Smoothing game progression through parts upgrade

[Sirrobert]

I think you have a point. It's a bit surrealist that you can make rockets but don't have wheels, for example. I think that the most frustrating thing related to this when starting is that you don't have any way to store electricity, for example... A tech tree like the one you purpose would certainly solve that problem. Actually interstellar mod is using this for their parts: you get "interstellar science points" using their lab and with this points you can upgrade their parts in order to make them more efficient.

I think that the problem here is that you are not explaining yourself well and is causing a huge misunderstanding... It's not about making the start harder by nerfing everything, but giving the basics to build a consistent rocket from the start. As this would fasten out the process of completing the tech tree, a way to make this process slower and more challenging is by making parts upgradable. This would also be fairly more similar to a real project process: you have various areas covered (power, engines, controll, whatever...) and you advance in this branches.

That's EXACTLY what mods are for.

There is the techtree as Squad puts it, and than there are mods that allow you to customize it whatever way you like.

And you don't get wheels because wheels are rover parts, which are advanced things that come later.

[Kegereneku]

I believe historically accurate progression has been compromised in KSP for game balance reasons.

Orbit should be relatively easy to achieve if you know a bit about what you're doing because it's the first or second goal most players attempt. I think making it so difficult that it's a challenge for experienced players would do new players a disservice.

It might have been, but that's more the reason to suggest better because it certainly doesn't need to.

I don't see it at making it "more difficult".

As I said the idea is that you would have engine like the LV909 earlier which would be a better last stage engine even "at 50%".

ALSO : I don't think there's really much difference between "experienced players" and "new players". The "piloting skills" needed to reach orbit isn't very hard to get and the "design skills" needed is straightforward enough that if "more fuel" don't work player will inevitably try the good way.

Ideally the game would actually teach (while having fun) player to navigate efficiently in space.

I think that the problem here is that you are not explaining yourself well and is causing a huge misunderstanding... It's not about making the start harder by nerfing everything, but giving the basics to build a consistent rocket from the start. As this would fasten out the process of completing the tech tree, a way to make this process slower and more challenging is by making parts upgradable. This would also be fairly more similar to a real project process: you have various areas covered (power, engines, controll, whatever...) and you advance in this branches.

Yes, i think that I might have missed my first post. I will try correcting it.

Thank you for the rewording.

That's EXACTLY what mods are for.

There is the techtree as Squad puts it, and than there are mods that allow you to customize it whatever way you like.

And you don't get wheels because wheels are rover parts, which are advanced things that come later.

Sirrobert, you should know the game is incomplete, barely a beta if we look at the version number, it must and will change.

What you just said two time is : "it shouldn't change because if it's that way it's because it's that way", a circular argument.

Furthermore you pointed out the grindy nature of science-point as it is now, my suggestion would actually help solving that.

So to make the same sort of biaised question as you : What sound more fulfilling ? Knowing you'll have to revisit all biome several time because strangely we couldn't built both a stupid thermometer and barometer, plus a ladder for your kerbun to take sample ? Or getting more science-point in a coherent manner ?

As you were told earlier by Comrade Jenkins I'm not suggesting to frustrate the player by giving them useless technology.

The way I see it player wouldn't mind doing suborbital flight for many reasons :

1) they would be ecstatic just BUILDING rocket and getting each time a new altitude record (how do you think KSP even started ?)

2) they would be learning about "Biome" and "Science Point" and thus trying to reach as much as possible. (thus making suborbital flight more interesting)

3) hopefully the finished game would have a budget (and a "reputation") mechanic, people would be rewarded for suborbital flight and not treated as "moron who can't orbit".

4) during this time they would be upgrading parts and testing them. Having fun.

5) by the time they actually reach orbit they WILL have both sufficiently upgraded engine and the parts to do it fairly easily.

6) finally, since at least one probe would be accessible they COULD orbit it without risking of stranding/killing a Kerbonaut.

I don't know when you started playing KSP but I have to tell you that after new planets were introduced ALL engines were boosted so players could reach them... in SANDBOX where there is no progression.

Now we have a Career modes and a proto tech-tree, we have a progression system and upgrade would make it better in my opinion.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Kegereneku
missed message

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't think there's really much difference between "experienced players" and "new players".

I respectfully disagree with this. KSP's learning curve is a bit of a cliff if you go into it not knowing much orbital mechanics or physics, which is not an uncommon situation. When I started playing, I knew nothing about prograde, retrograde, gravity turns, delta-V, etc, etc; it all had to be discovered. Just making orbit was a big accomplishment, even making a rocket that didn't explode was a bit of an achievement. Now that I'm more experienced I don't struggle with those things at all.

[Dodgey]

You are under the assumption that there is no difference between new and old players, this is flat out wrong. I'm with Red Iron Crown, like it or not the game will get easier for you with expirence, and I don't that that career should be the main challenge, with a goal at the end that you strive for then you can say you are done. The best challenges are the ones you set yourself for your own skill level. If you make career a challenge for expienced players what about the new players?

Also your argument about the skill level is fundementally flawed because I could take that argument and say that there is no difference between expienced drivers and new drivers because the mechanics are the same. I mean, do you think that your are of the same skill level as when you started? Or close to it?

[Guest]

The way I see it player wouldn't mind doing suborbital flight for many reasons :

1) they would be ecstatic just BUILDING rocket and getting each time a new altitude record (how do you think KSP even started ?)

2) they would be learning about "Biome" and "Science Point" and thus trying to reach as much as possible. (thus making suborbital flight more interesting)

3) hopefully the finished game would have a budget (and a "reputation") mechanic, people would be rewarded for suborbital flight and not treated as "moron who can't orbit".

4) during this time they would be upgrading parts and testing them. Having fun.

5) by the time they actually reach orbit they WILL have both sufficiently upgraded engine and the parts to do it fairly easily.

6) finally, since at least one probe would be accessible they COULD orbit it without risking of stranding/killing a Kerbonaut.

If you're proposing this for expeienced players who may be starting their tenth career mode save, you're mad. Having to do suborbitals over and over again every time I start a new save is about the most terrible gameplay I can think of for KSP; I'm certainly not going to be "ecstatic"...

[Ruinsage]

If you're proposing this for expeienced players who may be starting their tenth career mode save, you're mad. Having to do suborbitals over and over again every time I start a new save is about the most terrible gameplay I can think of for KSP; I'm certainly not going to be "ecstatic"...

And this is essentially what this suggestion boils down to: Ways to make career more tedious for experienced players.

And that's why I don't support it.

Kegereneku, if you really think career doesn't progress in the right tempo, ask yourself this: When you learned the game for the first time, did you go from achieving low kerbin orbit to landing on the moon, or did you fly around in the kerbin SOI a few times before you attempted to land on the moon? Did you go from landing at the moon to landing at minmus, or did you go straight for a laythe return trip?

I'm betting you took everything in little steps, even if you had everything available to you in sandbox (I did, and i expect that most others did as well), so making it harder to skip those steps makes no sense, as the knowledge of how to do it is the only real barrier, which is how it should be. The only thing that would result from your suggestion as it is right now, is that the game would be annoying when you started a new career, because the grind would be even worse, and even more tedious, without really adding anything to new players

[Comrade Jenkens]

I'm obviously thinking of a similar but different parts upgrade system to Kegereneku.

I was thinking of the parts allowing you to reach orbit at the start and then stay useful as the game progresses so you can use them for larger missions later on.

[Guest]

The only thing that would result from your suggestion as it is right now, is that the game would be annoying when you started a new career, because the grind would be even worse, and even more tedious, without really adding anything to new players

It is, in fact, detrimental to new players since the complication of helping is increased dramatically by part upgrades, as Red Iron Crown pointed out earlier. I think that's one of the strongest arguments against any sort of upgrade system, especially in a game like this where help from experienced players can make or break someone's impression of the game; the churn in the Gameplay Questions and Tutorials section should provide plenty of evidence of that. Part upgrades rightfully belong in an advanced mod like RealFuels, not the base game.

[Kegereneku]

So many posts to answer...

Regarding the skills, don't exaggerate what I said : there's not that much difference between new and experimented player.

And I'm NOT counting as experimented people like Scott Manley (I would have said GODLY). I mean "experimented = already learned a way to land on the moon" which include roughly 100% of what you need to know until you start using DeltaV naturally.

Sure, sure, you don't know the TERM prograde, retrograde, DeltaV at first, it doesn't mean you won't figure out that orbiting mean both reaching space and having a high horizontal speed.

Anyway my suggestion of an upgrade system is still to make career-mode smoother for both new and for experimented players.

Because NO, new player won't have a seizure seeing TWO engines at the start and TWO capsule, one manned, the other a probes. While experime...godly player like me are frustrated not being able to build a mercury-like capsule to make early-game funny.

Why are you also all insisting the Devs wouldn't recalibrate point correctly (aside that currently it is horribly grindy) ? More than 2 flights before entering main game is too much ? Oh god, cancel all games ever !

In fact it would do any player a GREAT service to give them more occasions & ways to learn without telling them "what are you doing ? orbit already ! Don't you know you are a slackers if you can't orbit with the part you have ?"

I respectfully disagree with this. KSP's learning curve is a bit of a cliff if you go into it not knowing much orbital mechanics or physics, which is not an uncommon situation. When I started playing, I knew nothing about prograde, retrograde, gravity turns, delta-V, etc, etc; it all had to be discovered. Just making orbit was a big accomplishment, even making a rocket that didn't explode was a bit of an achievement. Now that I'm more experienced I don't struggle with those things at all.

That's actually something I expect my suggestion to help with.

The learning curve is a cliff because the game -and apparently the community- insist that you have to learn to orbit before you even learned to design and pilot.

Plus : most problem newbies face come that you are not given parts that would simplify your design because they would be overpowered for experimented player.

Example with the LV-T30, it's clearly too powerful to be used on a last stage with one small fuel tank, what new player do ? Make the last stage too heavy and crash or don't control anything.

If you're proposing this for experienced players who may be starting their tenth career mode save, you're mad. Having to do suborbitals over and over again every time I start a new save is about the most terrible gameplay I can think of for KSP; I'm certainly not going to be "ecstatic"...

Mad ? No, you are just being melodramatic and maybe even hypocritical.

Aren't you developing right know a mod that make KSP 10x as big and complex with necessarily longer launch, and a turn-over for multiple launch pad just to satisfy your wish for "more realism" ?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78895-regex-s-Campaign-System-KSC-Switcher-6-4-1-Kerbin-and-whatever-else-WIP-thread

I know you are going to say "but it's a mod it's not the same, it's optional", but do you see me asking you to take out real-solar-system to help new player who only want your campaign system ?

You act like as if the mere fact of not orbiting right away was an untold torture. Why the hell would you even put a launch pad then ? Idea : Let's make a system that automatically put you in orbit after the first lauch ! (that's a jokes)

When I said to Sirrobert : "How do you think KSP even started ?" the implied answer was : by launching huge rocket for the fun before you even wanted to orbit and back then it was harder to orbit until the engine boost when more planets were added !

I don't know all the reasons you can find to create a new career save but something tell me it's because its still (as of now) so limited, short and unfulfilling that some player keep trying to relive the "challenge of the beginning", you know that part I'm trying to make longer and more fulfilling ?

Let's humor my points from the perspective of an "experimented players".

Why experimented player wouldn't mind doing suborbital flight with more upgradeable parts :

1) GREAT ! I can actually design a rocket with more than 3 parts, I bet I can upgrade it faster than other !

2) Haha ! I reached a place with 4 biomes near each other. Beat that !

3) The game rewarded my experience so much that I can upgrade faster it's so fulfilling.

4) I'm so glad the game is more progressive, it challenge even an experimented player like me.

5) Since I'm an experimented player I reached orbit so easily with the right parts that I made a mercury-looking rocket.

6) Finally ! I can actually have fun sending recon-probes without being coerced by the rigid tech-tree into grinding science-point !

In short : If you want an actual CAREER you have to accept an actual progression, so regardless if you want more challenge (at first) or less challenge (later) my suggestion is merely to use upgrade so you can use more parts in a balanced way.

Kegereneku, if you really think career doesn't progress in the right tempo, ask yourself this: When you learned the game for the first time, did you go from achieving low kerbin orbit to landing on the moon, or did you fly around in the kerbin SOI a few times before you attempted to land on the moon? Did you go from landing at the moon to landing at minmus, or did you go straight for a laythe return trip?s

I'm betting you took everything in little steps, even if you had everything available to you in sandbox (I did, and i expect that most others did as well), so making it harder to skip those steps makes no sense,

The tempo have nothing to do with that. I might have insisted over "difficulty" but the motive was a better technological evolution.

Also you are loosing you time trying to shape my experience into a argument for you. I learned most mechanic with the simulator ORBITER, what I was glad to discover KSP for was to design and didn't mind the slightest it was hard. And yet when I started KSP there was no nuclear engine, no mainsail, engines were weaker, rocket woobled. And I went to the only place available : the Mun and Minmus, without maneuver node (or Mechjeb).

Anyway, are you getting that we are talking of CAREER mode ? a Career is by definition a progression and since KSP is a game it have to be fun regardless of the tempo.

Right now : because of the way the proto career-mode work (minus budget/reputation?), the tempo make you NOT have the part you need unless you grind point for it on the furthest celestial body you can reach.

Why ? Because until a few version no form of progression even existed aside skills in Sandbox where everything is static.

And that's probably why you can't grasp your head around the idea of technology being upgraded as a game mechanic.

I'm obviously thinking of a similar but different parts upgrade system to Kegereneku.

I was thinking of the parts allowing you to reach orbit at the start and then stay useful as the game progresses so you can use them for larger missions later on.

How is that different ? The current trend of exaggeration may be as if I wanted to forced even pro-player on >2 suborbital flight but the basic of "making part upgradeable so that you have more parts available without ruining balance" is still the same. Regardless if you want to make the whole game easier or harder.

What would it be if I said the upgrade system would improve engine at 120% ?

It is, in fact, detrimental to new players since the complication of helping is increased dramatically by part upgrades, as Red Iron Crown pointed out earlier. I think that's one of the strongest arguments against any sort of upgrade system, especially in a game like this where help from experienced players can make or break someone's impression of the game; the churn in the Gameplay Questions and Tutorials section should provide plenty of evidence of that. Part upgrades rightfully belong in an advanced mod like RealFuels, not the base game.

That is a good concern.

However I disagree that the actual specs evolution would amount to much complication considering :

- sandbox won't have upgradeable part and career must be considered as something different, not a limited-sandbox.

- most question concern the "how to do" rather than "what to use"

- the only reason you ask "which part is best" is because the game actually made some superior to other.

When you tell a newbies "Nuclear Engine are best", he'll just overengineer his rocket with it and fail because he tried to accelerate toward the mun until he reached it.

Lastly, I wonder if because of that fear of "shacking" player used to starwars-like gameplay KSP isn't becoming in fact easier to handle than most strategy game, MMORPG, Arcade Air-Combat game, Racing Game...etc.

Even Mechjeb make it easy to learn in easy-mode.

[Sirrobert]

Why are you also all insisting the Devs wouldn't recalibrate point correctly (aside that currently it is horribly grindy) ? More than 2 flights before entering main game is too much ? Oh god, cancel all games ever !

In fact it would do any player a GREAT service to give them more occasions & ways to learn without telling them "what are you doing ? orbit already ! Don't you know you are a slackers if you can't orbit with the part you have ?"

There's a difference with ALLOWING new players to take it slow and fly around Kerbin a little before they manage to get into orbit (which is happening now), and FORCING experienced players to grind through Kerbin biomes until they are finally allowed to go to orbit (as would be the case with your suggestion.

In the current situation, both are happy. The newby can fly around Kerbin as much as he wants, and the experienced player can get to orbit fast

WTF is an experimented player anyway? Sounds like you came up with a new term.

It it supposed to be somewhere in between a newby and an experienced player?

Cause your little fantasy quote:

Why experimented player wouldn't mind doing suborbital flight with more upgradeable parts :

1) GREAT ! I can actually design a rocket with more than 3 parts, I bet I can upgrade it faster than other !

2) Haha ! I reached a place with 4 biomes near each other. Beat that !

3) The game rewarded my experience so much that I can upgrade faster it's so fulfilling.

4) I'm so glad the game is more progressive, it challenge even an experimented player like me.

5) Since I'm an experimented player I reached orbit so easily with the right parts that I made a mercury-looking rocket.

6) Finally ! I can actually have fun sending recon-probes without being coerced by the rigid tech-tree into grinding science-point !

Cute btw. I'd love to see what dimension you traveled to to find someone who talks like that

Starts with design a rocket with more than 3 parts. That's NEWBY STUF. As in the FIRST THING YOU EVER DO. Capsule, solid booster, parachute (3 parts), or Capsule, fueltank, engine, parachute (more than 3 parts).

And I'll tell you how KSP started. With the vision of going to orbit.

That is a good concern.

However I disagree that the actual specs evolution would amount to much complication considering :

- sandbox won't have upgradeable part and career must be considered as something different, not a limited-sandbox.

Now that's actually impressive. It's amazing how blind you seem to be to the world outside of your little suggestion. Did you know that next update we'll get contracts, and the first steps of an actual budget?

Rockets are going to cost money, and you have to earn money. Is that different enough for you?

- most question concern the "how to do" rather than "what to use"

It's both, actually. You need to know how the parts work to be able to build a rocket with enough deltaV to even reach orbit. I don't care how good you are in orbital mechanics. You're not going to reach Eloo if you don't know which engines to use

- the only reason you ask "which part is best" is because the game actually made some superior to other.

Well duh. Every task has a prefered tool. Each tool is good for a certain task. Nerva is 'superior' to everything else in terms of ISP, and thus is the best to use for big interplanetery ships. But you're not ganna use it to launch from Kerbin

Funny how you contradict yourself though.

Example with the LV-T30, it's clearly too powerful to be used on a last stage with one small fuel tank, what new player do ? Make the last stage too heavy and crash or don't control anything.

- most question concern the "how to do" rather than "what to use"

The first one indicates that you do realize that there are plenty of ocasions where people use the wrong parts, and need help with that.

The second one indicates that you suggest that, as long as people know the mechanics, they automaticly know the parts.

PS: if you want to build a mercury eary game, mod the techtree

[Guest]

In fact it would do any player a GREAT service to give them more occasions & ways to learn without telling them "what are you doing ? orbit already ! Don't you know you are a slackers if you can't orbit with the part you have ?"

Please show me some examples of people who are parroting this line, because I have yet to see it. Newbies are universally welcomed in the KSP community (here at least, I cant speak to that cesspit called Reddit) and help is available all over the place.

The learning curve is a cliff because the game -and apparently the community- insist that you have to learn to orbit before you even learned to design and pilot.

I think you are inflating something you may have seen a troll post at one point or another and also mis-characterizing the current early career game. This is a ridiculous assertion.

Aren't you developing right know a mod that make KSP 10x as big and complex with necessarily longer launch, and a turn-over for multiple launch pad just to satisfy your wish for "more realism" ?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78895-regex-s-Campaign-System-KSC-Switcher-6-4-1-Kerbin-and-whatever-else-WIP-thread

I know you are going to say "but it's a mod it's not the same, it's optional", but do you see me asking you to take out real-solar-system to help new player who only want your campaign system ?

I am, in fact, contributing to a mod I greatly enjoy using and, had you actually read my development thread's OP, would also see that I give the user a way to use the campaign system without having a 10x, or 6.4x, or in other ways non-stock solar system. The mod's author (NathanKell) has also been very helpful to people who, for instance, want to use our actual solar system at Kerbin's scale (1/10th) or make a slightly bigger Kerbin (like I have) and has even posted those configurations in the mod's OP. Your argument is baseless and lacks any sort of research, and is also completely irrelevant considering it is regarding a mod, not the base game that a newbie would be introduced to on initial purchase.

You act like as if the mere fact of not orbiting right away was an untold torture. Why the hell would you even put a launch pad then ? Idea : Let's make a system that automatically put you in orbit after the first lauch ! (that's a jokes)

My objection is to your desire to have career mode be a railroad ride where you must do the exact same things in the exact same order every time you start a new save game (this has been your tack in nearly every suggestion you've made that I've read). Progression doesn't automatically mean a realistic recreation of human spaceflight since the early 1900's. For all we know, Kerbals have been experimenting for some time before building this enormous space center to launch SRBs with a pod on top. Not to mention, this is Kerbal Space Program, not Probe Space Program or Human Historical Reenactment Space Program.

I don't know all the reasons you can find to create a new career save but something tell me it's because its still (as of now) so limited, short and unfulfilling that some player keep trying to relive the "challenge of the beginning", you know that part I'm trying to make longer and more fulfilling ?

A new update with new parts and features may have come out. My save may have been corrupted. I want to try a different approach to progression (something you seem to be against). There are numerous reasons for having multiple save games; that's one of the reasons we are allowed to have multiple. Starting over fresh is one thing, doing the same old rote tasks for the first ten flights every save is boring.

- most question concern the "how to do" rather than "what to use"

Most questions regarding "how to do" are invariably helped by a picture of someone's craft to inspect and help with any flaws, or to provide pointers on what might help. Even if you "color-coded" the parts, that would still rely on someone who has a career save at the particular point the questioner is at in order to help. It's just additional hassle.

Lastly, I wonder if because of that fear of "shacking" player used to starwars-like gameplay KSP isn't becoming in fact easier to handle than most strategy game, MMORPG, Arcade Air-Combat game, Racing Game...etc.

Ah, the old "the game is getting easier" argument. The problem isn't that the game is becoming easier, it's that more information is being presented better while you, at the same time, continue getting better at the game. If you want your old 0.14 (or whatever) experience, you should stick to that version of the game and call it good.

Now that I'm done derailing the thread, as far as this suggestion goes I feel it adds needless complications to the early game in a (misguided) attempt to shackle players to what you consider a "realistic" progression. You want to see suborbital flights, then orbital flights, then maybe a probe or two to other planets, then Mun landings, then maybe a Minmus landing, and then (and only then, from everything I ever read of your musings) manned expeditions to other planets (if you want to play KSP like that, I highly recommend the Better Than Starting Manned mod, it's probably right up your alley). The problem we face here is that, in a sandbox game, players set their own goals and try to meet them. While the early tech tree makes initial interplanetary travel a major hurdle that few people will bother with, the parts we do have available allow all sorts of different objectives to be set from the start. This can only be a good thing!

[MKI]

The game doesn't have to get more complicated for an experienced player to enjoy it.

The idea of variable parts has a few problems.

1. It gets confusing really fast for newer players.

2. Its really convoluted and could easily be sumplimented by just a bigger diversity of parts

For starters career mode is not done. It is half implimented, there still needs funds, reputations and contracts to make career even close to what it should be. Suggesting radical changes based only on the tech tree is short sighted.

I do agree that certain parts are useless and getting different parts earlier would be more helpful. This could be balanced out with gameplay changes or direct changes with the tech tree.

For instance probe cores in general are not as effective as Manned missions, if you can get them back. Something as simple as basic life support gives a NEW GAMEPLAY mechanic players much handle, which is neither complicated, convoluted or difficult to handle. It also makes all probe missions instantly useful for longer duration missions. Combined with reputation, you would choose your manned mission carefully.

I also believe your pictures are heavily influenced from an experienced players point of view.

For a person just starting the game, they may NEVER get to orbit. Which is OK, they still get more parts flying around kerbin. But once they master getting to orbit, they have to master getting to other bodies. So on and So on. The tech progression really has nothing to do with enjoying the game, the tech is more of a goal.

Experienced players do lose out in the current system, which is why career mode needs more changes in general. Changing the tech tree is not the answer(at least not yet) it is more about finishing what needs to be finished first.

(try doing a big eloo mission near the end of the tech tree with limited funds 0.o)

[Sirrobert]

I have a theory about this suggestion:

The OP does not know what a sandbox game is.

Supporting evidence for my theory is this quote:

- sandbox won't have upgradeable part and career must be considered as something different, not a limited-sandbox.

More defined, my theory, based on this quote, is that the OP mixes up the idea of Sandbox MODE, and the general idea of sandbox GAMES.

A sandbox MODE, as many games have, allows the player to mess around endlessly, try out new combinations without any consequences.

A sandbox GAME, however, is simply an open ended game. It still has limitations, progression, and failure states, but it lets the player deceide what to do, when to do it, and how to progress. And while the story of Sandbox games have an end, the game itself does never stop.

A prime example of a Sandbox game is Skyrim. There is a main story, there is progression, however there is no ending. By the time you finished the story, you are nowhere near done exporing the game. Additionally, it is possible to experience almost the entire game without ever touching the main story (and many frequently do on new playthroughs)

Kerbal Space Program (career mode) is, in this regard, exactly like Skyrim (or will be). The story is the exploration of the Kerbol system. HOW you deceide to explore the Kerbol system however, is entirely up to the player.

The limitations? Budget (coming Soonâ„¢). The progression? Science. The failure state? Unknown yet, but the devs have said that budget will come with a way of losing the game. Presumably by going bankrupt.

It is my guess that this entire suggestion is based on the misunderstanding of sandbox game. The OP thinks career mode should be linear, because it's 'not sandbox (mode)'

[Ruinsage]

This is becoming one person insisting that their suggestion is good, and a bunch of people trying to convince him that he is wrong. The horse is dead and beaten, and I wash my hands of this

But let this be said: I am all in favor of a much more complicated KSP, but I don't want that to come at the expense of new players who haven't played orbiter before they played this. If parts should be upgradeable, it should come in a very different way than what is presented here

[Red Iron Crown]

That's actually something I expect my suggestion to help with.

The learning curve is a cliff because the game -and apparently the community- insist that you have to learn to orbit before you even learned to design and pilot.

Plus : most problem newbies face come that you are not given parts that would simplify your design because they would be overpowered for experimented player.

Example with the LV-T30, it's clearly too powerful to be used on a last stage with one small fuel tank, what new player do ? Make the last stage too heavy and crash or don't control anything.

I have no idea what you mean by this. The game doesn't force anyone to orbit, you can explore Kerbin's biomes just fine without ever reaching orbit. The thing is, new players want to get to orbit; as near as I can see it's the most common second goal (the first being lifting off without exploding). The game is about spacecraft, getting to orbit is what they do.

The LVT-30 is perfectly appropriate for the early game, a general purpose engine that's decent for both lifting and orbital work. It's flexible enough to support different playstyles, exactly what is desired. Adding different engine types, or variants of the same engine, wouldn't simplify things for new players, if anything it would complicate things for them.

[Kegereneku]

Call that lazy if you want Sirrobert but I'm done answering someone who forget what I said earlier and use double standard to "win" argument. You attacked me as a "moron who don't know there's contract coming" although I specifically addressed the current state of the game and the incoming money angle from in my very first post.

Then if you can't grasp by yourself that I was obviously talking of KSP's sandbox as a Sandbox MODE (using your own definition) then you are not worth the trouble. It's clear that you are now in a "let's mock him" spirit and I can only answer that by attacking you personally.

---

Regex, doesn't your mod require the Real-Solar-System ? I did my search and the parallel to our situation is that you are criticizing my suggestion as "not taking other into account" although your are yourself proposing a features that come with another one (harder) that is not-necessarily-wanted.

Me, I'm merely suggesting a upgrade-style tech-tree that allow more balance possibility. regardless if you make the early-game longer or shorter.

I know my own reference to your mods can be seen as the same, but please do not mix-up a entirely different suggestion I did about a completely different game mechanic. NOTHING in the concept of an UPGRADE-SYSTEM force in any way players to actually emulate the Mercury flight, free to you to just overengineer your way, I'm even suggesting to give the LV-909 earlier which which would definitely allow that even with reduced specs.

In case it's still not clear enough : I never suggested for upgrade to be based over linear mission reproducing historical flight.

By the way, I expect money/budget to inevitably enrage all those won't don't understand the concept of "progression" and only see Career-mode as a sandbox that should reward their ego.

Next, I tried to address this subtly but you didn't caught that the ones setting up impossible expectation over new player are people like YOU. You are the one insisting that the game should be centered around the mentality that "3 flights to orbit is a perfectly normal game progression".

Insisting that only 3/4 parts at first is to help new players is like considering them "mentally deficient" when their difficulty to learn the game have to do with trying to reach orbit at all cost before being given the possibility to learn better way.

If the game is Grindy, Break saves everytime, maybe this is because it's all a work in progress a not an actual feature, don't you think ? Meaning that you criticizing upgrade because it would "be horrible for those restarting career for the 10th time" is like criticizing any game with a progression longer than 30 minutes as if all game wiped their own save-file regularly. Furthermore, the career-mode as it is now, compensate it's lack of feature (like money, reputation... upgrade?) by grinding point, didn't you wondered if it was why it's so slow ?

once again, for you : Nothing in the idea of a upgrade augmented tech-tree can even "stifle experienced-player". If anything it would be used late-game to also access more parts without being coerced into grinding. (remember when I say that as of now only tech-tree is any progression ?)

The game doesn't have to get more complicated for an experienced player to enjoy it.

The idea of variable parts has a few problems.

1. It gets confusing really fast for newer players.

2. Its really convoluted and could easily be sumplimented by just a bigger diversity of parts

For starters career mode is not done. It is half implimented, there still needs funds, reputations and contracts to make career even close to what it should be. Suggesting radical changes based only on the tech tree is short sighted.

I do agree that certain parts are useless and getting different parts earlier would be more helpful. This could be balanced out with gameplay changes or direct changes with the tech tree.

For instance probe cores in general are not as effective as Manned missions, if you can get them back. Something as simple as basic life support gives a NEW GAMEPLAY mechanic players much handle, which is neither complicated, convoluted or difficult to handle. It also makes all probe missions instantly useful for longer duration missions. Combined with reputation, you would choose your manned mission carefully.

I also believe your pictures are heavily influenced from an experienced players point of view.

For a person just starting the game, they may NEVER get to orbit. Which is OK, they still get more parts flying around kerbin. But once they master getting to orbit, they have to master getting to other bodies. So on and So on. The tech progression really has nothing to do with enjoying the game, the tech is more of a goal.

Experienced players do lose out in the current system, which is why career mode needs more changes in general. Changing the tech tree is not the answer(at least not yet) it is more about finishing what needs to be finished first.

(try doing a big eloo mission near the end of the tech tree with limited funds 0.o)

Thank you for that constructive comment.

I am also for a wider diversity of part, however I fear that it wouldn't be that easy (mods have problem of RAM when there's too many part), also it would leave behind "obsolete part" in the Assembly (as you'd use the newer one) meaning a lot of new useless part. That's the two problems I tried to address.

About my picture, I take notes, I seem to have overlooked some interpretation (about making it harder/easier)

If I understand you right, you think we should wait for SQUAD to implement more of their planned features before going into balance ?

There's indeed people who prefer more flying than me designing, but can't we satisfy both ?

Technological progression might not be everything there is to enjoy, but on you get the game mechanism and the only way to succeed is to have the right part it can be frustrating.

This is becoming one person insisting that their suggestion is good, and a bunch of people trying to convince him that he is wrong. The horse is dead and beaten, and I wash my hands of this

But let this be said: I am all in favor of a much more complicated KSP, but I don't want that to come at the expense of new players who haven't played orbiter before they played this. If parts should be upgradeable, it should come in a very different way than what is presented here

And I fully agree, however I wonder who killed the horse ? Me who kept trying to limit the discussion over the core-principle ? Or a bunch of people burying the horse alive because it looked sick ?

(yes I love metaphor)

I have no idea what you mean by this. The game doesn't force anyone to orbit, you can explore Kerbin's biomes just fine without ever reaching orbit. The thing is, new players want to get to orbit; as near as I can see it's the most common second goal (the first being lifting off without exploding). The game is about spacecraft, getting to orbit is what they do.

The LVT-30 is perfectly appropriate for the early game, a general purpose engine that's decent for both lifting and orbital work. It's flexible enough to support different playstyles, exactly what is desired. Adding different engine types, or variants of the same engine, wouldn't simplify things for new players, if anything it would complicate things for them.

What I mean is that the current order of the tech-tree encourage you to progress very fast, too fast, if you want more part to actually play with. Orbiting is certainly the whole point of the game yes, but designing is also a fundamental part of the game and while we can look at it in an utilitarian way : "They can reach orbit if they learn no ?", I think beginners might be better served if we ALSO allow them to learn using the right part.

The LV-T30 is great as a ascent engine, yes, but not as a secondary stage and certainly not as a space engine, yet that's the only you get. New player who don't conform to that said text-book "confused by two engines" don't get the part that not only would fit, but that they want to learn with.

And this isn't just a question of early game, you also can't get the part you need later because the tech-tree is rigid. that's why I'm suggesting a way to propose more part while staying balanced.

The Dev do whatever they want with it, if they are half the professional I think they are, they'll get the point just by reading the topic name.

---

So far : the real problems addressed were the following :

- Would upgrade make it impossible to help newcomer on the forum ?

- Would upgrade be truly too complicated for newcomer ? (even once proper tutorial get made)

- Would more parts be truly too confusing for newcomer ? (even if those are straightforward similar part)

If you are interested to discuss that, I'm in.

Else I will let the thread die.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Kegereneku
minor correction

[Sirrobert]

Call that lazy if you want Sirrobert but I'm done answering someone who forget what I said earlier and use double standard to "win" argument. You attacked me as a "moron who don't know there's contract coming" although I specifically addressed the current state of the game and the incoming money angle from in my very first post.

Then if you can't grasp by yourself that I was obviously talking of KSP's sandbox as a Sandbox MODE (using your own definition) then you are not worth the trouble. It's clear that you are now in a "let's mock him" spirit and I can only answer that by attacking you personally.

You know the common thing to do if someone is wrong, is to prove them wrong. I'm not mocking you, I'm trying to establish why you believe your idea is so great, while the rest of the people here know it's not. Though your reactions are making it more and more tempting to just troll you.

By putting words in my mouth and attacking personally, you are only proving that you have no counter arguments to my point. Ergo, that I'm right.

Your suggestion is not about Sandbox mode, it's about Career mode. And, as multiple people have already established, you want to make it more linear.

I, on the other hand, was talking about a sandbox GAME. My entire previous post was about explaining the difference

Regex, doesn't your mod require the Real-Solar-System ? I did my search and the parallel to our situation is that you are criticizing my suggestion as "not taking other into account" although your are yourself proposing a features that come with another one (harder) that is not-necessarily-wanted.

Me, I'm merely suggesting a upgrade-style tech-tree that allow more balance possibility. regardless if you make the early-game longer or shorter.

Allow me to correct you there.

Regex is building an OPTIONAL mod. You are suggestiong something changed to the CORE game.

Mods exist to supliment the core game. So by default, you can not compare the 2. That's like comparing mayonaise to a sandwich.

Sandwich is the core game, mayonaise is the mod. Some people like the sandwich plain, somepeople like it with the mayonaise.

You are trying to change the sandwich. He he working on a different type of mayonaise (or maybe ketchup).

If I don't like the new ketchup, I simply don't use it. However if I don't like your new sandwich, I'm out of luck unless I rebuild the entire sandwich.

I know my own reference to your mods can be seen as the same, but please do not mix-up a entirely different suggestion I did about a completely different game mechanic. NOTHING in the concept of an UPGRADE-SYSTEM force in any way players to actually emulate the Mercury flight, free to you to just overengineer your way, I'm even suggesting to give the LV-909 earlier which which would definitely allow that even with reduced specs.

It may not force anyone to do Mercury stuf, but in your current suggestion, it DOES force them to grind Kerbin sub-orbital flights.

THAT is what everyone here has a problem with. Noone gives a crap about your Mercury designs.

In case it's still not clear enough : I never suggested for upgrade to be based over linear mission reproducing historical flight.

By the way, I expect money/budget to inevitably enrage all those won't don't understand the concept of "progression" and only see Career-mode as a sandbox that should reward their ego.

And those people have no idea that the career mode WITH budget IS a sandbox game.

Also the sandbox mode isn't going anywhere, so I hardly see why those people would complain about losing their sandbox.

Next, I tried to address this subtly but you didn't caught that the ones setting up impossible expectation over new player are people like YOU. You are the one insisting that the game should be centered around the mentality that "3 flights to orbit is a perfectly normal game progression".

Insisting that only 3/4 parts at first is to help new players is like considering them "mentally deficient" when their difficulty to learn the game have to do with trying to reach orbit at all cost before being given the possibility to learn better way.

Really? Where did he say that?

The only thing he said about that is that it's POSSIBLE, and that experienced players often prefere it that way.

If the game is Grindy, Break saves everytime, maybe this is because it's all a work in progress a not an actual feature, don't you think ? Meaning that you criticizing upgrade because it would "be horrible for those restarting career for the 10th time" is like criticizing any game with a progression longer than 30 minutes because (as if all game wiped their own memory regularly). Furthermore, the career-mode as it is now, compensate it's lack of feature (like money, reputation... upgrade?) by grinding point, didn't you wondered if it was why it's so slow ?

So, you are one of those people that play the same save file for 2 years than?

He didn't say anything about breaking saves. Personally, and I imagine alot of people, I start a new game with each update. Because I want to experience the new stuf

And I fully agree, however I wonder who killed the horse ? Me who kept trying to limit the discussion over the core-principle ? Or a bunch of people burying the horse alive because it looked sick ?

(yes I love metaphor)

I like how you fail to adress the part where everyone disagrees with you.

What I mean is that the current order of the tech-tree encourage you to progress very fast, too fast, if you want more part to actually play with. Orbiting is certainly the whole point of the game yes, but designing is also a fundamental part of the game and while we can look at it in an utilitarian way : "They can reach orbit if they learn no ?", I think beginners might be better served if we ALSO allow them to learn using the right part.

WHO exactly is encouraged to progress 'to fast'?

Experienced players? They just want to get out into space. Not because the game 'encourages them', but because they have done it a million times already, and sub-orbital flights are boring if you can slap tougether a few parts and go to Minmus.

Newbys? Hoe exactly? The main reason people buy this game is to go to space. That's the ENTIRE POINT. So newbys have deceided they want to go to space as soon as they deceide to buy the game. The slowing factor is that they don't know how to get to space. Soon as they figure out how to, they can go to space. Or do you want to slow them down? Force them to fly sub-orbital 10 more times AFTER they learned how to get to orbit?

The LV-T30 is great as a ascent engine, yes, but not as a secondary stage and certainly not as a space engine, yet that's the only you get. New player who don't conform to that said text-book "confused by two engines" don't get the part that not only would fit, but that they want to learn with.

Really? What do you use on your 2nd stage than? The LV-T45?

I use a T45 in the center, and T30s in the radial boosters. It's a perfect engine for 1,25meter in atmosphere stages.

With a good thrust and decent ISP, it's also very good for heavy in orbit rockets. Or are you the kinda guy that ues 4 times as many Nervas? Have fun hauling that into orbit, especially when they implent budget.

So far : the real problems addressed were the following :

- Would upgrade make it impossible to help newcomer on the forum ?

No, but it'd make it a whole lot more difficult. Now we can just ask for a picture of the rocket, and point out what's wrong. With your suggestion, we'd need to know how far each part is upgraded, and than recreate that specific setup if we want to figure out what's wrong.

- Would upgrade be truly too complicated for newcomer ? (even once proper tutorial get made)

No, but it sure as hell would be MORE complicated

- Would more parts be truly too confusing for newcomer ? (even if those are straightforward similar part)

Again, it'd be MORE confusing. The entire point of the career mode is to slowly drip in parts.

In exactly the same way as a campain in RTS games. You start with basic infantry, than you get more advanded infanctry and buildings, and so fort until you eventually have acces to all units

If you are interested to discuss that, I'm in.

Else I will let the thread die.

There you go, my points on what you want to discuss.

Your turn

[Kegereneku]

Not interested and I'm not sorry.

You keep forgetting thing I said as it arrange you, you put word in my mouth that I never said, you answer part clearly addressed to other person that of course you can't get right.

I won't even bother to explain you because you are not here to discuss the point, just trying hard to make me "bow to you righteousness" to prove that you were right (regardless of what you think you are even discussing anymore).

[Sirrobert]

Well yes, proving we are right is kind of the reason we discuss things isn't it?

I didn't realize I was not allowed to point out flaws in arguments that weren't adressed directly at me though. I hope you accept my utmost sincere apologies for responding to posts on a public forum. I can only hope that you will forgive me See, THAT was trolling. Pointing out flaws in your ideas is not trolling or mocking

I am curious though. What words did I put in your mouth? I gave examples about you putting words in my mouth. Namely the moron part

[LethalDose]

Without getting into the flame war above, I'd say that I think the OP's initial recommendation for "leveling" up parts to smooth out the advancement curve is interesting, but I don't think it would be a good fit for the game.

I also agree that the game does get easier as more tech gets unlocked. Look at any milestone in the game from getting X tons into LKO, to landing on the Mun, to reaching Laythe, and that milestone will be easier to reach with more tech than with less. I don't see how that can be debated. What increasing your tech also does is make goals more achievable at any set skill level.

As an example, maxing out the tech tree in a single mission was possible at some point (probably not anymore, but maybe), but it still showed that with a great amount of skill and even more patience, vessels built with only starting parts can get to great number of locations. Is this an issue? I would say no, because so few players could ever do it. So I don't think it's a valid argument for a change to the science system.

I do think that progress through the tech tree seems... uneven. And that stuttering advancement through the tech tree does have a negative effect on gameplay. I also worry it's possible to get stuck in some really useless branches of research, and that they're are a small number of "right" ways to advance through the tree, and these paths require advance knowledge of what's coming behind locked nodes. However, I don't think that the best solutions to these problems lie in adding incremental improvements to parts. I think re-arranging the tech tree and having the whole tech tree visible from the start would be better solutions.

Another simple solution would be to add tags to each part so new players could identify what different parts are for, e.g. give RCS thrusters an indicator that shows they're used for attitude control and docking maneuvers, while LV-909's could have markers that indicate they're good for interplanetary flight & landing on worlds with no atmosphere.

Anyway, an argument about which method to address the issues really isn't an objective one, it's subjective. Neither side could reasonably be expected to provide incontrovertible evidence to disprove an contrary opinion. So the most either side could do is set out their points, let the community and the devs draw their own opinion.

So for Kerbal's sake, stop insulting each other. The only thing you're going to do is get your thread locked.

[Kegereneku]

Thank you for that constructive message LethalDose, an answer that show that you have considered more than meet the eyes and didn't though I wanted to transform all aspect of career-mode my to suit some kind of personal vision.

At that point I wouldn't mind the thread getting locked. It was a great communication failure on every side.

It's like there was some controversy bait hidden in my picture, I don't know.

I can agree with everybody that it is difficult for new player to know what part they should use and how. To go from what LethalDose said, any player have his own idea of what he want to try to reach his next goal. In this regard the tech-tree IS rigid as it severely guide their progression.

Changing the order, the point cost, and making the full Tech-tree visible could help make the game less linear in that regard. (and more in touch with those hoping for an free-roaming "sandbox" game)

However, giving more freedom in the development of parts would inevitably modify greatly the ability to reach your goals.

That's why upgrade or "incremental improvement to parts" seem like a good idea to me. It have the potential to allow a greater/tailored choice of parts while keeping the game challenging. It also give the possibility to make early-version of a part that reuse the same 3D model, reducing memory use.

And lastly : some engines are underused because there's often a way more efficient alternative, but what if two engines/parts switched place as "best engine" as you upgrade them ?

I think this last one might give an interesting gameplay.

One of the problem that was pointed out with all this was be the necessity to tell visually at which "level/upgrade" the part is.

I see two potential solutions :

- a texture marking on the part itself, be it a different color or a mk.1 to mk.4 text.

- SQUAD make a deltaV readout and the part themselves become less important than the stats.

Your opinion is welcome.

Sirrobert, I will answer you with a PM.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Kegereneku
minor correction