Career disapointemnt

[Luckless]

It takes a huge imagination to get 600 science in one shot, and try to beat that and get at least 800 for your next mission? Creativity and trying to find a solution that lets you do it, maybe. If you are looking at it from the point of view where the only reason to get science is to unlock parts of the tech tree, and unlocking the tech tree is your only goal, then why on earth are you even bothering with something like career mode? Just play sand box!

Science is a number. It is a score. Does it take a huge amount of imagination to find beating your last high score in Tetris as something enjoyable? How high of a score can you get with as few slots on the tech tree unlocked?

[Hodo]

I dislike how the tech tree is set up, so I cheat, I started a game, gave myself 2500 science points and set the tree how I wanted it from the start.

But I honestly don't care for career mode currently, its very unfinished. I can see how it will be very cool but right now just incomplete. So I stay in my sandbox.

[Toastie_Buns]

I could have easily lost a Kerbal in the flight last night due to my human error. But it need not be so.

IT NEED NOT BE SO INDEED SIR OR MADAM.

People often ask me; "Toastie Buns, how do I send rocketry up into the sky without harming kerbals OR wasting the life of a probe core?" and folks, I look them straight in the eye and firmly state that they are crazy people. But as all crazy people know, they can be cured with simple anti-psychotic pills and like the great pharma-corp, I have a miracle pill to fix this very problem.

INTRODUCING: (the idea of) THE CRASH TEST KERBAL.

That's right folks. With one simple, casual edit of the configuration file, you could be the proud owner of your very own crash test kerbal. Its bold mission? To explode, run out of fuel, become stuck in a highly elliptical orbit around the VAB (we're still not sure how) and generally take the beatings that the precious orange suits and favoured regular suits cannot be spared for.

[or, you know, SQUAD could just incorporate an actual crash test dummy that would bob around and be absolutely useless in the capsule, but then we have the issue of pre-programming stuff, which could in theory be cool as titty milk if I were smart enough to be able to pre-program a probe before launch.]

[El wonso]

People seem to forget they are flying little green men with giant heads building rockets out of dumpster findings on a tiny planet with the same gravity as Earth, in a solar system that would fling itself apart if it existed in our universe..

The KSP universe is scaled that way, because otherwise it would be probably too hard.

And what kind of reasoning is this? We can't be unhappy with something just because Squad did it? Or maybe this game should differ from reality because few things are not the same as in the real life, and the parts descriptions are funny?

And why KSP system would fling itself apart?

Oh, and the gravity is not the same.

The only realism part is a basic orbit simulator.

I don't know, I find it quite realistic. For example seems like all physical constants are the same as in our universe.

Why the heck is it a problem if they send Kerbals before remote control probes? If anything, that fits better with the kerbal way.

Maybe in sandbox.

[Scrogdog]

IT NEED NOT BE SO INDEED SIR OR MADAM.

People often ask me; "Toastie Buns, how do I send rocketry up into the sky without harming kerbals OR wasting the life of a probe core?" and folks, I look them straight in the eye and firmly state that they are crazy people. But as all crazy people know, they can be cured with simple anti-psychotic pills and like the great pharma-corp, I have a miracle pill to fix this very problem.

INTRODUCING: (the idea of) THE CRASH TEST KERBAL.

That's right folks. With one simple, casual edit of the configuration file, you could be the proud owner of your very own crash test kerbal. Its bold mission? To explode, run out of fuel, become stuck in a highly elliptical orbit around the VAB (we're still not sure how) and generally take the beatings that the precious orange suits and favoured regular suits cannot be spared for.

[or, you know, SQUAD could just incorporate an actual crash test dummy that would bob around and be absolutely useless in the capsule, but then we have the issue of pre-programming stuff, which could in theory be cool as titty milk if I were smart enough to be able to pre-program a probe before launch.]

I likey! What's the edit?

A one part solution!

Of course, unmanned flights (not probes) also only require one part; the remote control ring. Ta da!

Hard to imagine one extra part throwing even new players in to a tizzy.

[Sirrobert]

IT NEED NOT BE SO INDEED SIR OR MADAM.

People often ask me; "Toastie Buns, how do I send rocketry up into the sky without harming kerbals OR wasting the life of a probe core?" and folks, I look them straight in the eye and firmly state that they are crazy people. But as all crazy people know, they can be cured with simple anti-psychotic pills and like the great pharma-corp, I have a miracle pill to fix this very problem.

INTRODUCING: (the idea of) THE CRASH TEST KERBAL.

That's right folks. With one simple, casual edit of the configuration file, you could be the proud owner of your very own crash test kerbal. Its bold mission? To explode, run out of fuel, become stuck in a highly elliptical orbit around the VAB (we're still not sure how) and generally take the beatings that the precious orange suits and favoured regular suits cannot be spared for.

[or, you know, SQUAD could just incorporate an actual crash test dummy that would bob around and be absolutely useless in the capsule, but then we have the issue of pre-programming stuff, which could in theory be cool as titty milk if I were smart enough to be able to pre-program a probe before launch.]

I'll take 10!

And why KSP system would fling itself apart?

I wonder if it has something to do with how close tougether they are, how tiny the sun is, and how dense all planets are...

[lipatden]

For me the science vs tech tree kind of kills the fun. ... I'm sober on the other hand. Science, as the way it is, is nothing more than a tool to unlock something new on the tech tree. It's no fun. It's something you HAVE to do, to get further into the tech tree. Not because it's that a big of a deal/achievement.

The research parts still add challenge even without the points, thanks to the new requirements and some of the limitations. Pre-career, the achievement was just getting a command pod to float down to the surface from another body without the kaboom. Now I get more benefit by returning the materials and goo cannisters without the fragile ****ards falling apart (seriously, made of toothpicks), managing my energy budget for more than just manoeuvres and sacrificing some capabilities for others (like no sample return if the collecting capsule doesn't come back, so radioing in the analysis instead). As you said, everyone plays their own way and I find this much more challenging than just getting my fearless Kerbal back to Kerra Firma.

The only disappointment I've had so far is the limited science availability, so e.g. Minmus is one biome as are all other planets/moons without surface liquid. You do run out of ideas and goals in fairly short order, but then you'll eventually do that since destinations are finite and so are unlockable features. This is common to almost all games (except EVE, which I believe takes more time to unlock all features than the game has existed). Apart from a science points leader-board, there's limited utility to these points but so it is in life.

Watch Scott Manley's video of a real astronaut playing the game - he goes into sandbox and can't design a flightworthy craft. Sure, it's in a short space of time, but career is there to ease novices in because sandbox is properly overwhelming. Science is a good motivator for that purpose. I've definitely learnt new tricks taking this constraint on and ditching the mods, and I've rediscovered the core of the game which is green guys scared senseless as they ride a SRB to the ionosphere. Imagine how disinterested a newbie (and non-science inclined player) would be if they had to focus on separate R&D in materials, aerodynamics, chemistry, thermodynamics, medicine, nuclear physics and everything else required to get to space (yes, I'm a science junky too). Why stop there? There's no model for mining ore that gets fabricated by non-visible Kerbals who need training and facilities to build these parts, I never have a crosswind messing up my flightpath, surely there are political implications, oh and n-body physics too please...

You can get lost, and I think Squad has focused on exactly the right part - fly to space, it's fun and not so hard. If you want it harder (or easier), here's a forum for you to change practically anything you'd like. I see we've finally had someone volunteer to build Jeb's apartment, and for some reason a missile silo...

... even if Kerbal's have a callous regard for life, ... one would assume ...

One can assume nothing about these folks. Metabolism - somehow an individual can survive in a capsule around five-ten times his own volume for months. Aerodynamics are vastly simplified, line-of-sight has no bearing on radio communications (nor does the speed of light), engines have unlimited restarts and perfect reliability, etc etc. There are some similarities to our universe (and given Kerbin's density, it's almost certainly not our universe), but accuracy is not the point, it's fun. Squad have to make short-cuts or all players would need training in aerodynamics, orbital mechanics, chemistry and a bunch of other stuff just to get off the ground. If you're looking for challenge go mod it up (mods exist for all these factors and almost anything you can dream of), but this is a game, not a simulation. No assumptions about their culture, economy, priorities or even their grasp of science or sense of ethics can be made; the similarities with our reality are simply there to give players something familiar to grapple with, the rest is pure fantasy.

Oh, and a callous disregard for life is pretty much a staple in the gaming industry (at least in the West). Easily three-quarters of the games I love would be ruined if I had to get consent forms or face (virtual) justice...

I've made this game my own challenge within the rules presented, but would never expect everyone to enjoy it the way I do by insisting on realism - that's just injecting my expectations. Squad have a vision, and I'm enjoying seeing it revealed. That's why I paid my money for a game that is not yet released.

Edited November 1, 2013 by lipatden
Minor

[lipatden]

The KSP universe is scaled that way, because otherwise it would be probably too hard.

And what kind of reasoning is this? We can't be unhappy with something just because Squad did it? Or maybe this game should differ from reality because few things are not the same as in the real life, and the parts descriptions are funny?

Yep, that's right. If you'd like a more realistic game with unfunny part descriptions, by all means make one. Mod this one. But this is Squad's product, and while your opinions may be valid, if it doesn't further their marketing goals (or fun) then they are under no obligation to implement them. You can be as unhappy as you like, but unless this breaks something pretty big (see my earlier post on game vs. simulation) I don't see the point in spreading it around the forums. I'm not trying to censor you, that's what the forums are for and I'm glad to see discussion is happening, but consider that Squad have limited resources and can't please everyone. It's their product, and they need to appeal to and entertain their audience.

I don't know, I find it quite realistic. For example seems like all physical constants are the same as in our universe.

The constants may be the same, but their implementation differs so widely that may as well not be the same - n-body physics for one, and the static scale of the atmosphere that doesn't stand up to any realistic model for another. And yes, Kerbin's insane density. Some pretty fundamental constants need to be modified for that last one. This can go on forever, again this is a game, not a simulation.

Why the heck is it a problem if they send Kerbals before remote control probes? If anything, that fits better with the kerbal way.

Maybe in sandbox.

Maybe in a universe with little green men, whose ethics and motivations are utterly alien to us, it is in fact not a problem. You're pushing your preconceived notions of our society onto a fictional, alien society. As far as we can tell they have no industry, residence, economy or social structure of any kind, who are we to say what is and is not an appropriate solution to their problems? These guys seem fantastically expendable (and, if they're wearing orange, immortal), but this is no different from the majority of other games.

If the progression doesn't suit you use the mods that implement a different tech tree. Write your own tech tree. Squad have been fantastic at ensuring pretty much any part of the game can be tweaked, and career mode is no exception. This is to be commended, but there's a big tendancy to gripe that I find bizarre.

Edited November 1, 2013 by lipatden

[Scrogdog]

No, bizarre is the situation where making comments and offering opinions is seen as griping. Didn't see anyone say the game sucked and were dropping it.

[Scrogdog]

One can assume nothing about these folks.

With all due respect, this sort of "canned" reply becomes tedious after a time. I made no comment on the physics of the Kerbal universe or the biology of Kerbals. So, let's go over this again. Since WE KNOW that astronaut training is coming, then it is reasonable to assume that said training would have some value in career mode.

Is that concept too far in left field or what?

[toomuchbrew]

I have to say: I love the career mode. I think it mostly makes sense. It gave me new reasons to forget about real life and play ksp for hours on end. It will only get better from here.

[lipatden]

I made no comment on the physics of the Kerbal universe or the biology of Kerbals. So, let's go over this again. Since WE KNOW that astronaut training is coming, then it is reasonable to assume that said training would have some value in career mode.

Is that concept too far in left field or what?

Indeed, you didn't mention biology or physics.

That may be so, but even if Kerbal's have a callous regard for life, we know that 'naut training is coming. Here on Earth that was a lengthy and costly process; one would assume that is also the case on Kerbin regardless of other factors.

In short, I would imagine that at some point in career mode conservation of highly trained and experienced Kerbalnauts will be an economic and practical matter.

What you did is inject your knowledge of earth's space programs into expectations for this fictional world, which is so far removed from ours it can only be based on assumptions like similarity in ethics, social structure, economics, technological development etc. We know that materials cost time and money here on earth, yet are for all intents and purposes totally free on Kerbin, yet don't see people clamouring for an economic model.

We know money is coming, but I'm making the "tedious, canned" response on how different this game is from our world because there are things people seem to want to conform to some view of realism while freely ignoring others. I'm not telling anyone to shut up, just wondering why the view is so myopic. It comes across as critical of Squad and their decisions. I disagree and am saying so.

[Scrogdog]

Well, I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. It would seem a given to me that trained astronauts are more valuable than untrained ones. Perhaps you could mention a situation in any universe where that would not be the case.

People don't need to clamour for economics since it has been announced that it will come at some point. I mean, for what other reason would parts show how many you have "in stock", right?

I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't mean that we throw all reason to the wind.

I am not complaining! I am taking a game that is DEVELOPMENT and making suggestions for its future. Kinda why we are all here, yes? How does that seem critical of Squad, isn't that what THEY are also looking for as we go forward?

Edited November 1, 2013 by Scrogdog

[Seret]

Science, as the way it is, is nothing more than a tool to unlock something new on the tech tree. It's no fun. It's something you HAVE to do, to get further into the tech tree. Not because it's that a big of a deal/achievement. If you can fly to the mun, you can do science there. If you can go to Duna, then you can do science there. The Science itself is just a tool.

Yep. KSP isn't a science simulator though, and probably isn't going to be.

Real space missions are generally broken down into to distinct groups of people: flight and science. As far as the science people are concerned, the flight guys just provide a taxi service, and as far as flight are concerned science is just a payload. KSP puts you in the role of the flight guys. The fun is in getting your science payload to the right spot, what it does there gets abstracted away.

I wouldn't be surprised if we got more science parts in the future (little rock sampling tools for rovers anyone?) but I expect they'll work the same in terms of gameplay, you just click them and they make Scienceâ„¢ appear. Over all I like the idea of science being a currency, it really strongly motivates people to design space programmes that maximise science activities, which suits KSPs pacifist principles.

[JumpsterG]

I just realized that a starting probe wouldn't be as complicated to newbies as I first thought. The lack of batteries and power generation effectively make a probe core only active for a few minutes, which simulates a test launch fairly well. The caveats would be that no science could be done by the probe with no science parts (only recovery would give a reward), and it must be made abundantly clear when "OUT OF POWER" with a large red message somewhere. I still prefer starting new players with Jeb in the seat though, just seems more fun.

[lipatden]

... trained astronauts are more valuable than untrained ones. Perhaps you could mention a situation in any universe where that would not be the case.

This is going to end up a very off-topic (but still cool) metaphysical discussion. Given an infinite number of universes, yes I'm sure you could too

* The Matrix seems to have an extremely low cost of training

* It's speculated these guys are plants (hey, they're green), and it's common practice to graft a shoot onto an existing tree

* Horizontal gene transfer (that happens in this universe, though not for developed skills/experience as far as we know)

If we're talking alternate universes, then your imagination actually isn't the limit, infinity is.

Whether or not Kerbals value life, I still go out of my way to keep them alive, but I'm don't imagine it's them growing my sense of ethics or fair play. I would, under no circumstances, climb into the majority of my constructions myself. I cultivate a suspension of disbelief because it's far more fun that way.

[Commander Zoom]

Well said, Seret.

I think part of the problem here is that people are looking at the scaffolding that Squad has put up with the latest release and trying to guess the devs' intent or project their own ideas of what the finished product is going to look like, based on a structure that's not even a complete skeleton yet; nor is there any guarantee that it won't be modified, or even torn down and replaced with something else. This, I submit, is as pointless as trying to guess a Hangman puzzle (or, if you prefer, the televised game-show version Wheel of Fortune) on the first turn, based on nothing more than the first letter revealed, somewhere in the middle. Please, give them some time before concluding and loudly declaring that they've screwed things up (by not doing it exactly how you would).

IMO, people who complain that in its current form, it's not a very good tutorial for newbies are correct. It's a half-assembled piece of playground equipment with all the bolts and sharp edges still exposed. Let them finish building the thing before you pronounce it unsafe and/or Not Fun.

[Scrogdog]

This is going to end up a very off-topic (but still cool) metaphysical discussion. Given an infinite number of universes, yes I'm sure you could too

* The Matrix seems to have an extremely low cost of training

However, it can still be said that, even if training is flat out FREE, trained pilots are more valuable that untrained ones. Particularly so if training time were an issue.

* It's speculated these guys are plants (hey, they're green), and it's common practice to graft a shoot onto an existing tree

Again, depends on how one sees this, what if the shoot takes months to mature?

* Horizontal gene transfer (that happens in this universe, though not for developed skills/experience as far as we know)

If we're talking alternate universes, then your imagination actually isn't the limit, infinity is.

Whether or not Kerbals value life, I still go out of my way to keep them alive, but I'm don't imagine it's them growing my sense of ethics or fair play. I would, under no circumstances, climb into the majority of my constructions myself. I cultivate a suspension of disbelief because it's far more fun that way.

Ok, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here. It just doesn't seem logical to say there is going to be training, and then have the end result be no better that what was there before. From strictly a gaming standpoint, mind you, it doesn't make sense to implement something that does nothing. Which would be the potential case with several of your points. We could also have, say, Jeb's experience and training be retained upon re-spawn if he were ever killed. I personally don't see the fun in that, but...

Still, I have to say that the crash test dummy idea was freakin' brilliant! It has many advantages; low tech and one part among them.

This sort of solution should be a crowd pleaser in my opinion, because it does not disturb your play style to have it (at least that I can see). To me, testing is a big part of the engineering merry-go-round. Sure, this universe is somewhat different, but there are also many similarities.

In the end, I hope that by the use of options and difficulty levels, everyone who plays can play to their vision of how things should be, whether that means sandbox or career. To me, THAT is the desired strength of the game. I'm not looking to add things that make the game unplayable for others.

To me, the argument that, at present, career mode is for beginners, is a good one! That's why I can see the argument against probes. Too many parts might complicate things, and I agree that manned flights are likely more fun for a lot of people. Still, hard to see why a single part, like a crash test dummy or a remote control ring would confuse new players or ruin a veteran's experience.

[lipatden]

I had a thought a few minutes ago that baked my noodle: What if the current craft are in fact remote controlled, and the occupants are political window-dressing? If you've seen The Right Stuff you'll know what I mean.

Perhaps the development of probes isn't technical but political, that we can finally do other space stuff now that the political requirement is fulfilled? Of course the descriptions in the tech tree are about the technological development, but that's just propaganda...

[Blackstar]

If it was your way then it wouldn't be very historically accurate. We sent men first. We didn't have the computers to send probes first.

We had computers before we had space flight. Not very advanced ones (your phone has far more processing power and capacity), but we had them. We sent probes first, even to the moon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_Program

Apollo 11's landing was fly-by-wire computer controlled, based on the data confirmed and tested by the Surveyor landers. Neil provided the overall navigation guidance and high level steering, but the computer controlled the engine, RCS thrusters, and rate of descent.

The Soviet Union sent several impact probes and automated moon landers as well, during the space race.

That said, Kerbals seem a little more gung-ho about going into space than most humans, and more willing to risk personal safety for the chance. I don't see a huge problem with them starting out with manned flights -- a few crashes demonstrating the danger might lead them to investigate the possibility of remote probes.