Testing Facility

[gustomundo]

Am i the only one who is tired of needing risk lives just testing a craft? because if not then i recommend that Squad put in a new building where you could choose the gravity and atmosphere and have your ship exist in a small chamber with the chosen features. Anyone else feel that this would be an awesome feature?

[Algiark]

Unmanned command modules exist, you know... Just slap one onto a manned command module and empty it before launching and bam, you can test a craft without risking lives.

[Sirrobert]

What, you think they put that revert flight button there for the show? You should try it some time

[panzerknoef]

Actually i think this idea isn't that bad! It might be useless for saving lives but it could do wonders when you are, let's say developing a spaceplane for Eve. If you could test how it responds etc in eve's atmosphere, you can build your things a whole lot more efficient!

[vexx32]

Aye, I think the sole purpose for this would be to make sure what you're building is suitable for its destination. Saving lives, not so much. Testing for a hard-to-reach environment so you can survive once you get there? Definitely.

[Designer225]

Unless you have a mod, testing is always a good idea. But a "revert" button is there for a reason, so I don't think you need to launch, crash, back to KSC, going to VAB/SPH, redesign, and relaunch, crash, back to KSC, going to VAB/SPH, redesign, and relaunch...

[Kasuha]

Technically speaking, there's nothing that couldn't be tested using a separate game save and Hyperedit.

But it would still be nice if it was integrated into the game in a way which would let me to run the test in my current save while preserving its current state (i.e. disable autosave and quicksave during the test, or use a separate "testing" quicksave).

[MistaX8]

I think it would take away from the fun of reaching another planet and then trying to minimize the total disaster that begins to unfold when you get halfway to the ground.

[Franklin]

When career mode gets expanded to parts and missions actually coming with a price-tag, a testing/training facility will absolutely become necessary. Everyone will bankrupt themselves after their $1B rocket suffers two failed take-offs because of an unbalanced docking port and forgetting to equip solar panels.

[Sirrobert]

When career mode gets expanded to parts and missions actually coming with a price-tag, a testing/training facility will absolutely become necessary. Everyone will bankrupt themselves after their $1B rocket suffers two failed take-offs because of an unbalanced docking port and forgetting to equip solar panels.

That's what the revert button is for...

If you crash your rocket on takeoff, you revert back to the VAB and fix it

If you want to crash test a lander, drop it from height at the lander pad and note the speed at which it breaks. If you want to test landing a lander, test it on Minmus/Mun and do the math with gravity.

[Jordanpumah]

That's what the revert button is for...

If you crash your rocket on takeoff, you revert back to the VAB and fix it

If you want to crash test a lander, drop it from height at the lander pad and note the speed at which it breaks. If you want to test landing a lander, test it on Minmus/Mun and do the math with gravity.

what if in the future, there is no revert on carrer mode, plus, you can't revert on the mun, i tried, jeb is still up there.

[Guest]

This is definitely needed. A wind tunnel with various atmosphere density settings, perhaps a vacuum test chamber (for vacuum lander designs), not to mention Kerbal Engineer-like (but better organized) display of stats as you build the rocket. Also, a way to display surface TWR and atmospheric delta V not only for Kerbin, but for other bodies with atmospheres. Getting to other planets is hard and takes long, so having to run repeated attempts at getting it right could bankrupt a career-based space program.

[Sirrobert]

what if in the future, there is no revert on carrer mode, plus, you can't revert on the mun, i tried, jeb is still up there.

Quicksave. And why would they remove revert?

[vexx32]

Aye, the revert function is gone once you've made a quicksave...

[Sirrobert]

Actually I meant quicksave to help with Mun landings.

And I always thought revert went away at quickload. Never noticed though, I always do both things at the same moments anyway. Docking, landing, just trying something stupid...

[Rusty6899]

It may work if you were required to, say, land on a body first and collect seismic, gravity, temperature and pressure data first. Then you could transmit the data back and test crafts in these conditions. That would have the bonus of adding a "real" benefit to data collection.

[Franklin]

That's what the revert button is for...

If you crash your rocket on takeoff, you revert back to the VAB and fix it

If you want to crash test a lander, drop it from height at the lander pad and note the speed at which it breaks. If you want to test landing a lander, test it on Minmus/Mun and do the math with gravity.

Sure, but then there's never any failure in career mode, making costs meaningless beyond progression pacing. The problem with the revert button (and subsequently the quicksave safety net) is it flies in the face of an actual career mode with pricing and costs. Money in this game would be meaningless if you could revert and quicksave your way out of every mistake, effectively giving yourself a 'perfect' career with a thousand off-record mulligans.

Which makes me assume once they get around to fleshing out career mode with contracts and construction bills, they're going to have to take a long, hard look at the revert/quicksave options. I wouldn't at all be surprised if revert came with a 'cancellation fee' scaled against when the revert was executed, and quicksave became more restrictive in career mode.

edit: I mean, with a career mode, and a grade by which to judge a career, there has to be an element of unavoidable punishment when you do 'poorly'. Right now career mode is just a sandbox mode with an alpha-y tech tree slapped on. I'm sure we'll see big changes to the 'real' career mode when they finally find time to build it out.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Franklin

[boomerdog2000]

Sure, but then there's never any failure in career mode, making costs meaningless beyond progression pacing. The problem with the revert button (and subsequently the quicksave safety net) is it flies in the face of an actual career mode with pricing and costs. Money in this game would be meaningless if you could revert and quicksave your way out of every mistake, effectively giving yourself a 'perfect' career with a thousand off-record mulligans.

Which makes me assume once they get around to fleshing out career mode with contracts and construction bills, they're going to have to take a long, hard look at the revert/quicksave options. I wouldn't at all be surprised if revert came with a 'cancellation fee' scaled against when the revert was executed, and quicksave became more restrictive in career mode.

edit: I mean, with a career mode, and a grade by which to judge a career, there has to be an element of unavoidable punishment when you do 'poorly'. Right now career mode is just a sandbox mode with an alpha-y tech tree slapped on. I'm sure we'll see big changes to the 'real' career mode when they finally find time to build it out.

How is it any different than other games allowing you to save and load in case something goes wrong? Virtually any strategy game with a save function falls into this category. The issue of what to do with your save function lies with the players. Take Xcom, if you're willing to do it you can save before every mission to avoid anything going wrong. That is not a fault of the game, that is a player lacking self-control, or who don't have fun when things go wrong.

[Franklin]

Well this isn't a strategy game, it's a simulation. And save-anywhere is even worse is strategy games than sims, but that's a whole other thread.

But it's not any different than most [current] games, and I'm not saying they are or have to go the route I'm describing. They can leave save-anytime in the game, free reverts, and there's essentially no change to the present gameplay methodology. It's just if they do costs and pricing is meaningless beyond a progression pacer, which is what I said.

I know most depend on the free do-over, but to make a career mode truely challenging and grading, it has to come with punishment for poor gameplay, otherwise the progress feels cheap and biding. Most modern developers have forgotten this, and prefer to nanny players with a save/reload-whenever-you-like system to avoid 'stressing players out', which a lot of developers seem to think equates to 'stop playing' and subsequently 'losing sales'.

[Franklin]

And if you don't have fun when things go wrong, you're playing the wrong game. But that's what sandboxes are for.

[Force21]

Then why not remove the quicksave and revert features all together? If they entice players to cheat and have a perfect game, just remove it.

[Franklin]

Because kids will bankrupt their careers by crashing rockets without a testing/trailing facility and be unable to re-coup the failure costs. That's the whole thing we're talking about...

Plus for the sake of throwing 'casual' players a nickle and not making all progression grueling, there probably should be some mulligan element. Perhaps allow for auto-saves once circular orbit is achieved around any body, etc. Stuff that doesn't make failure meaningless, but doesn't waste an hours worth of work when you accidentally hit shift.

[Sirrobert]

Sure, but then there's never any failure in career mode, making costs meaningless beyond progression pacing. The problem with the revert button (and subsequently the quicksave safety net) is it flies in the face of an actual career mode with pricing and costs. Money in this game would be meaningless if you could revert and quicksave your way out of every mistake, effectively giving yourself a 'perfect' career with a thousand off-record mulligans.

Which makes me assume once they get around to fleshing out career mode with contracts and construction bills, they're going to have to take a long, hard look at the revert/quicksave options. I wouldn't at all be surprised if revert came with a 'cancellation fee' scaled against when the revert was executed, and quicksave became more restrictive in career mode.

edit: I mean, with a career mode, and a grade by which to judge a career, there has to be an element of unavoidable punishment when you do 'poorly'. Right now career mode is just a sandbox mode with an alpha-y tech tree slapped on. I'm sure we'll see big changes to the 'real' career mode when they finally find time to build it out.

Really? You can't lose money if you can't crash? Ever heard of overenginering? It's pritty easy to make a craft 5 times bigger than it needs to be, because making it big is easier than making it small and efficient.

And WHY exactly does there HAVE to be an unavavoidable punishment? You can revert to an old save in almost every single player game in existance, and that doesn't make it less fun.

Dissable your saves if you want ironman, most of us don't

Then why not remove the quicksave and revert features all together? If they entice players to cheat and have a perfect game, just remove it.

I really hope you are being sarcastic...

[boomerdog2000]

Then why not remove the quicksave and revert features all together? If they entice players to cheat and have a perfect game, just remove it.

Cheat and have a perfect game in a single player game? The point of the game is to have fun. If you have more fun making sure all your missions go perfectly, do it. If you have more fun with the reward from making sure the mission will go perfectly beforehand or living with the failure, do it. There is no right or wrong way to play a single-player game. The only way to play is the way you have fun.

[Franklin]

Really? You can't lose money if you can't crash? Ever heard of overenginering? It's pritty easy to make a craft 5 times bigger than it needs to be, because making it big is easier than making it small and efficient.

And WHY exactly does there HAVE to be an unavavoidable punishment? You can revert to an old save in almost every single player game in existance, and that doesn't make it less fun.

Dissable your saves if you want ironman, most of us don't

You're using too many absolutes. I'm not suggesting they remove saving entirely, and for the record progressive saving, save-anytime, and to a lesser degree auto-saving are actually a relatively new ideas to game design. There was a time when if you died you went back to the start screen, and in RPGs and longer games you could save at specific, spread out spots, making it so if you ****ed up between two spots you lost that progress. Punishment is important, and a gameplay element I feel a lot of designers are shrugging off to avoid stressing out possible customers.

But that diatribe aside, saving's important. Nobody's arguing with that. But properly juggling a save system with progress and success systems is very difficult, and a save/reload-anytime system is the antithesis of a 'career mode'. If you don't want to be challenged with failure, stick to sandbox.

But again, this is just gameplay philosophy waxing. Squad is going to do what they want, and I'm sure it will be somewhere between what I want to see, and what you want to see.