Outsourced R&D - balance issue?

[SamSilver]

Hi, long-time lurker here. Not sure if this counts as a discussion or suggestion, but here goes...

I just got started with 0.25, and started by checking out the new Administration building. I decided to try using Outsourced R&D, because the idea of squeezing the cost of my missions a bit in order to boost science gains sounds like fun. Unfortunately, it seems to cause a serious game play imbalance. Here's what happened to me:

It took three missions (one suborbital, one orbital and one on the launch pad) to get enough science for solar panels, and on my fourth mission I managed to complete the "Explore the Mun" contract with a ~20k unmanned spacecraft. So far, so good. When I returned to mission control, I found a large number of long-term or "never expire" missions:

• Science data around Kerbin
  
• Science data around the Mun
  
• Plant flag on the Mun
  
• Explore Minmus
  
• Explore Duna
  
• Explore Ike
  

Naturally I accepted them, and got a hefty chunk of advance money. But what I hadn't expected is that by receiving the advance I also got an instant 274 science points! This seems like too much, and that one should struggle more to get to Minmus.

I'm not a game designer, but I wonder whether it makes sense to limit science "advances"? One possibility could be to restrict science points funded by mission advances. Or allow it, but only after a mission is completed?

What do people think?

[robopilot99]

Its very unbiased. I loaded my .24 save and using this strategy I finished the tech tree in 4 missions. On the last one I earned 6000 science for a simple "test part in Kerbin orbit" contract. Granted I already started with quite a bit of money but it was somewhat disappointing to finish the game so easily.

[MKI]

Hi, long-time lurker here. Not sure if this counts as a discussion or suggestion, but here goes...

I just got started with 0.25, and started by checking out the new Administration building. I decided to try using Outsourced R&D, because the idea of squeezing the cost of my missions a bit in order to boost science gains sounds like fun. Unfortunately, it seems to cause a serious game play imbalance. Here's what happened to me:

It took three missions (one suborbital, one orbital and one on the launch pad) to get enough science for solar panels, and on my fourth mission I managed to complete the "Explore the Mun" contract with a ~20k unmanned spacecraft. So far, so good. When I returned to mission control, I found a large number of long-term or "never expire" missions:

• Science data around Kerbin
  
• Science data around the Mun
  
• Plant flag on the Mun
  
• Explore Minmus
  
• Explore Duna
  
• Explore Ike
  

Naturally I accepted them, and got a hefty chunk of advance money. But what I hadn't expected is that by receiving the advance I also got an instant 274 science points! This seems like too much, and that one should struggle more to get to Minmus.

I'm not a game designer, but I wonder whether it makes sense to limit science "advances"? One possibility could be to restrict science points funded by mission advances. Or allow it, but only after a mission is completed?

What do people think?

Increase your difficulty levels.

There really is no real reason to say something is to strong without relating it to something unchangable via the new difficulty settings. The preset difficulties are already pretty forgiving. The game will only get easier from here on out, with new biomes, contracts and administration techniques the only think keeping everything in check is the fact you can change the game yourself to make it less "easy" if you don't believe it should be as easy.

For the most part the default levels are ment to give a player an easy time. Obviously hard mode is still tough, but anything lower than that can be pretty forgiving for a veteran KSP player.

[Joonatan1998]

The problem with just reducing funds is that you can very rarely build anything and everything must be reusable if you reduce them enough to make science>funds conversion not OP.

[prophet_01]

Yep the difficulty settings fix that mostly. Playing on hard can make it quite unforgiving if you don't exploit the contract system's weak points and keep the recovery and jet engine use reasonable.

I still think that outsourced science needs a.limit on how much you can get from a single contract. It's not that difficulty settings can't fix it, the issue I see it that it is not adapted to the selected setting. If you play on normal or easy thats fine, but judging from the fact that you play career I assume that you don't want to be able to complete the tech tree that fast. I can't rly be objektive here because I am not able to determine how hard ksp 0.25 is to new players. I normally fail about 1 out of 10 missions (not including testflights) and play on the higher settings to make them still matter

[Carmoldu]

I think that when they finish implementing everything they want in career mode, they'll just spend a lot of time ballancing everything so that any strategy is broken. Just give 'em time.

[Red Iron Crown]

finish the game

I hate that this is a thing now. I have never finished a game of KSP, hope I never will.

I like Outsourced R&D, it lets players who dislike the science clickfest still enjoy career mode. Seems like the exchange rate is a bit high, but it might be appropriate for a new player that fails a lot (like most of us did).

[Kegereneku]

Yep the difficulty settings fix that mostly. Playing on hard can make it quite unforgiving if you don't exploit the contract system's weak points and keep the recovery and jet engine use reasonable.

Just to rant, this sort of things is why I don't really like the idea of "fully configurable difficulty setting".

Basically that's asking you to try to fix the game yourself if its mechanic are unbalanced or just completely broken. "The game act funny ? You didn't used the right difficulty setting." The difficulty setting should be a way to renew your game experience, not fix the game.

I AM ranting though. That the "hardest difficulty" is unplayable without using exploit is what I would expect.

[/rant]

[Superfluous J]

The difficulty setting should be a way to renew your game experience, not fix the game.

In all fairness, this is the very first instance of these strategies and they're pretty obviously not balanced. When the game's done (or possibly even next update) I'm sure we'll see a nerf.

And then of course people will complain that it was nerfed

[Kegereneku]

Sure that's fair, In fact they can take up to 1.0 to fix the problem.

I was more ranting against the "fully configurable difficulty setting" than the Strategy system which could be a very good idea to play in different manners. (I'm hoping for a "periodic budget" strategy myself)

[/digressing]

[[email protected]]

I think the science reward should be removed for advances, but leaving it intact for rewards is fine. I'm not sure but it almost appears to have just been an oversight.

[sndrtj]

I think the science reward should be removed for advances, but leaving it intact for rewards is fine. I'm not sure but it almost appears to have just been an oversight.

Entirely agree.

I just accepted "build an outpost on Duna", when I haven't even done a flyby of Duna yet, and got 774 science in advance. That's just ridiculous. The reward should come from achieving it, not in advance.

Also, mission failures do not end in science points being subtracted. It will loose you money, but not science.