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

[Ryder]

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.

Yes. You clearly get it. And the grinding... how horrific... how tedious. The grinding hit within the first hour in career.

As you point out, the real story of space exploration is a fantastic story... and presents a brilliant future story.

To make career not about grinding through points... to tie it to a sort of real-life narrative... to present a progression, not out of creating a challenge course, but by presenting an expansion of skill and knowledge and experience. The unfolding and progression of achievement and the tools to do it, would put KSP right back into the business of simulation... trying to present something in a real way, and in this case, a "career" in developing space.

And to use it as a mechanism to not overload the early pilot with a gazillion parts... career would be more about a smart accumulation of knowledge and experience, to prevent the game becoming frustrating, or unachievable because something was missed.

As I hint, some would be scenario driven... It would have to be a special branch... one that would spawn an asteroid headed to Kerbin, or the survivors of a crash. The Scenario Branch, I suppose.

I'm certain that everyone currently grinding for points now, would realize how "pointless" (a pun?) that whole approach is, if they saw the career mode that I see.

R

[regex]

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.

I beg to differ regarding the current science being more guiding as it is a simple currency system. It doesn't tell you what to do, it just lets you buy stuff with the resources you gain. The choices are entirely yours. The tech tree itself could use some work, I agree.

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.

I don't want the game to write the story for me, I want to write the story myself.

On the topic of grinding, I see no functional difference between the current system and OP's proposal. Both require you to do certain things to advance. The benefit of a currency system is that it gives you a simple unlock mechanic without imposing a fake "storyline" that you might feel obliged to follow, giving up your own creativity in the process. Futhermore, a currency system might also allow exchange between different currencies; I do believe this is planned already.

[Arran]

Your really good in turning others his words into something he not saying at all, and turning your own words around in an reply, completely turning around 180 degrees in a few posts. Took me a few reads before i realised this. Kudos there..

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.

So you started out in how you dont like the restriction of points, that limits your feeling of Archievement compared what you are used to in the Sandbox

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.

This is still there, nothing has changed, they left it there for those who didnt like the carreer mode and rather set their own goals and archievements. Same as good ol 0.22 was and before..

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.

As nothing has changed in Sandboxmode, you're still can go wherever you like, when you like, with the Tech you like and with the goals you like, nothing forces you to follow the Techtree line there.. And you dont need the GooGrinding..

But you still look towards the Career mode, but wheep of memories of Pre-Career time, as its not existent anymore.

Ok, nuff on the whiney part, onto bussiness

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

Now you want a Archievement Science Tree, do this, and you get that kind of working what is imho utter B.S. in approach to science, and also forces me into doing like you allready saying bout the science points is forcing me into a direction i dont want, this would force me even more into doing things i dont want..

• 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.
  

This list is allready exactly what you'r complaining about, it forces me to do things to get things, as i read you'r suggestions, you would make me go to duna to find water to unlock for example a science lab.. I dont want to find stinking water on Duna, go do that you'rself, but now i forced myself out of a sciencelab.. thats RUBBISH..

Now i foresee this same scenario later on with Contracts, i envision getting a Contract later when its implemented, in the likes of Primairy Mission : Find Water on Duna for 1.000.000 credits, Secondairy Mission : Take Duna Water Sample to Kerbin for 250.000 Credits.

And on completion i get my Science points in where i would be able to get myself the next Tech tree item unlocked..

Now i rather had seen a system where i would have given my Scientists an order to Design me a better Mailsail Engine, this would then take XXX amount of time, in the mean time i would do a other mission and when i got back, the Scientists made me a prototype Mainsail Engine wich i have to test out again in a contract for funding, so i can later keep producing the Mailsails, or even sell some Tech off to "consumer markets" for quick Credits..

I would rather getting rid of the Tree totally (i think the tree is indead an mistake, not the science points) and use the Points you're getting to be placed into a "Pool" where of you can steer you're scientists into an direction (i.e. Propulsion/Navigation/etc) and see what they come up with. Maybe even an Upgrade system for existing Tech..

I could write a very detailed system on how I would have done it, and maybe some even would like my way of science, and would love to see it inplemented.

But i realize at this stage of Development, they wont go throwing a large portion out of the game, when they have a working system.

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.

This is excatly what i ment in my first sentence, you are putting words into my mouth i havent said at all.

I just said, with so many people everyone has an idear and an opinion, and if Person A idears get adopted over the Devs because Person A has a better idear, then Person B comes and claims HE has a better idear, and so on and so on.

So a Dev follows HIS vision, regardsless a comunity wants them to make, all the devs will do, is look if someone has a feasable idear/suggestion and if this first into their vision, they adopt this suggestion.

So no they prolly wont listen to anyone that suggesting to throw a large completed working part out of the game, to replace it with a completely new system that havent been thought of in detail, or that it would even work in the end (fun, complexity, programmable).

They DO listen to suggestions that are feasable, and in line what they visioned themself and i know of several features in the game, that are directly suggestions of players that the Devs adopted.

There is a difference in listing to suggestions and ignoring unfeasable idears, completely overhauling at this point a science system, i think falls into the latter, Suggesting switch items on the TechTree, adding an part to tweakables, adding the Recovery Button below the AltMeter are all suggestions they do listen to, and even implement them (the recovery button for example)..

Also you keep neglecting the part that Career isnt completed yet, what gives a biased view allready on the science system implemented.

Archievements (even though SQUAD refuses to see these as archievements as they stated KSP will hold no Archievements) are done through Contracts i think like my example earlier bout Duna, and the rest is all up to you're imagination or supplemented by Mods.

But enough of this...

You dont like the current system of Science, and yearn for the old days, we just point out the old days are still there, noone forces you to play the careermode, and the Sandbox is still there unchanged for all your personal Archievements to accomplish, without GooCanSpam to gain points, and that was you'r initial complaint.

[pa1983]

I do agree mostly whit Ryder.

Career is boring and its pretty simple why. Its unbalanced due to the fact that the tech tree makes little sense and the fact that hording science points was at least before way to easy and just hammer the mouse exerciser.

Some people like hording, research have shown that its addicting (popular in mobile games) but for some of us hording is just a fruitless exercise in boredom.

It has changed a bit over the versions but still hording "points" is very old school idea and the simplicity of it is well less then elegant. What made KSP so great was how fresh it was and the fact that it did not build so much on old ideas on how game dynamics should work. But Science points and the tech tree turns the clock back to something from the 1990's in terms of game play dynamics. Its utterly boring.

Im not saying I have the perfect answer but science points and the simplistic way they are implemented feels like Squad picked the easiest way possible to start building career mode on.

There is no good connection between collecting science points, unlocking stuff and what you get as a reward.

If you want to say Duna and send a probe you might expect certain rewards as a result just like NASA would expect to learn and confirm or disproof some theory's.

Science and tech tree should reflect better where you go in terms of achievements and rewards.

Im also annoyed by people defending anything bad about the game saying that its under development so dont come here and complain. Well then we might as well stop offering positive feedback as well. You know in real life people aren't just getting positive feedback when they do good things. They get a kick in the rear to if they mess up badly to.

So whit that idea we might as well shut the community down if only positive feedback is desired because with out bad feedback theres no way to set a value on good feedback.

I sure know I dont buy stuff from a company just to tell them how good they are. I expect perfection from any product.

Even worse is when people representing the company in on way or another tells people to keep the mouth shut about negative feedback because the game is under development.

There is just to much fan and worshiping going on for some people to be able to take criticism from other users around here in my opinion and its not doing the game any favors neither the devs or the players.

The point of a community is to offer ANY feedback during development, if thats inconvenient go the traditional route and do it all in house whit no way for the users to effect the game and release 1.0 once you see the game as completed.

Valid feedback being positive or negative is always GOOD feedback.

And the game have been in development for years and is still Alpha. Its a dam lame excuse by now If you ask me. The game is neither new or just under development any more. Its been out for years so calling it early in development seems like just another excuse to get rid of unwanted opinions and feedback either its players that cant be unbiased or mods/devs.

Im not much for achievements but if there are suppose to be there they should reflect realistic goals a player might have so a player can track his progress.

Sense people seems to want the game to be realistic maybe a better option is to unlock parts as time goes by in combination whit unlocking special parts or allowing parts to be tuned after reaching goals like going in to orbit whit them effectively gaining experience whit the parts, achieving orbit on another body etc etc. I dont mind the Science pods but maybe they should not collect points as much as using them in certain zones could give you information and unlock parts useful for further missions.

For example sending a probe to Duna SOI might unlock a new parachute for example or make chutes tweakable and at the same time give you some written information about Duna and its atmosphere that can be saved and might contain even useful date for the players future mission.

Putting a small probe on Duna might unlock better Rover wheels or give you some tweakable setting making existing once more suitable for Duna, better wheel pattern for less slip and better traction etc. I mean pattern and wheel design was key for Mars rover to make them work in all terrain. Send on whit the wrong wheels or tweaks and it might get stuck?

It might be harder to implement then Duna but its no harder then whats is done in every other achievement based game. If a pod/probe with a science module lands on Duna and the Science pod is activated all criteria are met to unlock some parts or tweakables. All that can be coded relatively easily by any skilled programmer so I dont see the problem. It will take extra effort but thats just the problem with the Science point system. Theres very little effort put in to that system.

Its a futile attempt to make a generic system "fun" in a otherwise good game. And the fact that the game is so good otherwise I feel is used to hide how bad Science points are form a game dynamic.

Squad took mostly all the right steps making KSP but like any game I feel that career is the side step they made wrong. Could have been so much better.

Contracts will cure or well hide some of it Im sure but still contracts based on a better system then Science points would make the overall game so much better.

But Im pretty tired my self of suggesting and trying to get trough to Devs and other players because KSP rides on a pedestal to high for its own good in the long run.

But Ryder is definitely not alone in his opinions.

And Ryder, watch the language. I dont care a bit, Sweds are not so sensitive when it comes to that but the Mods are very trigger happy on things like that I know from experience here.

Just dumb to give them an excuse to take any form of action.

Also I would like to say that KSP is one of the best games in many years that I have played and I like to see it become even better. Thats why "I" give feedback, being good or bad both are valid in trying to make something better.

[Camacha]

I beg to differ regarding the current science being more guiding as it is a simple currency system. It doesn't tell you what to do, it just lets you buy stuff with the resources you gain. The choices are entirely yours. The tech tree itself could use some work, I agree.

It does tell you what to do, exactly by means of the tech tree. It was designed for a beginner with little experience and that does not work well from a story point of perspective. To get anywhere you are forced to grind and do basic stuff - was that not what you were opposing?

I don't want the game to write the story for me, I want to write the story myself.

I am glad you agree with me, that is exactly what I said

On the topic of grinding, I see no functional difference between the current system and OP's proposal. Both require you to do certain things to advance. The benefit of a currency system is that it gives you a simple unlock mechanic without imposing a fake "storyline" that you might feel obliged to follow, giving up your own creativity in the process.

Career is always going to mean having to do things to advance - that is pretty much the whole point. The proposed system does not impose a fake storyline and does also not use arbitrary points to make some system work. It provides a much more natural way of advancing and doing things related to what you want to do.

Honestly, I think most of the resistance comes from not really understanding how it all could be a lot better

[Camacha]

You dont like the current system of Science, and yearn for the old days, we just point out the old days are still there, noone forces you to play the careermode, and the Sandbox is still there unchanged for all your personal Archievements to accomplish, without GooCanSpam to gain points, and that was you'r initial complaint.

You can not legitimate a system with some obvious flaws by reffering people to Sandbox - that is a little bit too easy and not fair to those that have concerns. We do want science and we do feel it could be a lot of fun - just not how it is currently done. I am very much a player that likes to be challenged by imposing limits (as pretty much all of my mods make life harder), but currently is feels all so pointless.

Of course, your line of reasoning does also mean we can change science according to our wishes. After all, if you do not like the changes, you could always go and play Sandbox

Edited March 16, 2014 by Camacha

[Ryder]

So you started out in how you dont like the restriction of points, that limits your feeling of Archievement compared what you are used to in the Sandbox

Not really. I don't like the points paradigm... John Glenn didn't get points. Neil and Buzz didn't get points. I don't want points. It turns KSP into dungeons and dragons.

Restrictions... different thing. I'm for few restrictions. I don't think you should be able to find life on the Mun, for example... that's a restriction of sorts, but not a sharp one.

This is still there, nothing has changed, they left it there for those who didnt like the carreer mode and rather set their own goals and archievements. Same as good ol 0.22 was and before..

As nothing has changed in Sandboxmode, you're still can go wherever you like, when you like, with the Tech you like and with the goals you like, nothing forces you to follow the Techtree line there.. And you dont need the GooGrinding...

I want career mode to shine. Is that wrong?

Now you want a Archievement Science Tree, do this, and you get that kind of working what is imho utter B.S. in approach to science, and also forces me into doing like you allready saying bout the science points is forcing me into a direction i dont want, this would force me even more into doing things i dont want..

I specifically said non enforced branches. Attempt what you want. The point is to present what players can handle, when they can handle it. Not after an 8 day slog fest to force through a tech tree to get a AR-760 laser magnometer 6 branches down the tree.

If the player reaches orbital velocity and space altitudes... it's time to offer docking ports, RCS, etc. No points. Just hand it out. Reach Kerbin escape velocity? Descent engines and landing gear... and lander pods are probably in order.

You do need to achieve things... but not highly SPECIFIC things. Just things that indicate that you are ready for more.

I know a guy that has spent weeks, and not achieved orbit in sandbox... far too many parts... he's making things far too complex. Too much too soon. He's lost interest in KSP.

A good career mode takes care of that... but still allows freedom. I hate to tell him "Yeah, you can't have that other part, until you dig samples, and learn to work the awards points system".

That s load of bunk.

It's far more legit to say... "yeah... they don't want you to worry about all that other fancy stuff, until you're comfy with the basics."

That's what this suggestion is all about.

I would rather getting rid of the Tree totally (i think the tree is indead an mistake, not the science points) and use the Points you're getting to be placed into a "Pool" where of you can steer you're scientists into an direction (i.e. Propulsion/Navigation/etc) and see what they come up with. Maybe even an Upgrade system for existing Tech..

They are both a mistake, and I think for reasons previously mentioned... Squad grafted some kind of game dynamics onto KSP... and it sure looks it.

So no they prolly wont listen to anyone that suggesting to throw a large completed working part out of the game, to replace it with a completely new system that havent been thought of in detail, or that it would even work in the end (fun, complexity, programmable).

Which is the whole point of saying it now, instead of later, when it is even larger, and more ingrained. Hit cancer early. "Hear me now, or hear me later."

Spending more time/energy/effort on a system that has an ill-conceived foundation is simply not wise. Why do you think they are adding contracts? Why do you think they are working with NASA to add a real science mission.

Because I am right, is why. They are needed, because they were missing...

But instead of fixing the root issue... they are tacking on new things at odd angles... they should just take a step back... change the tree and how it operates, say farewell to the goo, and the D&D points awards system. You just hand tech out as players demonstrate that they might be ready for it... and offer a few scenarios so that real science is represented (I was happy to just see the NASA collaboration). If they started it the way I'm suggesting, they would't need contracts or NASA collaboration to make scenarios. It would be a done deal.

Generic "sample gathering" on every rock you touch is below KSP, in my view. KSP is better than that.

R

Edited March 16, 2014 by Ryder

[Camacha]

Squad grafted some kind of game dynamics onto KSP... and it sure looks it.

This is the problem in a nutshell - and probably the solution too.

[MartGonzo]

I suppose the science is only half integrated at the moment and the final release will be more in depth, I don't see it as a major problem

What I do consider to be a major issue is that the devs are so set against procedural content, meaning the game has zero replayability.

[*Aqua*]

I don't think the current science system is per se a bad system. And I don't believe the proposed 'achievements science system' is better. Why should we get techs for just going to a specific location? Did some alien craft lost a part in space so it can be grabbed by Kerbals? That doesn't make sense.

The question is: How can the player steer what to research?

This can be answered easily: People get better by doing stuff. The more they use or do something the more they think about it, try to optimize it and have ideas to make it work by using a different approach.

So instead of using a science currency or grabbing techs laying around somewhere I propose a learning-by-doing system. If you are using a lot of small rockets you'll get small engines, small tanks and other small stuff. If you are flying huge rockets you'll get the orange tank and the mainsail. If you'll land on planets without atmosphere you'll get landing gears. If there's an atmosphere you'll get parachutes. If your rockets break apart often you'll get struts. And so on.

The details of this system will have to be worked out by the devs, e. g. how many uses of small decouplers are needed before you'll get bigger decouplers. Should scientific advancements base on the number of uses of parts? Or is the using time (in minutes, hours, whatever) a better indicator? Or a combination of both? Or something other? There is a lot to think about.

[Ryder]

I don't think the current science system is per se a bad system. And I don't believe the proposed 'achievements science system' is better. Why should we get techs for just going to a specific location? Did some alien craft lost a part in space so it can be grabbed by Kerbals? That doesn't make sense.

That has not been suggested. Tech for doing ***types of things*** is what has been suggested. A water landing is a water landing is a water landing. Don't care where it is.

An orbit is an orbit is an orbit. Don't care which body it's around. It's a demonstrated skill. It means you might need docking rings! So you get them.

The question is: How can the player steer what to research?

This can be answered easily: People get better by doing stuff. The more they use or do something the more they think about it, try to optimize it and have ideas to make it work by using a different approach.

So instead of using a science currency or grabbing techs laying around somewhere I propose a learning-by-doing system. If you are using a lot of small rockets you'll get small engines, small tanks and other small stuff. If you are flying huge rockets you'll get the orange tank and the mainsail. If you'll land on planets without atmosphere you'll get landing gears. If there's an atmosphere you'll get parachutes. If your rockets break apart often you'll get struts. And so on.

The details of this system will have to be worked out by the devs, e. g. how many uses of small decouplers are needed before you'll get bigger decouplers. Should scientific advancements base on the number of uses of parts? Or is the using time (in minutes, hours, whatever) a better indicator? Or a combination of both? Or something other? There is a lot to think about.

This is essentially what I am suggesting: you get the parts you appear to be ready for. (but note, it has to be ready *before* you need it Parachute from the very start, right!?

The player doesn't steer research, except (conceptually) by presenting the engineers with the next logical step... if you escaped Kerbin gravity, the engineers had better be thinking Munar rovers!

Like I said before... just work it like real life. Makes it a whole lot easier.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Ryder

[*Aqua*]

Tech for doing ***types of things*** is what has been suggested.

Ah ok. Then my English skills are worse than I thought. My bad.

[Dodgey]

-snip-

Spending more time/energy/effort on a system that has an ill-conceived foundation is simply not wise. Why do you think they are adding contracts? Why do you think they are working with NASA to add a real science mission.

Because I am right, is why. They are needed, because they were missing...

But instead of fixing the root issue... they are tacking on new things at odd angles... they should just take a step back... change the tree and how it operates, say farewell to the goo, and the D&D points awards system. You just hand tech out as players demonstrate that they might be ready for it... and offer a few scenarios so that real science is represented (I was happy to just see the NASA collaboration). If they started it the way I'm suggesting, they would't need contracts or NASA collaboration to make scenarios. It would be a done deal.

Generic "sample gathering" on every rock you touch is below KSP, in my view. KSP is better than that.

R

Are you really implying that Squad originally planned only to implement the *points* system? And that only after seeing how *hated* by the community it was decided to add contacts in? I mean you act as if Career mode is in its final form, people are saying that the game is in development because it is, Career mode is an unfinished feature. You said would you use a dirty toothbrush, or would you clean it first, I ask you, would you grab an unfinished toothbrush off of the production line with only a third of the bristles attached and criticise its effectiveness at brushing your teeth?

If the player reaches orbital velocity and space altitudes... it's time to offer docking ports, RCS, etc. No points. Just hand it out. Reach Kerbin escape velocity? Descent engines and landing gear... and lander pods are probably in order.

So basically do this to earn these parts, do this to earn these parts. That's the very definition of directing the player.... just saying.

Personally I think that the idea that you just direct your engineers, ask for propulsion, science, ect.

*Aqua* That really is an interesting idea, I think that it would be better for a tutorial mode instead of Career mode, good idea but not for Career.

I'll say it one last time, Career mode is not finished and is only very young.

[Ryder]

Are you really implying that Squad originally planned only to implement the *points* system? And that only after seeing how *hated* by the community it was decided to add contacts in? I mean you act as if Career mode is in its final form, people are saying that the game is in development because it is, Career mode is an unfinished feature. You said would you use a dirty toothbrush, or would you clean it first, I ask you, would you grab an unfinished toothbrush off of the production line with only a third of the bristles attached and criticise its effectiveness at brushing your teeth?

No, I think the more likely scenario is that they had this great simulation going... but were promising a game... so they grafted a fairly dated tech tree approach on to it, just to break the ice on making the "game" part of KSP start to take form.

I think that they will come to see that no matter how hard the try to tweek it into something that really works well with KSP... conceptually... it just will never want to fit. A points tech tree is the proverbial square peg in a round hole... and that it can't really satisfy the ultimate aims and desires of the devs OR the gamers... and so they will be compelled into doing contracts and NASA collaborations because KSP has been screaming for such things, but the D&D points goo system doesn't lend itself to that...

So basically do this to earn these parts, do this to earn these parts. That's the very definition of directing the player.... just saying.

Only if it's highly specific. It's not meant to be. Like I said from the start... it's about keeping the VAB clear of clutter until there is an indication the player is ready to take on what's next. As you do "stuff", the engineers will simply start sending you what you likely need next. If it seems fun to try to direct it... the user could be told what the engineers are working on (based on what the player has accomplished)... and allow the player to prioritize the current research to get what they want first. This helps keep the clutter down... but also deliver based on the direction the player would want to go...

R

[Superfluous J]

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.

So the game is going to teleport those guys up to Mun? Is there some other Space Program on Kerbin I don't know about?

You still haven't addressed your thoughts on the contracts mechanic, other than to say if they did what you suggest they wouldn't be needed. I am still inclined to turn that around. They're doing contracts, therefore don't need to do what you're suggesting.

Edited March 16, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[Ryder]

Yes, in the scenario branch, like the upcoming ARM with NASA, a situation is presented.

As far as contracts... they are really just opportunities, do them if you wish... and you get paid in cash. The devs say that cash, science, and reputation are all exchangeable, so really, that means they are the same thing.

If the game element is about restricting the *scale* of a program (which it is) than money is the right way to do it...

Since my "real science" approach has, well, real science and is not a contrivance, linking money to achievement is a simple task... you get contracts, and you get natural resource development automatically. Why? Because it's "real". With a contrived tech tree points thing... you are stuck trying to fabricate a system that can't fit into a narrative well, can't tie into a value system well (money), nor a reputation system well. It's just a wart. A maze for the sake of a maze.

Imagine making a contract... to expose goo to the Duna atmosphere... you can't. It sounds silly. This is why a contrivance simply breaks in KSP... whereas landing a water probe or life probe on Duna works perfectly. Round peg - round hole.

Real science means getting a satellite in parking orbit. That's worth something. It's both an achievement, and has value. Value = cash, cash = scale, scale = game.

The desire to drive research in one way or another... like toward manned vs unmanned exploration... is totally legit. That works. It makes sense. Again... that's a real world thing.

This can be made to happen with what I suggest, easily, again, because what I propose is "real" instead of contrived. Once you achieve certain competencies... instead of just having parts show up, they might go into a research queue (which is realistic!), and the player can see what the engineers are working on... if there are certain parts the player wants above the others... they would direct research by adjusting priorities on each. If they stop research on everything but one part, they can expect that part to show up soon... and while they wait, they can see if they can unlock more parts research by accomplishing things with what they have... or try out a scenario or two.

But as long as you don't stop research... if you keep playing, eventually everything in the research queue shows up.

Now, the *quantities* of each part... if the devs want to push KSP into a space economy challenge type game (it sounds like they do), then money is the way to do it... (clearly, they have had that in mind from the start).

I feel like I should mock up the interface for this so people could see it.

R

Edited March 16, 2014 by Ryder

[Nemrav]

*warning* *warning* flame-fest war immenant....

just to put it this way here's how I ended up learning KSP

18.4 demo,

1 : started by building things that fell apart

2 : first thing that got to space, went to 100km + actually but I didn't know how to orbit back then...

3 : first orbit and Kerbal stranded in space

4 : first Kerbal stranded in inter-planetary space

then in extremely late v0.21 I got the game...

1 : over-whelmed by the amount of parts and sizes, have no clue what I should do...

1.5 : I learned how to do asparagus staging

2 : less than a month later, career comes out...

3 : through career I learned most of what I know

4 : after reaching jool in career, and a crash into tylo for SCIENCE I basically quit career for good, and now I only play sandbox...

really what I find with career mode is that when you're a complete noob, it helps... but after that, the beginning is too constricting to make you want to use it again, the same thing that makes career good (the part limitation) is also its downfall if your a more veteran player...

so, my solution for the OP is : 1, get a bunch of progress in-career, 2, wait for contracts, 3, now with not much part constriction try contracts and see if you like that.. otherwise the others have already suggested stick to sandbox...

[Ryder]

so, my solution for the OP is : 1, get a bunch of progress in-career, 2, wait for contracts, 3, now with not much part constriction try contracts and see if you like that.. otherwise the others have already suggested stick to sandbox...

I'm not looking for a "solution"... I am aiming to fundamentally change the tech tree because I don't like it how it is.

How does staying in the sandbox accomplish this?

It doesn't.

One might as well say "If you don't like it, you could always play another game."... or go even further... "my solution to the OP is to stop gaming, and maybe take up knitting."

Both are simply "avoidance", and do not actually *address* the issue.

I'd like to "officially" ask, that if your suggestion is *avoidance*, please take it to another thread.

This thread is very specifically about *addressing* tech tree issues. If you can't discern the difference... I'm not sure what else to say.

R

Edited March 16, 2014 by Ryder

[boomerdog2000]

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.

[Ryder]

Rough concept sketches:

The idea here is NOT to present the wording, layout, color choices, linking choices... and all of that.

It is only to roughly sketch it in... You'll see *concepts* represented... so it's educational/informative. It represents *progression*, tied to how it might expect to happen in real life...

Working down the tree (or skipping down it), causes things like money to be delivered, or tech research to be initiated...

then the player can push research based on priority.

Not shown are the other trees/branches which might be "Scenarios", or other generalized topics...

Specific tech becoming available would *not* (always) require a specific achievement be met... there might be several that initiate research for any given part.

I hope this helps get the notion across.

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.

Same thing here...

Still has a tree... still holds back parts... still can attempt to do anything with less.

Let's not pretend there is only one working concept of a tree. I'd suggest that it's potentially limitless.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Vanamonde

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

This game is about meter tall, infinite people, that don't have any other civilization except for rocketry. And, KSP != NASA. Also, isn't the techtree in it's first version?

Also, with your idea. From what I can read - it's Do this to get that. So, basically what you don't want. But it is. What if I don't want to land a lifeprobe on Duna, but I want the mainsail it provides? What can I do then?

Edited March 16, 2014 by TheCanadianVendingMachine

[Camacha]

This game is about meter tall, infinite people, that don't have any other civilization except for rocketry.

That is a line of reasoning we sadly see too often. Yes, Kerbals are imaginative, but everything else is based on real world parameters or equivalents that make sense without getting boring (like tuned down compexity, the smaller scale and such). Kerbals are actually a plot device - not only does it solve the less than perfect 'simulation' in which the world is different from ours, it also prevents the sour taste a game about space exploration (and explosions for fun) might leave when you blow up humans in the process. Unlike with wargames, space flight is not integrally about killing people, so having non-humans as sacrificial entities works out nicely. Squad actually made a good judgement call there.

Also, isn't the techtree in it's first version?

Yes, it is the first version, but after the final version there is nothing to be done about it. That is why we need to discuss this now.

[Ryder]

This game is about meter tall, infinite people, that don't have any other civilization except for rocketry. And, KSP != NASA. Also, isn't the techtree in it's first version?

Also, with your idea. From what I can read - it's Do this to get that. So, basically what you don't want. But it is. What if I don't want to land a lifeprobe on Duna, but I want the mainsail it provides? What can I do then?

Then do what I said in several posts... as recently as two posts back: "Specific tech becoming available would *not* (always) require a specific achievement be met... there might be several that initiate research for any given part."

Does nobody read anymore?

You would get it... at any logical time that you could probably use it.

It might be set to begin research as soon as you reach 100km altitude... then your complaint would have to be "What if I don't want to go higher than 100km, but I want the mainsail?" At which point I say... "That's a non-issue".

So clearly, for the 11teenth time, it is not "do this" to "get that".

It's "grow" and "get more". Cross thresholds of experience, generally categorized, and get what you are likely to be able to handle next. Want to go to the Mun with only solid rockets and a small motor from the very first tier, and no landing gear or RCS? GO FOR IT. You'll achieve tons of stuff along the way, and advance quickly.

To see how this might work for a rather esoteric part... maybe an odd science instrument, that has strong application for Jool... would initiate as you arrive in the SOI of the sun, or whatever... and that might be a ways off... but that SAME instrument might be triggered much earlier in the science tree. Multiple ways to get what you might want.

If, in the end, you want to avoid the 8 naturally occurring ways that you might get a part... since you have cash, you might just buy the research on your own.

Just like the real world.

See, that's what happens when you avoid contrivances, and instead model the real world... if you ever want to add something else that makes sense, then it's easy. It will fit naturally.

You want to spend 2 trillion dollars to accelerate Artificial Intelligence? Go ahead. Develop the A-Bomb in the 30's instead of the 40's? Pay more. Find a cure for AIDS before 2015 is out... then fork over the cash. That' how the real world works.

Not flippin' goo points.

What will limit you in KSP further, will be your account balance. You might have researched a part... but not have the cash to make a dozen of them...

R

Edited March 16, 2014 by Ryder

[Dodgey]

No, I think the more likely scenario is that they had this great simulation going... but were promising a game... so they grafted a fairly dated tech tree approach on to it, just to break the ice on making the "game" part of KSP start to take form.

I think that they will come to see that no matter how hard the try to tweek it into something that really works well with KSP... conceptually... it just will never want to fit. A points tech tree is the proverbial square peg in a round hole... and that it can't really satisfy the ultimate aims and desires of the devs OR the gamers... and so they will be compelled into doing contracts and NASA collaborations because KSP has been screaming for such things, but the D&D points goo system doesn't lend itself to that...

You talk as if the plan was to only implement the points system and contacts and the such was only planned at a later date. I do agree as it stands career mode is shallow for some people. Personally I will withhold judgment until I can see how it works as a whole. 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.

Only if it's highly specific. It's not meant to be. Like I said from the start... it's about keeping the VAB clear of clutter until there is an indication the player is ready to take on what's next. As you do "stuff", the engineers will simply start sending you what you likely need next. If it seems fun to try to direct it... the user could be told what the engineers are working on (based on what the player has accomplished)... and allow the player to prioritize the current research to get what they want first. This helps keep the clutter down... but also deliver based on the direction the player would want to go...

R

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.

EDIT: Ok I just saw your latest post, would you please describe the specifics. 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.

And just a question with regards to your sketchs I see it has a progress bar how ate you going to overcome the problem of time warping and afking

Edited March 16, 2014 by Dodgey

[Ryder]

That is a line of reasoning we sadly see too often.

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

Yes, it is the first version, but after the final version there is nothing to be done about it. That is why we need to discuss this now.

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