Spoilers for .26!

[VirtualCLD]

Well clearly I'm more of a newb than I thought because I feel like it takes a lot of grinding to unlock the full science tree in 0.24! Granted I have some personal restrictions which might be contributing, such as only transmitting science with a 100% return (otherwise the craft must be recovered on Kerbin) or minimal use of time warp. However I have been doing contracts and I have visited Mun, Minimus, Duna, Ike, Eve and Gilly and I still have one tech left to unlock!

Personally, I think the science return is fine the way it is, I just hope there are more things to do with it (such as with the Admin building) when there are more biomes.

[Franklin]

Granted I have some personal restrictions which might be contributing, such as only transmitting science with a 100% return (otherwise the craft must be recovered on Kerbin)

On this note, expanding the biomes will give us less reason to 100% every return, so we're able to pick and choose where we get our science and how much we want to return. Right now the science pool is very small, so getting the most out of every mission is ideal. I like the freedom of more sources.

[lazarus1024]

I hope they also rebalance the science gain along with that. More biomes usually means way more science gain, but you can already unlock the entire science tree without even going outside the Kerbin System

I'd prefer more steps on the science tree with more new parts.

That or the new difficult menu. Or, maybe better, have the more advanced stages require even more science than it takes now.

I really think that after stage 4, it should be a rough doubling of science for each new stage, so the current top stages should be closer to 1,000 science each. That and a tier beyond would be cool with really radical new parts.

Maybe a "big" super ISP engine, like a VASMIR type on the top level. Maybe some cool new tanks, like roundified liquid fuel tanks (not just for monopropellant), maybe advanced electrical production to feed a VASMIR (nuclear reactor?), maybe a high energy particle detector as a new top level science part, etc. I feel like SQUAD is going to eventually add more "top level" stuff and also more "advanced" stuff some day, but with the addition of biomes everywhere, that would be a cool and nice new feature. Something where if you are playing at "only" a 50% research penalty, it would take you at least a good 50-75% of the star system being visited to unlock everything (and leave it so that at 100% research, you can unlock everything without TOO much more than Kerbin, Mun, Minmus and another planet or two).

[SkyRex94]

On this note, expanding the biomes will give us less reason to 100% every return, so we're able to pick and choose where we get our science and how much we want to return. Right now the science pool is very small, so getting the most out of every mission is ideal. I like the freedom of more sources.

The current Science Pool is HUUUUUUUGEEEEEEEE! I made my own Tech Tree some Weeks ago(T-7 Technology, on KerbalStuff) and for that i figured out the total Science of KSP. Just over 73.200 Science Points , you only need around 11.000 to unlock every Part in the Stock Tree, there is A LOT OF SCIENCE IN THAT POOL you're speaking of.

[lazarus1024]

My "biggest issue" with science and the research tree is, I feel like, at least making it fun, you have to go pretty far up the research tree to start doing serious exploration beyond the Kerbin-mun-minmus system. At least if you want manned missions, especially manned return missions. I realize you can do it pretty low down if you want to make massive, "illogical" rockets, but it doesn't feel as fun (to me). Then once you've done enough science to get up there...you don't really need to do more science to build the big rockets to get anywhere you want to.

Within reason, once you can get to Duna, you can get anywhere with the science you have. I guess some of it is the propulsive stuff to me. Some of the later stuff is "nice to haves" to unlock, especially for fewer launches for big missions to Jool and beyond, but once you have the NERVA engine, you don't really get anything "better" for deep space. I just wish there was something above and beyond it. Like a nuclear lightbulb rocket, or VASMIR or what not at the toppest stages or something. Or maybe right up among the top science unlocks you could unlock bonuses to your space program enginnering.

Like the top tier propulsion adds +5% ISP and thrust to all rockets. Top atmo tier unlocks 10% higher threshold for flame out and 5% better ISP on all engines. Top structual tier reduces mass by 5% or something. Top science tier provides +10% more battery capacity and generating rate on solar panels and RTGs. So on. Give something other than parts at the highest tiers, so it makes you really want to keep going...and so it costs 1,000 science points to get a top tier science area unlocked, but it gives you across the board bonuses to your space program that can be potentially meaningful, if not enormous.

[KasperVld]

Why exactly would we need an expanded version of the building construction/reconstruction tech? Especially in combination with expanding the biomes? Add in maybe coming up with buying Karbonite, and they have a simplified resource system to make Kolonization worthwhile, and everything comes together, and probably brings it close to feature complete.

The fact that you form an idea that this one piece (colonization) would fit with other pieces that are unconfirmed (except the biomes of course, those are confirmed) does not subtract from the fact that these are your personal ideas about what the next update may encompass. If you don't clearly differentiate between opinion/idea and fact it will lead to people picking those ideas up as the truth, while they may in fact not be true. In the end we'll have to wait for Maxmaps to give us the outlines of what version 0.26 will bring. Nothing Squad has said so far is even remotely indicative of them buying/integrating Karbonite or conclusive evidence that they're focussing efforts to implement colonisation systems.

Edited October 3, 2014 by KasperVld

[r_rolo1]

Nonsense. This is a sandbox game and you have always needed to set and meet your own goals, not those that the game hands out to you. There are no mandatory contracts, there are no mandatory visits to other planets, there is no mandatory science to gain, there is no "win" condition. Because of that, giving the player more tools and ways to go about their business and do what they want to do is generally a good thing.

Also, difficulty options are coming, so you should be able to make the science gains as hard as you want.

KSP is not a sandbox game, atleast not since 0.22 and as far as I can see,the tendency of the devs is to make it even more structured and less sandboxy. And also, remember that this is Kerbal Space Program : while there are no mandatory goals ( for now ), even the game name implies that you are supposed to go further than Kerbin low orbit. If a game with that name allows you to top the only speed bump in the way in less than a month in game time and without even a flyby to other body besides the one you come from, my sir, we definitely have a issue.

Note that I'm not even asking to reduce the science on Kerbin SoI ( while it would probably be for the best ): the game rewards you in the same way for getting a Munar polar landing or a Canyon one ( that require some skill in terms of maneuvering ) than one in the Kerbin side equatorial craters, that even a newbie can get by accident ( my first Munar landing was like that, back in the 0.11 (?) days ). On the flip side, there is no science in getting hard maneuvering stuff that even NASA had issues to get , like the science behind docking, or getting geosynchronous or polar orbits, as we probably should have. IMHO ( and yes, this is a opinion ), the game would probably win with a more structured approach to the science distribution, that, in spite of not forcing you to go to out there, gently pushes you to go further and towards harder targets. the current one, again IMHO, tries to do that, but it falls short :/

And , BTW , difficulty levels will not solve the issue if the baseline for what is considered normal is badly constructed. Again IMHO, if you use the current setting as a normal difficulty setting, it will make a disservice to newbies ... simply because it is too easy. SO, in itself, adding difficulties is not a real answer to the issue in question ...

[regex]

KSP is not a sandbox game, atleast not since 0.22 and as far as I can see,the tendency of the devs is to make it even more structured and less sandboxy.

We're going to have to agree to disagree because, to me, SQUAD has done a stellar job keeping this game a sandbox experience, even in career. The structures are incredibly loose and you can choose to use them or not. I think it will get even better in 0.25 with the strategies (so long as they're not allowing craft performance to benefit, that'd be silly) and hopefully we'll be able to exchange currencies eventually so that the entire experience can be tailored to how the player wants to play.

And also, remember that this is Kerbal Space Program : while there are no mandatory goals ( for now ), even the game name implies that you are supposed to go further than Kerbin low orbit.

Nonsense. LKO is space. Also, why are there all these jet parts included? If the sole focus was on getting space then I don't see any reason for a runway or wing parts, or a whole home planet to fly around on. KSP grew beyond the name as soon as aero parts were included.

If a game with that name allows you to top the only speed bump in the way in less than a month in game time and without even a flyby to other body besides the one you come from, my sir, we definitely have a issue.

No, you have the issue. I have no problems whatsoever never landing on the Mun or not using part-testing contracts, and I could probably get to Duna with just the science from Kerbin. IIRC 5thHorseman did a whole career game without going to the Mun or Minmus

On the flip side, there is no science in getting hard maneuvering stuff that even NASA had issues to get , like the science behind docking, or getting geosynchronous or polar orbits, as we probably should have. IMHO ( and yes, this is a opinion ), the game would probably win with a more structured approach to the science distribution, that, in spite of not forcing you to go to out there, gently pushes you to go further and towards harder targets. the current one, again IMHO, tries to do that, but it falls short :/

IMO that would lead to an incredibly railroaded experience for veteran players. I spin up a new career mode game (modded) every new update, so doing the exact same tasks over and over to get around would make me drop the career mode like a hot rock; it'd be terrible. At least right now I can set my own goals...

And , BTW , difficulty levels will not solve the issue if the baseline for what is considered normal is badly constructed. Again IMHO, if you use the current setting as a normal difficulty setting, it will make a disservice to newbies ... simply because it is too easy. SO, in itself, adding difficulties is not a real answer to the issue in question ...

Have you ever read Harv's ideas on what the tech tree should be? It's a way to introduce new players to the parts in a non-threatening manner. This is why I think we need more to do with science rather than a reduction in science gains, because I don't think the tech tree is going to change.

[KasperVld]

No, you have the issue.

I agree with the first sentence though, agree to disagree. Some people prefer to build up their career one way, and some prefer it the other.

[Renegrade]

Am I the only one who sees a downside to this? Science will be even more of a tedious clickfest than it already is.

No one likes Dres. No one dislikes more biomes.

No one has weird tastes?

On this note, expanding the biomes will give us less reason to 100% every return, so we're able to pick and choose where we get our science and how much we want to return. Right now the science pool is very small, so getting the most out of every mission is ideal. I like the freedom of more sources.

As SkyRex pointed out, the tech tree is only about 15% of the science available in 0.24 not counting contracts or asteroids.

I did a "land and return everywhere in a stock game" save recently (mostly because I was being lazy about landing in certain places), and I had like.. 40k science, and that included forgetting to hit entire regions of science (ex I didn't get Laythe High Orbit at all), and not hitting any biome with more than a single Science Jr, max.

There's absolutely no reason to hit 100% anywhere, at any time.

Heck you could probably finish the current tech tree using only crew reports.

I'd not be surprised if you could max out the tech tree from Eve's surface alone in 0.26, given the existing multipliers.

We're going to have to agree to disagree because, to me, SQUAD has done a stellar job keeping this game a sandbox experience, even in career. The structures are incredibly loose and you can choose to use them or not. I think it will get even better in 0.25 with the strategies (so long as they're not allowing craft performance to benefit, that'd be silly) and hopefully we'll be able to exchange currencies eventually so that the entire experience can be tailored to how the player wants to play.

You'll love the 500k fund upgrade that gives your ships unlimited fuel for 30 seconds with a 5 minute cooldown timer. Second Wind of the Space Warrior!

I'm surprised you use career at all, though. Or is it that there's no (as of yet) Funds-but-no-Science mode? (which there probably SHOULD be, it was suggested and there was interest, and it should be simple to implement)

[regex]

http://edgecastcdn.net/800034/www.perpetualkid.com/productimages/lg2/ICEE-0103.jpg

You are operating under a mistaken impression of what I wrote. I emphasized the issue being his because I do not believe the game balance is at fault, rather than for some other reason such as being accusatory. The context of the quoted statement should have made that clear, it was not a personal attack or a heated statement.

You'll love the 500k fund upgrade that gives your ships unlimited fuel for 30 seconds with a 5 minute cooldown timer. Second Wind of the Space Warrior!

I'm surprised you use career at all, though. Or is it that there's no (as of yet) Funds-but-no-Science mode? (which there probably SHOULD be, it was suggested and there was interest, and it should be simple to implement)

And no, I genuinely like career mode, all of it. What a lot of people don't understand about my POV and game style is that I really enjoy limitations (and the challenge of overcoming them) but I hate railroading gameplay that demands I do certain things in a certain order. KSP's career mode seems to have hit that special spot where I feel like I have the freedom to set my own goals but also that I have to work for them, only without tedium. E: I heavily mod it, of course, but I play it pretty much stock because it would have to be entirely rebalanced for RSS (I keep an RSS install that I play sandbox in) and I don't want to have to do that myself (which I'd have to do mainly because, for some reason, RO doesn't really sit well with me.)

Edited October 3, 2014 by regex

[skyace65]

So between more biomes and whatever project they are working on where destructible buildings was the foundation of it, it looks like .26 is going to be more of a refinement update than a moving to feature complete one, personally i think that's pretty good. Hopefully they flesh out contracts a bit and add some more mission types.

[Superfluous J]

My "biggest issue" with science and the research tree is, I feel like, at least making it fun, you have to go pretty far up the research tree to start doing serious exploration beyond the Kerbin-mun-minmus system. At least if you want manned missions, especially manned return missions. I realize you can do it pretty low down if you want to make massive, "illogical" rockets, but it doesn't feel as fun (to me). Then once you've done enough science to get up there...you don't really need to do more science to build the big rockets to get anywhere you want to.

I don't think that's even remotely true. I sent rockets to Gilly, Ike, and even Dres with pretty low tech. Dres was a bit wonky sure but the only crazy thing about my Gilly ship was that it had 8 goo/jr combos on radial decouplers that stuck out like spokes. That was more a limitation of those experiments though than it was the rockets. Any rocket that brings 8 jrs and goos is going to have a bit of wonk to it.

IIRC 5thHorseman did a whole career game without going to the Mun or Minmus

You forgot "with science gains cut to 1/3 their value" but I forgive you

[r_rolo1]

We're going to have to agree to disagree because, to me, SQUAD has done a stellar job keeping this game a sandbox experience, even in career. The structures are incredibly loose and you can choose to use them or not. I think it will get even better in 0.25 with the strategies (so long as they're not allowing craft performance to benefit, that'd be silly) and hopefully we'll be able to exchange currencies eventually so that the entire experience can be tailored to how the player wants to play.

Well, that the game is not sandbox since the introduction of science mode it is a matter of fact, period. It might have a stricter or more elastic structure, but it is definitely not sandbox ... atleast outside of sandbox .The only real discussion is the degree of structure and I think you are seeing my position as one of wanting to make sharp degrees of difficulty and a railroady experience like, for example, most 4x games have. I do not want that. More on that below.

Nonsense. LKO is space. Also, why are there all these jet parts included? If the sole focus was on getting space then I don't see any reason for a runway or wing parts, or a whole home planet to fly around on. KSP grew beyond the name as soon as aero parts were included.

Well, technically there is another body in current KSP that allows usage of jet engines and all the bodies with atmospheres are fair game to aerodynamic parts, so that is a non argument. And well, yes, LKO is space, but is a small subjection of it ... and using your (non-) argument backwards, why the hell we have ion engines if the game is supposed to be ok with us just going to LKO? You can't get to LKO solely on ions ...

No, you have the issue. I have no problems whatsoever never landing on the Mun or not using part-testing contracts, and I could probably get to Duna with just the science from Kerbin. IIRC 5thHorseman did a whole career game without going to the Mun or Minmus

Ok, let me clarify. We have a balancing issue if that happens. That is not a opinion, it is as much a objective assessment as we can have in game programming. The fact that you can feel ok with playing within self imposed limitations to not abuse that or that others are not ok is irrelevant to that point. While we can discuss if that imbalance of the game is detrimental or desirable, that is also not relevant to the game balance point.

IMO that would lead to an incredibly railroaded experience for veteran players. I spin up a new career mode game (modded) every new update, so doing the exact same tasks over and over to get around would make me drop the career mode like a hot rock; it'd be terrible. At least right now I can set my own goals...

TBH I do not see how giving bigger rewards to actually harder stuff and disallowing people of finishing the tech tree in LKO or worse is railroading by itself. Let's be honest, currently the game needs 11k science to do the tech tree, and that is less than the science you can extrack out of Kerbin + Mun + Minmus. If the science that we could get out of the Kerbin mini-system would be enough to make 90% of the tech tree ( this excluding contracts, that probably would make up for those 10% easily, but that is besides the point ), what would be the diference? You would need to make a couple of out of Kerbin SoI missions and it is done , and if you didn't do that, you would be short two techs. Really, by the time a player gets all but two techs in the tech tree he is already not a greenhorn, so the newbie argument is out ... and it would be exactly as railroady for a veteran as not being able to get all the needed science from Kerbin biomes :/

Have you ever read Harv's ideas on what the tech tree should be? It's a way to introduce new players to the parts in a non-threatening manner. This is why I think we need more to do with science rather than a reduction in science gains, because I don't think the tech tree is going to change.

Well, Harv already changed a lot about his ideas of how the game should be in terms of dificulty. You are most likely aware that his original idea was to railroad in 2D all the operations in space ( better said LKO, because he didn't even think in anything besides LKO at that point ) and to have a quite tight limit on the thrust control from the part of the player. But, even supposing that his current ideas are set in stone, i do not see how putting the science output of the Kerbin mini-system slightly below the tech tree needs would scare newbies. If you can extract science in the Mun or Minmus orbit, you are more than ready to make a collection out of Kerbin SoI ( in fact it is easier to get out of Kerbin SoI than getting to Minmus orbit in terms of actual game skill ... ) and from that it is not a big jump of skill, even of perceived one, to make a Duna or Eve flyby ...

And, let me clarify: if you haven't noticed, all my argument was in relative terms. I only said there was too much science in the Kerbin mini-system for the current usage of it. If the devs increase the ways you can use science ( either by changing the tech tree or getting other forms of using it in game ), I would be perfectly OK with that...

Edited October 3, 2014 by r_rolo1
Some corrections and text formatting

[juanml82]

TBH I do not see how giving bigger rewards to actually harder stuff and disallowing people of finishing the tech tree in LKO or worse is railroading by itself. Let's be honest, currently the game needs 11k science to do the tech tree, and that is less than the science you can extrack out of Kerbin + Mun + Minmus. If the science that we could get out of the Kerbin mini-system would be enough to make 90% of the tech tree ( this excluding contracts, that probably would make up for those 10% easily, but that is besides the point ), what would be the diference? You would need to make a couple of out of Kerbin SoI missions and it is done , and if you didn't do that, you would be short two techs. Really, by the time a player gets all but two techs in the tech tree he is already not a greenhorn, so the newbie argument is out ... and it would be exactly as railroady for a veteran as not being able to get all the needed science from Kerbin biomes :/

So you can use the new custom difficulty options to reduce the science gains. Even better, with parts contracts, you aren't limited to having to unlock most of the tech tree to efficiently going outside Kerbin's SOI. You can get nuclear engines without having the science points to unlock that technology for instance

[Thanny]

A lot of the non-FAR players seem to have a rather exaggerated view of FAR's complexity and difficulty. I suspect that this is often due to installing it once, launching a plane designed for stock (i.e. awful aerodynamic design), doing something silly with it (e.g. AoA 0° -> 45° in a fraction of a second) and crashing.

That's a maneuver that a lot of real airplanes can do routinely, so not a very good example of something silly.

[smart013]

Being able to unlock the entire tech tree from within Kerbin SOI is not a balancing problem, it's a personal problem for people to overcome. It also makes it easier on new players to progress within the game, which I think is a fantastic thing.

Since i rarely have the pleasure to share an opinion with you i really like to point out that this is exactly what i am thinking on this topic. Very well put, thanks.

By the way, FAR is great and i use it now for weeks with great fun. Once you can handle the athmospheric and personal stresses of the initial learning curve flying is in fact a lot easier.

[Thanny]

My "biggest issue" with science and the research tree is, I feel like, at least making it fun, you have to go pretty far up the research tree to start doing serious exploration beyond the Kerbin-mun-minmus system.

You need fuel lines, separators, and struts. All else beyond the basic rocket parts is gravy.

[regex]

Well, that the game is not sandbox since the introduction of science mode it is a matter of fact, period.

Perhaps I should use the term "non-linear" since terms have apparently changed and we're being all "dictionary-literal" here? I've always referred to open-world and non-linear games as "sandbox".

That is not a opinion, it is as much a objective assessment as we can have in game programming. The fact that you can feel ok with playing within self imposed limitations to not abuse that or that others are not ok is irrelevant to that point. While we can discuss if that imbalance of the game is detrimental or desirable, that is also not relevant to the game balance point.

I respectfully disagree because I see game balance issues as more relating to personal preference and point of view. Besides, we're getting difficulty options that will allow you to tailor the experience so, IMO, it's a moot point.

TBH I do not see how giving bigger rewards to actually harder stuff and disallowing people of finishing the tech tree in LKO or worse is railroading by itself. Let's be honest, currently the game needs 11k science to do the tech tree, and that is less than the science you can extrack out of Kerbin + Mun + Minmus. If the science that we could get out of the Kerbin mini-system would be enough to make 90% of the tech tree ( this excluding contracts, that probably would make up for those 10% easily, but that is besides the point ), what would be the diference?

Let's turn the question around. Why change it if you can use contracts to make up the rest? Why not let the player decide how they want to get science and simply give them more options? What is wrong with that? Honestly, I don't see why this is an issue.

Right now a veteran player can set limitations and will soon be able to tailor the science gain to their liking while new players can fart around Kerbin SOI figuring out the game without feeling punished for not stepping out of their comfort zone. Other players could potentially gain all of their science from part testing contracts. Maybe someday a player could use science to fuel their entire space program (really cool to me).

And, let me clarify: if you haven't noticed, all my argument was in relative terms. I only said there was too much science in the Kerbin mini-system for the current usage of it. If the devs increase the ways you can use science ( either by changing the tech tree or getting other forms of using it in game ), I would be perfectly OK with that...

This we agree on, for the most part. I just don't think there's an issue with the balance in science. Hopefully we can have more optional stuff for skilled players to use science for.

Since i rarely have the pleasure to share an opinion with you i really like to point out that this is exactly what i am thinking on this topic. Very well put, thanks.

By the way, FAR is great and i use it now for weeks with great fun. Once you can handle the athmospheric and personal stresses of the initial learning curve flying is in fact a lot easier.

Hey thanks! Pass that praise on to ferram4, he makes things fly!

[r_rolo1]

So you can use the new custom difficulty options to reduce the science gains. Even better, with parts contracts, you aren't limited to having to unlock most of the tech tree to efficiently going outside Kerbin's SOI. You can get nuclear engines without having the science points to unlock that technology for instance

Ok, let me repeat what I said to regex some posts ago: adding difficulty settings will not solve balance issues if the benchmark for "normal" difficulty is badly chosen. First you get a balanced setting where the median ( not the average ) of the players feels comfortable, then you add easier settings and harder settings ... you don't start of a low ( or high ) benchmark and then add levels up ( or down ), because you will most likely have a bad scaling on the difficulty settings ... more, unlike other games, where the testers have little experience, KSP has a wide array of testers with varied skills ( us ). The devs have something that other game developers can only dream: a real feedback of exactly how easy or dificult the game is. And in this point even regex agrees that, if you do not limit yourself ( either by ignorance or via roleplay ) , the current ( science gathering ) game is probably too easy ...

In other words, my point is: first we balance the game difficulty in a way that , as it comes out of the box, 50% of the players find it easy and the other 50% find it hard. Then you add options to make it easier or harder to the players taste if you fancy. Doing it otherwise is starting a house by the ceiling :/

[regex]

Ok, let me repeat what I said to regex some posts ago: adding difficulty settings will not solve balance issues if the benchmark for "normal" difficulty is badly chosen.

And what we're implying is that the median difficulty (right now) is already pretty well balanced for all levels of players because of the open nature of the game. Adding more science just adds more options.

[SkyRex94]

Besides making gaining the Science more fun, and decreasing Science with each biome visited, i have another suggestion for squad. It would keep the 'Science as a way to intoduce parts for newbies' thing but also give the experienced ones something to spend spare science on. Implement something more 'Endgame' into the Tech Tree:

-like more Endgame Nodes with one or two parts per node, but Parts you might want, but don't really need to get everywhere: like a 2.5m NERVA, or a 1.25m ION, a massive Solar Panel, all to scale with the current part values, so you don't nessesarily need them, especially when you're new to the game.

-OR/AND TechNodes, not unlocking parts, but other things: ex. pretend there's a pluto analouge far behind GP3 , but you'll only be ably to see it after you researched something like 'experimental Telescopes' , or unlocking(aka discovering) a Comet

- or have one or two really advanced parts, costing nearly the value of the hole Science pool, so you'll have to explore everything before getting there, but which would give you a target 'why' you're collecting all this extra Science: like a Quantum-Vacuum-Thruster

But that would still not solve the clickfest issue. Most importanly make gaining the Science fun. If gaining the Science is fun and feels Exploration-like, the reason 'why' you're gaining Science would become more obsolete and can simply be 'because i like doing it' . But right now its just clicking

[r_rolo1]

Perhaps I should use the term "non-linear" since terms have apparently changed and we're being all "dictionary-literal" here? I've always referred to open-world and non-linear games as "sandbox".

Precise terming is a needed prereq for productive discussions, so I go dictionary as soon as I find someone that is is strong disagreement with me Fair enough on the open world angle, but while the game is open world ( and I hope it stays that way ) that does not imply you can do as you please in career , as you can in the literal sandbox. That was my point in restrictiveness terms. But like that is a sliding scale issue and that depends of personal taste, there is no point on discussing it further ...

I respectfully disagree because I see game balance issues as more relating to personal preference and point of view. Besides, we're getting difficulty options that will allow you to tailor the experience so, IMO, it's a moot point.

Well, game balance is a matter of personal taste, true. Of my personal taste, added to yours, added to all the others that play the game ( see my reply to juanml82 for a clarification on this point ) But there are upper and lower limits to what can be a game balance level that can be called "normal" and being able to shun more than 90% of the game in the ( for now, admittedly ) end of the game is definitely in the lower limit area.

Let's turn the question around. Why change it if you can use contracts to make up the rest? Why not let the player decide how they want to get science and simply give them more options? What is wrong with that? Honestly, I don't see why this is an issue.

Right now a veteran player can set limitations and will soon be able to tailor the science gain to their liking while new players can fart around Kerbin SOI figuring out the game without feeling punished for not stepping out of their comfort zone. Other players could potentially gain all of their science from part testing contracts. Maybe someday a player could use science to fuel their entire space program (really cool to me).

Ok, let me get back to my example, since it seems that part of it didn't passed out. A player that has done 90% of the tech tree is not a greenhorn, even if it is his first game. He might not be able to do Tylo landings or Eve returns, but he is surely able to launch a ship to out of Kerbin SoI and even back. If he isn't a greenhorn, why treat him as such? We are talking of career mode, for heavens sake: it is supposed to imply a progression of goals and skills and it implies that the player atleast already gave a eye to the tutorials ( yeah, right , I can hear you say ) ... otherwise the devs would give you 20k science for putting a capsule in the VAB. While I can see the appeal of playing a career game while in LKO loitering around and building whatever ( I also would like to be able to play contracts without science, but alas ), the main mode of the game will only lose if you make catering to that point the sole determinator of your game balance ... in the same way it would lose if you made the game to cater to Scott Manley and him alone : in the same way people can be put off by a too hard game, they can also be put off by a too easy game :/

This we agree on, for the most part. I just don't think there's an issue with the balance in science. Hopefully we can have more optional stuff for skilled players to use science for.

Well, atleast there is common ground. That is good enough in my book

[tater]

IMO that would lead to an incredibly railroaded experience for veteran players. I spin up a new career mode game (modded) every new update, so doing the exact same tasks over and over to get around would make me drop the career mode like a hot rock; it'd be terrible. At least right now I can set my own goals...

I tend to agree with you most of the time, but I think this is entirely the result of bad game design. "Game" being the "career" game. A properly done career mode should have fun replay as a goal. I'd agree that the current paradigm is sort of mind numbing. I'd not con sider myself a vet, but I can finish a tech tree in short order after 1 unmodded, and 1 modded career. I like the idea of a career mode that creates novel missions to complete. The trouble is the novel missions in KSP are absurd (test a giant engine cluster landed on Minmus or something).

I'm not sure I can come up with a really good idea for what they should do, but the current career is not it, IMO.

[tater]

And no, I genuinely like career mode, all of it. What a lot of people don't understand about my POV and game style is that I really enjoy limitations (and the challenge of overcoming them) but I hate railroading gameplay that demands I do certain things in a certain order. KSP's career mode seems to have hit that special spot where I feel like I have the freedom to set my own goals but also that I have to work for them, only without tedium. E: I heavily mod it, of course, but I play it pretty much stock because it would have to be entirely rebalanced for RSS (I keep an RSS install that I play sandbox in) and I don't want to have to do that myself (which I'd have to do mainly because, for some reason, RO doesn't really sit well with me.)

I mostly agree, but career doesn't really give me any limitations, the only missions are plant flag or get science from body X, or part tests. I'd much prefer seeing some contracts to build a refueling station in orbit around X, or a base on Y… anything novel. The trick is they need to be more required. I've yet to have any limitations on funds at all, and hence it's functionally no different than sandbox, and since we have sandbox, I want career to have more hurdles… if that makes sense.