Spoilers for .26!

[Claw]

Having contracts for one specific experimental result doesn't seem very effective to me. You might end up having to create a mission just to get one result (obviously you can get more, it's not quite the same as part test contracts) to prevent letting a contract expire. Or you might spend forever tediously declining contracts until you have multiple offers for the same target to make a mission worthwhile.

Well, I think that was part of the point with that suggestion. People were talking about the need for something more specific to prevent science farming from orbit. Having a couple of contracts spread across a few biomes would force someone to build a craft capable of hopping and collecting said science. If a player were simply offered a series of contracts to go to the same biome and collect multiple types of science, it might as well be a generic contract that says "Recover or transmit some science from place X."

I do also see the fault with the "accept and decline" method also. Maybe if there was some way to package several types of contracts into a single series type contract like the "explore the Mun" concept.

[Red Iron Crown]

I wonder how currency exchange fits in. It's relatively easy to make money with contracts, if a player can exchange money for science they might be able to unlock the tech tree without clicking a single science part. If a player wants to avoid contracts, there'll be enough science with all the new biomes that a space program might be able to stay afloat by selling science. If either science or contracting feels too restrictive, a player might be able to avoid that style of play.

[LethalDose]

I wonder how currency exchange fits in. It's relatively easy to make money with contracts, if a player can exchange money for science they might be able to unlock the tech tree without clicking a single science part. If a player wants to avoid contracts, there'll be enough science with all the new biomes that a space program might be able to stay afloat by selling science. If either science or contracting feels too restrictive, a player might be able to avoid that style of play.

It's going to depend on how the devs balance the exchange rates, or allow players to adjust the balance. There's really little point in discussing the specific parameter values now since we know biomes for all bodies are planned for 0.26, which is going to bork the current science strategies the same way it did when Minmus got biomes.

I do think any exchange rates should be destructive at any level of "investment" to prevent unlimited feedback loops, e.g. you shouldn't be able to exchange funds for science, then change science back into as many or more funds than you initially invested. It should always be less.

[Claw]

I wonder how currency exchange fits in. ... If either science or contracting feels too restrictive, a player might be able to avoid that style of play.

I think that's part of the idea, players can customize their own gameplay. Combined with the difficulty adjustments, a player can decide how hard this particular area of the game is or how they want to shape their career.

[tater]

I don't like that because it tends to force contracts on players and, besides, contracts don't exactly offer anything more in terms of difficulty so I don't see why the reward should be higher.

They can still decline them. The point is that these contracts come from various entities, presumably for some purpose. If a company that makes lander parts wants soil from a particular spot, they want soil from a particular spot. Since you might want their new lander product (bought with "science" not cash), and they want soil to test for whatever reason, they might give you science. Another company might not give you any multiple of science, but give you cash. There would be more options.

Not quite so- in career, you have the constraint of budget. It is 'career' not campaign mode.

In career, you can't just do anything, there are costs, consequences, etc.

I have yet to experience this "budget" constraint anyone speaks of. I have 7 million right now, and I build absurd things in space, very inefficiently, and never think twice about funds, nor have I ever thought about it, from my first launch. It's possible to be short on cash? Really? Even for anyone who has played before (that I find impossible to imagine, though it might be possible for a new player)?

I do also see the fault with the "accept and decline" method also. Maybe if there was some way to package several types of contracts into a single series type contract like the "explore the Mun" concept.

I'd force myself to never decline any contracts, except that I find the bulk of the testing contracts to be really dumb, tedious things… and I tried in my first career to do all contracts, and I just could not get a few to complete, even with everything having a green check mark, so I decline all of them now. Farming science (1-2 points at a time) from a station is fine, frankly, as the point of such early stations is partially medical science stuff about how the astronauts deal with microgravity.

Edited October 5, 2014 by tater

[LethalDose]

I have yet to experience this "budget" constraint anyone speaks of. I have 7 million right now, and I build absurd things in space, very inefficiently, and never think twice about funds, nor have I ever thought about it, from my first launch. It's possible to be short on cash? Really? Even for anyone who has played before (that I find impossible to imagine, though it might be possible for a new player)?

Again, this is a balance issue. The game isn't in it's final state, so balancing is a low priority. Squad is basically side-stepping the balance issue in 0.25, since we'll be able to tweak monetary rewards from contracts.

So, in a few days, you will have the option to play a game where funds are a limiting factor.

[NecroBones]

I think my ideal career-mode would still be highly sandboxy, but with lots of management aspects (that are largely optional), so that you can get as detailed (or not) as you want in how you run your space agency, and have a wide range of meta-goals available to you. Any sort of linearity, I think will be a detriment in the long run.

[Tw1]

I have yet to experience this "budget" constraint anyone speaks of. I have 7 million right now, and I build absurd things in space, very inefficiently, and never think twice about funds, nor have I ever thought about it, from my first launch. It's possible to be short on cash? Really? Even for anyone who has played before (that I find impossible to imagine, though it might be possible for a new player)?

.

I have to agree airbus you- it is pretty easy to pull in a lot of funds, once you know what you're doing. It's the same with reputation. I think higher difficulty settings would help here. And, also requiring basic life support and reentry management, that will bump up costs a bit.

(E.g., in a sandbox-career hybrid save I made, my Jool manned mission is looking like costing 12 million)

[tater]

Yeah, as per a post I made in the realism thread, atmosphere, reentry, Isp, yada, yada, yada. Those are noise difficulty wise compared to life support, even with nothing but snacks.

I'm impressed… 12 million.

[Claw]

I have yet to experience this "budget" constraint anyone speaks of. I have 7 million right now, and I build absurd things in space, very inefficiently, and never think twice about funds, nor have I ever thought about it, from my first launch. It's possible to be short on cash? Really? Even for anyone who has played before (that I find impossible to imagine, though it might be possible for a new player)?

It was thought impossible when balancing 0.24 that someone might run out of money, but after release people apparently found ways to really wring out their budgets. Primarily new players of course, but I could see if you never allow reverts and aren't particularly skilled pilot, then yeah. Also realize that Squad has been error-ing on the side of making things too easy or too much money before really balancing things, rather than making it aggravating for the new player. And will probably continue to do so as they add more content.

I'd force myself to never decline any contracts, except that I find the bulk of the testing contracts to be really dumb, tedious things… and I tried in my first career to do all contracts, and I just could not get a few to complete, even with everything having a green check mark, so I decline all of them now. Farming science (1-2 points at a time) from a station is fine, frankly, as the point of such early stations is partially medical science stuff about how the astronauts deal with microgravity.

Well, you don't have to go from one extreme to the other. I used to try to do every...single...contract. It did get really tedious and I felt extremely bogged down. Now I set my path, then look for contracts that go along on that path. If not, I might decline a few and see what else comes up. Or if I need a quick zap of cash or science for something, then find some similar contracts and launch a cheap and quick testing vessel. I'm not sure about incomplete contracts. I have that from time to time, but thus far I can usually chock it up to something I've done, so long as it's not the infamous staging problem (but I'm not using 64-bit either).

~Claw

Edit: Life support definitely would be a game changer, but I think that's a whole 'nother topic.

[Tw1]

I'm impressed… 12 million.

I am beginning to think I've been a little generous on the drive module for the support ship, and am considering re-allocating that one for a moho mission but then again, unplanned plane changes can happen. It's going to be a big mission, with satellites, rovers and everything. I like to travel in style.

I am looking forward to its departure.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Tw1

[tater]

Since I only seem to increase funds, I didn't check, but decided to make a rather overbuilt Duna mission since I needed life support. COuld have done 2 guys, but felt like 3 was more realistic, so I did three. A couple habitat modules (for Snacks), a lab, a spare lander, etc. Multiple Nervas. That was probably expensive. I could check I suppose, but it was launched as several pieces, plus a top off of fuel.

[Creature]

The difficulty options are fine for balancing the game and a very welcome addition but that's really the only thing they do - balance. The core issue is still that we have an amazingly fun and engaging game with building and flying rockets but there's nothing beyond that.

If you think in terms of what you do in game instead of why you do it. What you do is you build a rocket, fly somewhere and then click a button. It's irrelevant in this context whether the reason is that a contract told you to, you get science points from there or just felt like it. The contract and science system simply tells you where you need to go and what parts you need to take with you but those two properties are already included in the game by default. You're going somewhere and taking parts with you no matter what - they give you nothing new to do or think about. To me this feels like playing an RTS where you gather resources and build your base, train and upgrade your force, assemble and move them in good order to the other side of the map and that's it. There's nothing to do there.

And this is why I think the contract system especially is making the game a lot less sandbox-like. At least with science your starting condition is that the science just is there, you have ways to get it and it's entirely up to you where, how and when you collect it. That's sandbox gameplay and even if it's not really exiting, it's at least OK. For contracts you can only choose how you're doing what's told to do so they're even more linear by removing the when and where. OK granted you have options to choose from which is very good but I'm talking from the system's point of view - the contract itself is defined as exact, you're just given several options from exactly defined destinations. And it's totally fine if you want KSP to be a hybrid of randomly generated mini-quests and rocket building. But it's very very far from any economy or tycoon games. It's not that there's money for you to grab and it's up to you to decide how you pursue it. It's just handed to you for grinding arbitrary miniquests like in your everyday MMORPG.

Though I'm very exited about the new biomes. Coupled with lowered science gains they should make the science lab an essential part for any planetary exploration so maybe research bases, rovers and planes will finally become useful.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's going to depend on how the devs balance the exchange rates, or allow players to adjust the balance. There's really little point in discussing the specific parameter values now since we know biomes for all bodies are planned for 0.26, which is going to bork the current science strategies the same way it did when Minmus got biomes.

Agreed. Might even be good to allow the exchange rate to be set by the player in the options so Squad can see where we end up setting it.

I do think any exchange rates should be destructive at any level of "investment" to prevent unlimited feedback loops, e.g. you shouldn't be able to exchange funds for science, then change science back into as many or more funds than you initially invested. It should always be less.

I agree in principle, and it certainly shouldn't be possible to profit just by changing currencies back and forth. As for lossy exchange rates, I don't think it matters much. I'd imagine players will only exchange currencies when they're about to spend them (e.g. sell just enough science to pay for the next launch or buy just enough science to unlock that next node); that sort of makes lossiness less important.

Welcome back.

[tater]

The trouble is that basic science doesn't map to tech advancement, particularly planetary science (the bulk of science points). Given that contracts come from various companies, it's even odder. They'd want science that directly related to their products (rockets/instrumentation/etc), or because there was an exploitation goal (resources). Another reason why the cart is before the horse.

If Kerbodyne wants you to land on the Mun, it bloody well should require you do so using their equipment, for example.

The whole thing is backwards.

There should be a set of goals for your space program that you can pick (and change) at any time.

So you'd pick "Orbital Spaceflight and Science." The goal is then reaching orbit, plus other stuff unspecified. You'd then get contracts related to that alone. If a company sponsors it, it involves their technology, period. You might get tech available you don't have for the purpose of that mission, should you accept it. You pick "manned Duna exploration" and you get various Duna missions, and the sponsors are companies that have useful stuff. You are driving the "plan," but it at least makes sense. If you pick any that involve new tech, you might also get static tests of their "experimental" equipment that is required for the mission. Say Kerbodyne sponsors your Mun program, you need to include something of theirs on the mission, even if just their SRB for launch.

This still doesn't address gameplay, though. The "why" you do what you do. Once again, if there are no limitations, the career isn't like sandbox, it is sandbox. It needs something...

[timsfitz]

Game definitely needs better contracts. That said, I think there should be a lot more endgame stuff. Don't make it harder to unlock what is there, bit make more parts to unlock, including more base structures/modules, near future engines, and space station parts. Resources would also be a very important endgame thing. As it has been suggested before here, a contract could be build a science station on Vall near the Easter egg, or a refueling station on Moho.

[tater]

Yeah, more "science" to unlock is again, sort of rediculous. Everything on the tech tree was invented between what, the mid 1950s and the early '70s or late '60s? Rover/Nerva stuff was tested in the late '50s. Aerospikes? 1960s. It either needs to be harder to research stuff, or at some point near future tech needs to be added... Unless there is some actual reward/goal past tech tree unlocking.

[Sun]

I REQUIRE MORE PLANETS!

caps

[Iron4venger]

I must say the thing i want to be added the most, is more science experiments parts, and I dont mean more labs. I play manly for robotic probe missions, so any toy that can scan stuff or give more random data is more than welcome. Gravioli, Thermometer, pressure etc is nice but just 4 sensors is too limited

Maybe im a data junkie who knows scansat is a good idea, and theres mods that adds magnetometers and stuff, thats pretty nice IMHO

Oh Right. FIX THE RAMJET INTAKE SO I DONT NEED HACK 8.000 ONE IN TOP OF THE OTHER FOR MY PLANE TO REACH THE STARS

Edited October 5, 2014 by Iron4venger

[Claw]

I must say the thing i want to be added the most, is more science experiments parts, and I dont mean more labs. I play manly for robotic probe missions, so any toy that can scan stuff or give more random data is more than welcome. Gravioli, Thermometer, pressure etc is nice but just 4 sensors is too limited

Maybe im a data junkie who knows scansat is a good idea, and theres mods that adds magnetometers and stuff, thats pretty nice IMHO

I like the idea of more science parts too. But if they add more parts to go along with the biomes, I hope it's something that's structurally different than what we have now. I like the idea of something like the SCANSAT mod that maps the planet. You get science and actual information that's useful in-game.

Still, I'm excited about the biomes and to see what kind's of crazy contraptions people come up with to get all that science.

Cheers,

~Claw

[Wanderfound]

Oh Right. FIX THE RAMJET INTAKE SO I DONT NEED HACK 8.000 ONE IN TOP OF THE OTHER FOR MY PLANE TO REACH THE STARS

You don't.

I'm assuming stock aero?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnz9s8k9h7gwgb/Kerbodyne%20Benchmark%20StockAir.craft?dl=0

Three engines, two intakes, makes orbit easily. Fast climb to 15,000m, slow climb to 30,000m, turn the RAPIERs off as soon as they switch modes and don't turn them back on until the turbojet chokes.

Or see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1357777&viewfull=1#post1357777 for the FAR-tuned version.

[SorryDave]

More biomes would be a nice content addition. I do not agree that this should require more biome visits to complete the tech tree.

The way I play, the challenge is not to unlock the tech tree. The challenge I enjoy is collecting science points while exploring.

I have fun using the science tab to review where I have collected science points and to determine where I need to go to next.

I also like to use the parts later in the tech tree for a lot of my missions, even though I could do a lot with just the parts up to ladders.

[Seshins]

Sperlunking, caves and other interesting planetary features. So i actually have to make a rover and drive to a cave should i (i will) land off target.

[TimberWolffe]

in .26 there will most definitely be a kerbal. Maybe 2.

nah but I really wanna see some persistent asteroid belt, perhaps with some asteroids classed so large that they're on rails in an orbit and you can land and do asteroid science. I think that'd be pretty cool.