting contracts for individual probes, as an example, you're suggesting something like a contract for an entire satellite network?  Or a set of bases or stations?  

I could get into something like that.

 

[Slam_Jones]

You're going to hate me for saying this, but: Mods!  There are tons of Contract Pack Mods that either change, add, or otherwise tweak what contracts you receive, and they can drastically change your career save (hopefully to better suit your needs).

[regex]

8 hours ago, galactictaco said:

I get that KSP is a sandbox game but sandboxes are only fun when you have a vague sense of purpose.

Then make purpose, that's the whole point of a sandbox.  As the EVE-O devs would say, "Here's a Rubik's cube, go **** yourself."  KSP doesn't need direction.  Tighter restriction options maybe, a better definition of "hard" that doesn't imply "grind", but direction should be chosen and dictated by the player.

52 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

in my opinion the issue is that from one play thru to the next i know already what my lunar probes will look like, what my initial inter planetary probes will look like and what my end game ones will look like.

That's a problem for you to solve yourself.  The game shouldn't be responsible for dictating your design choices beyond what it does now precisely because it is so free-form; there are already many different ways to approach a problem in the game and that's a beautiful thing.  It's not my problem, or the game's, if you hobble yourself with words like "efficiency" or "thrift".

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Goes to show you everyone plays differently, lately I've been thinking I'd like it better if contracts had no deadlines at all, that way time warping big chunks of life away wouldn't be an issue.

[galactictaco]

33 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

OK.... let me see if I understand what your asking.  You want something more complex?  Like instead of getting contracts for individual probes, as an example, you're suggesting something like a contract for an entire satellite network?  Or a set of bases or stations?  

I could get into something like that.

 

kind of. i think we could have something as the contract system progresses that incentivizes real world behaviors. satellite constellations, or highly specialized missions that don't feel like a one size fits all mission with a new label on it. i just know that as some one who payed the alpha price, i feel like i got a good deal, but if i paid full sticker price id expect something that feels a bit more thorough. its almost like they train you to be a great rocket scientist and then tell you to explore at your own leisure. to me, that first moon landing better be on a contract, and it better have felt like a difficult thing to accomplish. i want that to be true no matter where i am or what i am doing. like each mission got harder and prepared me for the previous one. but obviously in a more generalized way that fits the laid back nature of a KSP play thru. 

12 minutes ago, regex said:

Then make purpose, that's the whole point of a sandbox.  As the EVE-O devs would say, "Here's a Rubik's cube, go **** yourself."  KSP doesn't need direction.

Except they DID give us the contract system so we weren't simply told to go love ourselves, and it has left a lot to be desired. is this not the forum for me to address this?

12 minutes ago, regex said:

That's a problem for you to solve yourself.  The game shouldn't be responsible for dictating your design choices beyond what it does now precisely because it is so free-form; there are already many different ways to approach a problem in the game and that's a beautiful thing.  It's not my problem, or the game's, if you hobble yourself with words like "efficiency" or "thrift".

I don't want the game dictating my design decisions per say, but being ABLE to slap a bunch of experiments onto the side of a probe and pass the mission means oftentimes my early missions don't feel very unique unless i put arbitrary restrictions on myself. i need small vessels and low part counts and i can still do it all in one shot, seems a bit trite to me as a seasoned player and having me create my own difficulty setting. maybe it would be a nice addition....OH they did that. ok, so they recognize some people prefer more complicated and difficult play styles that pen you in a bit more.... the entire point of missions and difficulty settings is to shake things up, I'm simply observing a way your play style is restricted and thus requires more creativity at times. namely, by requiring certain parts be kept a certain distance apart (or really any other method, this is all spit balled) so i don't cram everything into a tiny little probe to pass the test. maybe i should be forced to mimic our forbears and launch a excrements ton of crappy inefficient rockets first and not be hamstringing myself out of funds but rather playing the game and getting an enjoyable experience.

 

[regex]

10 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

Except they DID give us the contract system so we weren't simply told to go love ourselves, and it has left a lot to be desired. is this not the forum for me to address this?

Ever wonder why the contract system is procedural?  It's to support as many play-styles as possible.  You can think of contracts as missions, means-to-ends, or something in-between.  I treat them as stupid things I need to do in order to get the cash to do the things I want.  Sometimes one comes along that provides cash for what I want to do and I cherish those.

Anyway, contracts are not the be-all and end-all of gameplay, they're a tool in the sandbox of career mode.  

10 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

I don't want the game dictating my design decisions per say, but being ABLE to slap a bunch of experiments onto the side of a probe and pass the mission means oftentimes my early missions don't feel very unique unless i put arbitrary restrictions on myself.

Why aren't you doing that, then?

10 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

maybe i should be forced to mimic our forbears and launch a excrements ton of crappy inefficient rockets first and not be hamstringing myself out of funds but rather playing the game and getting an enjoyable experience.

Hey look, you're setting goals for yourself in a sandbox game!

[galactictaco]

7 minutes ago, regex said:

Ever wonder why the contract system is procedural?  It's to support as many play-styles as possible.  You can think of contracts as missions, means-to-ends, or something in-between.  I treat them as stupid things I need to do in order to get the cash to do the things I want.  Sometimes one comes along that provides cash for what I want to do and I cherish those.

Anyway, contracts are not the be-all and end-all of gameplay, they're a tool in the sandbox of career mode.  

Why aren't you doing that, then?

Hey look, you're setting goals for yourself in a sandbox game!

i think if i wanted to play in sandbox mode i would play in sandbox mode. i don't know why this is something you need to fight me on. I'm proposing career mode reflect actual careers a bit more. it in no way has to effect sandbox mode. if the contracts in career mode are meant purely as side quests, then why have them at all if in your opinion anything other than sandbox mode is a distraction for those who lack the creativity needed to play the game. you can have any play thru you want in sandbox, but if you want to have an actual career maybe you could have that in loveing career mode? all I'm saying is that the contract system doesn't facilitate a career minded play thru as well as it could, and it is supposed to want to facilitate that given sandbox mode is an entirely separate mode where you can launch wildly inefficient rockets and not have that destroy your funds or reputation, and these are my suggestions. 

Edited June 30, 2016 by galactictaco

[regex]

19 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

i think if i wanted to play in sandbox mode i would play in sandbox mode.

Well, we're not talking about sandbox mode.

19 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

if you want to have an actual career maybe you could have that in loveing career mode?

You already can.  Career mode is a sandbox restricted by money, with a tech tree based on your activity within the game, with gated access to some money-making side-quests based on what you've already done.  It's not the job of the game to define your goals within it, that's what makes it a great sandbox game.

19 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

all I'm saying is that the contract system doesn't facilitate a career minded play thru as well as it could

True, we could definitely use better methods of defining our goals within the game, a way to steer the space program.  Maybe even a different way to generate funds so we never have to touch contracts again.

(Some of what you're suggesting can be done by simply downloading Module Manager, familiarizing yourself with Contracts.cfg, and writing a patch.)

[galactictaco]

3 minutes ago, regex said:

Well, we're not talking about sandbox mode.

yeah i know, so thats why I'm confused what your point is.

3 minutes ago, regex said:

You already can.  Career mode is a sandbox restricted by money, with a tech tree based on your activity within the game, with gated access to some money-making side-quests based on what you've already done.  It's not the job of the game to define your goals within it, that's what makes it a great sandbox game.

yeah i don't think you understand what the word career means or implies.

3 minutes ago, regex said:

True, we could definitely use better methods of defining our goals within the game, a way to steer the space program.  Maybe even a different way to generate funds so we never have to touch contracts again.

(Some of what you're suggesting can be done by simply downloading Module Manager, familiarizing yourself with Contracts.cfg, and writing a patch.)

right. and i decided to give my 2 cents on how things could be improved. the career system as is does not facilitate anything about acquiring science, nor does it encourage unique designs or flight paths, nor does it do a reliable job of even guiding me on amy exploration (see the exploration contracts that skip moons and planets seemingly at random). the contract system would be a great way to encourage full exploration of various biomes and worlds usually untouched by a casual player while also rewarding the player directly for this action rather than giving science points you may or may not need. i recognize much of this can be solved with a mod or two, or by me learning to code, but in that sense, why not leave the entire game as a string of 1's and 0's we have to encode directly from a PDF. my argument is that the base game can be better than it is in a few simple and easy ways. idk. i feel like you're purposely being an antagonist on this if at the end of it you actually agree with me and your response is that no, the game should stay imperfect and i should become a computer programmer just to enjoy the game i purchased expecting it to someday actually become a game worth purchasing. it'd be a major love you to those who bought in early out of faith if then they said 'yeah we don't think its our job to deliver a quality play experience' the game was never billed as being purely sandbox and the very nature of career mode requires having some level of attention be paid to the very mechanics it introduces, namely contracts. arguing otherwise is trolling given they have made it clear career mode and the contract system are going to be important features of the finished game.

[Wjolcz]

Can I be the third side here?

I think we all agree that the career game is too messy. We get the somewhat linear tree (which is imperfect) and on the other hand the randomness of the contract system (which also is imperfect). The problem here is that we have to reseaech the tree by sending probes to other bodies (which makes zero sense) and pray for contracts that are connected to what we want to do next (which also makes no sense).

Wouldn't it be better to have a broad selection of objectives we could pick ourselves and being rewarded for doing so? You can't make a sanbox game and then decide "Yeah, let's now add this linear tech tree and random side quests just to maintain the sanbox feel of the game". It simply doesn't work like that.

[regex]

2 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

the career system as is does not facilitate anything about acquiring science

So ... survey contracts aren't a thing?

2 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

nor does it encourage unique designs or flight paths

That's not its job, that's yours.

2 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

nor does it do a reliable job of even guiding me on amy exploration

Getting explore contracts reliably would be a great thing, sure, but I also feel like those should rely more on the direction you decide to take the space program.

2 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

the contract system would be a great way to encourage full exploration of various biomes and worlds usually untouched by a casual player

It already does this though various contract types if you're unwilling to set those goals yourself.  I'm sorry you've been unlucky enough to not have seen those.  Survey contracts are a prime example.

2 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

while also rewarding the player directly for this action rather than giving science points you may or may not need.

Uh...  The main reward of contracts is funds and rep, not science.  In fact, I recall science awards were nerfed a while back 

2 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

my argument is that the base game can be better than it is in a few simple and easy ways. idk. i feel like you're purposely being an antagonist on this if at the end of it you actually agree with me and your response is that no, the game should stay imperfect and i should become a computer programmer just to enjoy the game i purchased expecting it to someday actually become a game worth purchasing.

What I disagree with is the game setting arbitrary goals.  If anything, KSP needs a better way for me to steer the direction I want to go rather than trying to railroad me into a style of play I don't enjoy.  A hallmark of sandbox games like KSP is the fact that the player is supposed to set their goals.

2 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

it'd be a major love you to those who bought in early out of faith if then they said 'yeah we don't think its our job to deliver a quality play experience' the game was never billed as being purely sandbox and the very nature of career mode requires having some level of attention be paid to the very mechanics it introduces, namely contracts. arguing otherwise is trolling given they have made it clear career mode and the contract system are going to be important features of the finished game.

Contracts are being made better all the time, the recently-added weighting system ended up working better than I expected during pre-release, I was quite happy with it.  Plus the addition of "existing craft"-related contracts that ask you to expand what's already up there.  I expect even better things to come in the next versions.

Your mistake is in thinking that contracts are the defining element of career mode, which they're not.  Career mode introduces limits to what you can launch based on the resources you have and contracts allow you to increase those resources.

My point RE: mods is that you can quite easily increase the rate of "existing-craft"-related contracts and reduce deadlines using ModuleManager for yourself, right now.  I don't think it's really needed for the base game to be better, however.

[galactictaco]

5 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Can I be the third side here?

I think we all agree that the career game is too messy. We get the somewhat linear tree (which is imperfect) and on the other hand the randomness of the contract system (which also is imperfect). The problem here is that we have to reseaech the tree by sending probes to other bodies (which makes zero sense) and pray for contracts that are connected to what we want to do next (which also makes no sense).

Wouldn't it be better to have a broad selection of objectives we could pick ourselves and being rewarded for doing so? You can't make a sanbox game and then decide "Yeah, let's now add this linear tech tree and random side quests just to maintain the sanbox feel of the game". It simply doesn't work like that.

this

[luizopiloto]

just need to add multiplayer... and we will be able to role play space pirates or go full star trek...

[galactictaco]

 

Quote

That's not its job, that's yours.

it can encourage these things since in your mind thats its job. to encourage a variety of play styles.

Quote

Getting explore contracts reliably would be a great thing, sure, but I also feel like those should rely more on the direction you decide to take the space program.

this would fix 90% of the systems short comings to be honest and in most circles productive discussions focus on overlap. maybe you could've spent more time discussing areas of common ground on directions the devs could take?

Quote

It already does this though various contract types if you're unwilling to set those goals yourself.  I'm sorry you've been unlucky enough to not have seen those.  Survey contracts are a prime example.

but no contract encourages you to arrive at a specific undiscovered biome, or to go back for one last science experiment. idk, 99% of real world space travel is about filling in the blanks and maybe career mode can reflect this? survey contracts aren't my point, maybe a rover friendly mission or two? maybe a nasa style multiple manned landings in a broad range of biomes to complete the contract? again, your point is i can do this anyway, my point is why not have the contract system encourage more realistic missions?

Quote

Uh...  The main reward of contracts is funds and rep, not science.  In fact, I recall science awards were nerfed a while back 

yeah, and my point is why should i waste those resources launching an enjoyable mission from which i conceivably will get no tangible benefit for my space program? seems like a flaw in the system.

Quote

What I disagree with is the game setting arbitrary goals.  If anything, KSP needs a better way for me to steer the direction I want to go rather than trying to railroad me into a style of play I don't enjoy.  A hallmark of sandbox games like KSP is the fact that the player is supposed to set their goals.

i think the game has already set arbitrary goals in those contracts. either we have them make sense, or we abolish them. you seem to want to keep them and also keep them aimless and unproductive and unrealistic.

Quote

Contracts are being made better all the time, the recently-added weighting system ended up working better than I expected during pre-release, I was quite happy with it.  Plus the addition of "existing craft"-related contracts that ask you to expand what's already up there.  I expect even better things to come in the next versions.

obviously my comments take into consideration the changes they have already made. I've already acknowledged there have been great strides to date, there simply, in my opinion, are more great strides needed for this to feel like a real game worth actual money. otherwise, i should've stayed with the demo. id actually be able to play the game the way i wanted. is that your argument? everyone should just play the demo because career wasn't meant to add anything realistic or productive?

Quote

Your mistake is in thinking that contracts are the defining element of career mode, which they're not.  Career mode introduces limits to what you can launch based on the resources you have and contracts allow you to increase those resources.

those limits are meaningless unless you have a challenge to over come that is made challenging by those very limits. otherwise its a complete waste of time burning funds you can't replace for science you don't have any use for once funds burn out. the fund generating process needs to mirror the space program in some way, and my point, for the millionth time, is that there are many simple easy things they can do to make it better and that would enhance game play for all players and play styles. which seems to be a discussion you don't want to have because you think you're winning some argument. I've gotten like 7 upvotes from this discussion and everyone else agrees there is obvious room for improvement. you're the only one saying i should pack up my shine box on this one.

Quote

My point RE: mods is that you can quite easily increase the rate of "existing-craft"-related contracts and reduce deadlines using ModuleManager for yourself, right now.  I don't think it's really needed for the base game to be better, however.

so you disagree with my 2 cents. thats fine. no one else seemed to. but ok. you can be of the opinion the game doesn't need to change. but the rest of the players would like something worth playing now. we waited long enough for everything else to get ironed out and its the last puzzle piece to be perfected. otherwise, you're right, we should all just be playing the free demo and then the game could be exactly like it was in .1. who needs any of these updates. players can patch it themselves.

Edited June 30, 2016 by galactictaco

[galactictaco]

7 minutes ago, luizopiloto said:

just need to add multiplayer... and we will be able to role play space pirates or go full star trek...

i feel like the practical problems of time warp and reverting to launch are a hold up for multiplayer. also its difficult to imagine exactly what multiplayer would add beyond aerial dog fighting or maybe the occasional space fight. other than cooperatively building a space station in record time I'm not sure any one ever found a real reason to integrate multiplayer. you could have a space race mode tho. that'd be fun, but also sort of meaningless given how easy it is to get to the mun. 2 evenly matched players would more or less tie all the time. which i guess adds a sense of excitement but it'd seem rather random, any screw ups would instantly cost you the win. unless it was a race thru the tech tree. that might hold up. but again, it'd be difficult to come back from missing a transfer window and having to wait for another go. but then again, if your rival went to duna on schedule maybe you could pull off a trip to moho to keep it balanced. I'm talking my self into this now