Spoilers for .26!

[tater]

I agree that FAR is too complicated (this is Kerbal Space Program, not Human Space Program), but the aerodynamics system in KSP should behave like an approximation of real life aerodynamics.

I installed FAR, and I hardly noticed any difference. If I had not specifically done a few launches/reentries (I added DRE, too) trying to see what it took to fail, I'm pretty sure I'd be unable to tell you the difference between the 2 installs if the FAR tab was not there 99% of the time.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

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 ...

actually most people use these terms interchangeably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world

[r4pt0r]

scissors- In the end we'll have to wait for Maxmaps to give us the outlines of what version 0.26 will bring.

are we finally getting that development roadmap we have always wanted?!?!

[LaydeeDem]

What's so wrong with FAR? Just make planes that look like actual planes. Boom. It's that easy.

Anyways I'm glad planets are receiving some well needed attention.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

meh I'm pretty over biomes.. grindy and pretty meaninless for me

[Guest]

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

Well, when I think about KSP I don't think that "90%" of the game constitues everything outside Kerbin SOI because players set their own goals, and continue to do so in career mode. That means that the player determines what constitutes the game as a whole, fulfilling the open-world non-linear "there is no right way to play" paradigm. That means that any talk about a feature's "balance" is mainly in terms of the individual's preferences.

I like the idea of a career mode that creates novel missions to complete

I like that idea so long as they're optional.

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.

Hopefully no offense here, but I see this attitude a lot because people think unlocking the tech tree is the "end-game" activity in KSP. I don't see it that way and I'm pretty sure SQUAD don't either. KSP has no end-game, and it shouldn't; it's an open-world non-linear game (what I lump into the "sandbox" category) that requires you to set your own goals and challenge yourself. Sure, you can consider contracts a game-provided challenge of sorts but they cover such a broad range of activities (well, they will, I hope; they're not too limited right now) and are almost optional (and I hope they become completely so through currency exchange) so you can really pick and choose which ones you want to do, and make them fit in with your own goals.

Basically unlocking the tech tree is a means to an end, it's not the game.

[Guest]

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.

I completely disagree with things being less optional or having required hurdles to jump. Difficulty options will allow you to tailor rewards to fit your play style, so I can do my thing where I just launch whatever I want and run a few contracts here and there to fund it, while you can make the rewards punishing enough to require all the hurdles you need.

I do very much agree that additional contract types, which I'm sure will eventually be added, will help make KSP richer, but making them required is a bad idea, IMO, since that makes every replay the same thing.

[tater]

I completely disagree with things being less optional or having required hurdles to jump. Difficulty options will allow you to tailor rewards to fit your play style, so I can do my thing where I just launch whatever I want and run a few contracts here and there to fund it, while you can make the rewards punishing enough to require all the hurdles you need.

I do very much agree that additional contract types, which I'm sure will eventually be added, will help make KSP richer, but making them required is a bad idea, IMO, since that makes every replay the same thing.

My experience is that is is not really any different than sandbox as it stands. The only missions that "matter" are rescue missions (still optional). I'd honestly prefer some that are not optional in one way or another. Even if it's just required for funding. As it stands money is infinite, and I might as well just do sandbox. No reason to make a station, no reason to build a base, etc. Again, all career is "optional" as there is "science" mode, as well as sandbox. I'd like to see career really differentiated.

That's actually a reason I'd like to see equipment failures---as a possibility on "experimental" tech (tech you get to use for a while for contracts, but not fully unlocked). If you got new tech to do your first Mun landing (in a game where such a contract would provide temporary unlocked items), and you had some failure, you might have an Apollo 13 moment, and have to really think to make it right (or launch a rescue). This kind of thing is exciting to me.

[Guest]

My experience is that is is not really any different than sandbox as it stands. The only missions that "matter" are rescue missions (still optional). I'd honestly prefer some that are not optional in one way or another. Even if it's just required for funding. As it stands money is infinite, and I might as well just do sandbox.

Use the difficulty options to reduce the rewards to the lowest level, problem solved.

[CalculusWarrior]

Geez, 0.25 isn't even out yet and I'm already getting excited for 0.26!

[Wanderfound]

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

No, they really don't. There's a big difference between "near instantaneous 45° change in AoA" and "altering vector by 45° over the course of a couple of seconds". There's also a big difference between aerobatics/dogfighting specialists and spacegoing hypersonic speedsters.

But this has been hashed out at length elsewhere (e.g. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93292-Realism-in-KSP-Various-Ideas-with-Pros-Cons/page5) and is not that much to do with .26. Probably best left for its own thread.

[Wanderfound]

Well, when I think about KSP I don't think that "90%" of the game constitues everything outside Kerbin SOI because players set their own goals, and continue to do so in career mode. That means that the player determines what constitutes the game as a whole, fulfilling the open-world non-linear "there is no right way to play" paradigm. That means that any talk about a feature's "balance" is mainly in terms of the individual's preferences.

Datapoint: I started KSP in a standard "go everywhere and get science" mode. However, that lost its appeal a bit after I spent months (early days, was still learning) getting an orbital lab, fuel depot and lander to Duna only to discover that there was nothing for them to do once they got there.

These days, I rarely go beyond Minmus, and even that is mostly for giggles (ice racing on the flats etc).

Science is much too generous. My preferred solution would be to expand the tech tree, though; make each node contain one part rather than a bunch of them.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Frank_G]

What a nice way of marketing... Keep your followers... and they got me!

[Guest]

Datapoint: I started KSP in a standard "go everywhere and get science" mode.

I started KSP when the only thing you could do was make up something to do, which, I suppose, colors my perception of the game and how it is developing. Probably also why I don't think unlocking the tech tree needs to be the driving impetus behind doing things in the game. What does everyone do once they unlock the tech tree?

[tater]

Use the difficulty options to reduce the rewards to the lowest level, problem solved.

I still thank that a "default" game experience should be fully functional. If a career has funds, but you never run out… not functional. Have to see what the new stuff will bring.

[juanml82]

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 :/

I think the difficulty in KSP is more about activities rather than unlocking parts. In other words, making it easier or harder to get the docking ports delays or accelerates your game - but the difficulty remains in docking. The custom difficulty sliders allow you to tailor your game to suit your tastes. Want contracts and funds without science? Max out the science sliders (or open the debug window and cheat your science). Prefer to be required to leave Kerbin's SOI to max out science? Diminish the science points you get.

My experience is that is is not really any different than sandbox as it stands. The only missions that "matter" are rescue missions (still optional). I'd honestly prefer some that are not optional in one way or another. Even if it's just required for funding. As it stands money is infinite, and I might as well just do sandbox. No reason to make a station, no reason to build a base, etc. Again, all career is "optional" as there is "science" mode, as well as sandbox. I'd like to see career really differentiated.

That's actually a reason I'd like to see equipment failures---as a possibility on "experimental" tech (tech you get to use for a while for contracts, but not fully unlocked). If you got new tech to do your first Mun landing (in a game where such a contract would provide temporary unlocked items), and you had some failure, you might have an Apollo 13 moment, and have to really think to make it right (or launch a rescue). This kind of thing is exciting to me.

The catch is, how do you fix it? You need to add a whole new gameplay mechanic. It can be done. What it doesn't work in gameplay terms is letting the player invest a lot of time in assembling a manned Eve mission with a lander with aerospikes and making it fail because one of the aerospikes randomly fail while ascending in Eve's atmosphere because at the time the ship was launched, aerospikes were an experimental part. And since the ship is in mid-flight and suffers asymmetric trust, the mission failed and there is nothing the player can do about it. That would be a way to randomly frustrate the player.

Datapoint: I started KSP in a standard "go everywhere and get science" mode. However, that lost its appeal a bit after I spent months (early days, was still learning) getting an orbital lab, fuel depot and lander to Duna only to discover that there was nothing for them to do once they got there.

These days, I rarely go beyond Minmus, and even that is mostly for giggles (ice eacing on the flats etc).

Science is much too generous. My preferred solution would be to expand the tech tree, though; make each node contain one part rather than a bunch of them.

Well, videogames don't last forever

[juanml82]

I still thank that a "default" game experience should be fully functional. If a career has funds, but you never run out… not functional. Have to see what the new stuff will bring.

The thing is, you never run out. A new player would probably need to expend time watching youtube videos, reading the wiki, asking in forums... instead of playing the game.

[klgraham1013]

snip

I'm still mainly sandbox and am mostly concerned with conquest and maintaining my various civilizations. I use life support and remote tech.

[Red Iron Crown]

I started KSP when the only thing you could do was make up something to do, which, I suppose, colors my perception of the game and how it is developing. Probably also why I don't think unlocking the tech tree needs to be the driving impetus behind doing things in the game. What does everyone do once they unlock the tech tree?

There's a definite difference in perspective for those who started out by playing career mode. The idea that the game can ever be finished is quite foreign to me, but it seems the players who cut their teeth on gathering science consider finishing the tech tree (or now, amassing a huge reputation and a pile of money, too) as a victory condition.

For sandbox regulars, career just offers a bunch of things you have to do before you have the tech and can afford to do the things you really want to do. I can do science and complete contracts reasonably well, but why use my limited play time to do that before running the missions I really want to do?

[Guest]

I still thank that a "default" game experience should be fully functional. If a career has funds, but you never run out… not functional. Have to see what the new stuff will bring.

I really don't get this, though. You're saying that money is unlimited when it clearly isn't; you still need to do contracts to get it and having none will prevent you from launching. Maybe the reason I'm not seeing the problem is because I don't see contracts (or the tech tree) as a guide or impetus for what to do in the game; I pretty much just do what I want to do and use a few contracts now and then to make some money. tbh I could do the exact same thing I do now on half, or possibly even one third of the cash but I also think that's a bit punishing for newbies because I know what I'm doing.

[tater]

The catch is, how do you fix it? You need to add a whole new gameplay mechanic. It can be done. What it doesn't work in gameplay terms is letting the player invest a lot of time in assembling a manned Eve mission with a lander with aerospikes and making it fail because one of the aerospikes randomly fail while ascending in Eve's atmosphere because at the time the ship was launched, aerospikes were an experimental part. And since the ship is in mid-flight and suffers asymmetric trust, the mission failed and there is nothing the player can do about it. That would be a way to randomly frustrate the player.

Given difficulty sliders, the default would be to have X-tech failures off. As for the failure, yeah, that's a problem. Include backups, or suffer the consequences, even if the backup is an extra chute, and you have to send a rescue mission.

[tater]

The thing is, you never run out. A new player would probably need to expend time watching youtube videos, reading the wiki, asking in forums... instead of playing the game.

I am a new player (EDIT: been playing a little over 6 weeks now). I played part of 1 science career, one unmoved career, and one career with FAR/DRE/Ispfix, etc.

I never came close to running out, right out of the gate. Funds is not a thing in career in my total noob experience. In my first career, my first rocket was suborbital, 2d was orbital, third was a Mun orbiter (didn't think I could land and return, so didn't try. 4th was a Mun lander. Rolling in funds at that point.

Edited October 4, 2014 by tater

[Guest]

In my first career, my first rocket was suborbital, 2d was orbital, third was a Mun orbiter (didn't think I could land and return, so didn't try. 4th was a Mun lander. Rolling in funds at that point.

This experience is exceptional to most of us pre-career players, I think. Did you do a lot of research before you started? Run tutorials? Watch "Let's Play"s? Played Orbiter previously? It took me some time in the 0.13 demo before I figured out how to actually get a ship into an orbit, and then when I really started playing in 0.20 I could barely get stuff into orbit until I watched ChickenKeeper24's videos where he actually built stuff. Took me a month at least before I was ready for Duna.

Maybe the game is much easier to learn now?

[Empiro]

This experience is exceptional to most of us pre-career players, I think. Did you do a lot of research before you started? Run tutorials? Watch "Let's Play"s? Played Orbiter previously? It took me some time in the 0.13 demo before I figured out how to actually get a ship into an orbit, and then when I really started playing in 0.20 I could barely get stuff into orbit until I watched ChickenKeeper24's videos where he actually built stuff. Took me a month at least before I was ready for Duna.

Maybe the game is much easier to learn now?

The problem is that having a simple fund system will always have this issue. No matter how you adjust the prices and make things harder, one of two things will happen: you gain money with each launch because your rocket designs are good, and after a while you have effectively unlimited money. Or, you lose money with every launch, and soon you will be bankrupt. To balance the game right in the middle is extremely difficult without an external source to add or remove money based on how much you have (e.g. dynamic difficulty). One great example I have in mind is the game Papers, Please. If you do poorly in that game, your family will starve, but if some of them die, it makes the game easier (fewer mouths to feed). It punishes the player with guilt, but adjusts to their skill level so that the game goes on.

For KSP, you essentially need other ways to spend or receive money that's not related to launching spaceships and doing contracts. The administration building is a good step to doing that, but I wonder what else can be done (basically more sources of income, and more places to spend your money). You want to reward players for making money (but not reward them with even more money), and punish players for being inefficient (but not by further reducing the money they get), and then push both types of players toward the middle of the spectrum.

[Wanderfound]

I wasn't quite as quick as tater, but not that slow either.

Suborbital within a few launches, orbital a launch or two after that, off to the Mun shortly afterwards. I crashed a dozen landers before I got one down successfully, and a few more before I got one back home again. Rendezvous and docking took me a while, though; that one I had to hunt up tutorials for.

The reason that Duna station took over a month was because I launched it unfuelled in multiple bits, then constructed and fuelled it in orbit. That included restarts due to the classic "backwards docking port" screwup, plus a few occurences of faulty docking port bugs. Then, when I finally got them both to Duna, I carefully put the lab and lander into perfectly matched orbits...going in opposite directions. I think the lab crew had been orbiting Duna for a couple of years before the replacement lander finally got to them.