Are "science points" too generic? Does the game become a grind?

[KasperVld]

Don't forget that gathering science points also shows you the results on different experiments under different circumstances. Your experiments will yield different results on Kerbin and Mun, due to the biomes. The devs already said that these biomes will eventually be added for all planets and moons. Also, this is one of the first steps in career mode. Think reputation, training kerbals, money... there's a lot more to come

About exploiting the system as it currently is by completing your science in three flights, well, that's partly due to the fact that other restrictions aren't in place yet and partly because you're an experienced player aiming to exploit the system in that way. Imagine starting out with KSP for the first time and I'm sure you'd need closer to 20-30 flights at least to get to the higher tiers of science.

Before we make judgements we should at least wait until we've played around with it.

[allmhuran]

Imagine starting out with KSP for the first time and I'm sure you'd need closer to 20-30 flights at least to get to the higher tiers of science.

Absolutely... and in fact, I've already admitted earlier in the thread that I was amiss in my concept of what this tech tree was *intended* to be by the devs. The linked video interview conducted by Scott Manley cleared this up for me. And with that additional information, my original criticisms no longer entail. Giving new players access to just a few parts and then unlocking more gradually is of course a good idea to prevent new players from being bewildered. The mechanics of how those parts get unlocked is, with that specific purpose in mind, not really important. All that matters is that it results in a more gradual learning curve.

And, that being the case, I think using the science implementation as seen in 0.22 as a mechanism of unlocking is just a more fun way than simply doing it by mission count or some other more basic metric.

In the meantime, though, it certainly is entertaining watching (well, ok, helping) people twist themselves into logical knots trying to defend something that doesn't exist and was not intended to exist at this point.

[Gambi]

About exploiting the system as it currently is by completing your science in three flights, well, that's partly due to the fact that other restrictions aren't in place yet and partly because you're an experienced player aiming to exploit the system in that way. Imagine starting out with KSP for the first time and I'm sure you'd need closer to 20-30 flights at least to get to the higher tiers of science.

Don't you think developing a game without listening to any criticism and aiming for the non experienced players isn't the way to do it?

I mean, If the developers dumb every single new feature they add to the game those you label "experienced players" will get only minutes of new gameplay each time the game gets updated. And with the speed of updates these days I'm kind of concerned about the future of this game.

I don't say that the devs need to make this game incredibly difficult in career mode, but a little balancing can't harm.

A little logic too, that whole idea of having manned pods before probes core in career mode is ridiculous.

Before we make judgements we should at least wait until we've played around with it.

From the videos of the early access people, and especially form Dannys one we can see that this tech tree isn't a game changer at all.

[boomerdog2000]

It isn't a game changer because there is no money yet. Once you have to deal with part restrictions and money we will be severely limiting the size and complexity of our rockets. I'm betting nearly none of us will be able to max said tech tree in 3-4 flights without an unlimited budget. We are currently looking at a small glimpse of only a piece of the puzzle that is career mode.

Also on the subject of just grinding everything on Kerbin, there are diminishing returns for doing science in the same area and the prices of the tech trees get higher the farther up you go. You will have to go to other planets to unlock the full tree.

[Technical Ben]

well, from what is said in THIS video here:

seems some of the lucky testers they have for .22 including Scott himself it seems, have found ways to MAX the tree in like 3-4 FLIGHTS.... Somethings gotta be done, but HarvesteR made mention of fixing some of the exploits in the video, so, who knows yet?

but, to be honest? it IS a game first, and he <harvester> does say he wants this game to be easy on the new players...

Why? Why does something have to be done? If you max out points, you max out potential. Or you can play it a different way. Say theoretically, if you spend 10 hours planning your flight, you can max it out in 1 hour of flying. Or you can fly 10 flights 1 hour each. That's rather balanced to peoples preferred play style IMO.

If you think it's a problem, go check some speed runs of other games (FPSs, RPG, strategies). People do crazy stuff, but most new and casual players could not copy it. I doubt I'd be able to copy Scott, and I could fly and dock with my eyes closed.

For new players, it's an introduction system and learning tool. For pros/hardcore players, it's a points/scoring/goal system. Even if you do unlock it in 3 flights. The next challenge is to do it in 2!

[KasperVld]

Don't you think developing a game without listening to any criticism and aiming for the non experienced players isn't the way to do it?

I mean, If the developers dumb every single new feature they add to the game those you label "experienced players" will get only minutes of new gameplay each time the game gets updated. And with the speed of updates these days I'm kind of concerned about the future of this game.

I don't say that the devs need to make this game incredibly difficult in career mode, but a little balancing can't harm.

A little logic too, that whole idea of having manned pods before probes core in career mode is ridiculous.

Listening to criticism is very important but, as I explained, I think that criticism is a bit premature at this point. It is also impossible for the developers (I think) to cater to all player groups in a single update, and the new player mechanics have been neglected for some time now. From personal experience I can safely say I never got into EVE Online because there were so many options and so many statistics that it simply lost all of its appeal. In that way I think it's good that KSP aims to guide new players in their careers now. As an experienced player I'm happy to wait a while until more mechanics are in place and career mode becomes a challenge for me.

The manned pods issue is an issue where gameplay concerns clash with real life "logic". Probes require electricity, and often reaction wheels. The manned pods are much more suitable to start out with. That said, it's perfectly possible to adapt the tech tree so I'm sure we'll be seeing reconfigured tech tree mods within a few days after release, so that players who want to follow a more historical path can choose to do so.

[Nobody]

Don't you think developing a game without listening to any criticism and aiming for the non experienced players isn't the way to do it?

A game needs to cater to both experienced and inexperienced players to be successful. If they don't it will stunt the growth of the player base and reduce profits(a big goal in the game industry).

I mean, If the developers dumb every single new feature they add to the game those you label "experienced players" will get only minutes of new game play each time the game gets updated. And with the speed of updates these days I'm kind of concerned about the future of this game.

Pretty much anything that is added experienced players will have done withing a few hours of release. In every game that gets updated experienced end game players know what they are doing and are starving for new content so it is only natural that they will go nuts and tear through it fast.

From the videos of the early access people, and especially form Dannys one we can see that this tech tree isn't a game changer at all.

You are absolutely correct. It is much needed infrastructure for future game changing expansions and introductory material for new players. Infrastructure isn't pretty or fun but it allows for fun things to happen.

[allmhuran]

I wonder if landing on Minmus and the Mun, and returning to Kerbin, all in one flight (plus ground samples taken on Kerbin after landing, and all the other data collected during ascent and orbit) is enough to unlock the entire tree? Coz if so, it seems I can do it in one...

[allmhuran]

The manned pods issue is an issue where gameplay concerns clash with real life "logic". Probes require electricity, and often reaction wheels. The manned pods are much more suitable to start out with.

An interesting point was made on reddit regarding this decision: Without manned pods, you don't get the cute little Kerbal faces in the bottom right of screen. That's something that everyone enjoys, it really sets the tone of the game, and not showing it to new players right from the outset would be a mistake.

[Ghost13]

I don’t like how the science is going to be implemented as a resource that you mine for better parts. But maybe in future versions we also get economics to kick into the game. So you will have to be strategic to keep up with the goals of the current annual year (such as moon landing) and also spend money and science on new parts.

[chri]

the thing that I don't like about the dev's choice is that if I never build a plane, but I go everywhere in the solar system and collect a hell lot of science points, the first time I try to build a plane I will have the advanced parts even though I never built one before...

[Gambi]

Probes require electricity, and often reaction wheels. The manned pods are much more suitable to start out with.

It's not that complicated to understand that a spacecraft needs electricity. It's written in the part description and in the resource monitor. And it could be shown on the first tutorial.

Manned pods are supposedly more suitable for now because there isn't any penalty for killing kerbals yet in career mode. When this penalty will be implemented (and I seriously hope it will for the sake of this game) having manned pods first will cause problems for new players because they will kill their beloved cute little green faces on the firsts flights. This is why I say this tech tree hasn't been thought all the way through.

I'm sure we'll be seeing reconfigured tech tree mods within a few days after release

So you're basically saying that if the devs do something wrong, we just have to rely on mods to set things right?

"Stock resources will blow Kethane out of the water" Oh yeah it sure did.

[Cranium]

For the research, I'd say it makes sense to be on a per part basis.

Say for instance, you make a spaceplane to get you to an orbital trajectory, and even do some docking to a space station. But when you land, you break your jet engine, and this, your research for that part is significantly reduced because you couldn't recover the part.

Everything else however, would still provide a small amount of research for use later, such as improved wings, better fuel, or a much improved autopilot since you docked with the station.

Even with this though, I don't see how you could prevent from 'farming' the research points.

[Person012345]

So you're basically saying that if the devs do something wrong

*if the devs do something in a way you personally disagree with.

[Gambi]

*if the devs do something in a way you personally disagree with.

Nice way to not talk about the subject and pollute the thread. Please enlighten us with your advice on this subject -snip-

Edited October 14, 2013 by KasperVld

[boomerdog2000]

Well he's right. What you might disagree with others might think is fine.

Personally I like the look of the new tech tree, so am I wrong too?

[KasperVld]

Lets keep it friendly in here, please

[Superfluous J]

Sorry I took so long to reply. I was playing KSP.

Oh yeah? So what do you intend to do instead? Go on, enlighten me. Do you intend to just stick to tier 1 parts? Cool, you can do that now in sandbox, so this mechanic does nothing for you. Or do you intend to invest in unlocking nodes on the tree? And if so, how do you intend to do that?

I intend to do a flight. Put a Kerbal in a capsule and fire it up. Take some readings. Hopefully land him safely with a parachute. From what I've seen that should get me the next tier.

Then I'll do another flight. try to get into orbit. Take some readings. Hopefully land safely with a parachute, trying to land near KSC but if I can't hey no bigs. Maybe I'll get enough points to unlock something else, maybe not. If I do, great. I'll look through the choices and pick the one that will enable me to do another mission. If not, I'll do something else. Maybe I'll do the same mission again and try to actually land near KSC this time. Or I'll try to loop around Mun or something. Dunno. But I'll take readings while I'm up there.

This process sounds insanely positive to me. It's exactly what I've been waiting for from this game. I have no desire to make a 500-T0-part ship and send it on some crazy, min-maxed mission so my second mission will have nuclear engines. They'll come. I can wait.

You're living in an outdated model that's no longer relevant to how software like this is developed . Further, the last declaration of state we have had from the development team is that the game is "sandbox complete".

I'm living in the model the devs are living in. I guess you're playing a game stuck in the past.

What you appear to be saying is that you can only make suggestions about things that have already been signed off. Does that not seem a little absurd to you?

No, I'm saying you can only make suggestions on things you've personally tried yourself.

Lulz at "the best player in the game".

You left off my word "arguably" there, which helped make your point but was chosen very carefully by me. I've not ranked KSP players personally so I can't say if Scott Manley is the best player in the game. I can and will say that one could argue the point.

Further lulz at the idea that direct quotes of intent from Felipe amounts to hearsay and speculation.

I missed that quote the first time I watched that video. In my defense, I've asked several times for people to cite their sources when they make claims such as yours, and nobody ever has. You actually still haven't so I'll assume you mean when he said that this is more for new players than experienced players. He also did not seem too happy that you could unlock everything with 3 missions.

I'd love to see video of those 3 missions, by the way. I assume they'll come out on the first day 0.22 releases, which I was hoping would be today but I guess not.

[PDCWolf]

I've said it before elsewhere, but I'll say it again now: I'm certain that, further on down the line, a lot of the "grindy" or "cheaty" aspects of metagaming the research system are going to be mitigated once we have an actual economic system in place that limits the number and quality of parts we can use on one rocket.

That's artificial enlargement of the playtime. The content is just as small, but you place a limitation to make it last longer (like many games out there, most of them dungeon crawlers that paste the same enemies over and over again as the best example).

Listening to criticism is very important but, as I explained, I think that criticism is a bit premature at this point.

A great way to make criticism better is more transparency on the dev process. And i mean harvester coming out and saying "THIS IS MY IDEA AND VISION FOR THE GAME, THIS IS WHAT THE GAME IS ABOUT" levels of transparency. It will seriously stop you from needing 2 threads of what not to suggest, given that the game has a defined goal.

But for now we have no idea what is kerbal space program going to be, if a fun space sim or a kids game with legos and rockets made of spaghetti.

The manned pods issue is an issue where gameplay concerns clash with real life "logic". Probes require electricity, and often reaction wheels. The manned pods are much more suitable to start out with. That said, it's perfectly possible to adapt the tech tree so I'm sure we'll be seeing reconfigured tech tree mods within a few days after release, so that players who want to follow a more historical path can choose to do so.

So, another half-implemented/half-thought feature left for modders to fix it. Then everyone cries when I say the dev cycle is totally wrong.

Pretty much anything that is added experienced players will have done withing a few hours of release. In every game that gets updated experienced end game players know what they are doing and are starving for new content so it is only natural that they will go nuts and tear through it fast.

Although your main idea is correct, the fact that you are thinking of new players this early in development is wrong. The focus should be delivering the content, then they should start thinking about career mode, tutorials, tech tree, etc.

*if the devs do something in a way you personally disagree with.

The only way to deny that the tech tree is a bad addition to this point is saying that it is fully completed, which isn't. Just think of the hell of rebalancing and expanding it with every update. There's no way that can't be right or that it can be just personal disagreement.

More so, the "career mode" we are being shown is just a giant, time consuming, easily grindable tutorial, it's not career at all, and for the looks of it, it's only expansion is going to be artificial enlargement by including more limitations instead of giving it a proper depth.

As a final word for this post, why do we "whine" about something we haven't played? because we don't know anything else, all we know about the tech tree is just a picture of it and words, nothing is clear. Want to avoid this? add transparency to the releases. It's as easy as saying "this comes with this update, it works this way, we are planing on expanding on it in these ways, and we'll call it complete when we reach this point". It's shameful that a single person from the developer team gives better information on a single post than 3 weeklies.

Edited October 14, 2013 by PDCWolf

[boomerdog2000]

They have said why they don't want to release more information on an update that is still in development. It is because things are subject to constant change.

If they say "this feature will be in the game," then find out they can't do it, whether due to Unity limitations or balancing issues, members of the community will be upset.

[Gambi]

If they say "this feature will be in the game," then find out they can't do it, whether due to Unity limitations or balancing issues, members of the community will be upset.

Remember resources?

[Person012345]

Yes, that's my point. I must say, I'm pleased to see you're starting to come around.

So we agree, career mode isn't for you.

1) We do know what they are.

We know what tier 1 parts are -now-. If they also released the other tier parts list then we do -now-. Now that they've made the tech tree. You see how this is reliant on them having made the tech tree yes? Your own argument applies equally to yourself - if you want super uber hard mode, go restrict yourself in sandbox.

2) Why does it matter which parts Squad says are "tier 1"? If you want to limit yourself, just pick which parts you want to exclude.

Because I have no experience in balancing videogames. FYI I -have- been doing that for the past 3 games I've made, but when you do it yourself it's just not the same as having a structure. You know this as well as I do otherwise you wouldn't be here whining about how it isn't structured for you. You'd just go and do it yourself in sandbox.

If you mean to say "the tech tree is just a tutorial" - again, yes, this is what I've already stated.

I meant to say what I said.

No, I really do, because some things are just necessarily true. If you are trying to tell me that adding a tech tree where you have to unlock new nodes somehow introduces a new and interesting gameplay element where you specifically do not try to unlock new nodes - I would tell you that what you were saying is complete lunacy.

No, you actually don't. I don't give a flying -rainbow- what you think is lunacy. Noone said anything about deliberately trying not to unlock nodes afaik. I certainly haven't. You're putting words in our mouth and attacking a strawman, and that's lunacy.

It is certainly the case that, as a tutorial system for new players, the tech tree implementation as it stands right now needs no modification. I already said this in a previous post. However, this does not change the fact that the tech tree is nothing but a generic XP system, and all XP systems motivate the player to do exactly one thing: gain XP.

In different ways. The low difficulty encourages me to play realistically and unlock them in a natural manner.

I've been a programmer for 20 years. I started in games. Go ahead and look me up.

Unfortunately that's not a citation.

Also, fyi, being a game programmer doesn't mean you programmed the kind of games that I would like to play, so it doesn't give you any legitimacy when it comes to KSP's design with me. I don't know if that's what you were trying to do with that statement (because it certainly wasn't a citation), but that's that.

Yeeesss.... not sure why you are pointing this out.

Because you seemed to be implying that "sandbox complete" meant "feature complete". If you weren't then I have no idea what point you were making.

I am doing neither. I opened a discussion on a topic, gave my thoughts and suggestions. Perhaps you should read the OP again? And, because you seem to have missed it, let me state that last point again: It makes no sense to claim that this forum, titled "suggestion and development discussion", should only be used to discuss things that have been built, tested, signed off and released, because that is the point at which things are hardest to change. Do you go into all the threads about "improved aerodynamics", the upcoming economy, the threads that brought up what was wrong with SAS and how it needed to change, and tell them "no, you can't talk about those things until they're implemented"? Because, once again, that seems pretty insane to me.

Maybe we both have trouble reading because you'll note I said I don't necessarily agree with his point (that you shouldn't be posting about it).

Remember resources?

Did resources get cut? If so thank god, do you have a source?. -snip-

Yeah, you introduce economics, and now the grinding process is twice the lenght, forcefully. That's certainly not a good way of making a game mechanic. Instead of including depth and though you just place a limitation to make a process twice the lenght, like the randomly generated content in diablo 3, where the game lasts 2 hours but the rest of the game is just the same things pasted multiple times.

Player-imposed limitations are the best way of telling something is not being done correctly. Also remember that it is not a exploit, it's the way the system was laid out and presented to everyone.

I like how when you mention wobble and other incomplete features you get "shut up entitled kid, the game is in alpha, be thankful that squad is letting you play their game". Yet when you say something may be done differently and use "its an alpha, it may change" all you get is "it's not an alpha".

Hypocrisy at its finest.

I like how it's two different groups, who appear in this thread to be opposing each other, who say those things and you're pretending like it's all from the same source.

Nice way to not talk about the subject and pollute the thread. Please enlighten us with your advice on this subject -snip-

I already have. I see no problem with the tech tree (outwardly, I'd have to try it before declaring it balanced totally) and you're simply declaring it "wrong" because it wasn't done the way you wanted. Mods will surely help you there.

Edited October 14, 2013 by KasperVld
posts merged

[CombatWombat]

Having played this game since 0.8.something, I will be disappointed if the R&D system doesn't give me some kind of incentive to leave the "comfort zone" and fly to new places in new ways.

Sure, I can set my own bizarre goals, but there is something special about a game *handing* you a challenge, and stepping up to that challenge and saying, "see that? I got your number, game!"

When X-COM dishes you a terror mission in Siberia in the dead of night, you suck it up and do it. Even if you don't have the right equipment, or the right squad. And it's somehow more rewarding, because I did not choose the terms of the battle. I had to make do with what was available.

This is what I hope to see out of career mode as a whole. I can set myself a goal to go to Duna. But when the game throws me that goal, and I haven't researched Nuclear Engines yet, and my best pilots are stranded on the Mun, and the coffers are running dry, and we only have 3 landing struts in stock...and they're all different sizes!... It's time to DO IT ANYWAYS. And should success come, it will be all the sweeter. If success does not come, I'm sure it will be in a pyrrhic explosion.

On the subject of development pace:

It's been a very long time since there was an update that fundamentally changed how the game played, and added "freshness". The last time for me was probably the 0.18 DOCKING update. In December. Of 2012. Nearly a year ago.

Some parts have been added. Some features have been half implemented, and then cast aside... but the game as a whole largely plays as it did a year ago. Still entertaining? Yes. Growing? I'm not sure.

[AlamoVampire]

allmhuran. you sir are about as wrong as wrong gets. this game is in Alpha State. SQUAD has said as much. What they say GOES. PERIOD. Oh, and courtesy wikipedia:

So Allmhuran, would you like to continue to be wrong and say we AND SQUAD are wrong about this being in Alpha? Or, will you finally accept the truth that this is ALPHA, and again, what SQUAD calls this, is the LAW and is TRUE.

Pre-alpha[edit]

Pre-alpha refers to all activities performed during the software project before testing. These activities can include requirements analysis, software design, software development, and unit testing. In typical open source development, there are several types of pre-alpha versions. Milestone versions include specific sets of functions and are released as soon as the functionality is complete.

Alpha[edit]

The alpha phase of the release life cycle is the first phase to begin software testing (alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, used as the number 1). In this phase, developers generally test the software using white box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black box or gray box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release.[2]

Alpha software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss. External availability of alpha software is uncommon in proprietary software. However, open source software, in particular, often have publicly available alpha versions, often distributed as the raw source code of the software. The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software. At this time, the software is said to be feature complete.

Beta[edit]

Beta, named after the second letter of the Greek alphabet, is the software development phase following alpha. It generally begins when the software is feature complete. Software in the beta phase will generally have many more bugs in it than completed software, as well as speed/performance issues and may still cause crashes or data loss. The focus of beta testing is reducing impacts to users, often incorporating usability testing. The process of delivering a beta version to the users is called beta release and this is typically the first time that the software is available outside of the organization that developed it.

The users of a beta version are called beta testers. They are usually customers or prospective customers of the organization that develops the software, willing to test the software without charge, often receiving the final software free of charge or for a reduced price. Beta version software is often useful for demonstrations and previews within an organization and to prospective customers. Some developers refer to this stage as a preview, prototype, technical preview (TP), or early access. Some software is kept in perpetual betaâ€â€where new features and functionality are continually added to the software without establishing a firm "final" release.

Open and closed beta[edit]

Developers release either a closed beta or an open beta; closed beta versions are released to a restricted group of individuals for a user test by invitation, while open beta testers are from a larger group, or anyone interested. The testers report any bugs that they find, and sometimes suggest additional features they think should be available in the final version. Examples of a major public beta test are:

In September 2000 a boxed version of Apple's Mac OS X Public Beta operating system was released.[3]

Microsoft's release of community technology previews (CTPs) for Windows Vista in January 2005.[4]

Open betas serve the dual purpose of demonstrating a product to potential consumers, and testing among an extremely wide user base likely to bring to light obscure errors that a much smaller testing team might not find.

[Gambi]

allmhuran. you sir are about as wrong as wrong gets. this game is in Alpha State. SQUAD has said as much. What they say GOES. PERIOD. Oh, and courtesy wikipedia:

So Allmhuran, would you like to continue to be wrong and say we AND SQUAD are wrong about this being in Alpha? Or, will you finally accept the truth that this is ALPHA, and again, what SQUAD calls this, is the LAW and is TRUE.

[bIG CHUNK OF TEXT NOBODY WILL READ]

This game is in early access. This means we paid for it knowing that it's not finished and we get to participate, in a small level, in its development by providing feedback.

Why do you think this forum section even exists?

"Suggestion and Development discussion"

If what you say is true why SQUAD would bother asking us what do we think about the game and how we would improve it?