This game is for *massive* nerds

[vetrox]

If you look in the persistence file for a given save you'll notice achievements are being recorded so the game can track what you do

THERE ARE!

I know theres a mod that tracks achievements but im fairly certain the squad have said they wont ever include achievments I will admit its something i like.

It was the best thing about my xbox 360 when i first got it. Duels with my friends about who has the most achievments

[lil_irish]

' i mean you can if you want calculate delta V required for hohman transfers. or you can point your craft in direction of travel, burn until you apoapsis reaches the desired altitude and just see how much fuel you have left and then wing it to the mun and back '-

how do i make this brilliance my sig??

[Arcadiax]

First off, as long as you transmit the findings, you get science, you don't need to land it unless you don't transmit.

Secondly, you are only able to earn a certain amount of science in each "biome" aka mountains, tundra, low orbit, high orbit, etc. The only places iirc that have been given a ton of biomes are the Mun and Kerbal, the rest are yet to be implemented.

Which brings us to thirdly, this is a beta game with a first stage implementation of a career mode, I'm sure it will have a ton of updates to balance it out and make it a better all-round experience.

[boomerdog2000]

Time lag: Please explain this is something new to me.

Time lag has to do with communicating with satellites that are far enough away that you have to worry about the speed of light causing signal lag. Communication with probes on Mars can take from 8 to 42 minutes for the signal to reach Mars from Earth.

[Jeb Kerm�an]

Here's a pro tip; Play Sandbox mode.

[boxman]

Career mode doesn't add any challenge at all for experienced players in its current iteration; it's a joke. Hell, even changing the tech tree and reducing the gains just makes the game "grindy". It's not like an inventive player with knowledge of the game can't advance (blow) through it at a reasonable (laughably quick) pace. If you want real challenge you need to mod this game closer to a simulator (and there are plenty of mods that allow you to do that).

For new players? I can see both sides of the argument but some concepts are quite unclear (how to gather science, biomes, etc...) It seems like Squad is changing their thinking on the tech tree being a "tutorial" so I'm going to revert my judgement and see what comes out of 0.23, but for now there is no compelling reason at all to play career mode; calling it a challenge is kind of funny.

As much as I think it is too easy to earn science right now, I still think it adds challenge even for exerienced players. Try for example going to another planet in when you only have a small amount of parts and no struts. It surely adds a bit of challenge compared to having all the parts available.

[regex]

As much as I think it is too easy to earn science right now, I still think it adds challenge even for exerienced players. Try for example going to another planet in when you only have a small amount of parts and no struts. It surely adds a bit of challenge compared to having all the parts available.

That's not the game challenging you, it's you challenging you; there's a difference. If I wanted that sort of challenge I'd just load up a sandbox save and do it.

[Leatherneck]

As to the title of the thread, I disagree. I don't think the mass of the nerd has anything to do with it; I'm very skinny.

Thanks, I just about lost the soda all over my desk.

The problem is that Career mode in its current incarnation doesn't add any challenge. It's an exercise in using different parts until you unlock the ones you want by collecting numbers, big deal. Maybe I'm used to that because I build ships of all sizes suited to the mission at hand and not ridiculous catch-all monstrosities (not discounting Whackjob here, that man challenges himself in other ways than people like me) vOv Like I said, there is no compelling reason to play it at the moment, and for new players it seems to only add confusion.

Pretty much this.

I am very critical of Career, and I understand it's not the finished product, but (in another thread) I explained how it isn't really friendly at all, nor does it really follow a path that guides a new player. The people who bother to come to the forums for help really want to give this game a chance, but how many haven't simply because they don't know where to start? KSP not only doesn't help you start, it doesn't really even tell you HOW to start.

The challenge was interesting, but not teaching much of anything other than thinking how do I accomplish x without the parts I want. Add in the parts that are redundant, or not even better than what you already have, and a new player can easily just walk away. Expecting a player to seek the forums or YouTube for help is unrealistic, and I hope Squad does take steps to address this.

I know theres a mod that tracks achievements but im fairly certain the squad have said they wont ever include achievments I will admit its something i like.

In regards to achievements, I like that Squad said no. Without getting too deep into why I despise achievements, for KSP there is a need for pushing your own boundaries without someone telling you what milestones there are. KSP is a game that really can't be defined by achievements either. There is something about a Space Program that your own wonder, and accomplishments ARE the achievements. For example, I have screenshots of landing on Mun, and Minmus. These are great milestones, and I didn't need a game to tell me that. There wasn't a list saying, "well, that's great you got to Mun, but Jool is still locked". I docked in space, built my own Space Station, and that was cooler than "ding, here's your points...."

[alacrity]

I also slaved away to get to batteries and solar panels. After a trip to the moon and minmus I jumped ahead tho. I think the curve is going to change dristacally at this point tho. with the heavy lift gear coming online interplanetary work will start and then the tech tree will be over all too quickly.

Alacrity

[palker]

I think the root of the issue is the steep learning curve of KSP. I have a couple friends who tried the demo and were discouraged by the learning curve of the game. To that end, I think the career starts off rather well by limiting parts and making it easier to build a basic rocket. I also agree that some hints and more involved tutorials are a good idea in the finished game. That said, none of us know for sure (other than the devs) what the final game will contain on that subject. The power problem in particular is a playing style error rather than a game/design issue. It's a challenge, to find the correct way to play through that particular part of the game. When the player learns how much science they are missing by transmitting, most likely they will stop transmitting all together until they reach the moon and then further out.

KSP learning curve does not have a very steep slope. They should have only play the tutorials within the game to get them started after that their own curiosity would lead them to discover how to land on the Mun an do the other things before the week is over.

You know what has a steep learning curve? DCS:A-10 or any DCS sim really. If someone says that the learning curve discouraged him from playing those i can understand that but KSP? Come one have some ritalin and try again.

[TheWanderer]

sad to say... you are just doing it wrong.

A single half decent launch can get you a ton of science. hell you can get a load without even taking off.

please try harder

[boomerdog2000]

KSP learning curve does not have a very steep slope. They should have only play the tutorials within the game to get them started after that their own curiosity would lead them to discover how to land on the Mun an do the other things before the week is over.

You know what has a steep learning curve? DCS:A-10 or any DCS sim really. If someone says that the learning curve discouraged him from playing those i can understand that but KSP? Come one have some ritalin and try again.

The current tutorials are old. There was a thread from someone who had literally just started the game, played the tutorials, and understood what they covered. The issue is what they didn't cover. The new science system, why the tech-tree restricts you from certain things, how to actually get into orbit. I'm not saying Squad should focus on tutorials now, but we certainly can not say that the current tutorials are adequate for a brand new player.

[The Destroyer]

I never seem to use much electricity- keep the SAS off when you aren't using your engine. The command pod only uses electric chrage when turning. I don't know how you run out of electricity, just saying.

[SRV Ron]

Three ways to run out of power; 1. transmitting when you have no solar cells, 2. Leaving SAS turned on while time accelerating. 3. Launching probes with no solar panels as they always use power.

[Guest]

[Deleted by user]

Edited November 25, 2019 by Guest

[SaturnV]

Isp different scaler mod seems specially developed for you, you should go for a try

[roosterr]

Finally, a game for massive nerds!

[boolybooly]

The issue I see the OP has is that the tech tree is not balanced or fine tuned for progression by people actually playing the game. Designing the game without playing does not create the right experience.

Likewise the collection of stock parts (as well as their arrangement in the tech tree) is limited and if you try to play an economic simulation by hand, the parts cost balancing is apparently pulled out of a hat or something because it makes very little sense eg that larger fuel tanks cost 2x more than smaller ones for the same volume of fuel for example. Its a WIP and roughly balanced, unfortunately the fine tuned play balance which comes from many hours play testing is not in evidence. That is because it is still in alpha, the major systems have not even been written yet.

I understand people coming to KSP from Steam and wanting to pick up the game with a career mode and get some game play from it. That is why I want as a player for Squad to pay more attention to playability but you can understand that from their point of view the more time they spend polishing play now at the expense of adding more key systems, the longer it will take to produce a finished game. Also every time they add a new system it will change the play balance, so balancing now is a waste of time and they are pushing ahead to the completed beta and hopefully will balance it carefully then.

My biggest concern is that they will get so used to having a bug filled game that once the main systems are all in place they will not take the small bugs seriously and will get fed up and walk away and go take a long vacation, or like Aaron at Malfador Machinations making Space Empires V, just give up on it unbalanced once beta systems are in place, leaving the content to the modders and and start a different very much less anticipated project and give up on the baby he nurtured through 5 iterations due to project fatigue, losing his player base in the process!

My advice to HarvesteR and others is to pace themselves, make this a sustainable project so they can stay with it to polish it as sparkly as possible, to which end avoid project fatigue and give themselves proper breaks and holidays a few times a year in between versions so they are not so tired out they they have to abandon game development to get a proper break, if you see what I mean?

[Activity]

While i do agree with the OP that the tech tree requires some tweaking, especially in the earlier stages, I believe that the fact that this game can be so hard and requires you to do research about spacetravel, is one of it's strongest features, it makes the community alot more valuable too.

[Linear]

I don't see what you're talking about.

I may have played this game for a long long while now, however i started playing career mode with ideas similar to what a new player might have.

Pod --> collect samples on launchpad --> transmit

Small ship ----> sub orbital flight ---> many attempts to transmit a lot of science with the altenator

Bigger ship ---> orbit --> science --> larger orbit ---> science ---> larger orbit ---> etc

Ship --> moon --> samples ---> science

I may have been able to do these quickly and on the first attempt, which new players probably couldn't do, however they would stil be able to get the same science, and after a mun landing and a few Duna fly passes id unlocked everything.

If anything it's too easy.

[Lar-E]

Well, I guess I'm a *massive* nerd...

[Fourjays]

I'm hardly a pro at this game, but I have almost unlocked the entire tech tree without ever having to repeat a mission. Heck, I didn't even really do anything on Kerbin, just a crew report and straight up-and-down type job to get the first tier unlocked, then I did a suborbital hop, an orbit, a Mun flyby, a Minmus flyby, a Mun landing, a Minmus Landing then a Duna landing. I am planning a more substantial mission to the Jool system now. Never have I felt like I was grinding (apart from having to repeat transmissions multiple times).

As soon as I realised I could do samples, EVA reports, etc all in one mission and sometimes multiple times a mission I was doing something similar, but it still ends up repetitive then. And to make progress in that way you are kind of forced to build certain rockets (like covering a ship with batteries, attaching 99 rockets, etc because the parts for doing these kind of missions any differently are buried deep down the tech tree). I know there is a challenge aspect to that, but it is limiting and not in a good way. I've now "cheated" my career mode because I just want to enjoy the game with the science. In sandbox I was doing things steadily and was very pleased with my progress to the Mun. But the career mode seems to want me to go to Duna as my fourth or fifth mission and spoil the "epicness" of the achievement.

As I said, I feel the problem isn't necessarily that it can be repetitive, but that you aren't getting anything out of it in the end other than parts. At the same time, making parts the reward on such a large tree is restricting players from just building their own rockets.

If you look at other games with tech trees, they never just unlock parts or units. They unlock new gameplay, and usually at fairly logical points. I know it is early, but I am rather concerned that there isn't too much else planned for the tech tree.

To keep it constructive... I'd do a smaller tech tree that focuses on technology and functionality rather than just parts. Group the parts together to allow more freedom (give more of the small rocket parts to start with and a single probe core, put the big parts together, etc), then make the majority of the tech tree focused on advancing the functional parts such as science collection, better batteries and solar panels, improved transmitters, more scientific instruments, rover parts, better parachutes, etc. In addition to this, make some of the nodes on the tech tree unrelated to parts, so for example, better fuel efficiency, ability to "see" the planets (maybe after a space telescope is in orbit?), unlock the astronaut complex for hiring additional astronauts, bonuses to money and science collection, etc. And to add another level, make some of the tech tree conditional on logically relevant gameplay events (like the telescope one I mentioned above). Given how central the tech tree is going to be, it needs to be much more than just a list of parts to unlock, IMO.

[Tank Buddy]

This game just requires intellect. Some of my friends have played it and just give up because of the steep learning curve, but I really have a passion for aerospace engineering so it greatly interests me.

[Ricovandijk]

Orbiter space flight simulator is a game for massive nerds..

KSP is the fun variant, no programming skills required, no hardcore mathematics required, just built a rocket and see what it does! I did not look forward to the career mode, but now it's there I am hooked to it for days, even though it is still in development.

Oh, and it's not too hard, it's fun!

[Johnman]

Ricovandijk beat me to what I was going to say. Maybe it's because I found out about KSP on the Orbiter forums (and I had been playing with Orbiter for a while), but Kerbal Space Program feels like a "gamified" version of a realistic space simulator. Many aspects of it feel dumbed down in the most positive manner, as that is precisely what it's supposed to be doing, add gameplay value to the concept sacrificing realism when necessary. That is good.

I'm a little late to this party, but perhaps the problem the OP is having is not so much related to "hardcore" mechanics, but to him/her approaching career mode wrong. Before you unlock solar panels and batteries, staying in space with your engines off is just unpractical. It's a gameplay design thing that has nothing to do with realism (in fact, as the OP says, it's less than realistic). You are not meant to stay parked in orbit doing science without a solar panel or even a battery.

I'm no pro. Although I have been playing this game for a long time, I usually botch interplanetary missions because even the simplified as they are, some aspects of delta-v managing and mission design give me a hard time. I consider myself a clumsy player, and yet, I felt career mode was extremely easy. Perhaps that is because I know how the game plays, what I can and cannot do easily with what the game is giving me.

Try to approach the game in a different way that is more in harmony with its inherent rules and it will become a hundred times easier.

I'm sorry this turned into a wall of text. It was never my intention...