time warp isn't cheating

[Moach]

There's a reason why you cannot timewarp during science'ing operations.

it's not for gameplay - it's a technical one.

thing is, when you time-warp, your ship goes into "orbit on rails" mode - thus it's no longer simulating all those pretty parts you have dangling around there. you still see them, of course - but they're really frozen, and no frame-by-frame logic is taking place until you get back to normal simulation (aka: 1x)

so, if the science-making parts are not updating, how could we learn anything?

and in a nutshell, that's why they don't

not a bug, not a feature, just a uhh... thing.

cheerz

Edited October 31, 2013 by Moach

[konokono]

The main argument for science-over-time seems to be to give stations and bases a more realistic purpose. The main argument against seems to be that time warp means science/time = free science.

As a solution, I propose science-per-kerbal-time

As in real life, the amount of science produced depends on the number and quality of scientists producing it, in addition to the environment you put them in. The game could make it so that there are scientists that you can hire, and each scientist can produce X science per hour in situation Y, up to a maximum of Z total science. The benefits of such a system are the following:

+ Gives purpose to stations and bases as places to put scientists to generate research.

+ Maximum science capacity per scientist means no unlimited science based on time-warp.

+ Maximum science capacity means scientists have to be rotated out --> incentive to undertake ferrying missions

+ Creates additional interaction between economy and science as you need to balance the number and quality of scientists you hire

[tetryds]

The only issue i have with instant experiments is that i can't leave my sensors on during a burn or reentry and have that data to vaule something.

[Sirrobert]

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.

I don't know a single person who playd GTA and never used cheatcodes.

I don't give a tiny, miniscule amount of a crap what you frown upon. If I want to modify something in my own single player game, than there is noone that should be standing in my way except my own skill in making that modification happen (or my skill to download someone else's. Probably that one).

You don't achieve ANYTHING, except a warm fuzzy feeling whenever you land succesfully, or crash spectacuarly, or hyperedit that gigantic ship into space and just fly around with it. Who the hell are you to frown upon my ability to do so?

[Sean Mirrsen]

Correction. Not "your own" singleplayer game. This here is Squad's singleplayer game. You want to cheat? You can use mods to do so. Hyperedit is quite a useful tool, in many respects. But Squad make this game, and their vision of career mode likely doesn't include someone's ability to just give himself all the science points with via Notepad.

Besides, if all you want is to do whatever you want, what in the seventeen million thermonuclear blazes of the Milky Way compels you to play Career mode? I.e. the one that's being talked about here, with the science points?

Edit: also, before I forget:

You sound like EA now....

That's NVidia, not EA. "The Way It's Meant to Be Played".

EA's is "Challenge Everything".

Edited October 31, 2013 by Sean Mirrsen

[Sirrobert]

Didn't we discuss that already? Cause I like it. Which is sorta the reason I do everything

And alright mr. I know what the devs want. Soon as you give me a quote where a Dev says they don't want me to edit my save file, I'll believe you

[Sean Mirrsen]

Right now the devs want you to have access to the save data structure in case the alpha game breaks something and it'll need restoring, repairing, or analysis.

So I say, enjoy it while it lasts.

[Kasuha]

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.

It's not about breaking anything. The true argument is, introducing delays into the science is pointless as you can make it an instant through time warp. That's why all research in the science is done instantly and in my opinion there's no reason to change anything on that.

[boomerdog2000]

I guess the problem they're trying to fix is making permanent space stations more relevant in regards to science, which doesn't easily fit with the current one time science experiments, the argue for having a budget to manage will depend on how they implement the budget.

[Wampa842]

The solution is easy. No warp (1x) or atmospheric warp (1x to 4x) yields science, time warp (5x to 100000x, outer space only) doesn't. As far as I know, game time passes while you are controlling another craft, or in the VAB/SPH, and those places have time warp at 1x.

[Dwight_js]

I think that if the intended game-play feature of a science/time module is for you to sit in your chair and wait for the allotted time to pass, then it's a poorly designed module. I can understand that some types of real-life research take time to bear fruit, and it would be neat to replicate this in the game. But time-warp is an absolute necessity in a space travel/exploration game, otherwise it becomes hours/days of boredom (not a great selling feature for a game!).

And this holds true for a science/time module as well - it's boring to sit around waiting. So if time-warp removes the main purpose/challenge of using such a part (waiting for the right amount of time to pass), then you have to come up with a barrier to using warp. For game-play purposes it has to be a better barrier than disabling warp or declaring it immoral/cheating and expecting people to do the "right" thing. Some good suggestions have been made already, like requiring maintenance of the part (rendezvous missions to swap out science canisters or upgrade parts), or having economic pressures to continue flying other revenue-generating missions simultaneously.

[Awaras]

Right now we could afford to just timewarp for 2-3 years to research something, but once money is implemented it won't be as viable. If they made it so research costs money (along with maintenance costs for orbital facilities, maybe?) than just timewarping would suck away all of your budget and you would be forced to perform other missions concurrently to earn the money you need to fund the research.

[Mirimus]

I Totally agree with Sean on this one .... really simple in my mind so can i just hash this out quickly to try and end the argument.

Career Mode --- Should be as realistic and challenging as possible, it may only be an SP but its about setting yourself obstacles and overcoming them.

Sandbox Mode --- Lie, Cheat, Steal, Maim, Kill .... basiclly do whatever you want to the game that gives you a cheap thrill.

If you cheat in career mode your kind of missing the point and if you take sandbox to seriously then ditto.

P.S don't mean to be offensive here but is sirrobert a troll?, cause he seems to like trying to wind ppl up

Oh and in answer to the original post .... i think the tech is fine at the moment, just my opinion however, but seems kind of pointless having to wait for ur tech to develop

Edited November 1, 2013 by Mirimus

[Sirrobert]

I Totally agree with Sean on this one .... really simple in my mind so can i just hash this out quickly to try and end the argument.

Career Mode --- Should be as realistic and challenging as possible, it may only be an SP but its about setting yourself obstacles and overcoming them.

Sandbox Mode --- Lie, Cheat, Steal, Maim, Kill .... basiclly do whatever you want to the game that gives you a cheap thrill.

If you cheat in career mode your kind of missing the point and if you take sandbox to seriously then ditto.

P.S don't mean to be offensive here but is sirrobert a troll?, cause he seems to like trying to wind ppl up

Oh and in answer to the original post .... i think the tech is fine at the moment, just my opinion however, but seems kind of pointless having to wait for ur tech to develop

I don't have to be a troll to think you're full of crap buddy.

But it's cute that you even pretend to think that your opinion can end an argument. Atleast try to come up with a reason why you think that. Atleast mr 'I speak for the devs' claims that it's because the devs want it, even though the entire modding forum points in the oposite direction

[boomerdog2000]

The solution is easy. No warp (1x) or atmospheric warp (1x to 4x) yields science, time warp (5x to 100000x, outer space only) doesn't. As far as I know, game time passes while you are controlling another craft, or in the VAB/SPH, and those places have time warp at 1x.

Then people would leave the game on over night on 1X time warp.

Career Mode --- Should be as realistic and challenging as possible, it may only be an SP but its about setting yourself obstacles and overcoming them.

Exactly, setting yourself obstacles. If someone wants to go to all the trouble of editing a save file to do something why not let them? We're not competing with anyone but ourselves in this game, unless you go to the challenges and there are rules there. If someone was editing their equipment or something in a multiplayer game, then there would be issues because what they're doing is unfair to others. We are playing a singleplayer, essentially sandbox, game where the only person you would be unfair to is yourself for missing out on the challenges and fun you can have, but that's their choice, and they should be free to make that choice.

[Specialist290]

Just a friendly reminder from the moderation staff to keep things civil. Rudeness, personal attacks, and inflammatory comments are still against the rules and may result in infractions.

We don't mind if you air out your grievances if you can do so in a calm and reasonable manner, but let's not let things escalate.

[fatfluffycat]

Some people really care way too much about how one plays a SP Game.

[Lexar]

I wouldn't be against real time science. I think it would give space stations and satellites a reason to be in orbit. The reason most people say time warped science is cheating would be the fact you don't even have to leave LKO orbit to unlock the entire tree. Unless they put a cap on it like the other science.

[Lexar]

Some people really care way too much about how one plays a SP Game.

That's because the people who "cheat" will say "this game sucks it's way to easy!" Trust me I have seen it on other games before, and it wrecks the game.

Perfect example are the people who use Mech Jeb. I have nothing against it. I even use it myself when i feel lazy. But how many people who are crying about an easy game when they use a mod to fly for them.

[tntristan12]

Couldn't science per unit time accumulate at a decaying rate every time the player explored someplace new? For example, if you are orbiting kerbin, presumably there is some time there where the kerbonaut is getting some very useful data, but after a certain amount of time that is not so useful as all the data has been collected. Perhaps accumulating science over time is not such a bad thing as long as the player keeps exploring new regions of space.

[Lazro]

Maybe you would need to deliver a resource called "Experiments" to the station, which would be converted to data gradually and broadcast as science? I think it would balance out time-based elements with launches. You can't just wait around doing nothing, you either have to put as many experiments on as possible to a craft or learn to dock to bring more.

[Amram]

TL;DR? skip to end, ignore post, whatever. (I miss spoilers sometimes, ah well)

I don't get it. If you have to wait for tech, people will grind it anyways, because they will just leave the game on. Have to go to work?, no biggie, leave KSP farming tech, you'll come back to 8 or 9 hours worth. Have to go to sleep, leave KSP farming tech, you'll wake up to 7-9 hours worth. the player still has his tech, in all of 5 minutes of actual time played. Sure the game has been on, but that doesn't count anymore than timewarp counts as play time. How does that solve anything?

Making tech take real time solves nothing except to generate bug reports from new players who time warp, and then see that nothing happened to their science rate, surely that must be a bug, better go report it. As a mechanic it makes absolutely zero sense of any sort, and fails to solve the problem it was suggested for.

I personally think the answer is in the economics of running your agency.

1. Experiments need materials to experiment on, samples, instrument readings, something.
   1. some experiments can be completed with small sample sizes.
   2. some may require significant sample sizes, meaning you don't learn all the science in one 'test' unless that one test involves all the data in one shot. Think science from Biomes. There's a lot of Biomes.
   3. some experiments might damage/destroy samples requiring multiple identical samples to yield all available science. Heat testing might char the sample, better get a new sample to test for something else later on.
   4. Science takes time, GAME time, the only time in the kerbal universe that exists. How many types of time do we have? 7?, 42? 11? 1? Why do they need two types? How does that make sense?
   5. Science costs money. Not directly, but your researchers need paychecks, their gear needs to be bought(science parts), your facilities need to be maintained, occasionally serviced. 2 years of warp is going to mean a bill for 2 years of expenses.
      
   6. Running an agency costs money. You would like to keep your agency running....wouldn't you?
      1. The previously mentioned paychecks for scientists.
      2. Jeb might be willing to fly for free, but Kerbals should cost you. Maintaining a pool of 40 kerbals when you only need 6 should be unwise, and expensive
      3. Keeping your Science lab, or SPH, or Tracking station operating isn't free, it too accrues costs
      4. accelerating time merely means these expenses pile up faster. Sure you got your science more quickly, but did you go bankrupt in the process?

[*]Income isn't assured, nor is it 'produced' like running a factory.

1. You might have a federal budget at the beginning, maybe indefinitely. You'll need to justify it though, the bean counters don't like it when there's nothing to show for money spent.
2. Companies may decide to enlist your services. the Campaign may include missions to do things like put a specified payload in orbit around the Mun for example. Complete that and they pay you for the task. Spend too much doing so and you lost money, spend less and you profit.
3. Companies may seek to use your R&D facilities to do things they can't. Again, this leads to income for you, but the facilities need to be there in the first place, and maintained.
4. Maybe your agency is approached by a company that wants a sample from Eve for their own purposes. Go get it for your payout, yes that means a return trip....from Eve, with a sample...

[*]you get the idea? Timewarping to get 'free' tech can be solved, easily, without requiring multidimensional spacetime that can flow at three or four rates simultaneously, or some such. Make it cost, make the player go earn the income, now tech costs in gameplay, because gameplay is needed to earn the money to pay for the tech.

We have an initial implementation of 1, we don't have 2 or 3, and here we are complaining that science over time would be broken* because 4 isn't functional, because it first requires 2 and 3. How does the complaint that started all this(look at all that free tech if you timewarp!) even make sense considering? Stop with the little piece of the puzzle and view the bigger picture, what timewarp will cost you when you have a budget.

A shorter version for the more A.D.D. among us.

1. You want to do launch rockets? That'll cost you, parts aren't free, neither are your pilots.
   
2. You want to do science with those rockets? The rocket will cost you more, lab equipment and sensors are not cheap.
   
3. You want to have Science points to unlock stuff with? Do experiments with those science parts. That means going and getting samples, data, and such stuff.
   
4. You want to develop Science points from your experiments? That'll cost you, gotta pay R&D for their time, and maintain the facilities they use.
   
5. You want to timewarp? Whatever, you still have to pay your bills, faster time just means the bills pile up faster is all.
   
6. Want to pay for all this? Produce results of some kind to justify the payouts you receive. No result, no payout except for maybe a limited federal budget.
   
7. No new payouts/income, but lots of time accelerated science? Career mode failure. Your broke, can't afford to buy an engine, let alone a rocket. Have a nice day.

Want to prevent that? GO DO STUFF. That means a busy player, who is playing the game. Got 20 missions in progress simultaneously? er...wow, i have yet to juggle more than a couple(no need to....yet), but im sure its doable. Maybe then you can afford a science station or two full time. Got one on the go? Well, enjoy your slow trickle of science, or splurge and go broke, your call.

*edit :complaining that its broken was reworded, that wasn't the right wording. Given my delay in the edit, figured it was only fair to note the change.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Amram
see underline -do we have strikethrough here?

[Mirimus]

We are playing a singleplayer, essentially sandbox, game where the only person you would be unfair to is yourself for missing out on the challenges and fun you can have, but that's their choice, and they should be free to make that choice.

totally agreed ... well said boomerdog

[Mirimus]

Just a friendly reminder from the moderation staff to keep things civil. Rudeness, personal attacks, and inflammatory comments are still against the rules and may result in infractions.

We don't mind if you air out your grievances if you can do so in a calm and reasonable manner, but let's not let things escalate.

If that is in reference to my question about sirrobert, i do not mean to offend as stated, simply curious .... apologies to all concerned, agreed this is a forum for debate not a place to vent emotions.

on the note of debate, is there a like/dislike button for this forum .... i find the function useful to see which posts stand out in terms of general popularity (for example i would give a like to lexar as i feel he makes a solid point )

nvm ... just found the reputation tab, still would be nice to see likes/dislike thou

Edited November 1, 2013 by Mirimus

[Dwight_js]

I personally think the answer is in the economics of running your agency.

Excellent post. Completely agree. For me this is a game design problem with the goal being the creation of a fun and satisfying game. A game that intentionally includes sitting around waiting for something to happen as a game-play element is an abject failure of game design. If you want me to wait in real time, then give me the incentive to go do something else in the meantime. Running the space agency should be an exercise in time-management, not time-killing.

The economy is certainly going to play a big role in accomplishing this. But I think that care needs to be taken to ensure that the money side of the game is not too grindey. The game should force you outward toward new frontiers. Running the same mission over and over could result in diminishing returns (reflects how the public gets bored, like what happened with the Apollo moon landings), so you have to think of new things to do.