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

[CaptainKipard]

I agree with OP to a great extent. The science system seem contrived and completely divorced from reality. On the other hand I don't believe it's realistic to request a drastic redesign of the system, so I came up with something that' a bit of a compromise between realism, and the current system:

Instead of just science you have four types of currency (or more) with most being different types of science, and one extra one which is money. Scientific progress is made by researching specific technologies, similar to the way it's done in games like Civilisation. Each technology has several types which can unlock different parts.

Science could be done in the exact same way as it is now with the exception that there could be more different types of experiments which give you specific types of science (chemistry, physics, etc.)

Edit:

On top of that, having specific parts available could require a successful test flight or something.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Dodgey]

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?

Wait what? Where did thread come from? And please explain what you mean by a project being managed.

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

In what was is doing x, y or z to get x part drastically different from doing x to get y part.

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.

The system you are describing basically says you have to either go to Duna, Eve or Jool to get x part. That's what is wrong, you are restricting the method of unlocking a part to a few tasks.

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.

So it's your opinion, good to know.

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.

Providing examples will help to get rid of the confusion that comes with generalised statements.

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.

I'm just talking about the method of unlocking the parts at the moment, I do like your idea for the tree it self, looks better then the one we have now.

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".

See what you just did there was shift the burden of proof to me. It's your idea, don't ask me to tell you the specifics if you won't do the same first.

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

The problem with time is that it is too easy to exploit or make too difficult. Tie it into the in game time you can just time warp, tie it to the computers time people will be sitting there looking at a progress bar waiting until they can make their new ship.

StarGate525, either Duna or a couple of other places, it's not just one option. That's really important.

Cpt. Kipard, I agree with OP about the tech tree as well, it needs a re-design. Maybe with the new tutorials coming they will aim it more towards experienced players. And what mod is that? Or did you just mock it up?

Edited March 17, 2014 by Dodgey

[CaptainKipard]

I just put that together in GIMP

[Stargate525]

StarGate525, either Duna or a couple of other places, it's not just one option. That's really important.

Ah. Then I'm against it.

We didn't HAVE to go to North America to develop better sailing ships. Saying 'well, you can go to North or South America' doesn't help this. I don't want my planet destinations chosen for me because I want X rocket part. I do like the idea of splitting sciences up into metallurgy, biology, etc, and making the BALANCE of those points available different on different planets... But holding a part as a reward for going somewhere is equally as unrealistic as buying them with points.

[Dodgey]

Ah. Then I'm against it.

We didn't HAVE to go to North America to develop better sailing ships. Saying 'well, you can go to North or South America' doesn't help this. I don't want my planet destinations chosen for me because I want X rocket part. I do like the idea of splitting sciences up into metallurgy, biology, etc, and making the BALANCE of those points available different on different planets... But holding a part as a reward for going somewhere is equally as unrealistic as buying them with points.

My thoughts exactly.

[CaptainKipard]

I tried to read the whole thread but wading through all the moaning became real tiresome real quick, so I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but one of the things that erks me the most is the fact that analysing a Minmus soil sample can somehow give you access to a longer-range antenna. There really needs to be some logical progression like in Civilisation where, cannons lead to rifles lead to automatic weapons etc. Also I absolutely HATE that we're forced to start with manned mission. That may be fine for some, and not for others. Breaking up the tech-tree into a tech-orchard will allow player to create their own story, which I know is important to Philipe. Do you want to start manned? Start researching the life support tree and the structural tree to give yourself stronger larger structures. Would you prefer to play it safe and cheap? Research the telecomms tree instead to give yourself longer range antennae so you can send lots of probes.

[Camacha]

Ah. Then I'm against it.

We didn't HAVE to go to North America to develop better sailing ships. Saying 'well, you can go to North or South America' doesn't help this. I don't want my planet destinations chosen for me because I want X rocket part. I do like the idea of splitting sciences up into metallurgy, biology, etc, and making the BALANCE of those points available different on different planets... But holding a part as a reward for going somewhere is equally as unrealistic as buying them with points.

But you will need to go places to test your old sails to improve them, no? Even if it is only around the block. It does not matter where you test them, but digging a mine will certainly not help you in achieving your goal of getting better sails. That is the point of the/a new system - you will need to do relevant things.

Shoot, I said I would not reply anymore.

[CaptainKipard]

But you will need to go places to test your old sails to improve them, no?

I think a discreet testing system should be implemented anyway. When do we ever send living things into space in untested technology? Yes there was Laika, and all the others, but that would never happen in the west any more, because people care about the well-being of lesser animals. (not in Iran apparently, that monkey switcharoo made me laugh).

One way could be to connect testing to the sub-assembly system so that you create a lifter for example, test it, then save it so that the game knows that this particular sub-assembly has been tested and is fit for purpose, giving you access to it for all subsequent missions.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Ryder]

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?

Not quite...

You're thinking parts for specific feats... instead of what the real idea is... which is to present parts as the user is likely to be ready for them, as exhibited by what they have done.

In other words, your dad takes off your training wheels, when he sees that you've ridden around a bit without the need of them.

The way you do this is to *detect* common things:

- Did the player have a spacecraft that reached escape velocity?

- Has the player ever achieved orbit?

- Has the player ever recovered successfully?

- Has the player reached space?

- ... left Kerbin SOI, soft landed on a body with no atmosphere, experienced high G's, etc. etc. etc. etc.

- And perhaps usage... have they ever used large engines? have they used staging? ...

Normal play will "activate" or "unlock" these things... but as they appear on trees, you can also aim for them. The trees would not have enforced progression (as is the case now).

One tree is a scenario tree that would have more specific requirements, like contracts.... a base with 5 Kerbonauts + x amount of power, + communications station + shelter + bunk beds + whatever... divert an asteroid (like the upcoming ARM), rescue Luke and Scottie on the Mun...

And lastly, generally, there would be multiple places in the tree where any given item would be presented... in some trees offered early on... in other trees, perhaps later, logically, depending on the emphasis of the branches at that point.

A few things might have only one or two ways to get a part... like the achievement of discovering life. You'd have to go to Duna or only a couple of bodies where life might exist... You'd not have the option of finding life anywhere you want... hopefully that makes sense.

And if it seems right, of course you could have one special part, that you can only get one way.

The tree is totally flexible that way.

And besides parts, some items would pay... or perhaps both.

In general, it would be MUCH easier to get to what you need, than it is now... especially if you want to push it. Otherwise, take a balanced approach, and get things as the game sees that your skills and experience seem to warrant it.

It is easy to add "research" prioritization too, if that is popular.

You know... a career.

R

Edited March 17, 2014 by Ryder

[CaptainKipard]

... instead of what the real idea is... which is to present parts as the user is likely to be ready for them, as exhibited by what they have done.

That still seems a little contrived and restrictive and somewhat linear to me. I like my tech-orchard idea more.

[Ryder]

"people will be sitting there looking at a progress bar waiting until they can make their new ship."

Of course not. People will simply finish the mission they are already on... maybe make a change and fly again... maybe die, make a change, die again, and make another change... just like KSP is now. Let me put it to you THIS way... what is going to STOP you from flying (or building)? If nothing is stopping you... then why, sir, are you staring at that progress bar?

You seem to be assuming some unworkable amount of time for research... why would the developers do that? Show a little faith. Some people like research... they just do. You could always play sandbox

In the example I provided, if you were to prioritize the part you wanted, you'd have it in 3 minutes... you'd not even have most of your ship built, and it would show up.

So no. Nobody is dumb enough to just sit and stare at a progress bar, especially when they can be flying *another* mission and initiating *other* research on other things... there's plenty to do for anyone with a thimbleful of imagination.

That still seems a little contrived and restrictive and somewhat linear to me. I like my tech-orchard idea more.

It might be a little, but it is far, far, far less contrived and restricted that what we have now (space goo? really?)... by orders of magnitude... just looking for an improvement here.

What my trees specifically simulate, is the real world progression of a space program. Are you sure you know what a contrivance is?

R

Ah. Then I'm against it.

We didn't HAVE to go to North America to develop better sailing ships. Saying 'well, you can go to North or South America' doesn't help this. I don't want my planet destinations chosen for me because I want X rocket part. I do like the idea of splitting sciences up into metallurgy, biology, etc, and making the BALANCE of those points available different on different planets... But holding a part as a reward for going somewhere is equally as unrealistic as buying them with points.

Right, which is why I have specifically designed Ryder trees to NOT do that. Dodgey is fully misrepresenting it.

As I said... an orbit is an orbit is an orbit. Doesn't matter where.

A soft landing is a soft landing is a soft landing. Doesn't matter where.

Let's use your sailing ships example. To make a better sailing ship, you have to sail a ship. Yes? On a lake, or in the oceans... yes? But you'd not make a better sailing ship by watching reruns of Battlestar Galactica whilst sitting on the boat...

So yes, you specifically *have* to do something related to sailing. You should not expect to be able to make better sailing ships by watching BSG.

But it's as simple as this: Boat+water = experience. Boat + BSG reruns does not.

On the other hand why should you have to go to the Indian ocean to learn how to tack? Makes no sense. Any ocean will do. Any body of water will do.

Similarly, you can't achieve an aerobraking achievement at the Mun... I hope that makes sense to you. You'd HAVE to do it at a body with atmosphere. Sorry if that seems too restrictive to you... but honestly, it doesn't make sense to award an achievement for aerobraking when there is no atmosphere around.

I say: use common sense.

R

Edited March 18, 2014 by Vanamonde

[AlexinTokyo]

I actually quite like Ryder's idea, although I didn't and have a big problem with the current system.

The primary problems I do have with the current system are that there's no connection at all between the 'research' and the results. It bugs me a bit that I can unlock all the high-end parts solely on Mun/Minmus rocketry missions, and then just build an SSTO, never having built or flown a plane before, and agree with Cpt. Kipard that 'that analysing a Minmus soil sample can somehow give you access to a longer-range antenna,' is irksome. So from those points of view, I'd quite like to see things go down the direction Ryder is aiming, or at least close to it.

I'm not entirely against having points, though, as they do allow some freedom of choice and I like the thought of using them as part of a multi-curency mix where science can be exchanged for cash and/or reputation, and vice versa.

I'm also not sure that there aren't two separate, but related issues here. One is the order that new tech (parts) becomes available, the tech tree; and the other is the conditions allowing the player to advance along the tree/trees, the science points or achievements.

Regarding the tree itself, I think that there need to be either multiple starting nodes (e.g. rocketry, aerodynamics, materials, telemetry, etc.) or multiple cheap second nodes if there absolutely must be a single starting node.

As for gaining the advancements, perhaps a point system, where you get points for various very general achievements as suggested by Ryder, with an additional constraint on some nodes that something has to be done first, so you could unlock the second-tier plane parts only after having achieved a controlled flight (for example) but just doing one controlled flight might not yield enough points, so you may have to do something else as well (but that can be "blue-sky" research, i.e. anything). You could leave the goo (which I think is funny) in the game as blue-sky research.

I think I would prefer this to automagically getting new parts the first time you achieve something, even if the achievement is very broad, especially at the higher tiers.

One other benefit of points, that I thought of as I was typing this, is that you could include part improvements. Maybe something like:

Starting landing legs have a crash tolerance of 10 m/s. After you've unlocked them (by whatever method), you can spend some science points to increase that to 12 m/s, up to some hard limit and with increasing costs.

Completely agree that the advancement should be based on (space)flight achievements rather than just taking the temperature of a particular spot on Minmus.

[Accelerando]

Not quite...

You're thinking parts for specific feats... instead of what the real idea is... which is to present parts as the user is likely to be ready for them, as exhibited by what they have done.

In other words, your dad takes off your training wheels, when he sees that you've ridden around a bit without the need of them.

-snip-

I don't think this is realistic or very gameplay-expanding, but I don't have an argument now.

To be picky, the kinds of requirements you list out are specific feats. Do X things, land here, burn there... You dropped a stage! You get new part: Bigger decoupler. Progress may be tracked over time, and over multiple metrics, but it's still a feats-, achievements-based system.

[Ryder]

But you will need to go places to test your old sails to improve them, no? Even if it is only around the block. It does not matter where you test them, but digging a mine will certainly not help you in achieving your goal of getting better sails. That is the point of the/a new system - you will need to do relevant things.

Shoot, I said I would not reply anymore.

Well said. Quite to the point.

What people aren't getting, is that the tree I'm proposing is a representation of how the REAL world works, and therefore, by definition, makes sense. They are looking for it to not make sense, when because of it's nature, it automatically does. (unless implemented poorly).

I don't think this is realistic or very gameplay-expanding, but I don't have an argument now.

To be picky, the kinds of requirements you list out are specific feats. Do X things, land here, burn there... You dropped a stage! You get new part: Bigger decoupler. Progress may be tracked over time, and over multiple metrics, but it's still a feats-, achievements-based system.

Yes. Like the real world.

You have to walk before you can run. The work you do, should lead to the logical result of that work.

A soil sample should not give you a docking port (as it does with the lame tech tree we have now).... but achieving a precise orbit sure as heck should. Did NASA worry about docking ports on Mercury?

No... they didn't. Think about it.

I'm talking about simulating reality... so obviously, it's going to be realistic.

Life is an achievements based system. Do you feel restricted? Do you think life is unrealistic?

"What? You mean I have to tend a garden to grow food? That's so contrived!!!"

You guys should hear yourselves.

R

Edited March 17, 2014 by Ryder

[Accelerando]

I define my abstraction to be truest to reality, and that makes it right because it I define my abstraction to be truest to reality. The only way it could be wrong is if it isn't done the way I say; no true representation of my thought could be nonsense.

Ten characters

edit: While you have a point there to some extent, it really is getting buried under heaping mounds of your ego.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Accelerando

[CaptainKipard]

Are you sure you know what a contrivance is?

Yes. In fact this...

What my trees specifically simulate, is the real world progression of a space program.

...is exactly what I suspected you were talking about. I just didn't mention it because I didn't want to put words into your mouth. This is a contrivance. What I'd like is to have a much more organic and open ended experience which is what having multiple tech-trees would accomplish. With my way you could still follow a historical progression if you wanted to, but you would not be forced to do it.

So yes, you specifically *have* to do something related to sailing. You should not expect to be able to make better sailing ships by watching BSG

This makes sense, but if something like this is going to be implemented then it should be a separate currency, like XP for example, and not just any XP but XP related to the parts you're currently flying, so that if you're using a new engine for example then the XP you've gathered can only be used to improve engines, or unlock new engine tech, etc. Really the whole part system I think needs to be expanded with upgrades, like better injectors, better nozzles, compressors and so on.

One other benefit of points, that I thought of as I was typing this, is that you could include part improvements. Maybe something like:

Starting landing legs have a crash tolerance of 10 m/s. After you've unlocked them (by whatever method), you can spend some science points to increase that to 12 m/s, up to some hard limit and with increasing costs.

Exactly like that.

[allmhuran]

I read the first post. I read the first already-addressed-in-the-OP reply from he-who-often-lives-up-to-his-name. Didn't bother to read any further because I knew that it would go downhill from there.

Hi, my name is Allmhuran. You might remember me from such videos as the science tank, 750 ton payload to orbit, and such albums as 5528 science in one launch on starting parts.

I've been away for some time.

I agree with the OP, for exactly the reasons the OP described. Indeed, before science actually became a thing, I initiated a discussion with the thought that I hoped it didn't become some kind of "points" system, and was instead based on achievements, because points would probably lead to grinding.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think the OP has some decent ideas for modification to the science tree, and I think we can all agree that the current science tree needs some work (to be expected as it's in its first incarnation).

It's unfortunate that the OP seems to take any questioning or criticism of his ideas personally and replies in a combative and sometimes insulting manner. Very difficult to bring people around to your way of thinking like that, no matter how good the ideas are.

[Stargate525]

Well said. Quite to the point.

What people aren't getting, is that the tree I'm proposing is a representation of how the REAL world works, and therefore, by definition, makes sense. They are looking for it to not make sense, when because of it's nature, it automatically does. (unless implemented poorly).

You have to walk before you can run. The work you do, should lead to the logical result of that work.

A soil sample should not give you a docking port (as it does with the lame tech tree we have now).... but achieving a precise orbit sure as heck should. Did NASA worry about docking ports on Mercury?

It's adorable that you think that the real world makes sense... But anyway.

A soil sample didn't get a docking port. You're right. In fact, it's gotten us absolutely nothing of practical use except a better knowledge of celestial formation. Better cut those out, then, since you can't get anything for them in career! And what's inherent about getting a precise orbit that warrants giving you a docking port?

As far as I'm concerned, I can abstract the current science system to make sense: samples and data is returned, it is of some value to someone which is expressed as a number. various cooperative backscratching is performed with physicists and engineers, and the specs on your new engine is delivered. I can get that, and it's fairly realistic for the type of game it is.

Your version sounds like some sort of mix of the planned contracts and the tech tree. If you're going to simulate reality, NOTHING in the current science system, with the possible exception of the materials bay for life support data and general crew reports, remains useable. Temperature readings, atmospheric composition, surface samples, none of that gives you any insight into building a better rocket. Somehow, I doubt the devs are going to just chuck out all of that.

I agree that the tech tree needs a massive overhaul. A line for science equipment, a line for engines, a line for structurals... Something that makes logical sense to progress from one to another. But all I can see that you're doing is replacing the arbitrary temperature scans with equally arbitrary acheivements, and removing the ability to hand pick what you want from the tree in your pursuit of 'realism.'

Life is an achievements based system. Do you feel restricted? Do you think life is unrealistic?

"What? You mean I have to tend a garden to grow food? That's so contrived!!!"

You guys should hear yourselves.

R

I have Orbiter for my space simulation needs. I'm not arguing that reality is unrealistic, I'm going to argue that it makes for a pretty terrible GAME.

And I have to agree, you are coming off as rather arrogant.

[Justin Kerbice]

Why not instead of arguing "what science should be or not" take a look at other systems designed for other games and copy the best in it and/or just the spirit.

I think of Startopia: you get one item (you start each subtree with basic good, like food, in this tree you have various food store), look here in "DIY supply"

Also UFO Enemy Unknown (the very 1st of the series), from what I remember, you gather objects from crashed UFO, and you can do some reverse engineering on them. We begin also by some basic studies (weapons, scanning, propulsion) to improve our planes/ships/bases and teams.

Both system make sense.

Now, it just need a good & intense brainstorming to mix both (and even add some more) to create something which might work in KSP with what we have (surface samples and experiments).

[6.forty]

samples and data is returned, it is of some value to someone which is expressed as a number. various cooperative backscratching is performed with physicists and engineers, and the specs on your new engine is delivered.

Now this makes sense. And isn't even unrealistic.

[Dodgey]

Ok, Ryder since you refuse to reply to the points that I bring up I will start again. Yes I agree that the Tech Tree needs an overhaul. I don't agree with what you proposing with regards to how to progress along said tree. You're saying that you would progress by achieving pre-set goals, that's what it basically is at core, achieve this to progress this far. Another point against it is how far can you go under this system. You say that your idea allows the player to play organically and unlock parts as they go naturally. And that it won't force the player to have to do x to get y parts (go to Duna to unlock antenna). But how many situations can you think of that will all allow you to unlock all of the parts without forcing them to do specific tasks/goals. I just can't think of enough situations.

And the realistic argument can only go so far, if it isn't good game-play it won't be liked, simple as that.

Also everyone I'm not a mod but lets keep this civil, I mean it's not rocket science.

[Red Iron Crown]

I guess it depends on how specific the goals are.

"Land on Duna" is really specific, "Land on another planet" is less so, "Land on another celestial body" is broader still. The broader the goal, the more room for players to achieve it in their own way.

It strikes me as more interesting to advance the tree by completing spaceflight achievements, rather than the current perform experiments model. It more directly rewards learning to do more sophisticated things; whereas with the current system, once you can land on one of Kerbin's moons you can completely unlock the tree fairly easily.

[Dodgey]

Red Iron Cross, my point is how broad can you be while leaving enough options to unlock all of the tech tree. I think with any system where the is a decent amount of freedom there will be a decent amount of self-control required to play how it was intended to be played.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Dodgey

[Stargate525]

Red Iron Cross, my point is how broad can you be while leaving enough options to unlock all of the tech tree. I think with any system where the is a decent amount of freedom there will be a decent amount of self-control required to play how it was intended to be played.

This.

I think Ryder's idea might need to wait until contracts and money are implemented, since that will put a lot of similar restrictions into play.