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

[OTehNoes]

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.

Which are commissioned by NASA. Sure they don't plonk astronauts on the surface like we do on KSP but if they want information, they send people to get it, maybe not from their own labs, but they still do the research, and said people are by definition employed by NASA.

Also how is sending somebody to a specific location a waste of resources when it costs millions if not billions of dollars to put a satellite into orbit?

[Red Iron Crown]

Which are commissioned by NASA. Sure they don't plonk astronauts on the surface like we do on KSP but if they want information, they send people to get it, maybe not from their own labs, but they still do the research, and said people are by definition employed by NASA.

An example of which would be...?

Also how is sending somebody to a specific location a waste of resources when it costs millions if not billions of dollars to put a satellite into orbit?

It's a waste for a space program. The satellite is worthwhile because it allows observations that are difficult or impossible from the surface.

You have this backwards. Other scientists help pay NASA for space-based experiments that advance their field. NASA doesn't pay geologists to do geology on Earth, except to test equipment bound for space and to validate results from their space-based observations.

[OTehNoes]

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not saying this is something they do regularly, as they're past the point where things are needed to be done on the surface, but it has been done.

If we're drawing parallels with a developing space program, i.e. the Kerbal Space Program, then these things need to be done before you go putting things in space, would you not agree? NASA once had to do it, but they're now beyond that point, obviously, and now seldom do that much research on the ground, as today there is no need, but there will have been a time when they did.

[Red Iron Crown]

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not saying this is something they do regularly, as they're past the point where things are needed to be done on the surface, but it has been done.

If we're drawing parallels with a developing space program, i.e. the Kerbal Space Program, then these things need to be done before you go putting things in space, would you not agree? NASA once had to do it, but they're now beyond that point, obviously, and now seldom do that much research on the ground, as today there is no need, but there will have been a time when they did.

You'll have to explain to me how doing geology (or any other science not related to rocket development) on the surface helped us get to space.

Can you give an example of ground based science that NASA ever did?

[OTehNoes]

You'll have to explain to me how doing geology (or any other science not related to rocket development) on the surface helped us get to space.

Can you give an example of ground based science that NASA ever did?

Well, why would you do it on other planets if it's not important? To somebody new who has never played the game, they wouldn't know anything about Kerbin would they? Sure we know, but we've been playing a lot and had a chance to go out and explore the other planets. If you've never even managed orbit before, then doing science not only gives the person something to do, but it also gives them some information on the planet, as well as the science points to progress!

[SofusRud]

You'll have to explain to me how doing geology (or any other science not related to rocket development) on the surface helped us get to space.

Can you give an example of ground based science that NASA ever did?

Well, I would assume that the geologists that got sent to the Moon had to have had some training. It might not have been NASA, but it had to have happened. Given that the all of Kerbal civilization seems to revolve around their space program, with no geological institutes to be found, it makes sense that they needed to do some ground based science at home, if only so that they can tell the differences between Kerbin and Duna rocks,

[Red Iron Crown]

Well, why would you do it on other planets if it's not important? To somebody new who has never played the game, they wouldn't know anything about Kerbin would they? Sure we know, but we've been playing a lot and had a chance to go out and explore the other planets. If you've never even managed orbit before, then doing science not only gives the person something to do, but it also gives them some information on the planet, as well as the science points to progress!

I'm not saying ground-based science is not important, just that it's not done by space agencies. Doing it on other celestial bodies certainly is within the purview of space agencies.

[Red Iron Crown]

Well, I would assume that the geologists that got sent to the Moon had to have had some training. It might not have been NASA, but it had to have happened. Given that the all of Kerbal civilization seems to revolve around their space program, with no geological institutes to be found, it makes sense that they needed to do some ground based science at home, if only so that they can tell the differences between Kerbin and Duna rocks,

The moon Apollo astronauts trained in how to operate their equipment on Earth, but only so they would know how to use it on the Moon. They most certainly did not advance geology with their surface-based training. This falls into the category of testing equipment (and personnel, I guess) for use in space.

Kerbin is undetailed aside from KSC and a few other locations. I think it's safe to assume they have done some ground based science, otherwise how could they build rockets?

[Nemrav]

I just have to say one thing to this thread :

let it die period.

Unless the OP has something new to say you should drop the topic. All that's happening now is the 0.22 old fight over should we be doing science on Kerbin's surface.. And those fights are always back and forth ones that never end.. I do have a standing in this matter but really is it really worth keeping this thread in particular alive ?

[SofusRud]

The moon Apollo astronauts trained in how to operate their equipment on Earth, but only so they would know how to use it on the Moon. They most certainly did not advance geology with their surface-based training. This falls into the category of testing equipment (and personnel, I guess) for use in space.

Kerbin is undetailed aside from KSC and a few other locations. I think it's safe to assume they have done some ground based science, otherwise how could they build rockets?

Given the evidence (or lack thereof) of Kerbal civilization it is just as likely that Kerbals evolved on a small plane on the equator, and due to weird evolutionary programming began compulsively making rockets. As their level of sapience grew, they realised that it might be a good idea to get some experience with planetary science from kerbin, in order to have something to do comparative analysis. Since the space program is the single biggest, and indeed only, scientific body on the planet, it fell to the them to do the science.

You may think it a silly explanation, but given the way the game is now, it is just a valid explanation as yours and in my opinion more satisfactory

Edited March 17, 2014 by SofusRud

[SpaceK531]

Maybe I wasn't the only one who saw this, but this is a clear sign that OP isn't really... There...

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.

[OTehNoes]

Maybe I wasn't the only one who saw this, but this is a clear sign that OP isn't really... There...

And bingo was his name-o.

[Ryder]

I guess it depends on how specific the goals are.

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

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

I've said "goals" and "accomplishments" and "events".

I'm not sure the best single word to use... probably because the tree is free to meander a bit between those concepts.

Is getting airborn a goal? Is it an accomplishment? Is it an event?

Yes. All of the above.

Yet it is astoundingly generic.

I think people are reading "goal" and deciding that they know what that means... which would be a mistake.

It could be as generic as possible, or it could be laser beam narrow... just as you say. But my *intent* is that it would be more generic. But people don't want to hear that. They want to hear "orbit Duna 3 times" even though I repeatedly tell them "no" I am not saying that. Maybe there is a pill for it.

What they also don't seem to understand, is that they don't have total free choice with the existing system either... and that is easy to show.

R

[Ryder]

This.

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

Yes, of course contracts will... but reading here, you'd think that a fair number of people will "hate" it for that... but the reality is, they'll like it just fine. For a lot of people here, they're just fanboys of the developers, so they will defend squad till their dying breath. But when contracts comes, suddenly being required to do things will be perfectly fine for them.

Just watch and see... I'll bet you a full tank of fuel.

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.

Yes, this is what I have proposed. You're totally getting it. Just look at the graphic I provided... generic, unavoidable events. Further out on the tree... of course things would become avoidable, which is why the same part might appear numerous places.

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

The current system already requires the player to choose from a finite list of things. People don't realize this because the list is not in front of them... but it's real.

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.

As is the case with the existing tech tree, multiple parts can be associated with any step.

As far as how many tree elements can there be? I think that's a fair question.

But remember, the philosophy here is to use reality as a guide, so I think that if the reality of a space program does not run out of goals/milesones/achievements, then I don't think we should expect it would be all that hard to add many. So many, that I figured that many would just be for $$$.

Part of this, is that with parts, they have functions, no? Reasons to exist. It's that link to reality again. If there is a link, then there is a purpose, and if there is a purpose, then there should be a way to achieve it.

But you are right, that if you were, just as a matter of stubbornness, decided to require vast generalizations, you could find that "go into space" is the only event... and all parts would have to be stuck there.

But NASA didn't see it that simplistically, so there is no inherent reason KSP would have to either.

R

Edited March 18, 2014 by Ryder

[Bob's Guardian Angel]

Samples and observational science are central to research.

What if I can't attain 1 km/s speed in a plane? What use are the science lab/observational science modules/sensors if pre-baked achievements take care of everything?

[Ryder]

Maybe I wasn't the only one who saw this, but this is a clear sign that OP isn't really... There...

"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

[boomerdog2000]

It feels like you're imposing restrictions on a fairly open ended system simply because it's realistic. I would not be against some sort of achievement thing in addition to the current system but as a complete replacement for the science system I don't see it working well.

[Ryder]

It feels like you're imposing restrictions on a fairly open ended system simply because it's realistic. I would not be against some sort of achievement thing in addition to the current system but as a complete replacement for the science system I don't see it working well.

and...

Samples and observational science are central to research.

What if I can't attain 1 km/s speed in a plane? What use are the science lab/observational science modules/sensors if pre-baked achievements take care of everything?

(first, when it comes to researching for ROCKET HARDWARE, which is what the tech tree generally provides... samples and observational science are actually sitting toward the rear of the bus... so right there the tech tree makes little sense. Flight hardware is mostly engineering... supported by the physical sciences... and truckloads of testing, testing, and did I say testing? Soil samples were a goal of Apollo, but meant almost nothing when it came to engineering the effort and producing the hardware. Just sayin'.)

Not sure what you mean... if you don't attain 1km/s, then you don't. Just get your parts another way... if you want them. Or buy the parts if you refuse to achieve anything to get them (but I'm pretty sure that's a "problem" that in reality, would not be.) But if you *can't* attain some speed... then it might be better if you *didn't* have certain parts. If you can't fly a Cessna, then you probably shouldn't be handed an F-18. Know what I mean?

What if you never leave Kerbin orbit with the current tech tree? You're not *ever* going to get many parts. The current tech tree *forces* you to venture out to a finite set of choices. It's not in a list form, so people pretend that it's not there... but it is.

You are definitely not free do do whatever you want, and avoid doing whatever you want, even with the current system. The "freedom" is an illusion born of the fact that nobody wrote the list of required accomplishments down to stare at.

And actually, I'd be curious, just how restricted could a player keep the current tech tree... and still get all of the parts?

Could you do it inside Kerbin SOI? No. Kerbin and Mun? No. Can you do it without landing anywhere? I suspect no... not enough points in open space. Can you do it avoiding all planets with atmosphere? Can you do it avoiding all airless worlds? Again... I suspect, no... but it would be interesting to see.

People might be surprised at any theoretical minimum they have to do, if it was mapped out for them.

And remember, PHYSICS poses restrictions... and I'd like to see that this is the general rule... it's certainly the idea. Physics says what escape velocity is. Physics says what an orbit is. The tree would acknowledge those things... not create them out of some random desire to create restrictions...

ALTHOUGH, the contracts system sounds like it will do that, and people seem to be looking forward to it...

R

Edited March 18, 2014 by Ryder

[Dodgey]

The difference with contacts is that they will be optional whereas your system is not optional. When contacts are introduced you can do them if you want. Contacts won't restrict the player, quite the opposite, they will allow the player to obtain science/money/reputation in multiple ways. Let my pose another question.

Have you and examples of what a late end goal/accomplishment would be that would unlock the latest end of the tech tree? I just can't think of any.

[boomerdog2000]

And remember, PHYSICS poses restrictions... and I'd like to see that this is the general rule... it's certainly the idea. Physics says what escape velocity is. Physics says what an orbit is. The tree would acknowledge those things... not create them out of some random desire to create restrictions...

Right. I'm not against restrictions in games. The restrictions make the game. I'm against your restrictions because they seem more limiting than the current system and your only argument for them is realism. In my opinion the current system provides a large amount of freedom while still providing the progression necessary for a career mode.

[Legendary Emu]

The way science stands right now is more like money. You do science, Kerbalversities give you funding because you learn stuff. You use the money to pay the engineers to research the stuff. But I still hate the way it works. It needs more of a thing where you have actually go where no Kerbal has gone before (in the beginning, upper atmosphere) instead of driving around Kerbin and getting the points. Maybe once contracts are implemented it could get better. But right now I'm sticking with Better Than Starting Manned.

I guess one way to fix science is to make it so that it's more like a research thing in RTS's combined with the mystery of actual research. Such as "Guys. The solid rocket booster thing is working out but we accidentally shoot our stuff way off target. Can you guys find a way to control the fuel flow or something?" or "Wernher, can you get your team to develop a bigger capsule, because stacking the mk1's is not that efficient." Not the same, of course. But it could be some type of mystery button. Once Wernher has finished researching throttle control you go to the science center and choose something you really need "Hmm, I need some stabilizing stuff" and they would research it. But the twist is that depending on your science level, they can just give you controllable winglets because you didn't do any space research on existing technologies (AKA doing a crew report on maneuverability)

Anyways. That's my ramble. Also here is an obligatory "just play sandbox, k"

[Ryder]

The difference with contacts is that they will be optional whereas your system is not optional.

Not correct. In my system... it's totally optional. You're still not getting it.

Not sure how I can put it any clearer than that. Do it if you want. Don't do it if you don't want. I'm having a hard time understanding why you are having a hard time understanding the concept of a choice.

Have you and examples of what a late end goal/accomplishment would be that would unlock the latest end of the tech tree? I just can't think of any.

Since there would be multiple ways to get any part in the tree, then no *part* would represent the "end". Like, what is the "last" green m&m in the bag? It's the one you eat last.

Those items on the end would merely represent an estimation of the most advanced/difficult achievements/events... but since you can skip to any point in the tree, they don't necessarily represent the "end". You could, conceivably, do them almost from the start... if you were good enough.

Suggestion: start making a list of everything you can think of that you might achieve, then sort it, based on your estimation of what is easiest/least advanced to start, and hardest/most advanced at the end. Then take the last on the list.

PS Nobody will make the same tree. Not the current Squad tech tree. Not the Ryder Tree. It is necessarily a somewhat subjective art.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Ryder

[AlamoVampire]

I’ve been away…

<snip>

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.

um dude, 1, its a game. 2. its not FINISHED. We need some incentive to progress through that tree, and by and large, right now, the current system seems okay, heck, most like it, as someone below your initial post said: just play sandbox until career is finished.

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.

again, no its not a contrivance its just a mechanic they put into a GAME.

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 has.

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.

just. a. game.

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)

it IS a goals tree buddy, the goal to get that next tier of goodies, to see it filled out.

• 
  [1]First launch. First recovery. First to space. First to orbit…. All of the basics.
  [2]Engineering goals… first multi-stage, lightest to orbit. First rendezvous.
  [3]Visiting all the worlds…
  [4]And then… the science (and engineering!).
  [5]5 Kerbans on the Mun, with quarters, and energy and life support hardware in place… all connected and functioning.
  [6]A rotating orbital station, generating ½ Kerban gravity.
  [7]A geo synchronous satellite array in position.
  [8]A rescue mission!
  [9]A Jool mapping mission!
  [10]Setting up real science hardware on Duna. Find water! Life!
  [11]Capture and divert an asteroid!
  [12]Mining H3 on the Mun, and getting a bunch of it back home.
  [13]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).
  [14]These are the science goals worthy of Kerbal lives. Worthy of our time to achieve.
  [15]It’s what KSP needs, in order to stay, KSP.
  [16]Points? We don’t need no stinkin’ points.
  

(renumbered by me, for clarification. sake)

1. an achievement to be had for sure, but, nothing more honestly.

2 through 11: all achievements.

12. resources, to be decided later by squad, once it was projected to be already in game by now, but was scrapped for later.

13. still can do this one in sandbox mode, and career mode.

14. achievements still.

15. KSP to stay KSP needs to keep its sense of wonder and merry little joyfulness, and its absurdly large and dangerous contraptions put together on the whims of us.

16. with out points even YOUR self suggested and may i say, self entitled suggestion, would require points as well.

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

go ahead, take yourself out the door, I will hold it open for you, and when you feel you can come back, I will open it for you and show you to the briefing room myself. peace.

[Ryder]

Right. I'm not against restrictions in games. The restrictions make the game. I'm against your restrictions because they seem more limiting than the current system and your only argument for them is realism. In my opinion the current system provides a large amount of freedom while still providing the progression necessary for a career mode.

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.

it IS a goals tree buddy, the goal to get that next tier of goodies, to see it filled out.

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.

Also there is an Achievement mod somewhere

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

Edited March 18, 2014 by shadowsutekh

[SpaceK531]

"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

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.