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

[Ryder]

I’ve been away…

Even while talking up KSP to anyone and everyone… I’ve been keeping my distance. A horrible force… some dark barrier has kept me from tinkering in the VAB, and achieving mighty green glory in the milky cosmos that is KSP.

What happened?

I’ll tell you. But before I tell you, it would be far easier that you simply understand that my views are right, and yours… not so much. But I can see that you’ve going to need convincing....

Oh Kay…

Science happened.

Damn you science. Damn you all to hell.

Look what you’ve done… progress, previously measured in a new altitude record… then that perfect circular orbit… that spot on docking… that first capture around the Mun… is now a points system.

I’d ask you to kill me now, but I’m sure many of you would, and then I’d have no chance to make my case.

Success in KSP used to be sweet… even rapturous. And we all know why. Our little green buddies were putting it all on the line, pushing the outside of the envelope, and (sometimes) hauling it back in.

And the failures were spectacular. And meaningful. And instructive.

As engineers and pilots, you weren’t informed that you failed… but rather you saw it, felt it… green friends meeting their demise in a cloud of debris and flame. You *failed*, not in the abstract… you failed to add that last strut.... failed to lay out your staging…. Failed to test, overestimated your piloting skills, forgot a source of power… *you* failed, in a ball of fire, or a freezing, lonely infinite death in the depths of space.

Now we have the contrivance of a progress tree, driven by bogus science points? A mere gaming device… turning the genuine reality of a brave Kerbal endeavor… into a board game.

This cannot be allowed to stand!

Progress, in KSP, up till now, was measured in footprints on distant worlds. Now we expose goo randomly to everything we can think of to collect science quatloos. My aching heart weeps… it can stand no more.

Now let’s not get Ryder all wrong here. He loves science. That’s not the issue.

It’s turning the real business of science into a contrivance… and an overused one to boot, that has driven him away.

But let me cut to the chase. There is an answer, and it’s right before us.

Science is NOT a contrivance… it is keeping your center of pressure aft of your center of mass. It’s knowing how much energy it takes to make a journey. It’s weights and measures. And KSP has ALL of that… it doesn’t need points. It doesn’t need bogus (but cute!) science goo.

The real science is still there, and it is there KSP should return with all haste.

The progress tree should be a series of Kennedy-esq goals, that take real science to *achieve*, and not simply collect like Monopoly money rent.

While I know that everyone supports the fine and most excellent guys that make KSP what it is… like you’d support family… the truth is that you don’t support your brother when he takes a wrong turn down a dark alley of substance abuse… you rescue him, kicking and screaming if need be. And it’s better to act now, than watch his teeth fall out.

Keep the tree… but make it a goals tree… (but don’t enforce the branches)

• First launch. First recovery. First to space. First to orbit…. All of the basics.
  
• Engineering goals… first multi-stage, lightest to orbit. First rendezvous.
  
• Visiting all the worlds…
  
• And then… the science (and engineering!).
  
• 5 Kerbans on the Mun, with quarters, and energy and life support hardware in place… all connected and functioning.
  
• A rotating orbital station, generating ½ Kerban gravity.
  
• A geo synchronous satellite array in position.
  
• A rescue mission!
  
• A Jool mapping mission!
  
• Setting up real science hardware on Duna. Find water! Life!
  
• Capture and divert an asteroid!
  
• Mining H3 on the Mun, and getting a bunch of it back home.
  
• The possibilities are endless… and involve doing what we love… grabbing what the fellas in the labs invent, and then getting it out there… (sometimes).
  
• These are the science goals worthy of Kerbal lives. Worthy of our time to achieve.
  
• It’s what KSP needs, in order to stay, KSP.
  
• Points? We don’t need no stinkin’ points.
  

Now, before you say that you *can* do this already, realize that you can't. Not as an enforced goal... not as an award when the requirements are met. You put a Kerban on the Mun, and return him safely... then the tree fills in, and the achievement awarded. You deserve your parade!

Hopefully withdrawing my support for this one part of KSP will not be seen as such a sacrilege that will cause blinding rage... and don't bother telling me that science, as it is, has it's good points.... everything has pro's and con's. That would simply be missing the point.

I mentioned it to Jeb and Bill over beer call... and they agree with me.

In all seriousness, and love, for KSP.

R

Edited March 17, 2014 by Ryder

[stupid_chris]

I don't really like science either. So instead I just keep playing Sandbox. Good news: that didn't change.

If you don't like the tech tree and science, just play Sandbox.

And if you're trying to say that career is not properly made: it's far from complete. Wait it out by playing Sandbox.

[Goldham]

Also there is an Achievement mod somewhere

[Ryder]

Also there is an Achievement mod somewhere

I appreciate that... but this is about what KSP officially becomes.

Regards,

R

[Superfluous J]

I still think science is the single best thing to happen in the game, for me personally. I loved doing all the actions but hated that there was no goal.

The problem with goals like this is it's really, really hard to determine when they've been achieved. Like a rescue mission. How would you achieve that? And wouldn't everybody just send up someone into orbit, burn out all their fuel, and do a simple mission to "rescue" them? How close to geosynchronous do you need to be? There was a missions pack that had satellites to set up and I remember the stipulations being ridiculously stringent to the point of not being fun.

Also, you may get exactly what you want when contracts come out in the next (major) release. Though I hope you don't get a contract to land a ship within 1 meter of an exact latitude/longitude point that's then not marked on Mun. That would drive me as bonkers as merely getting science drives you.

[NecroBones]

I started out in sandbox, but switched to career pretty quickly. The thing I like about the career/science mode is that it forces you to start small, and learn your skills and what the various parts do, in a gradual manner. In that respect, it taught me how to build better rockets. But I do see your points. The sense of accomplishment came from *my* goals, not the tech tree.

[Ryder]

I don't really like science either. So instead I just keep playing Sandbox. Good news: that didn't change.

If you don't like the tech tree and science, just play Sandbox.

And if you're trying to say that career is not properly made: it's far from complete. Wait it out by playing Sandbox.

You're missing the point... it is that the tech tree is bogus. It's a black mark. It hurts KSP.

You must have missed this part: " before you say that you *can* do this already, realize that you can't. Not as an enforced goal..."

We all know about the sandbox.

Regards,

R

I started out in sandbox, but switched to career pretty quickly. The thing I like about the career/science mode is that it forces you to start small, and learn your skills and what the various parts do, in a gradual manner. In that respect, it taught me how to build better rockets. But I do see your points. The sense of accomplishment came from *my* goals, not the tech tree.

Right, but you have to understand the point...

Career *is* what I am talking about... that does *exactly* what you say... starting small, and working up.... but *not* with stupid *points* for bogus "science".

A career of real science, with real achievement is precisely what I am talking about.

Any having it driven by a *goal* tree...

R

"The problem with goals like this is it's really, really hard to determine when they've been achieved. Like a rescue mission. How would you achieve that?"

I would say, no. Not hard. This is what game designers do. Maybe you don't design games... and that's cool... but trust me, these guys can do this. That's not the issue.

We all agree that adding goals is a good idea. What is the bad idea, is science goo and points.

Regards,

R

Edited March 16, 2014 by stupid_chris

[stupid_chris]

You're missing the point... it is that the tech tree is bogus. It's a black mark. It hurts KSP.

You must have missed this part: " before you say that you *can* do this already, realize that you can't. Not as an enforced goal..."

We all know about the sandbox.

Regards,

R

How is something you don't use a bogus? You don't like it, you don't use it, and it's not in your way anymore, end of the deal. Anyway you're an old member and you should know more than anyone else that the game is a WIP. Career is at infant stage, and so is the tech tree. It'll change, and when you find it has matured enough, switch out of Sandbox and play with Career.

EDIT: also please don't triple post. Use the edit function if needed.

[Vanamonde]

Since you are suggesting that the game's development should be reversed in a rather major way, thread moved to development suggestions.

[Superfluous J]

I would say, no. Not hard. This is what game designers do. Maybe you don't design games... and that's cool... but trust me, these guys can do this. That's not the issue.

Then I would love to see your exactly laid out stipulations for the "do a rescue mission" goal. I'd also like to hear your thoughts about the upcoming contracts feature that seems to add exactly what you think the game doesn't have.

We all agree that adding goals is a good idea. What is the bad idea, is science goo and points.

I've heard very good arguments against goals. One of them is that the player didn't want to be railroaded into the "correct" way to play the game. He did not want to be forced to orbit Laythe 3 times if what he really wanted to do was make a Duna base. However, I personally look forward to being given tasks when contracts come out.

I will not agree that "science points" is a bad idea. I can literally attribute the fact that I'm still playing today to the game getting science points in 0.22. I had all but quit before that point out of boredom.

Edited March 16, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[regex]

What I like about science/tech tree is that it works in a very sandbox fashion. Nothing prevents you from leaving Kerbin SOI as early as you want; you still set your own goals. To be honest I think a "goal tree" like you propose would be much worse than the tech tree because it serves to limit the creativity of the player to the goals the game has set. It's not a sandbox solution IMO. Bad as the tech tree is, it's better than the game giving me "achievements" to aim for.

[6.forty]

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

This kills the opinion

But seriously, you don't like what Career mode offers? Then as has been mentioned, stick to Sandbox and stop letting a work-in-progress game mode have an effect on how you play an entirely separate open-ended game mode. That's just... well, illogical.

[SSSPutnik]

I played career mode for a few hours then switched back to Sandbox.

Personally I think its a waste of space. IMHO anyway.

[DannySwish]

I don't really know what to think. I just want KSP to be as realistic as it can be without it reaching the point of being frustratingly difficult.

[Ryder]

Then I would love to see your exactly laid out stipulations for the "do a rescue mission" goal. I'd also like to hear your thoughts about the upcoming contracts feature that seems to add exactly what you think the game doesn't have.

Child's play. Luke and Scotty have crashed on the Mun. Find them, then land them on Kerbin, alive, together. Achievement awarded. New tech, possibly awarded as well.

I've heard very good arguments against goals. One of them is that the player didn't want to be railroaded into the "correct" way to play the game. He did not want to be forced to orbit Laythe 3 times if what he really wanted to do was make a Duna base. However, I personally look forward to being given tasks when contracts come out.

Right, which is why I said that the branches of the goal tree should not be enforced. They are opportunities... not a rail road. Does nobody read anymore?

I will not agree that "science points" is a bad idea. I can literally attribute the fact that I'm still playing today to the game getting science points in 0.22. I had all but quit before that point out of boredom.

Then what is it, about *******points******* exactly, that gets you so excited? I'll bet you a donut, that if you look at it carefully... that what you like about it, is not the *******points******.

This kills the opinion

But seriously, you don't like what Career mode offers? Then as has been mentioned, stick to Sandbox and stop letting a work-in-progress game mode have an effect on how you play an entirely separate open-ended game mode. That's just... well, illogical.

That makes no sense. How can you argue that the best way to fix career mode, is to ignore it and not use it? Totally nonsensical.

And again... does nobody read? "Now, before you say that you *can* do this already, realize that you can't. Not as an enforced goal... not as an award when the requirements are met."

Like I said... everyone already knows about the sandbox.

I ****LOVE***** having a career mode.

But based on science and accomplishment.

Not fake science. Not goo-in-space-points, which make no sense, and reduce KSP career to a contrivance.

Especially when gobs upon gobs of real science, real accomplishment, real simulation, real engineering... are all already available, but are ignored in favor of goo.

Regards,

R

Edited March 16, 2014 by Ryder

[Arran]

Like others said, sollution is simple in you're case, stop playing Carreer mode, and stick to sandbox.

There are some many players, and so many opinions, devs cant please every single one of us, and allways funny that some guy thinks he knows it all, and thinks he knows the sollution. Problems is, even if the devs put up you'r vision of the game, and not their own, and ask every details on what and how to make the game according to your specifications, as you made clear, exactly know what to do, then others will post about the same as you did, and complain how you lack vision and steering the game into a direction it shoudnt have gone, and someone then will get the say in how the game has to be developed, and violla we are back at the beginning..

So, i think we just let the devs do their work, thusfar most people like what they are making, and what we like to see different in your own game, can be modded. Or in your case, just stick to the Sandbox and wait how the carreer turns out to be once its finished, before the next tandrum..

[Ryder]

How is something you don't use a bogus? You don't like it, you don't use it, and it's not in your way anymore, end of the deal. Anyway you're an old member and you should know more than anyone else that the game is a WIP. Career is at infant stage, and so is the tech tree. It'll change, and when you find it has matured enough, switch out of Sandbox and play with Career.

Would you use a dirty toothbrush? Or would you clean it up first?

And as I pointed out... it makes no sense that an effort to fix Career mode, would entail ignoring it. Totally nonsensical.

Again, does nobody read anymore? If you will please re-read the OP you will see that I specifically say that it is better to correct things early, than to wait. I'm specifically saying: Do this in the infant stage.

And I know it's changing... and I am specifically saying: Change it this way.

Do you object that users want to see specific changes? If so, than what is the point of this very section of the forum?

This is called "getting sidetracked". There is an idea presented. Argue it's merits, or please leave it be.

Like others said, sollution is simple in you're case, stop playing Carreer mode, and stick to sandbox.

Please see my replies on how it is nonsensical to fix career mode by simply not using it. That is called *avoidance*.

This is *****about****** fixing career mode, and entails changing it, so that it is better... not pretending that it does not exist.

There are some many players, and so many opinions, devs cant please every single one of us, and allways funny that some guy thinks he knows it all, and thinks he knows the sollution. Problems is, even if the devs put up you'r vision of the game, and not their own, and ask every details on what and how to make the game according to your specifications, as you made clear, exactly know what to do, then others will post about the same as you did, and complain how you lack vision and steering the game into a direction it shoudnt have gone, and someone then will get the say in how the game has to be developed, and violla we are back at the beginning..

So, i think we just let the devs do their work, thusfar most people like what they are making, and what we like to see different in your own game, can be modded. Or in your case, just stick to the Sandbox and wait how the carreer turns out to be once its finished, before the next tandrum..

Are you saying that the developers put forums here because they don't want to listen to users? That it's all a ruse so that we think they actually care and listen, but in fact they simply don't? I don't know... maybe you know them personally, and know that they really don't want to hear anything from us... but that's simply not the impression I get.

I think they want to know. I don't think they value the darkness. I don't think that they value ignorance. I think they would rather know.

R

Edited March 16, 2014 by Ryder

[regex]

Right, which is why I said that the branches of the goal tree should not be enforced. They are opportunities... not a rail road.

How do you handle skipping branches? Does everything just pile up from previous branches when I land on Eeloo really early in my career (surprise! advancement!)? Do I have to actually follow a branch in order to gain the tech advances contained therein (because that would suck, I want to do my own thing)? What if I want to ignore the branches altogether and do my own thing?

[NERVAfan]

Well, if I'm understanding the suggestion correctly, you'd actually fill out quite a lot of 'goals' even if you went straight to Eeloo on your very first launch (first flight, first craft to space, first Kerbin orbit, first Kerbin escape/solar orbit, etc.) The "basic" stuff (decouplers, LV-T45s, LV-909s, tall basic solar panel, Stayputnik probe core)... could all be unlocked by those 'basic' milestones (first to upper atmosphere, first to space, first to orbit) so that you would necessarily get them early in almost any game.

But you wouldn't have to go to Mun before Minmus, or indeed before Duna etc.

[6.forty]

That makes no sense. How can you argue that the best way to fix career mode, is to ignore it and not use it? Totally nonsensical.

Use your imagination. No, really. Just stick to sandbox, and set your own goals, tasks, objectives, etc. I don't believe that to be in any way unreasonable or nonsensical to take an open-ended sandbox mode with no limits and play it in almost literally whatever way you could possibly want.

I think you really need to get back in touch with your imagination. It's not something only 8 year old children are allowed to have, you can have one too.

[regex]

Well, if I'm understanding the suggestion correctly, you'd actually fill out quite a lot of 'goals' even if you went straight to Eeloo on your very first launch (first flight, first craft to space, first Kerbin orbit, first Kerbin escape/solar orbit, etc.) The "basic" stuff (decouplers, LV-T45s, LV-909s, tall basic solar panel, Stayputnik probe core)... could all be unlocked by those 'basic' milestones (first to upper atmosphere, first to space, first to orbit) so that you would necessarily get them early in almost any game.

So what you're saying is that we'd still have "points", they just wouldn't be "points"? Or are science nodes unlocked by certain "achievements"?

But you wouldn't have to go to Mun before Minmus, or indeed before Duna etc.

That's good because I don't have to now and I think it'd be a shame if I had to.

[Ryder]

How do you handle skipping branches? Does everything just pile up from previous branches when I land on Eeloo really early in my career (surprise! advancement!)? Do I have to actually follow a branch in order to gain the tech advances contained therein (because that would suck, I want to do my own thing)? What if I want to ignore the branches altogether and do my own thing?

I envision that the branches are topic based... exploration... navigation... science... etc.

None are locked, but represent a logical progression in a career... helping a player to know how difficult to expect each might be. Take it in order, or be bold and leap ahead. The idea of delivering tech would not be so much to deny it to players, as it would be to keep it clean and simple at first, and present tech as players cross thresholds of achievement, independent of any specific element in the tree.

It makes no sense to have a mining module, or habitat module, if you've never soft-landed before.

And the items in career would not be just challenge for challenge sake: "orbit kerbin twice, orbit the moon three times, then return to Kerbin..." Instead, they should be tied to real science and tech... find water. find life. Locate He3 deposits. Divert an asteroid so it doesn't hit Kerbin... things that science and engineering REALLY DO care about. This makes KSP even more educational, and vastly less contrived in career.

And if you truly, truly want to do your own thing... then that is of course the entire point of sandbox. If you want to be guided... and progress, then career.

Regards,

R

Use your imagination. No, really. Just stick to sandbox, and set your own goals, tasks, objectives, etc. I don't believe that to be in any way unreasonable or nonsensical to take an open-ended sandbox mode with no limits and play it in almost literally whatever way you could possibly want.

I think you really need to get back in touch with your imagination. It's not something only 8 year old children are allowed to have, you can have one too.

You don't get it. I want a career mode. I want goals. I want guidance. (sometimes) As an early and long supporter of KSP, I did the sandbox. Was ready for career. It sucked rocks.

Games have career modes, because people like them, so it makes *zero* sense to say to someone that wants a career mode, to turn around and ignore that career mode exists.

Well, if I'm understanding the suggestion correctly, you'd actually fill out quite a lot of 'goals' even if you went straight to Eeloo on your very first launch (first flight, first craft to space, first Kerbin orbit, first Kerbin escape/solar orbit, etc.) The "basic" stuff (decouplers, LV-T45s, LV-909s, tall basic solar panel, Stayputnik probe core)... could all be unlocked by those 'basic' milestones (first to upper atmosphere, first to space, first to orbit) so that you would necessarily get them early in almost any game.

But you wouldn't have to go to Mun before Minmus, or indeed before Duna etc.

Yes, this is precisely correct. You are "rewarded" with achievement... no matter the specific circumstance you achieved them (in most cases).

So what you're saying is that we'd still have "points", they just wouldn't be "points"? Or are science nodes unlocked by certain "achievements"?

That's good because I don't have to now and I think it'd be a shame if I had to.

I would say that it would be mostly true. Again, for scientific "accuracy", the places you might find life would be necessarily limited. To find life, you SHOULD have to go to the places that would support it. But soft landing achievement could be gained on any body.

It's all just common sense, really. Imagine that it works like the real world.

NASA would not develop a Mars habitat module before John Glenn achieved orbit...

Same thing.

Regards,

R

Edited March 17, 2014 by Vanamonde

[Camacha]

Like others said, sollution is simple in you're case, stop playing Carreer mode, and stick to sandbox

Telling people there is always the sandbox is a horrible way of dealing with legitimate concerns. I share the opinion that science is great, but that the implementation is less than ideal. As it stands, it feels very much as a gameplay mechanic, a sauce spread over what already was. I really do believe a form of science could have been devised that is much more integral to the gameplay of KSP (earn things actually related to your achievement) and a lot less grindy than it is now.

To me it feels a bit as if Squad suddenly realised they needed some gameplay mechanics too, and that this is exactly what we got.

[regex]

Ugh, that sounds terribly boring and railroadey. I quite enjoy constraints and currencies, but having the game "guide" me through a career just sounds ... tedious, especially when I'm starting my third career save. No thanks, it just feels way too contrived.

[Camacha]

Ugh, that sounds terribly boring and railroadey. I quite enjoy constraints and currencies, but having the game "guide" me through a career just sounds ... tedious, especially when I'm starting my third career save. No thanks, it just feels way too contrived.

I am not sure where you get the railroad part from, as you are still allowed to take on missions you feel are interesting or research technologies or parts you deem necessary, in ways you think are best. If we are really frank, we see that the current implementation of science is a lot more guiding than such a more natural setup would have to be. It is no coincidence that there is a plethora of more natural career trees out there.

As it stands, the research you do and the results they yield are two totally seperate matters. This not only causes grinding, it also eliminates a great chance of telling a story - even if everyone can build his own story. If you look at the steps NASA or the USSR took, they form a great story. First space, then orbit, then longer and longer stays, docking, EVA's et cetera. Of course, the steps could and should be different in KSP, but makes for a great and natural progression.

Edit: I am not referring to any specific proposed plans outside my own.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Camacha