It's time to come clean, and tell the truth about KSP.

[Ryder]

I ask you to stop talking for the devlopers, saying that it can't satisfy their ultimate aims and desires is begging the question of what they really are.

You may certainly ask...

How general do you want to get? It is still the same situation of: to get part x do action y. You are still directing the player no matter how you describe it. I'm not saying it's a bad idea it could work awesome add a tutorial, but it would be too structured for the normal career mode. That's why the points system works in this manner, it allows to player to play how they want, go where they want, do what they want. Yes the tech tree is. . well.... carp. But it and the point based system are mutually exclusive. So could you please elaborate on the specifics of your system.

Answer: As general as is needed to strike a balance between guidance, and rails. Something between the unlimited freedom of a sandbox, and the artificial limitations of exposing goo to space. Gaming elements take balancing.

And for the 12thteenth time... it's "to get part x, do actions a,c, d, g,h, or k", or more recently just buy it with cash.

How many ways do you want?

If you want everything just for getting up in the morning, then how does that resemble a career? Wouldn't you be describing a sandbox?

If you want everything at once, then I suggest that is what the sandbox is for.

With regards to the progress bar and warping... it's an interesting conflict... but personally, I'd ignore warping. Research would be on the player's clock.

R

Edited March 16, 2014 by Ryder

[Guest]

With regards to the progress bar and warping... it's an interesting conflict... but personally, I'd ignore warping. Research would be on the player's clock.

So I basically leave KSP running while I'm at work in order to finish research? Way to make the game unplayable for the "wife and kids" crowd, that sounds terrible.

[NovaSilisko]

It would be nice IMO to see specific divisions of scientific advance be based on specific areas of research/action. For example, if you want to research more and better plane parts... well, get in the rickety biplane and do some barrel rolls, you big wimp.

[Dodgey]

"reasoning" is probably too kind a word... it's more like rationalizing any form of opposition handily available.

What is the corollary to this that some must subscribe to, I wonder? "We should all hold off saying anything until KSP 1.0 is out... because you never know, they might radically change everything at the last possible moment and address all concerns then."

???

Project management isn't for some people, I guess.

R

If you consider KSP to be a car under construction. And career mode or science to be a part of the car. What people are saying is that the part (career mode or science) is still being put into the car or still being made. And we should wait until it is done being put into the car before saying we should take it out of the car (I know you mean improve/change).

I did edit my post to say this but I will say it again: You said there would be multiple instances that would unlock the same parts, doesn't change a thing. The concept is still the same and that's people are apposed to.

Ryder, it's the concept of doing x action to unlock y part. Not how many actions there are. That people are apposed to.

You may certainly ask...

Does this mean you don't know what Squads desires are as you claimed?

Please provide specifics as to your plan including examples, saying a balance would need to be made is not an answer. Say you were at a peace conference and were asked how to stop these two countries waring with each other and you say an agreement would need to be made.

It's a given, not an answer.

As a side note I'm sorry if my manner sounds hostile that is not my intent.

It would be nice IMO to see specific divisions of scientific advance be based on specific areas of research/action. For example, if you want to research more and better plane parts... well, get in the rickety biplane and do some barrel rolls, you big wimp.

That sounds like an awesome challenge, notes taken.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Vanamonde

[Ryder]

So I basically leave KSP running while I'm at work in order to finish research? Way to make the game unplayable for the "wife and kids" crowd, that sounds terrible.

If you want to. Otherwise... and it's just a crazy idea... there is this thing called "pause"...

It would be nice IMO to see specific divisions of scientific advance be based on specific areas of research/action. For example, if you want to research more and better plane parts... well, get in the rickety biplane and do some barrel rolls, you big wimp.

Exactly... on an aviation tree, you might find things like "Inverted flight" (fly inverted for awhile...). "Safe landing on a runway."

You're totally getting it.

R

Edited March 17, 2014 by Vanamonde

[Guest]

If you want to. Otherwise... and it's just a crazy idea... there is this thing called "pause"...

Why would I pause the game? The point is that people with limited play time can't sit there and (or play while they) watch a progress bar. It's a bad idea to tie something to real time played if the player has no control over it.

[Ryder]

If you consider KSP to be a car under construction...

I consider KSP to be a project that is being managed... nuff said. You do know what a thread is... and it's purpose... yes?

You said there would be multiple instances that would unlock the same parts, doesn't change a thing. The concept is still the same and that's people are apposed to.

Ahhh... no. It's not. You're not getting it.

And if people are opposed to doing things to get things, then they must hate how it is now. As it is, LITERALLY, you MUST do W, X, and Y to get Z, ****plus**** everything in the tree elements before it. My suggestion has ways around that... so you're really arguing against yourself I think. My proposal is... just do any element that delivers the part you want, and with a little research, it's yours. And if you really want it, and don't want to use any of the options... just buy it.

At this point, I'm unclear what your issue is... Not enough rails... or too much? Help me out here.

Does this mean you don't know what Squads desires are as you claimed?

I told you how I think it likely came about, and I told you where I believe it will lead. Some people call it a prediction. If you have a problem with that, take it to the complaints dept.

Please provide specifics as to your plan including examples, saying a balance would need to be made is not an answer.

Not interested in that now. Just laying out a concept. The specifics would be creative (and balance tested) decisions within that framework. Jump into the details all you want... I don't own the idea.

But I know the concept allows for infinite restriction, and infinite freedom, therefore, the balance is inclusive of this, and therefore it can be found. A little thing I call reason. The current system *won't even show you* what you can get... and you certainly can't skip ahead through skill or taking a chance. You're trapped. Maybe you like having to navigate a tree step by step. If so, then you can still do that here.

Answer the question for yourself...

Do YOU want only one way to get something? If so, say so. We can do that here.

Do you want to have anything whenever you want? If so, say so. We can do that too. (and is really the sandbox)

Do you want something in between (oh no... here comes that scary word..) That's called "balance".

As a side note I'm sorry if my manner sounds hostile that is not my intent.

Whatever. doesn't bother me.

Why would I pause the game? The point is that people with limited play time can't sit there and (or play while they) watch a progress bar. It's a bad idea to tie something to real time played if the player has no control over it.

Oh I see... well, then those same people must hate pointless grinding. Which is what we have. (and you'll note.. a lot of people don't like it..)

I'm in that exact group you mention... and is one of the reasons I hate the way it is now... the endless, pointless grinding... I don't have time for that.

And no, you don't watch the progress bar. It's griding on its own, while you play. If you want to check it, you can. If you want to manage it, you can. And since you can adjust it yourself, with the click of a mouse... to unlock the story/things *you* want first...

Also, you have no basis to complain about the "time" this supposedly all takes, because, as you know, time ranges from infinitely short, to infinitely long.

Since you don't know what time scales we are talking about... you're just making up an objection.

Since it can literally be set *anywhere*, the amount of time needed, just perfect for you, is possible, ranging from "right now", to "wait forever".

R

Edited March 17, 2014 by Vanamonde

[Guest]

Oh I see... well, then those same people must hate pointless grinding. Which is what we have.

Nice dodge, can you give me a good reason why real time played is somehow a decent metric to base my third career save on?

Also, I don't see it as pointless grinding, or really even that grindy to begin with; it's a pretty good system for a sandbox game and will tie in nicely with the other currencies when they arrive.

[Arran]

With regards to the progress bar and warping... it's an interesting conflict... but personally, I'd ignore warping. Research would be on the player's clock.

So in a way you are suggesting research in a kind of EvE Online way, that the more you progress into it, the longer it takes to complete it, in real time..

Sorry, but no way people are gonna wait lets say 4 to 5 hours on their own time before something is finished, EvE Online can get away with it, since it fits the whole game setting, but implementing this into KSP, even though with very reduces waiting times, i think is eventually an really bad idear. at least worser as the point system we have now.

I do admit the instant unlocking of parts in the tree is a bit off, and a waiting time before your scientists are ready, seems logical, but keep that at least tied to the ingame time and thus also to timewarping. So that i order new research, that its completed after XX number of days, and can speed it up by timewarping.

Then i have a prototype (one single item) that needs to be tested, and then taken into production and funded.

And here comes a bit how i think the carreer will look when completed, from what i remember for interviews of Harvester (correct me if i'm wrong) Once the item is in ProtoType state, you can get a contract to test this item out, on succesfull completion of this test, you get credits, what you then can use to buy new researched parts to use.

Then you have contracts that you have to complete with you fully production rocket/plane giving again credits to spend on even more parts, and hiring scientists/engineers/kerbalauts.

How i unlock new research, it by science points, or by you're means doing predefined actions, boils to me down in the end to the same thing, and wont change much in the end when all parts of carreer mode are completed.

And TBH i still fail to see how you'r Do This, to Get That is so much different as a point system.

It still "forces" me into doing things like its now as well the case, i still am limited to the techtree, and with its current state, the whole carreer is well.. true.. boring and easy.. But when i think of it as a whole like SQUAD mentioned how they would approach it (what can be subject of change in this stage of development) i dont think it will stay boring and easy.

In short, i'm saying, you can suggest ofc you vision, but the likelyhood that things will change the way YOU want it, is very slim, allmost can say, it wont ever never happen (again we said the same of MP, look what happend, still MP isnt implemented yet, thus alot easier to adopt, nothing is lost, only gained) since the system is allready in the game, and scrapping it for a simulair system with just a other means of getting invisible points, and with it own flaws, i doubt it they will scrap the current system.

Hence people say, if you dislike the current system so much, but you like youre freedom, go play sandbox, at least then you cannot get frustrated by a system, you clearly hate. And if you want to prove yourself right i would suggest make it into a Mod, since your idear has merit, and would be even fun to try out, still only way is by Modding it in.

Thinking that the devs will adopt it.. well it can happen, but winning a million in a lottery also can happen, but the change that it will happen to you... well thats neglectable.

If you ever push you'r idear out as a mod, i an eager to try it..

[Skyler4856]

Science needs to be more user focused, in place of a click-read system I would introduce mini game type system, imagine reading a spectrograph, or a more interesting version of a seismograph.

[Ryder]

So in a way you are suggesting research in a kind of EvE Online way, that the more you progress into it, the longer it takes to complete it, in real time..

No... that's how it is now... and I'm against that. Seriously.... tell me, how long do you think it takes to get all of the final squares in the existing tree? Compare that to the beginning of the tree.

The "directing research" idea is merely a mechanism that some people wanted... to be able to direct research. It can be there, or not. I'm not attached to it, but it might be nice to let advanced players push in the direction they want to go, and have things evolve faster.

In my approach, the more you progress, the more you progress. You can progress fast... do 40 things on the trees in a single mission... then you're a rock star... and all that is behind you. If you are skilled I expect one could go blazingly fast. That is where difficulty level comes in. If you get less $$$ for things that pay, then you're going to be challenged to economize on hardware, and sometimes "take the long road" to "win" at the game. Easy setting? Plenty of cash to build what you want... and be wasteful about it. New players will go through hardware like it's going out of style. They'll need more pay, and start with more cash, (for example)

Sorry, but no way people are gonna wait lets say 4 to 5 hours on their own time...

I don't recall saying it should take hours. If hours is too long... and instant is too short, what time do you suggest? That is part of the art of play testing and balance. Any time is possible with what I am suggesting.

My gut feel might be that five items being unlocked, all left at normal development rates, might take 15 minutes... otherwise turning off 4 and just researching one would happen in 3 minutes.

I'm not saying there is no art to game design. There is.

"In short, i'm saying, you can suggest ofc you vision, but the likelyhood that things will change the way YOU want it, is very slim..."

"Never tell me the odds.... " H. Solo

R

Edited March 17, 2014 by Ryder

[Camacha]

So I basically leave KSP running while I'm at work in order to finish research? Way to make the game unplayable for the "wife and kids" crowd, that sounds terrible.

I cannot help but feel that you are trying your best to find objections, while not really trying to understand the benefits of the proposed system. You have called things terrible on multiple occasions now, but I have yet to see a real argument.

This way we will never have a constructive dialog, which is a sure-fire way of ending up with a system few people like.

Also, I don't see it as pointless grinding, or really even that grindy to begin with; it's a pretty good system for a sandbox game and will tie in nicely with the other currencies when they arrive.

While it is clear that this is your personal opinion, it lacks argumentation - not to mention that it ignores the worries of many. The grindy nature of the current system has been often discussed and even mentioned by Squad as something that should be mitigated. Feeling a certain way about the current or proposed system is certainly welcomed, but it would be preferred to take things further than just those feelings.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Camacha

[SpaceK531]

As a relatively inexperienced player in all things not-blowing-up-things, I found the current career mode a rather good challenge and I have not had to grind very much at all. I like it primarily because it forces me to think in different ways than sandbox mode; in order to get more parts I have to experience different environs both on Kerbin and in the kerbin system. For example: So far I have done a few sub-orbital hops to different biomes on Kerbin, made bigger landers and experimented with VTOL systems early in the tech tree, and sent two missions to the mun, one as a fly-by and the other as a lander picking up some major science points, progressing me about 1/3rd of the way through the tree. It may be trivial to say, "oh that's grinding and grinding is terrible," when a. grinding is not outright terrible, and b. it really embodies what I have read of your idea: progressive discoveries that unlock new parts. Each one of those sub-orbital hops was done with larger craft, extending range and gathering more science points. Also, it's kinda fun to try and work with the part restrictions of the current system early in the tree; attempt to leave kerbin's SOI with only 4 or so branches unlocked is difficult and invigorating when you manage to do it.

So, I think the current career system is fine as it is.

[Guest]

I cannot help but feel that you are trying your best to find objections, while not really trying to understand the benefits of the proposed system. You have called things terrible on multiple occasions now, but I have yet to see a real argument.

I don't like "waiting" mechanics, it's as simple as that. If it's too short it becomes trivial and I wonder why someone bothered to program it. If it's too long I wonder why I even bother playing the game. I fear there will never be a balance struck that will satisfy everyone when it comes to those sorts of mechanics and thus I feel KSP should avoid them because we already wait too much in this game as it is.

OP doesn't seem attached to it, so I'll drop it.

While it is clear that this is your personal opinion, it lacks argumentation - not to mention that it ignores the worries of many. The grindy nature of the current system has been often discussed and even mentioned by Squad as something that should be mitigated. Feeling a certain way about the current or proposed system is certainly welcomed, but it would be preferred if it was taking further than just those feelings.

Unfortunately I don't see a clear benefit of the OP's proposal over our current currency system. While his system may reduce grind somewhat it provides no challenge whatsoever and also introduces waiting; at least in the current one I have to keep stretching further while at the same time getting immediate results. OP's system is a "push button, receive bacon" system for veteran players, thankfully he's not attached to research time or it would be a "push button, leave the game on for two days (or whatever), receive bacon" system.

Secondly, being able to exchange science for money or reputation, and vice-versa, is something I'm really looking forward to. It provides more choice when going about the career. You can do missions and skip the science, buying it as needed, or you can do science to buy your rockets and gear, or you can do both and blaze through the tech tree by converting for science. The fact is that we're missing pieces of career mode and until they're in, it's hard to judge it. I get that OP wants to steer the game but I don't like his direction; I actually like the current system and the tidbits of the future I've gained from SQUAD and trust their vision (especially after they canned that resource system proposal) since they seem to be cleaving true to the sandbox style of play.

[Ryder]

As a relatively inexperienced player in all things not-blowing-up-things, I found the current career mode a rather good challenge and I have not had to grind very much at all. I like it primarily because it forces me to think in different ways than sandbox mode; in order to get more parts I have to experience different environs both on Kerbin and in the kerbin system.

Which is of course exactly what my proposal does... although without overwhelming force.

Also, my system *by its very nature* guides you in thinking and concepts... the existing system does not.

If there is an achievement that mentions SOI... you are now introduced to sphere of influence. If it mentions escape velocity... geosynchronous orbits, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc... potentially endless introductions to as many concepts... you might not ever even CONCEIVE of of a geosynchronous orbit... unless you see it on the tree.

My tree does that.

Squad's tree does not.

My tree inspires.

Squad's tree denies parts unless you grind.

The benefits are pretty plain.

R

[vger]

*double-checks to make sure this isn't "Yahoo comments" under a political article* hmm... surprisingly, it's not.

[Ryder]

You can do missions and skip the science, buying it as needed, or you can do science to buy your rockets and gear, or you can do both and blaze through the tech tree .

My tree concept already has that.

R

Personally I like the tech-tree. It challenges older players to do more with less, and introduces parts to new players slow enough to ward off confusion. Once we get contracts where the game begins asking us to do more with less, while keeping it on budget I think it will come together even more.

That's all in my tree concept.

The only reason they are having to add contracts is because their tree left a huge hole in the kinds of activities that need doing.

I think that they realized that "expose goo" and "take a sample" and "transmit data", over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... was not really rich enough... they realized that a richer experience, that includes doing realistic activities, was absolutely necessary.

My tree doesn't leave that hole.

Squad and I see it the same overall way, really... I'm just more concise about it. I do it in one place... they split it in two.

The mechanism (and needs) are simple.

Meter out parts, guide development, provide interesting activities.

Tech tree + Contracts does that.

Ryder-Tree does that.

Ryder-Tree likely has greater latitude... for example, you could earn an achievement if you ever go half the speed of light, say... Squad might find that harder... I'm having a hard time picturing a "contract" to go half the speed of light. But anything is possible.

R

Edited March 17, 2014 by Vanamonde

[OTehNoes]

I quite like the career mode actually. I used to play exclusively sandbox, but I fancied something different, more of a challenge.

Sure you could argue that the current science system does involve some grinding, but it's only grinding if you make it grinding. Say I need 500 science points to get that oh so lovely 'part x' that I've been hankering for. Sure I could be upset about having to find that one biome/science equipment combination that I haven't tried yet.

OR I could try challenging myself to try a return journey for once, or try a different design of rocket to collect my data. Maybe try making a roving science vehicle that can collect and analyse data, for a second craft to come and collect.

And if you don't want to do this? Use sandbox! I don't think there's anything wrong with the current tech tree, other than maybe it could do with giving us more science equipment earlier on so we can get through it a little bit faster. That or give us MORE science collecting equipment, I just like seeing what the readouts have to say!

That said, I think it would be nice if they added in the informational readouts on sandbox mode too, just with 0 scientific value, rather than just "you feel it would be more helpful if the R&D building was open".

[Ryder]

I quite like the career mode actually. I used to play exclusively sandbox, but I fancied something different, more of a challenge.

Sure you could argue that the current science system does involve some grinding, but it's only grinding if you make it grinding. Say I need 500 science points to get that oh so lovely 'part x' that I've been hankering for. Sure I could be upset about having to find that one biome/science equipment combination that I haven't tried yet.

OR I could try challenging myself to try a return journey for once, or try a different design of rocket to collect my data. Maybe try making a roving science vehicle that can collect and analyse data, for a second craft to come and collect.

And if you don't want to do this? Use sandbox! I don't think there's anything wrong with the current tech tree, other than maybe it could do with giving us more science equipment earlier on so we can get through it a little bit faster. That or give us MORE science collecting equipment, I just like seeing what the readouts have to say!

That said, I think it would be nice if they added in the informational readouts on sandbox mode too, just with 0 scientific value, rather than just "you feel it would be more helpful if the R&D building was open".

Right...

But all you did was advocate the kinds of things you would do to get the same part with Ryder-Tree. But instead of chasing science points by learning how to manipulate the science points system (an area of study in and of itself) you would simply DO the science (or the engineering achievement, or navigational feat, or the scenario)... and get there...

You can't do the same things over and over to earn science points currently, so that automatically limits you to fewer and fewer options as you advance, so in that sense, your're still getting urged into doing things... with options, same as Ryder-Tree. (although I also advocate for simply purchasing research... so you can use an economic model instead of a science one if desired)

R

Edited March 17, 2014 by Ryder

[Camacha]

As this is the n-th time the same arguments and non-arguments have been brought up, I guess that concludes this discussion for me

[Fel]

I don't like "waiting" mechanics, it's as simple as that. If it's too short it becomes trivial and I wonder why someone bothered to program it. If it's too long I wonder why I even bother playing the game. I fear there will never be a balance struck that will satisfy everyone when it comes to those sorts of mechanics and thus I feel KSP should avoid them because we already wait too much in this game as it is.

TLDR: Near Immediate Gratification, or nothing!

Secondly, being able to exchange science for money or reputation, and vice-versa, is something I'm really looking forward to. It provides more choice when going about the career. You can do missions and skip the science, buying it as needed, or you can do science to buy your rockets and gear, or you can do both and blaze through the tech tree by converting for science. The fact is that we're missing pieces of career mode and until they're in, it's hard to judge it. I get that OP wants to steer the game but I don't like his direction; I actually like the current system and the tidbits of the future I've gained from SQUAD and trust their vision (especially after they canned that resource system proposal) since they seem to be cleaving true to the sandbox style of play.

TLDR: I like Tech Trees that I can abuse with little to no effort.

You've mentioned having your first flight to Eeloo several times; so that generally says exactly how you plan to play the game. Wiki-Open, Exploration Shut. The whole point here is that science should "Progress;" but it isn't as if you couldn't figure out how to abuse the system and get end-tier benefits anyways.

In short, Ryder is ROLEPLAYING while you're "Roll Playing," trying to find the optimum way of getting what you want out of the system. "Waiting Mechanics" when you can timewarp aren't bad (I know what he said, I'm changing it to be practical)... and it ENCOURAGES you to do other things while "Waiting"... Go setup a GPS system, take a tour of the planet via plane. Demanding everything be done "now now now" is what ruins the game, slowly enjoying it makes it live on.

*Just Because*

A practical way of doing a rescue mission:

if VESSEL(OnLadder).launchTime > VESSEL(KerbalEVA).launchTime + "1 day", isRescueMission

KerbalEVA inherits the launchTime from the original vessel, all splits off the original vessel have the same "launchTime". Yes, you can just "pick the kerbal up after 1 day" with a different vessel, but the point is to simulate... not to prevent abuse of system.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Fel

[Ryder]

As this is the n-th time the same arguments and non-arguments have been brought up, I guess that concludes this discussion for me

Well, that's a bit of a shame... because I think that, especially for those that seem to get what I'm advancing, it would be even more instructive/helpful if you see potential shortcomings (the warping was a good one), or areas that could be exploited better.

And also, for anyone... if anyone knows of a mod that is somewhat like I am proposing, I'd love to know about it and try it.

Regards,

R

Edited March 17, 2014 by Ryder

[Vanamonde]

Two things, guys. You can edit a post to add another thought rather than just posting multiple times in a row. Also, please back off of the insulting tone you are taking toward each other.

[Guest]

Demanding everything be done "now now now" is what ruins the game, slowly enjoying it makes it live on.

Well, I agree with Ryder on one thing at least: people don't read posts, they just make **** up. Like Camacha I'm going to bow out.

[Stargate525]

The biggest problem I have with yours, Ryder, is that you're tying parts to acheivements, as far as I can tell. If I want part X, I HAVE to go to Duna. Am I reading it right?