time warp isn't cheating

[Buback]

I've seen an number of people say that you can't do a science per time unit model because people would just time warp and break the model.

My problem with that reasoning is that time warp is an integral part of the game. You need time warp to get to anywhere outside of LKO, and you need it even more the farther out you go.

Since your going to be time warping anyway, for interplanetary missions and such, it should be part of the science model.

[Sirrobert]

Timewarping through science in here is exactly the same as in real life just waiting 3 years for the mars window to come up. Here we just timewarp through the wait cause it's a game.

Apart from that: who gives a crap about cheating? It's your own single player game, do with it what you want. Why do you think we have the debug menu available?

[Crush]

I wonder how some people can seriously consider "waiting" an enjoyable gameplay element.

But your reasoning is still wrong, Buback. A science-per-time model is broken because time-warp is an integrap part of the game you can't just remove. When time-warp is free, and science-per-time is free, then science is free and you just made the whole science-system unnecessary. Find a fix for that, and you could maybe come up with a science-per-time system which adds gameplay value instead of removing it.

[Sirrobert]

I wonder how some people can seriously consider "waiting" an enjoyable gameplay element.

But your reasoning is still wrong, Buback. A science-per-time model is broken because time-warp is an integrap part of the game you can't just remove. When time-warp is free, and science-per-time is free, then science is free and you just made the whole science-system unnecessary. Find a fix for that, and you could maybe come up with a science-per-time system which adds gameplay value instead of removing it.

I can open the save file in notebook, find the correct line, and give myself 9001 science. Does that make it broken?

It adds as much gameplay value as you let it. If you want to timewarp for 20 years to grind science, go ahead. I'll just send some kerbals to other planets instead

[fatfluffycat]

Make it science per REAL minute

[Sean Mirrsen]

I can open the save file in notebook, find the correct line, and give myself 9001 science. Does that make it broken?

It adds as much gameplay value as you let it. If you want to timewarp for 20 years to grind science, go ahead. I'll just send some kerbals to other planets instead

All it'd take to stop you is an encrypted save file. The difference between waiting a long time and changing the save file is that waiting a long time is a legitimate gameplay mechanic. A core gameplay mechanic, even, considering that "waiting for a year" is the only way to get to Eeloo. When a core gameplay mechanic renders a proposed feature broken, then that feature has to at least be heavily revised before being used.

One way to do that would be the same "science cutoff". Essentially, diminishing returns. The ISS isn't generating scientific progress by itself - people bring materials there and conduct experiments. So a space station would be just that, a place where you can bring stuff to test or experiment with. Any given experiment lasts a long time, and generates less and less science as time goes on, up to a certain maximum. So you still have "science over time", you just have a hard limit on how much a given experiment can give you, although you're more likely to stop much earlier than that when the rate of science point acquisition drops to a point a week.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Sean Mirrsen

[Sathurn]

I like the idea of research over time. Nor do I mind that some would timewarp to a discovery. However Research needs to be done while the station is "on rails." So you can do something else. I would also like to see mapping become part of the stock game and done while on rails. Putting a satellite in polar orbit then watching circle for a few hours, even on time warp is not fun.

[Technical Ben]

I wonder how some people can seriously consider "waiting" an enjoyable gameplay element.

But your reasoning is still wrong, Buback. A science-per-time model is broken because time-warp is an integrap part of the game you can't just remove. When time-warp is free, and science-per-time is free, then science is free and you just made the whole science-system unnecessary. Find a fix for that, and you could maybe come up with a science-per-time system which adds gameplay value instead of removing it.

I'm not going to play chess with those people unless they craft every part with their bare hands. If they do, it'll be a cool chess board!

PS, they'll also have to be life sized horses, and real bishops! Then they'll stop complaining about games "not being realistic".

PPS, so thus "waiting" is not a legitimate gameplay mechanic. It's a social one. The ordering of elements, or the number of elements allowed between specific events is gameplay. The temporal nature of it is never "gameplay" unless it's challenging skill at the same time.

Waiting is KSP is not skill challenging, so it's not gameplay effecting. In fact, 1 second and 1 million years are equal in KSP if it's just a tick of the engine progressing in each instance. Science in the game is not limited per tick, so is not limited temporally either.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Technical Ben

[Godot]

I wonder how some people can seriously consider "waiting" an enjoyable gameplay element.

But your reasoning is still wrong, Buback. A science-per-time model is broken because time-warp is an integrap part of the game you can't just remove. When time-warp is free, and science-per-time is free, then science is free and you just made the whole science-system unnecessary. Find a fix for that, and you could maybe come up with a science-per-time system which adds gameplay value instead of removing it.

The fix for that may be the economic model and/or life support.

With running costs for your space agency (and maybe your spacecraft) and maybe a limited supply of air and/or snacks for your Kerbals,

the time that an experiment runs may make a difference, no matter whether time warp is used or not.

Even with the current system experiments may be designed in a way that the time they take makes a difference .. just let them consume power

[Technical Ben]

Ah, there seems to be a difference of application to the system here. Is the OP asking for science to progress independent to missions? I thought they were just asking for science to progress during timewarp, but limited to the scope of the mission? Yeah, science will not just "happen" when in timewarp, you need to actually do something to get a return. But I see no problem with putting a probe over to Jool, timewarping it's flyby and getting the 1000s of science in really quick "time" (providing the probe has the transmission equipment etc). No need to sit at your computer for the REAL 3 years for a Jool flyby.

[Sirrobert]

Make it science per REAL minute

Very well, I'll run KSP during the night while I sleep. O damn, that's broken. FIX IT. Have KSP shut down automaticly if it goes without input for 10 minutes

[Sirrobert]

All it'd take to stop you is an encrypted save file.

And who would gain ANYTHING from that?

Not me. I only lose an option to play my game as I want it

I hope not you, cause you should not care about how I play my single player game. If you do, you might wanna see about adjusting your prioritys

[Sean Mirrsen]

And who would gain ANYTHING from that?

Not me. I only lose an option to play my game as I want it

I hope not you, cause you should not care about how I play my single player game. If you do, you might wanna see about adjusting your prioritys

There's "play a game as you want it", and there's "play a game as it was intended by the developers". Once KSP properly gains a career mode, the only ones standing to lose something from encrypted saves would be the people who'd want to cut corners in advancing through it.

[Sirrobert]

There's "play a game as you want it", and there's "play a game as it was intended by the developers". Once KSP properly gains a career mode, the only ones standing to lose something from encrypted saves would be the people who'd want to cut corners in advancing through it.

Well, I guess we can delete the mod forum than...

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, I guess we can delete the mod forum than...

There are mods, and there are mods. Verily nothing is stopping you from modding in an engine that doesn't consume fuel, and an antenna that transmits thousands of science points from literally anywhere.

There is, however, a reason why the Debug menu is hidden behind a key-combination - and even that, I suspect, will not last beyond beta stage of the game. Cheating at the game is not an intended way to play it. So while the developers can't stop people from cheating by the way of mods, they can - and should, in my opinion - try to prevent people from cheating in other ways. Editing save files is one of those ways.

[Sirrobert]

There are mods, and there are mods. Verily nothing is stopping you from modding in an engine that doesn't consume fuel, and an antenna that transmits thousands of science points from literally anywhere.

There is, however, a reason why the Debug menu is hidden behind a key-combination - and even that, I suspect, will not last beyond beta stage of the game. Cheating at the game is not an intended way to play it. So while the developers can't stop people from cheating by the way of mods, they can - and should, in my opinion - try to prevent people from cheating in other ways. Editing save files is one of those ways.

This isn't some liniar shooter, this is an open world where you can do whatever the crap you want. You clearnly don't see it that way though, so I'm talking to a wall here

[UberFuber]

A simpler solution is to have science require maintenance. Or at least user intervention.

Two possibilities.

1. Resource constrained - Science-generating equipments consumes some internal resource that requires player to launch vehicles to "restock" it once in a while. Speeding up time just means you get to the "restocking" part sooner than later.

2. User-input constrained - In my other suggestion Anomalies: Rewards on maintaining satellites, a satellite can, in theory, acquire infinite science resource for you. However, you still need to jump in to "pilot" the satellite in order to get science.

[fatfluffycat]

There are mods, and there are mods. Verily nothing is stopping you from modding in an engine that doesn't consume fuel, and an antenna that transmits thousands of science points from literally anywhere.

There is, however, a reason why the Debug menu is hidden behind a key-combination - and even that, I suspect, will not last beyond beta stage of the game. Cheating at the game is not an intended way to play it. So while the developers can't stop people from cheating by the way of mods, they can - and should, in my opinion - try to prevent people from cheating in other ways. Editing save files is one of those ways.

You sound like EA now....

Who I'm I cheating anyways?

[boomerdog2000]

Cheating at the game is not an intended way to play it. So while the developers can't stop people from cheating by the way of mods, they can - and should, in my opinion - try to prevent people from cheating in other ways. Editing save files is one of those ways.

I would assume, given the nature of the game, that the way to play it is the way you have fun playing it. If you enjoy hyper-editing massive ships into Jool orbit for some roleplay thing more power to you. If you enjoy playing the game with the developer given limitations that's fine too.

[Sirrobert]

You sound like EA now....

Who I'm I cheating anyways?

The devs, cause it's "not how they intended for the game to be playd" (end sarcasm)

I gues he never playd a game with cheatcodes. hoyohoyo is my personal favorite

[Amram]

Make it science per REAL minute

not specifically targeting you fatfluffycat, the quote is just ideal for the point is all.

And while we're at it the budget should ONLY be paid per REAL fiscal year. That'll teach those evil time-warping cheaters.....better still, and a MUCH simpler thing to implement, lets just remove the timewarp buttons entirely. The code can remain, we'll just disable it. After all, thats not playing it how it was intended to be played at all now is it. The Dev's didn't give us the timewarp functions, so why should we have them? We should play the game the way THEY made it to be played.

Do explain how time warping will remain a viable method to sidestep science requirements when you have ongoing expenses, and have to accomplish something in order to earn a payout that can be used to cover said expenses? So the trade-off then becomes keep workiing at your agency, which means lots of activity, and multiple simultaneous missions and a strong bottom line, or send kerbals to Jool, sit back time warped, unlock lots of stuff, but your flat broke and can't afford LKO now so kerbal roving it is.

Those of you that harp about being able to warp through science, you are considering how an agency budget will function along with it and how time warping will accrue or deplete that budget right? I mean, you're not just crying foul just because you can, and do realise that the science part of an economy is the smaller piece to a full game economic environment right?

Edited October 31, 2013 by Amram

[Buback]

Ah, there seems to be a difference of application to the system here. Is the OP asking for science to progress independent to missions? I thought they were just asking for science to progress during timewarp, but limited to the scope of the mission? Yeah, science will not just "happen" when in timewarp, you need to actually do something to get a return. But I see no problem with putting a probe over to Jool, timewarping it's flyby and getting the 1000s of science in really quick "time" (providing the probe has the transmission equipment etc). No need to sit at your computer for the REAL 3 years for a Jool flyby.

I mostly just wanted to point out that warping is an integral game mechanic, so something like science (or resources) should take it into account.

I don't think the current system does. For example, once you get the first solar panel power scarcity is no longer a consideration (for the most part). you do science, transmit till your battery is dead, and then timewarp to fill up your battery, and repeat. it's ignoring the fact that you can timewarp to overcome power scarcity.

a better system would be if 100 electricity = 1 science, as a baseline. Science sensors would multiply the amount of science per 100 e, and transmitters would multiply the amount of electricity per 1 s.

i.e. better science sensors gets you more science per power, and better transmitters transmit more science per power.

sensors and transmitters would still have power requirements, so a sensor might use .5 e per minute, so it'd take 200 minutes to get 1 science. but, if you only have one small battery, you don't have enough power to transmit it (possibly not enough to get home, even).

in the beginning, you benefit most by bringing all your experiments back, because without solar panels you can't afford to transmit the data. as you explore towards kerbol, your panels are more efficient, so you gain science quicker, but as you go to Jool, you need more solar or RTGs and better transmitters.

you can still have a max science per biome per sensor type, or some type of diminishing return. i sensor could degrade after being on for a long time, so that it produces less and less science per 100 e. that way you couldn't just leave it on all the time but only when it would be beneficial, like when you get to a new biome. some sensors, like thermometers and seismic sensors, should have a large max like 500 science, but a really slow rate, like .2 s /per 100 e, to encourage you to leave them on the surface for a long time.

of course i don't know if these numbers work out at all but they're just an example. the idea is that you need some limiting factor to make you work for science, but the labor intensive clicking that it is now isn't fun or stimulating. having to plan a proper power/science budget (and making it work!) would be a lot more fun.

[Sean Mirrsen]

So many posts, gotta quote them all...

...nah.

Basically, my opinion is that to play a game, you have to play it within the game. By the same logic that the phrase "who would you cheat in a sandbox game" carries, then there is no point not to cheat in anything. Screw the rules, I do what I want to do, etc, etc. Why make a career mode at all then? Obviously there is no point in having restrictions and a defined progression of events in a game at all, because nobody in their right mind will ever want to take pride in having achieved something within the game, by the game's rules, knowing that that was the way the game was meant to be played, and any possible shortcuts that could have been taken lie only within the game itself. It'd probably also be prudent to implement a save editor as a basic feature of the game, in order to maximize the enjoyment of- *PFFFgrblblblblleeee...*

Sorry, my sarcasm generator broke.

KSP may not be a competitive multiplayer game, but that's no reason to encourage, or even condone, cheating. The moment text-editable saves become useless as a debugging tool, they should be encrypted. The same goes for the debug console. Cheating has its uses - for fun, if nothing else. But in a game where achieving something involves, and results in, more than just getting a fancy Steam badge, it should at the very least be frowned upon.

[Specialist290]

Personally, I wouldn't mind a steady amount of science-per-time in Career Mode on the condition that it would be balanced out by the fact that at the same time, you'd have to consider per-time operating costs for your space program as a whole that would encourage you to continue to fly other missions to find ways to increase your budget surplus.

Of course, that would require a functioning economy, which we don't have at the moment (in the stock game).

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

But, we can timewarp through transmissions? So to those who think it's cheating, it is technically implemented but in a different sense