Limit tech progression to practical progression?

[[email protected]]

The point being that there should be multiple ways to approach a career mode game rather than trying to shoehorn everyone's experience into some sort of "realistic" progression. I'd like to play through career mode more than once and do so in very different ways, if possible. Having to do the exact same flight every time I want to unlock a certain battery would result in a very stale and boring game.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you can make a ship that can land on the Mun, you really only need a bit more fuel to get that ship to and land on Ike. The same goes for a Minmus lander and Gilly. Jool isn't exactly that hard to get to either, a fly-by is entirely possible using a ship that can land on the Mun. The nature of spaceflight means that restricting a player from what they want to do in order to provide a static progression will necessarily limit what craft they can fly, almost to the point where the player can't really be allowed to have the freedom to build their own craft. That doesn't sound like a KSP I want to play.

I completely agree, limiting people to set progression is a bad idea.

The freedom we have with KSP is a great part of its appeal, that shouldn't be changed.

[rkman]

Why not? We only ever took a half dozen trips to the moon, on rockets big enough to carry us to Mars and back.

That's more than zero trips to the Mun or Minmus.

"Why not" what?

Maybe you misunderstood what i said (it is a double negative, and a positive):

"Generally i do like the idea of not being able to develop technology needed for interplanetary travel without ever leaving Kerbin."

Edited May 3, 2014 by rkman

[Killerdude8]

I do not like this Idea, The current system works well, It allows people to progress in a manner that suits them best, Some people may not be at all capable at Interplanetary missions, Why punish them for their inabilities?

On top of that, The current system truly allows for people to set their own goals and allow their program to develop their way, Making them do preset missions to unlock things takes an open-sandbox and tosses it on rails, Which ultimately is ****ty in the context of KSP.

[Mipe]

You are misunderstanding. This does not limit veteran players in any way - it just gives them a challenge: making do with a limited choice of parts. This is what makes career mode so attractive - it gives challenge. You just ruin the experience for yourself when you science bomb the career.

The primary purpose of practical experience requirements for tech advancement is to provide guidance for players that are unsure of what to do next. Naturally, they want to reach space first, then land on Mun etc. But they don't consider in-between goals. Small goals are the best; this provides them.

First step would be to test EVA on launchpad. The player receives that objective and executes it; he learns how he can EVA later in space and that he can collect science that way.

Second step would be to launch into upper atmosphere or above. The player receives instructions and executes them, thus learning to throttle up during launch in order for LF engines to function. I personally was stumped at this step - only solid engines would ignite at launch but not liquid fuel engines. I only found the solution by googling it.

Third step would be to actually make a safe landing. The player learns the importance of parachutes as he mourns the loss of Jebediah Kerman.

Fourth step would be to establish a stable orbit. The player learns about apoapsis, periapsis and circularization.

Then you'd have additional objectives, such as performing a flyby by a moon, orbiting it and finally landing. The player is given new objectives that he can complete at will.

But a veteran? He can do all that in the first flight. He can launch to orbit, perform EVA there and then land safely precisely at KSC pad. He wouldn't be given those additional objectives to perform because he'd already completed them way ahead of schedule - the game would give him future objectives. He may choose to stick to those objectives or do his own thing. If he wants to unlock certain parts, such as station modules, he'll just dock once and be done with it.

How is that limiting the player? If you want complete freedom, you have sandbox mode. Stick to it. If you enjoy career mode, consider WHY you enjoy it and why it becomes so bland after you've science-bombed it. Finally, consider the new players that feel at a loss at certain points in the game.

Put your selfishness aside for now.

[r4pt0r]

You are misunderstanding. This does not limit veteran players in any way - it just gives them a challenge: making do with a limited choice of parts.

"this does not limit players, it limits them by reducing part options"

im afraid you dont make sense.

[Mipe]

As in, it doesn't limit the players MORE than the current career mode. I really could have phrased that better. It just deals with the "science bomb" effect.

[Mipe]

I've given this a little more thought... what if prerequisites weren't binding, but instead boosting? Initially, tech nodes would have high cost, however performing practical tasks toward the node would reduce their cost significantly? This feels more in line with realistic R&D; the more experiments you do and the more practical experience you accumulate, the faster you advance.

Or you could skip those altogether and science bomb the whole thing, but it'd be far less effective. Meanwhile, practical experiences still would provide invaluable guidance for the new and lost players. So, a compromise.

What say you?

P.S.: After re-reading the post, I realized I didn't specify what cost... obviously I meant science cost to unlock tech nodes, but what if this also applied to part costs? Prototypes tend to be expensive, after all, and only serial production and usage of parts would lower their cost. But that is another topic, I believe...

[regex]

You are misunderstanding. This does not limit veteran players in any way - it just gives them a challenge: making do with a limited choice of parts.

Which is really no different than career mode right now.

The primary purpose of practical experience requirements for tech advancement is to provide guidance for players that are unsure of what to do next. Naturally, they want to reach space first, then land on Mun etc. But they don't consider in-between goals. Small goals are the best; this provides them.

Other mechanisms, such as contracts, can provide goals (in a voluntary manner pursuant to sandbox gameplay!) much better than the tech tree, which is used as and should continue to provide an introduction to the parts. You write as if the tech tree existed in a vacuum and was the only thing that would ever define career mode.

As for the rest of your examples, tutorials are a better solution than shoehorning career mode into a railroaded experience.

I've given this a little more thought... what if prerequisites weren't binding, but instead boosting? Initially, tech nodes would have high cost, however performing practical tasks toward the node would reduce their cost significantly? This feels more in line with realistic R&D; the more experiments you do and the more practical experience you accumulate, the faster you advance.

This sounds like a good idea at first, but it doesn't mesh very well with SQUAD's idea of three interchangable currencies. Contracts should provide these little goals for players who need/want them and tutorials are a much better way of introducing basic game concepts.

Edited May 3, 2014 by regex

[Zaeo]

There will be more than science, which could mean a few things...

Early mun rockets might be overbudget for a "New space program" thus proving impossible to do until a few orbital/sub-orbital flights are done.

That said, only time will tell. We'll see where it takes us.