How To Alter Part Performance Without Messing Up The Game

[Torquemadus]

Currently, Sandbox Mode allows us to play the game without constraints. No science. No tech tree. No money. Build anything you want without having to unlock the parts you need or earn the funds needed to pay for them.

In Sandbox, I can build an Apollo Saturn 5 replica and fly it to the Mun. I can build a giant space station that dwarfs the ISS. I can send a monster interplanetary spaceship with dozens of crew to establish a base on one of Jool's moons. Why? Because I can. That's why. I can build anything I want, let my imagination run wild and have a lot of fun doing it.

Career Mode places obstacles in our way to add challenge and strategy to the game. Each mission I send out is another step along the road towards the ultimate goal of overcoming all the challenges Career Mode has to offer. There are constraints that limit what I can do. At each step, I'm working to push back those limits so that I can do more and progress further.

I start out with limited funds and a limited number of parts. As I progress through the game, I unlock more parts and earn more funds. I have to carefully decide which tech tree nodes to spend my precious science points on. Which parts do I pay funds to unlock? How can I get maximum mission return from my spacecraft for minimum cost? Do I really need to unlock that expensive new part, or should I try to complete the mission without it?

Note: If you want Career Mode to be challenging and fun to play, you need to increase the difficulty offered far beyond the 60% resource returns offered by "Hard" difficulty. "Hard" mode is a free lunch at current difficulty settings.

0.90 introduces upgradeable buildings and upgradeable kerbals (through experience). We are told that this will improve the performance of parts through better ISP, more thrust, and so on. This has been pointed out as a potential game-breaker. It has therefore been suggested that upgradeable buildings and kerbals will ruin the game and should not be implemented.

Let's say that Squad keep the relationship between Sandbox and Career as they are now: Sandbox is KSP without constraints, Career adds constraints to make the game more challenging. How does upgradeable part performance fit in with this?

An obvious approach is that Sandbox presents the parts without constraints, while Career imposes constraints on the parts to make the game more challenging. Suddenly, this turns the idea of upgradeable parts upside down and makes this feature a positive change, not a negative one.

Let's set this out clearly: I start a career save with limited science, limited funds, and limited engine performance. In this context, upgrades to buildings and kerbals suddenly make a lot more sense. Sandbox gives me each part at full performance without any constraints. Career mode downgrades the performance of each part unless I upgrade my facilities and train my pilots.

If parts have less thrust and less ISP unless I expend resources to upgrade them, then part upgrades become a way to make the game harder, more challenging and more fun.

[Pecan]

...0.90 introduces upgradeable buildings and upgradeable kerbals (through experience). We are told that this will improve the performance of parts through better ISP, more thrust, and so on. This has been pointed out as a potential game-breaker. It has therefore been suggested that upgradeable buildings and kerbals will ruin the game and should not be implemented.

NO - We have been told that experience will NOT improve the performance of parts through better ISP, more thrust, and so on. That's what Squad intended to do and exactly what so many people objected to. The same objections apply for the same reasons to such 'improvements' via upgradeable buildings.

NO - Hardly anyone said that upgradeable buildings and Kerbal experience will ruin the game and should not be implemented. People have suggested several alternative ways these could be useful, interesting and/or fun without affecting basic mechanics or physics.

...Note: If you want Career Mode to be challenging and fun to play, you need to increase the difficulty offered far beyond the 60% resource returns offered by "Hard" difficulty. "Hard" mode is a free lunch at current difficulty settings....Let's set this out clearly: I start a career save with limited science, limited funds, and limited engine performance. In this context, upgrades to buildings and kerbals suddenly make a lot more sense. Sandbox gives me each part at full performance without any constraints. Career mode downgrades the performance of each part unless I upgrade my facilities and train my pilots.

Nooo, but I understand what you mean. You probably have quite a different definition of 'fun' than Squad or most new players would though. Masochists, maybe, but not the average KSP player (if there is such a thing).

Then again, my own favourite option is for Kerbal experience to implement features of MechJeb - navigator/pilots can plot/execute manoeuvre nodes for the player if requested. There are quite a few people who think it's critical to KSP that the player is always the pilot so hate that idea.

I think we all have to accept that Squad started with the 'simulator' side of things, so stuff works more or less. As the game gets closer to beta they're concentrating on the 'game' parts to flesh things out and appeal to a broader range of customers. Naturally, the people who liked 'simulator' are less likely to be excited about watering that down for 'game' components we don't care about at best or, at worst, actively dislike. As such whatever Squad do now there are likely to be existing/old players who hate it.