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

[Ryder]

It's also a clear indicator that you haven't the slightest on what is going on, much less whether or not I agree with the ideas in my own dang head. The self-aggrandizement is not cute.

detector says: "ding!"

:-)

[Superfluous J]

"But before I tell you, it would be far easier that you simply understand that my views are right, and yours… not so much."

Actually, I thought it rather brilliant of me... it's of course meant as both humor, and a detection device for the humor impaired. It also was a prediction... that it wasn't going to be easy to sell this.

Worked on every level.

R

You would think it was brilliant. After all, you said it.

What it achieved was to serve as a warning that you wouldn't actually listen to any idea that didn't match your own. Then you spent 16 pages proving it was true. We all had the chance to take that warning and we did not. So I'm going to take it now.

I wish this forum had an "ignore thread" feature.

[Ryder]

... you wouldn't actually listen to any idea that didn't match your own.

Sorry if I missed your idea... can you remind me what it was?

I'm pretty sure that I rejected no *ideas* presented here... (and no, intentional topic drift does not count as an idea, sorry) ...except of course the Squad Tech Tree.

I'll stand corrected if you can show otherwise... and in a show of good faith, I will hold my breath...

Any serious ideas will always get serious consideration from me. Clearly I was not shown the same courtesy by many here.... and have been far more patient with some than they probably deserved.

Back to topic:

If anyone can show why any element in the tree I have proposed is a requirement imposed BY the tree, then you should indicate what it is.

While scenarios have requirements *inside* of them (as contracts will), there is no requirement to enter a scenario. While an altitude achievement has an internal requirement (to meet that altitude), there is no requirement that the player perform it to advance.

etc. etc. etc.

People disagree... that's fine... but to be taken seriously, you're really going to have to show an example.... otherwise, people are going to think you are just being objectionable to be objectionable. (this has already been voiced)

For those that have taken the time to actually understand the notion... it's appreciated.

But so far, *almost* without exception, objections have been based on incorrect assumptions about how the tree is supposed to work. And I know it's not incomprehensible, because a number of people totally get it.

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.

A true visionary... ! (nice tank, BTW)

Since finding the Achievements Mod... I'm really tempted to try to mod this tree. I doubt I have the time though... and I program at work, so I'm not all that enthusiastic about doing more of it after hours. Hmmm.

Well, I suppose a Career Mod Team could maybe take this on. That's the cool thing about Modding... But still, the official KSP will be left with a grind fest, minus some heavy lifting by Squad. I'll *never* get through the current tech tree. That's how amazingly awesome it is.

If I want those parts, I'm forced to do things I don't want to do. Which is interesting, because that is what a number of people here say they don't like either.

And I agree with them!

R

Edited March 18, 2014 by Ryder

[Red Iron Crown]

As I understand it, the tech tree progression is not only meant to add challenge to the game, but also to introduce new players to rocketry without overwhelming them with parts at the start. The system should encourage players to try new things, rather than just repeating the same things over and over. The current system falls down a bit on this score, as once a player can put a lander on Minmus or the Mun, there is no need to try anything more sophisticated. They can get enough science to unlock the entire tree by repeated missions to Kerbin's satellites.

Maybe this can be addressed in ways other than the OP's suggestion, like making things cost more science, or having less science available on Kerbin's satellites. But the OP's system has the benefit of directly rewarding getting better at the game, by tying part unlocking to actually doing different things in space instead of repeating the same things over and over.

The details of which goals should be used, how specific they should be, if they should be interchangeable with other goals, etc are all issues with the system, but I think they're gameplay balance issues that can be solved. The basic premise, that the game should reward doing more and different things in space rather than the same things over and over, is a good idea, to my mind.

[CaptainKipard]

The system should encourage players to try new things, rather than just repeating the same things over and over. The current system falls down a bit on this score, as once a player can put a lander on Minmus or the Mun, there is no need to try anything more sophisticated. They can get enough science to unlock the entire tree by repeated missions to Kerbin's satellites.

Yes, but....

The basic premise, that the game should reward doing more and different things in space rather than the same things over and over, is a good idea, to my mind.

...I don't exactly agree.

This is really difficult to figure out because:

a) All or most of the science done to create space technology is done on Earth, not in space. Space is merely a testing ground.

Very little of the observations made by cosmologists have practical engineering applications.

Now think about why we're going into space. It's obviously to colonise our entire solar system and maybe someday send generational ships to other star systems. There's no other feasible way of ensuring human survival past our sun's life. I really think that should be the ultimate goal of KSP. Everything else should be left to the player. That to me means no restrictive contrived progression. Only a clear goal. This is a game after-all, and a game needs a clear success and failure state.

The main thing limiting technological progress is money. A budget increases and decreases based on many things that are probably beyond the scope of KSP, but one of them is science popularity and space program popularity. And popularity is obviously based on achievements. What I'm trying to say is that achievements should give you a monetary reward, which would allow you to do science quicker, but it should not give you science directly.

KSP is meant to be a space program management game, but after the shelving of resources, and the implementation of this silly gamey science currency it's starting to look less like a strategic management game, and more like something where you jut have to get a high score quickly. Seriously disappointing.

[boomerdog2000]

As I understand it, the tech tree progression is not only meant to add challenge to the game, but also to introduce new players to rocketry without overwhelming them with parts at the start. The system should encourage players to try new things, rather than just repeating the same things over and over. The current system falls down a bit on this score, as once a player can put a lander on Minmus or the Mun, there is no need to try anything more sophisticated. They can get enough science to unlock the entire tree by repeated missions to Kerbin's satellites.

But it does encourage you to do new things. You can putter around the Kerbin system and unlock the entire tech-tree if you want, or if you get bored (which most probably will) you can go somewhere else. Duna maybe? A quick stop on Ike for a bit of extra science if you want. How about dropping a probe on Eve and landing on Gilly while you're there? Maybe a quick tour around some of Jool's moons if you're feeling up to it.

The difference between the current system and the proposed system here is that in the current one you can go anywhere basically whenever you want. You are limited only by your design and your piloting skills. In the proposed system you would have to go to Duna, Eve, Laythe or some other body for your special achievement to get the parts you needed. That is the game forcing you into something very specific. I recognize that the game does need to tell you to do something for it to be career mode, but this suggestion is too specific for my taste to completely replace science as we have it now.

Edited March 18, 2014 by boomerdog2000
typo

[Dodgey]

Ryder, your system is more constricting/restrictive because it is basically contracts, do this action to receive this reward, no matter how much you butter it up that is all it is. You can make it as broad or tight as you want it doesn't change that it is do this to get this. When contacts are implemented they will be out on top of the point system which you so despise, making it the only way to advance in through the tech tree. Speaking of the tech tree, I do think that it needs a desperate overhaul, and that you have a good idea for how the tree should be fixed. Your plan gets rid of the point system and implement a progress as you play system. Restricting the player to a finite set of circumstances/goals/accomplishments of which they can achieve. Make it as broad or complicated as you want, you are still limiting the player to a finite set of circumstances. That's how it is more restrictive.

But it does encourage you to do new things. You can putter around the Kerbin system and unlock the entire tech-tree if you want, or if you get bored (which most probably will) you can go somewhere else. Duna maybe? A quick stop on Ike for a bit of extra science if you want. How about dropping a probe on Eve and landing on Gilly while you're there? Maybe a quick tour around some of Jool's moons if you're feeling up to it.

The difference between the current system and the proposed system here is that in the current one you can go anywhere basically whenever you want. You are limited only by your design and your piloting skills. In the proposed system you would have to go to Duna, Eve, Laythe or some other body for your special achievement to get the parts you needed. That is the game forcing you into something very specific. I recognize that the game does need to tell you to do something for it to be career mode, but this suggestion is too specific for my taste to completely replace science as we have it now.

My point exactly. No matter what you say, in the system that you have proposed you must conform to a pre-set set of circumstances in one way or another.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Dodgey

[Red Iron Crown]

But it does encourage you to do new things. You can putter around the Kerbin system and unlock the entire tech-tree if you want, or if you get bored (which most probably will) you can go somewhere else. Duna maybe? A quick stop on Ike for a bit of extra science if you want. How about dropping a probe on Eve and landing on Gilly while you're there? Maybe a quick tour around some of Jool's moons if you're feeling up to it.

Not preventing something is not the same as encouraging it. How does the current science system encourage players to leave the Kerbin system? It doesn't, and in my opinion discourages it by requiring more game time and greater mission difficulty to get your science anywhere outside the Kerbin system.

The difference between the current system and the proposed system here is that in the current one you can go anywhere basically whenever you want. You are limited only by your design and your piloting skills. In the proposed system you would have to go to Duna, Eve, Laythe or some other body for your special achievement to get the parts you needed. That is the game forcing you into something very specific. I recognize that the game does need to tell you to do something for it to be career mode, but this suggestion is too specific for my taste to completely replace science as we have it now.

Maybe eliminating points is not a good idea. Have points for each goal that can be used to unlock parts, and have many more goals than are strictly required to unlock everything. Don't want to go to Duna? Pursue a different goal than that to get your points.

I guess my point is that science points aren't particularly fun to collect, and there's not really a sense of achievement from operating science equipment. It's getting to a distant destination, completing a landing, docking with another craft, etc, that are the satisfying tasks in KSP (IMHO), and I think those things are what the tech tree should reward and encourage.

[Dodgey]

Wait For contacts then, wait to see what career mode is like when it's done before giving it a major overhaul.

[Red Iron Crown]

Wait For contacts then, wait to see what career mode is like when it's done before giving it a major overhaul.

That's fair, maybe the monetary or reputation system will more directly reward the things I'm talking about.

[Dodgey]

And if not I'm sure the community will make a mod for it. There's a mod for just about everything else out there .

[AlamoVampire]

Since I don't have a published list of actual restrictions... you are necessarily having to be rather creative here. Kudos for your fertile imagination though!

All I have done is toss out a wide range of examples that show what is possible.... from totally generic, to scenarios like the upcoming ARM, and contracts.

The graphic I provided are the only examples that are presented in any concrete way... and include such unlikely events as...

-Getting airborne

-Reaching space

-Achieving orbit

-Leaving Kerbin SOI

-Having a "manned" capsule

-Coming home alive

...etc.

I know... really restrictive! People should be free to make a rover on Kerbin, and earn all of their parts... right?

sheesh.

You misunderstand. The fact that you had to number them is the first clue.

They don't represent a hierarchy of any kind... they are just a list of possibilities of things you *could* do in a tree that was activity/event based... to show how versatile it was. That you mistook it for a numbered hierarchical tree (that you actually numbered)... was to take the wrong meaning... and since it has for a very long time now been made clear that those are options, not directives... you have no excuse.

I think I found it!

It's pretty cool...

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52535-0-23-0-Achievements-1-5-4-Earn-132-achievements-while-playing

It awards achievements "on the fly"... so it has a bit of the flavor of what I've been talking about... minus the guidance of a tree, scenarios and the parts delivery system.

I think blizzy78 has done a good job with it.

R

You sir are direly mistaken AND self entitled to think you know better than squad how this game should work. I numbered your list so you could FOLLOW MY WORDS so youd not be confused but my mistake you are confused anyway.

[Specialist290]

I think it's safe to say that this discussion has started to run out of steam and is now producing more heat than light on the matter. I'll be closing this thread; let's keep the personal snipes and pot-shots to a minimum in the future.