Why time-based experiments are worth it.

[boomerdog2000]

Adding a life support container in the VAB is a gameplay element? Just put on another oxygen tank - Yeeeehaaaa!

By that logic, why bother with electricity? You're just going to add more batteries or panels. Why bother with fuel? You're just going to add more fuel tanks. We can't make everything optional or we don't have a game anymore.

The idea is implementing more constraints that the player has to take into account to achieve the objective they want. Waiting for a light to change or a bar to fill is not complex or challenging, it's tedious.

[tetryds]

By that logic, why bother with electricity? You're just going to add more batteries or panels. Why bother with fuel? You're just going to add more fuel tanks. We can't make everything optional or we don't have a game anymore.

The idea is implementing more constraints that the player has to take into account to achieve the objective they want. Waiting for a light to change or a bar to fill is not complex or challenging, it's tedious.

Yes, it's boring when you can simply warp to fill that bar and don't give a damn about anything else.

What everyone who suports this idea is talking about is that things such as life suport along with other time based things on the game will requite management.

Basically management of time, a spaceprogram costs to run, and it costs a LOT.

What we are trying to explain is that it just makes no sense to make a satellite equiped with several possible experiments and it will be useless right after reaching the place its meant to.

And that requiring a fly-by to perform all those experiments does not seem right either.

I guess i explained it better now.

[regex]

That statement perfectly sums up your approach to this discussion. Your argument invariably consists of "I don't find it fun, who in their right mind would? So it shouldn't be included".

I think "waiting" is about the most terrible gameplay element anyone could put into a game, and I don't see how anyone could find that fun. Even you say pretty much the same thing in your post. I'm not going to sugar-coat that sort of statement. We already wait a lot in this game, there's no reason to add more waiting.

The main problem you're missing is that you don't have it all figured out as far as what constitutes a worthwhile gameplay element, because different people have different ideas of what's fun.

You seem to be missing this point yourself. The idea of managing rent on my space center every month and having to "do missions" for the sole purpose of making the rent (because that's what it would end up being while you're waiting for your Jool transfer or your Eeloo probe to arrive) sounds incredibly boring and tedious; I already do that in real life. IMO time should be more of a "soft" consideration that affects my actions instead of being a hard line that kills my fun.

[Greenspan]

Why are people against diversifying the ways to gather science?

I don't understand the argument against time based experiments. People will timewarp through the experiment so it will take 0 time, so our solution is to make experiments that take 0 time...

Does everyone only play with one ship at a time or something? I know I have several ships performing planetary transfers, returning to Kerbal, etc, I can't just timewarp through one thing because I have many things going on, but maybe that's just me.

Instead of just "waiting" some people will use the time to launch/focus on other missions, some people might choose to just warp through it; is that really the end of the world? If you don't want to do time based experiments, then don't! Play the game how you want. Time based experiments would diversify the career mode and make it more intersting.

[boomerdog2000]

Yes, it's boring when you can simply warp to fill that bar and don't give a damn about anything else.

What everyone who suports this idea is talking about is that things such as life suport along with other time based things on the game will requite management.

Basically management of time, a spaceprogram costs to run, and it costs a LOT.

Right which is why I said at the very beginning that it might come together once they add an economy.

What we are trying to explain is that it just makes no sense to make a satellite equiped with several possible experiments and it will be useless right after reaching the place its meant to.

How is it any different game-play wise? You put the satellite in its specific orbit or the probe in its location, you do science, the probe is now useless. The only difference is the time between step 1 and step 2. Why add time just for the sake of adding time? That isn't good game design. It must have a reason to be added not "just because".

[kiwiak]

Dont you guys forget that there is no timewarp exect 4x in atmosphere unless you hold still.

[federicoaa]

It's not about waiting, it's about adding complexity and challenge. Anything that makes sense in the context of the space program and that adds a reasonable amount of complexity should be added as an optional layer to career mode.

Basically, put it in a mod so people who want it can have and people who don't then don't.

Time-sensitive things are good for people who like it and like roleplaying, so they won't cheat.

So, for mods is ok, for vanilla probably not.

[falconek]

I think "waiting" is about the most terrible gameplay element anyone could put into a game, and I don't see how anyone could find that fun. Even you say pretty much the same thing in your post. I'm not going to sugar-coat that sort of statement. We already wait a lot in this game, there's no reason to add more waiting.

you should decide, if you don't want time - based experiments because you find them boring or because you think, that others will exploit them. If the first is true then, the solution is simple: noone would force you to perform those experiments. You could still go to Eeloo in tier 1 ship, and clear all science tree in one go, if that's fun for you.

If you fear about explotinig, well then it's not really exploitinig. The point of this type of experiments is not in waiting till the experiment complete. It is in prooving, that you can keep stable conditions (orbit, resources etc) untill the experiment complete. It doesn't matter if you time - warp and you don't need to.

I for one enjoy managing full - blown space program in my KSP, not running single missions one after another. At this time I have 28 missions running simultaneously. I need to manage arrival times, mid-course burns, launch windows etc. When I'm done with let's say mid-course burn on one flight I switch to next one, that is about to land somewhere.

Thus, with time experiments I wouldn't need to "wait" till they complete as in staring at them on time warp. I have plenty to do meanwhile.

With time experiments, finally I would have a reason to place things on orbit, other than my own satisfaction. And they would blend VERY well in my play style. If they don't blend well in your play syle, then once again, noone forces you to do anything in Kerbal Space Program.

[Tweeker]

The point of this type of experiments is not in waiting till the experiment complete. It is in prooving, that you can keep stable conditions (orbit, resources etc) untill the experiment complete. It doesn't matter if you time - warp and you don't need to.

With time experiments, finally I would have a reason to place things on orbit, other than my own satisfaction.

Both of these are great arguments for time based experiments.

Also adding another way to get science allow you to taper off the science generated by similar biomes on the same body. Which is more important at this time? The first surface sample from the moon, or the sample from the 8th biome? Wouldn't it be better for the game if the 8th delivered a fraction of the science? Adding scanning/surveying results in a different mission profile than what is now the routine, land, do science, return.

An additional wrinkle is perhaps automated probes. For satelites you set the orbit, click the GO! button, and return in X number of hours\days to retrieve and return the science. For rovers once you hit the GO! button they Rove all on their own, and you have to retrieve {or rescue} them from where ever they end up. That creates yet another type of mission.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Tweeker

[tetryds]

Both of these are great arguments for time based experiments.

Also adding another way to get science allow you to taper off the science generated by similar biomes on the same body. Which is more important at this time? The first surface sample from the moon, or the sample from the 8th biome? Wouldn't it be better for the game if the 8th delivered a fraction of the science? Adding scanning/surveying results in a different mission profile than what is now the routine, land, do science, return.

An additional wrinkle is perhaps automated probes. For satelites you set the orbit, click the GO! button, and return in X number of hours\days to retrieve and return the science. For rovers once you hit the GO! button they Rove all on their own, and you have to retrieve {or rescue} them from where ever they end up. That creates yet another type of mission.

Sorry but it has been stated that autopilots "will not be in (first release of) the game".

Anyway, the surface sample of the 8th biome of Mun is as important as the first.

But i like the idea that if you complete a full set of science experiments you should get a reward.

But i belive an extra science boost would be too much, a reputation bonus seems better.

Anyway, there is no right or wrong way to play KSP.

This is a feature that would be very good for people who run their space programs like falconek, and wouldn't be much of an issue for people who don't.

Still, the need of "keep stable conditions" is the main point of it.

[Tweeker]

Sorry but it has been stated that autopilots "will not be in (first release of) the game".

No so much an autopilot as an on switch. You hit the GO! button, the probe flys, (or drives) away, an you have to come back and get it later on.

You don't really know where it will end up so you can't just wait right next to it. After the a set amount of elapsed time you need to go recover it, and you have a whole new type of mission.

[Kegereneku]

Regex, I always end-up disagreeing with you but you made a good point.

Yes, the need for satellite could be solved using "situational" (orbital parameter) as required conditions for an experimentation (or a relay satellite)

...but as usual you lack foresight and dismiss other's idea before thinking them out.

Energy Management for example through battery and power source is something that can only be reached using "time-based mechanic".

And can happen in several way.

1) the easy one : do you produce enough power to steer/propels/light without constant monitoring.

2) the slightly complex : do you have enough stored energy for a "burst" experiment or several.

3) the hard one : do you have enough battery and source to power an experiment through a night/day cycle.

This alone justify by itself "time-based experiment".

Contrary to what you think, player aren't bored of waiting for good reason. even less thank to Time-warp. What players fear is to be forced to do repetitive task when it could be avoided by simply waiting for it to be made through a "rewarding time delayed experiment" or something. The possibility are infinite.

Now, it will get harder depending of how the game deal with budget.

A Fact : People only like to "grind" for point doing something NEW.

An opinion : System with a recursive Feedback (bet it positive or negative) that allow them to reach ridiculous wealth or bankrupt in no time, would doom any budget-gameplay.

A suggestion : Making budget non-cumulative and fixed, something that would augment through... say "reputation" or prestige.

In many case, time-based mechanic are extremely important.

Ask yourself : Would you even bother if you could launch a rocket instantaneously as long as you fast-punch all needed key like a predetermined fate ?

Edited January 25, 2014 by Kegereneku

[regex]

3) the hard one : do you have enough battery and source to power an experiment through a night/day cycle.

This alone justify by itself "time-based experiment".

I disagree with that justification because it's not "hard"; the "problem" has an incredibly low complexity even for a new player. I think other mechanics could better serve than simple duration-based considerations.

What players fear is to be forced to do repetitive task

This is absolutely true IMO and that's exactly what I see wrong with time-based rewards. Right now there is no penalty for time-warping through a trip to Eeloo but if you have a time-sensitive point payment to be made you can set up a situation where the player has no choice but to run around like some headless chicken attempting to juggle a ton of variables by doing things that are not interesting while what they actually wanted to be doing in the game falls by the wayside.

I don't agree with the rest of that statement (what I cut out in order to focus on what I see as the important part); simply waiting through something is no better than repetition, especially for advanced players who may be doing a career save for the third or fourth time.

Now, it will get harder depending of how the game deal with budget.

A Fact : People only like to "grind" for point for NEW things

I don't know about you, but I don't like to "grind" for anything. Active, interesting gameplay is far more rewarding than "grinding" for the next prize. You can disguise "grinding" through other mechanics but current science doesn't do that.

[Kegereneku]

Regex, the very act of producing a limited quantity of energy for a given time is in itself a time-based mechanic. Reaction well use it by default, this is NOT NEGOTIABLE.

The first 2 "ways" of power management ALSO justify the same point by themselves, not just the third you know.

Note that this "life support" idea you are so keen to bring out is also a simple time/duration-based mechanic, albeit a stressful one since it have a negative feedback (and a non-forgiving failure).

This is absolutely true IMO and that's exactly what I see wrong with time-based rewards. Right now there is no penalty for time-warping through a trip to Eeloo but if [...]

Stop right there

See : Timewarping through an experiment that "puzzle" around time (as in, is more complex that what Regex believe) allow you to automatically fly "boring" task while feeling the satisfaction of solving a puzzle.

There's absolutely NO REASON to penalize "timewarping" as it is :

1) an acceptable and necessary break from reality.

2) a perfectly interesting gameplay mechanism as it allow the very game of KSP.

It is however crucial to make the most of it with the gameplay.

If I remember right, you had a hard time accepting that people like to Multi-task through multiple flight, and so, could want a gameplay that allow or even encourage it. Since not everybody build one ship for one mission and one use only, requiring to deal with launch-windows (another already imposed time-based mechanic) and time/power-based experiment can be part of fun.

simply waiting through something is no better than repetition, especially for advanced players who may be doing a career save for the third or fourth time.

Actually it's the complete opposite.

I repeat myself : "WAITING" as in : being able to timewarp efficiently through a set of experiments you had fun setting up. IS BETTER than being forced to repeat menial boring task in real-time.

If you were a Veteran replaying for the 3rd time, would you prefer to have fun optimizing the few timed-experiment in new way. Or would you be forced to redo -like an automaton- task that give you no possibility to improve ? (because they refuse to take time into account)

I don't know about you, but I don't like to "grind" for anything. Active, interesting gameplay is far more rewarding than "grinding" for the next prize. You can disguise "grinding" through other mechanics but current science doesn't do that.

Actually there's some rare case of "grinding" that people are perfectly okay with. I just wanted to avoid oversimplification.

Anyway, yes, current science is grindy as hell and this is bad. But so would be to never do more/better than instantaneous experiment.

[regex]

If I remember right, you had a hard time accepting that people like to Multi-task through multiple flight, and so, could want a gameplay that allow or even encourage it.

No, I manage multiple flights myself (my current sandbox save has some 18 flights active), my objection is to the game REQUIRING me to play that way. Stock KSP requires a very hands-on approach to actually executing a mission and running multiple craft at a time can be tiresome (obviously some people enjoy that). The sandbox approach of KSP allows both styles of play to succeed and I think future updates to career mode should retain that feeling we still have in the game; multiple solutions to multiple problems. Duration-based mechanics in a game with deadlines (contracts will have them as of the last information I have, life support is a deadline), the ability to timewarp, and such a hands-on approach to execution can really penalize certain approaches to solving problems. I feel it promotes either a very frantic, gamey experience or a very boring, "wait for bacon" style of play, rather than a genuine problem-solving experience.

While we're at it, when I see someone promoting a duration-based mechanic I imagine month-long or longer durations. A day-long, or even a few day-long, duration is an insignificant problem to solve in KSP and I don't consider it even worth bringing into the game; you might as well just make it a single click and call it good. A week to month-long duration is just an annoyance; doing multiple is getting into snooze territory. I feel that this is one of the reasons science is like it is now.

[Dwight_js]

You seem to be missing this point yourself (that different people have different ideas of what's fun)

Well, I guess that's a perfectly logical conclusion...

...if you completely ignore the fact that I have repeatedly advocated for optional, or at least adjustable game features to tailor the experience to the player. Quite different to your "my way or the highway" method of thinking.

I think "waiting" is about the most terrible gameplay element anyone could put into a game.

And yet, you're this site's biggest advocate for gameplay designed around waiting and doing nothing. One mission at a time, hundreds and hundreds of days of coasting to your destination, nothing to do but time-warp. I think you've just invented a new game - the "Kerbal Space Mission - Conquering the solar system... one long boring mission at a time". I'll stick with the "Kerbal Space Program" myself.

The idea of managing rent on my space center every month and having to "do missions" for the sole purpose of making the rent sounds incredibly boring and tedious.

And the idea of launching one, years-long mission while everything else just magically takes care of itself, and there are no consequences for just sitting around doing nothing sounds incredibly boring and ridiculously simplified to me. The good news though, is that many other people share my vision of a Career Mode that requires multi-tasking - you even had an estimate in a previous post as to how many of us there are.... what was it you said again? ....oh yea, "everyone".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: anything that adds reasonable complexity and that makes sense in the context of the space program should be included as an optional/adjustable element.

Time based science will add a number of intriguing scenarios, some of which have already been mentioned, and I'm sure we'll discover more that we haven't thought of once it's implemented.

[Dwight_js]

Basically, put it in a mod so people who want it can have and people who don't then don't.

Time-sensitive things are good for people who like it and like roleplaying, so they won't cheat.

So, for mods is ok, for vanilla probably not.

If that ends up being my only option, I'll take it. But personally I don't like dealing with mods that much. I think optional game features so the player can adjust the experience is a much better idea.

[Kegereneku]

No, I manage multiple flights myself (my current sandbox save has some 18 flights active), my objection is to the game REQUIRING me to play that way. Stock KSP requires a very hands-on approach to actually executing a mission and running multiple craft at a time can be tiresome (obviously some people enjoy that).

Ah yes right, and your answer to that was to suggest a system that made it impossible to multitask, or more exactly a frustrating nightmare to even think about playing non-linearly and sequentially.

But, let's not slide off-topic...

Duration-based mechanics in a game with deadlines ([...]), the ability to timewarp, and such a hands-on approach to execution can really penalize certain approaches to solving problems. I feel it promotes either a very frantic, gamey experience or a very boring, "wait for bacon" style of play, rather than a genuine problem-solving experience.

I would advance that it is because you just dismissed the example we give you as "simple", "wait for bacon" and argues against what others should consider boring.

There's not much to add since as demonstrated before time-based mechanic are (1) already present, (2) inevitable, (3) a positive evolution.

And anyway, you are arguing against yourself.

You don't want "simple clic" gameplay but refuse anything that may remotely look frantic.

You don't want something "boring" but argue against interesting time-based problems.

I just wish you stopped acting like you understood any...everything about gameplay.

[boomerdog2000]

I repeat myself : "WAITING" as in : being able to timewarp efficiently through a set of experiments you had fun setting up. IS BETTER than being forced to repeat menial boring task in real-time.

But it is no different than doing any other experiment. Like I said earlier the only difference is a few presses of < and >. You put the probe in orbit, you start the science, you time-warp, done. There is no positive game-play difference there.

If you were a Veteran replaying for the 3rd time, would you prefer to have fun optimizing the few timed-experiment in new way. Or would you be forced to redo -like an automaton- task that give you no possibility to improve ? (because they refuse to take time into account)

You can optimize current science missions as well. Do the same mission with less parts, do it with less delta-v, do more on the same mission, do it with cheaper parts. The difference is you set the improvement you want to make, and I suspect once we have an economy going it will reward optimizing mission designs as well for the above reasons.

[regex]

I just wish you stopped acting like you understood any...everything about gameplay.

I feel the same way about you. KSP does seem to draw people who enjoy all types of games.

[Kegereneku]

But it is no different than doing any other experiment. Like I said earlier the only difference is a few presses of < and >. You put the probe in orbit, you start the science, you time-warp, done. There is no positive game-play difference there.

Right... It force you to add deltaV to get into orbit, force you to separate landing probe from orbiting probe, ask you more consideration to your timing, may make you miss a launch windows.

...yet it's no different ?

FOR THE SAKE OF CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION : PLEASE LISTEN TO YOURSELF !!!

What the hell do you think gameplay is made of ? golden-eggs that hatch into sublime game mechanic ? NO ! It's make of ton of little ideas that may not look like that different but are actually at step in the right direction, if not a world-breaking emergent gameplay like the skiing bug was to the game "Tribes" !

You can optimize current science missions as well. Do the same mission with less parts, do it with less delta-v, do more on the same mission, do it with cheaper parts. The difference is you set the improvement you want to make, and I suspect once we have an economy going it will reward optimizing mission designs as well for the above reasons.

That part of my post was a rhetoric argument based around a defined hypothesis to make a point.

It was meant to highlight the possibility that by dismissing "time-based experiment" (or should I say "nitpicking") as a possible gameplay mechanism, you may actually hurt the replayability of Career-mode.

...you missed all of it.

I feel the same way about you. KSP does seem to draw people who enjoy all types of games.

Indeed.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Kegereneku

[vexx32]

This discussion is becoming unnecessarily heated, and I really don't see why it needs to be. Having a difference of opinion is pretty damn standard for people, and everyone here needs to acknowledge that. Chances are, you are not going to "convert" people to your way of thinking. That's actually fairly rare, unless the other is definitively in the wrong and you can show them that beyond all doubt. If you fellows can't stand a difference of opinion and get too heated over this, we're going to have to close this thread.

Keep it civil, please, and use your heads a little more than your typing fingers, if you would.

[Rhidian]

Wouldn't limiting the amount of science able to be generated by a time based experiment balance out the time-warp issue? Say the experiment depends upon some sort of new resource (Kerbtonium) being delivered to the probe. One unit of that resource could generate an amount of Science over in-game days, and once the resource is out, then no more science can be generated from it until more resource is supplied. The resource should be something not easily obtainable in space (like electricity).

[tetryds]

Wouldn't limiting the amount of science able to be generated by a time based experiment balance out the time-warp issue? Say the experiment depends upon some sort of new resource (Kerbtonium) being delivered to the probe. One unit of that resource could generate an amount of Science over in-game days, and once the resource is out, then no more science can be generated from it until more resource is supplied. The resource should be something not easily obtainable in space (like electricity).

You mean like a space station that is forced to run heavy generators to power a science module, and if it runs out of fuel for the generator the science stops, requiring you to refuel it?

Well, seems a good idea on paper, but refueling is not a very fun task.

[Tweeker]

Refueling may not be a fun task, but it is a break from the science farming.