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

[Red Iron Crown]

Maybe there can be more goals than are required to unlock the whole tree, and the player can pick and choose which they want to use.

The early ones can be fairly specific as they'll be necessary to do anything else anyway. Along the lines of "Attain 1km/s speed", "Get a craft out of Kerbin's atmosphere," "Complete an orbit of Kerbin," "Safely recover a command pod," that sort of thing. Later goals should be broader or interchangeable with other goals.

I think the system rewarding actual different spaceflight achievements rather than science spamming a few biomes would be an improvement.

[Dodgey]

The amount of goals is what we are trying to achieve, my question is if you can achieve that without constricting the player.

[Red Iron Crown]

The amount of goals is what we are trying to achieve, my question is if you can achieve that without constricting the player.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this, can you clarify?

[Stargate525]

The early ones can be fairly specific as they'll be necessary to do anything else anyway. Along the lines of "Attain 1km/s speed", "Get a craft out of Kerbin's atmosphere," "Complete an orbit of Kerbin," "Safely recover a command pod," that sort of thing. Later goals should be broader or interchangeable with other goals.

Agreed, but all of those will be completed in one or two missions for all but the very first time players. Is that even really meaningful?

[Red Iron Crown]

Agreed, but all of those will be completed in one or two missions for all but the very first time players. Is that even really meaningful?

It would be for new players, I think. I had to do a lot of flights before achieving orbit for the first time, I'm sure I'm not the only one. For experienced players, they certainly could be combined into one mission; I consider this a feature, not a bug, as good players should be able to complete the tech tree faster.

It is certainly more meaningful than doing science experiments on the launchpad at KSC.

[Dodgey]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this, can you clarify?

To allow the player to have freedom the goals have to be generalized to an extent, the more generalized the goals are the less potential goals there is in the system, land on a planet with an atmosphere instead of land on Duna, Eve ect. There are a fair amount of parts in KSP and that number will only grow, how can you have enough goals that you don't have to do them all to unlock all the parts, yet keep them generalized enough so you aren't constricting the player to a set play though style if you will.

I hope that helps.

[Paul Kingtiger]

The thing I'd change with science is to remove all ground level science on Kerbin. Collecting science should be about going into space and landing on other worlds, not flying around your own world. That's what Kerbal Air Program is for.

[Red Iron Crown]

To allow the player to have freedom the goals have to be generalized to an extent, the more generalized the goals are the less potential goals there is in the system, land on a planet with an atmosphere instead of land on Duna, Eve ect. There are a fair amount of parts in KSP and that number will only grow, how can you have enough goals that you don't have to do them all to unlock all the parts, yet keep them generalized enough so you aren't constricting the player to a set play though style if you will.

Thanks, I see what you mean now.

A couple of ways that this concern can be addressed:

- Unlock multiple parts per goal, adjusting the ratio of parts/goal to suit the number of goals and parts.

- Allow interchangable goals for parts. E.g. Drogue chutes unlocked by landing on Eve, landing on Duna, or landing on Laythe.

- Similar to the current system, allocate points to each goal and use those points to unlock parts. Have many more specific goals than are required to unlock everything and let the player decide which to pursue.

- Some combination of the above.

The important difference from the current system being that doing a variety of different things in KSP would be required to climb the tree, instead of being able to complete the tree by spamming the same lander to Minmus or the Mun repeatedly.

[Dodgey]

Paul, I'm going to say this once and then leave it because it is off topic, have you heard of aerospace? Saying that because it's called Kerbal Space Program means nothing, what's in a name? Offer some gameplay reasons why it should be removed, not referring to the name. That argument was brought up in a thread a month or so back about boats, and the counter argument is that by that logic we should remove rovers from the game. This may seem heavy handed but I've seen what these arguments turn into, if you would like to discuss it more pm me.

Back on topic, I think that the science should stay on Kerbin as it allows new players to get those few extra parts to get them to orbit.

[OTehNoes]

The thing I'd change with science is to remove all ground level science on Kerbin. Collecting science should be about going into space and landing on other worlds, not flying around your own world. That's what Kerbal Air Program is for.

I'd have to disagree with you there. It's always worth getting data on Kerbin, it's nice to have an analogue from which you can compare data with strange alien worlds for starters, but the list is a long one.

[Red Iron Crown]

But would the space program be the ones collecting data on Kerbin? It seems to me that NASA, ESA, JAXA, etc don't do a lot of experiments on the Earth's surface, other than testing spacecraft and their components.

[Dodgey]

It's a gameplay thing, nothing more. Not everything has to have a real world anolog.

[Red Iron Crown]

How is doing science at KSC enjoyable gameplay?

[Dodgey]

I didn't say enjoyable, I said gameplay. It allows newer players if needed to get a few more parts before heading to space. If you want to drain Kerbin for every last scrap of science and have a bad time doing it go right ahead. Doesn't mean you have to.

[OTehNoes]

But would the space program be the ones collecting data on Kerbin? It seems to me that NASA, ESA, JAXA, etc don't do a lot of experiments on the Earth's surface, other than testing spacecraft and their components.

I assure you they do. But as well doing it on Kerbin teaches new players how to do it, so they know how the equipment, as well as the biomes and things work for when they try it on a more difficult target!

[Red Iron Crown]

I assure you they do.

Can you give an example? I assumed that climate, geological, biological, etc experiments on Earth are done by experts in their respective fields, not a space agency.

But as well doing it on Kerbin teaches new players how to do it, so they know how the equipment, as well as the biomes and things work for when they try it on a more difficult target!

That's a good point.

[boomerdog2000]

If you want to drain Kerbin for every last scrap of science and have a bad time doing it go right ahead. Doesn't mean you have to.

I think this is the key part that some of the other tech-tree suggestions are missing. The science system, with the point values and experiments, is set up the way it is to allow the player to move on when they feel ready. When people start to get impatient they might take it as a challenge to move on a little earlier.

You don't have to suck the Kerbin system dry of science before moving on to Eve, Duna and others. You don't have to do any specific, seemingly random thing to advance. Meaning you have a much wider range of things to do to progress than in an achievement based system.

[OTehNoes]

Can you give an example? I assumed that climate, geological, biological, etc experiments on Earth are done by experts in their respective fields, not a space agency.

This has quite a bit of information if you fancy reading into it, I can't be bothered too much with specifics as I'm currently doing one of my assignments!

Though you are also right, NASA don't always do all of their research themselves, they often branch out and collaborate with others too, but they do also do a lot of Earth research themselves. It's necessary if you want to have a chance at understanding other planets really, as Earth is really our best basis for comparison!

This is a bit more specific!

Edited March 17, 2014 by OTehNoes

[Red Iron Crown]

This has quite a bit of information if you fancy reading into it, I can't be bothered too much with specifics as I'm currently doing one of my assignments!

Though you are also right, NASA don't always do all of their research themselves, they often branch out and collaborate with others too, but they do also do a lot of Earth research themselves. It's necessary if you want to have a chance at understanding other planets really, as Earth is really our best basis for comparison!

That's about satellite or airborne observations, i.e. missions that require their expertise. NASA is not doing geology on the ground, for example, other than to test their equipment.

[OTehNoes]

Check the second link I posted, an example would be that they're checking soil moisture with SMAP (granted the study instruments are in orbit), but that's just one. I can't be bothered to dig through it all and find each individual example of where they're done Earth based studies, but trust me, they do, albeit not very often any more as they've probably already done the most important stuff already, and leave anything else to other foundations to save themselves time.

This for example is measuring tropical rainfall. This will be done from the ground via digital rain gauges. Basic stuff but it will be done from the ground.

Edited March 17, 2014 by OTehNoes

[Red Iron Crown]

Check the second link I posted, an example would be that they're checking soil moisture with SMAP (granted the study instruments are in orbit), but that's just one. I can't be bothered to dig through it all and find each individual example of where they're done Earth based studies, but trust me, they do, albeit not very often any more as they've probably already done the most important stuff already, and leave anything else to other foundations to save themselves time.

The second link wasn't there when I replied. And even so, it's about observations made from orbit or aircraft, obviously within NASA's purview.

This for example is measuring tropical rainfall. This will be done from the ground via digital rain gauges. Basic stuff but it will be done from the ground.

Am I missing something? That link discusses using a satellite to measure rainfall, not a ground based experiment.

[OTehNoes]

Am I missing something? That link discusses using a satellite to measure rainfall, not a ground based experiment.

The storm systems are tracked by satellite but rainfall would be measured on the ground. How/why would you measure rainfall depth from orbit? You couldn't!

Anyway to finalize this, I'm just saying NASA DO have Earth based projects, but they aren't really their primary concerns any more, given that they've probably already done a lot of it, and our attention at the moment is more on space.

I for one would like to be able to look for more geological features in KSP!

[Red Iron Crown]

The storm systems are tracked by satellite but rainfall would be measured on the ground. How/why would you measure rainfall depth from orbit? You couldn't!

The whole point of that program is to measure precipitation (and other climate data) from space without ground instruments, using radar and other spectrum imagery. You would do so because you can get data for a much larger area than a network of ground based sensors. Poking around the site, the only ground based instruments used were for validation of the results it produces.

[OTehNoes]

See I haven't got the time to read through it all D:

But my point still stands, NASA do still do Earth science from the ground, they just also do a lot from orbit too.

[Red Iron Crown]

But my point still stands, NASA do still do Earth science from the ground, they just also do a lot from orbit too.

Except that they don't, because it is a waste of resources for a space program. Ground-based science is done by ground-based scientists.