Jump to content

Wait?!? You start with what?


Doc Anderson

Recommended Posts

Was there a reason for the tech tree info being added to the parts? Easier to adept for mods maybe?

Kind of makes it hard to implement two parallel tech trees - one as a tutorial for new players as it is meant to be now and one for experienced players with a different setup.

Well, there could be two seperate lines in the cfg file, one for each tree ... would require editing all parts once more ... yay ... :D

Of course more experienced players could always use MM or Tree Loader to use different trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... to achieve anything more sophisticated they had to send people.

Actually, I am pretty sure that the first manned soviet missions had the cosmonauts just along for the ride, while the US Gemini guys had to essentially go on strike to get the eggheads to allow them any amount of control of the craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I am pretty sure that the first manned soviet missions had the cosmonauts just along for the ride, while the US Gemini guys had to essentially go on strike to get the eggheads to allow them any amount of control of the craft.

That is true. If you think about it most of the flight systems were originally designed for unmanned operation so they could launch puppies, kittens, and chimps into orbit. That way most of the death toll was remedied by going to the pet store the next day. Much of the flight was ground control.

The NASA astronauts though did not like the idea of putting their lives in the hands of people that were not in their situation and wanted manual control. Kind of worked out for them as situations that would have lead to disasters (First Moon Landing) were recovered by skilled astronauts. So really there is something to be said for both early game launch types.

I feel that people do not want to send up the Kerbals because we are already attached to them. We empathize with them and loosing a Kerbal in many cases is unacceptable. So for early launches I would not be against a severely limited automated control. Kind of why I suggested the Clockwork Kerbal.

Now if the game were more hazardous, if there were chances of failure outside the players control and that can only be negated by using research to improve components. Then it would be far better to have the unmanned option. But since there really is no risk (revert to launch, no critical chance of part failure), then Kerbals are the fodder for the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I am pretty sure that the first manned soviet missions had the cosmonauts just along for the ride, while the US Gemini guys had to essentially go on strike to get the eggheads to allow them any amount of control of the craft.

That's right, the first Soviet cosmonauts actually had to enter an override code (which they were not supposed to know!) to gain any control over their craft. Also, both in the American and Soviet space programs there always were unmanned test flights for every spacecraft before there were manned missions. Well, except for the space shuttle. It was pure luck that flight went well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Set aside for the moment that in its current form, career mode is intended primarily as a tutorial, which most of the folks having this discussion don't need. So, how do experienced players do career mode? While some try to mimic some sort of historical progression and a few apply a very humorous and different approach (see "The Wrong Brothers" in mission reports), most of them take it as a challenge to blaze through the tech tree in as few missions as possible. Or in any case, to wring the most possible science out of each mission, which is pretty much what everybody, even noobs, is trying to do, too.

OK, so pretty much everybody is trying to maximize science per mission. If that's the goal, then nobody has any reason to ever use a probe core. This is because probe cores can't do crew reports, EVA reports, or surface samples, so you lose out on possible science points using probes instead of Kerbals. And in 0.23, the balance will be skewed even more in favor of only using Kerbals. The main virtue of probes is that you can send them on 1-way missions without remorse, but 1-way missions can only transmit data. Harv blogged that in 0.23, transmitting will no longer get you full science credit so you'll be much better off returning all your missions. And if you're going to be returning, there's no excuse not to take a Kerbal along so you can also get the data he can generate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure there are people that do as you say. But there are also people that do not do that path. For now it is something of a tutorial, but when budgets start coming into play (why else would everything have a part cost/unlock cost) career mode will be less a tutorial and more of a challenge mode. Kind of why people play Survival in Minecraft instead of always being in creative...it is for the challenge.

The same can be applied to Kerbles. Right now there is an unlimited supply of the little meat sacks. But what if that amount were to refresh over time. what if the ability to revert you launches was removed...foolhardy decisions could leave you with out any crew at all. So having some way to test your rockets with out a Kerbal, even if it did not maximize your science, would be advantageous as it would preserve a limited resource.

Right now this is all theory craft any way. Putting out what if's and conjecture about what the developers may do. But if I were designing the game...closing these loopholes to make career more more challenging would be on the top of my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure there are people that do as you say. But there are also people that do not do that path. For now it is something of a tutorial, but when budgets start coming into play (why else would everything have a part cost/unlock cost) career mode will be less a tutorial and more of a challenge mode. Kind of why people play Survival in Minecraft instead of always being in creative...it is for the challenge.

Actually, I believe that the more constraints you add to career mode, the stronger the drive will be to maximize science per mission. Budgets especially will do this. Lack of money will limit the number of launches you'll be able to do, so those you can afford had better bring in beaucoup science. You won't be able to afford repetitious missions to every Mun biome, nor would sending a probe first and then a Kerbal be cost-effective. Instead, the pressure will be on always to surpass your previous missions.

And, of course, the more constraints are applied to career mode, the fewer successful strategies there will be. Like for instance, in 0.22 a transmit-only strategy is entirely viable, but it won't be in 0.23. As the number of successful strategies decreases, the more those that remain will become known in detail, memorized by experienced players, and immediately available to the greenest noobs through YouTube and tutorials in here. So I don't really see career mode ever being much of a challenge, regardless of added constraints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the number of successful strategies decreases, the more those that remain will become known in detail, memorized by experienced players, and immediately available to the greenest noobs through YouTube and tutorials in here. So I don't really see career mode ever being much of a challenge, regardless of added constraints.

Sure, there are always going to be those that game any given system. And, yes, you will probably be able to suss out the most effective strategies online. No doubt there are people that will do this. To which, I say, "go for it." If that's what makes it fun for you, knock yourself out. Because while they're doing that, there will also be other people who come up with stuff that makes you sit back, slack-jawed, in amazement and admiration. There will be still others that just want to immerse themselves in the game and create incredible things. But that's fine. They'll all have fun. And if we're lucky, they'll share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, there are always going to be those that game any given system. And, yes, you will probably be able to suss out the most effective strategies online. No doubt there are people that will do this. To which, I say, "go for it." If that's what makes it fun for you, knock yourself out. Because while they're doing that, there will also be other people who come up with stuff that makes you sit back, slack-jawed, in amazement and admiration. There will be still others that just want to immerse themselves in the game and create incredible things. But that's fine. They'll all have fun. And if we're lucky, they'll share.

I agree, some times the most efficient way is not the most enjoyable. It is a game after all...last I looked games were there to enjoy. If playing it is not any fun, then it is just a job that your not being payed for.

I will admit, after 25 years of gaming I have become very cynical. But that is also why I am open to ideas on games like this. The idea that they could make science more then just launching rockets. The idea that the tech tree has room for research that improves parts. The idea that some Kerbal screwed up making an engine and then you have to deal with the consequences. After all if it is just about efficiency...I would go back to playing Eve Online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit, after 25 years of gaming I have become very cynical. But that is also why I am open to ideas on games like this. The idea that they could make science more then just launching rockets. The idea that the tech tree has room for research that improves parts. The idea that some Kerbal screwed up making an engine and then you have to deal with the consequences. After all if it is just about efficiency...I would go back to playing Eve Online.

Well, KSP will never be all about efficiency as long as it keeps sandbox mode, where we can all exercise our inner Whackjobs or play with whatever combination of self-imposed constraints we want. Career mode, OTOH, is heading down a different path. Right now, there aren't very many constraints in career mode so you can still be as Kerbal (as in inefficiently explosive) as you want and still get the job done. But we already know that over time, more and more constraints will be added. And constraints force you to become more efficient because they limit your access to critical resources without diminishing your need for them. So the more constraints there are, the more career mode will become all about efficiency.

HOWEVER, this is not necessarily a bad thing. First off, some people will enjoy these constraints for their own sake. But efficiency in gathering science per mission isn't the only type of efficiency a heavily constrained career mode will breed. You'll also become better at doing more with fewer and weaker rocket parts, both in the design/construction phase and in flying around while using the least amount of fuel, which will give you a better understanding of spaceflight. You can then take these lessons and apply them in sandbox mode, which will probably increase your enjoyment there. Decreased part counts, lower launch masses, more structural integrity, etc., will make your wildest dreams more easily attainable.

So personally, I don't mind career mode's inevitable mutation into being all about efficiency. The more constraints it acquires, the less I'll enjoy playing it for its own sake because I deal with those constraints in real life. However, my basic rocketry skills can always use improvement. So what I figure I'll do is that each time a new constraint arises, I'll run through a career to learn how to build even better rockets than before, so I can apply those lessons to improve my sandbox projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, starting with Kerbals is fine if he starting setup is planes and small rockets only (sub orbital). Then some sort of way to allow probes without being Over Powered, for the first orbital flights and luna landings (or close to) then back to Kerbals for more extravagant stuff. :)

Batteries could still be released, but make a Kerbal pod much more power intensive than a probe. That way, you can allow probes and small batts early in the tech tree without it being OP? As you'd still not be able to fund the power req for a mission to Duna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, starting with Kerbals is fine if he starting setup is planes and small rockets only (sub orbital). Then some sort of way to allow probes without being Over Powered, for the first orbital flights and luna landings (or close to) then back to Kerbals for more extravagant stuff. :)

Batteries could still be released, but make a Kerbal pod much more power intensive than a probe. That way, you can allow probes and small batts early in the tech tree without it being OP? As you'd still not be able to fund the power req for a mission to Duna.

Probes and small batteries and solar cells are not deep into the tree, just focus on the lower part of the tree, the lower part also give you lots of new science equipment who let you farm science faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, starting with Kerbals is fine if he starting setup is planes and small rockets only (sub orbital). Then some sort of way to allow probes without being Over Powered, for the first orbital flights and luna landings (or close to) then back to Kerbals for more extravagant stuff. :)

Batteries could still be released, but make a Kerbal pod much more power intensive than a probe. That way, you can allow probes and small batts early in the tech tree without it being OP? As you'd still not be able to fund the power req for a mission to Duna.

Instead of solar cells, why not do what history did and use fuel cells to provide power to the systems. The cool thing in the day was that the Fuel Cells used the life support O2 and a small tank of H to provide power. Not allot of power...but power all the same. I am actually a little surprised that the developers did not put in Fuel Cells yet...may be because they would need O2 and H tanks. Tweakables perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...