Building prices definitely need tweaking

[SkyRender]

So now that I've properly sat down and toyed around a bit with 0.90, I can say with certainty that the building upgrade prices are too high across the board. Even on Normal, it turns the game into a tedious grindfest to churn out enough Funds to get your facilities upgraded to a level that makes them even marginally useful. On Hard it's just absurd, since not only do you have double the cost of the already-too-expensive Normal building upgrades, but you're getting about half the funds from contracts, meaning it's actually three or four times more tedious (not to be mistaken for three or four times harder, which it's very much not). Just getting the Space Center up to a level where a typical player could reasonably attempt a Mun mission costs almost a million Funds simply in upgrading facilities on Normal, which grinding out from contracts around Kerbin will take hours of tedious repetition of quickly-tiresome Kerbin-centric missions and part testing contracts.

It's not really very fun this way is what I'm getting at here. I think the missing building tier would probably help quite a bit with this problem (the jump between tier 1 and tier 2 space center facilities in terms of gameplay option expansion is often jarringly huge right now), but even that would not change the fact that you could run a full-scale mission to Jool and all of its moons for less than it costs just to get R&D up to tier 2, let alone get your VAB, launchpad, mission control, astronaut complex, and tracking station up to par for a basic interplanetary mission.

[impyre]

In my opinion, the problem isn't the building prices. It's the default difficulty settings, and the fact that building prices are tied to "Fund penalties" section. Penalties and costs should be two different things entirely... and imo all costs should scale together. IE: if "cost percentage" is increased, then building costs, research costs (if enabled), and part costs should all increase by the same amount. Also, the default percentage settings need to be tweaked to reflect the changes in game play due to the new mechanics. Personally, I like to set fund income to a higher percentage and then increase failure penalties to twice the percentage of income (so I'll set income up to 150% and penalties up to 300%) because what's the point if there's no risk? Alas, this makes the R&D building cost 1.5 mil for the first upgrade, which is just ludicrous (sense right now building cost scales with penalties setting). This has the effect of making it very hard to find a nice balance where it isn't overly difficult or grindy... but not so easy that money is pointless.

I dunno, I like all the new features... but it just seems like they completely forgot about difficulty settings. I've played KSP long enough to feel very comfortable in the game, so I like to have a lot of risk (and hard setting on the previous version did this, you could make money... but not if you mess up)... unfortunately that means that you only bring in smaller amounts of money at a time, and combine this with increasing building costs (due to difficulty) makes it a serious grindfest that isn't really worth the effort.

Edited December 17, 2014 by impyre

[WuphonsReach]

It would be less of an issue if there were more tiers and more gradual increases in the weight limit / part limit of the VAB/SPH/Runway/Launchpad (in particular).

With six tiers, it could be 10k, 20k, 40k, 100k, 200k, 400k

VAB/SPH unlocks could be 30 parts, 60, 100, 200, 300, etc.

Runway/Launchpad could be 20t, 40t, 100t, 200t, 400t, etc.

[Ignamious]

If i remember from a Tuesday neb note a month ago, there is supposed to be another stage to the upgrade but they didn't finish it in time, and rather then delay the update or push a poor product the decided to hold it till the next beta patch.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/0ff9377afa68dc3ad3fe6844aaf1bd38/tumblr_inline_newgmkVhgw1rr2wit.jpg

Max (Maxmaps): .Had a veritable mountain of feedback to sort through after the building showcase. Other than that, a ton of good stuff is coming along in QA regarding editors and experience. Our version of Fine Print has been growing into a lovely thing, and Porkjet, is once agian knocking it out of the park with the new MK3 models.

On the feedback though, there is more to be said. We had communications issues regarding the state of the models that we showed you and ended up picking work that wasn’t really ready to showcase. We have been working hard at Squad to up the graphical standard the KSP community deserves and displaying roughly the earliest 20% of the work that so far had been done as the culmination of it was not the right way to go about it. It actually ended up being a great thing, though, as after several meetings and long talks, all your feedback lead to the reevaluation of a lot of the work currently being done.

All those buildings are now going through a thorough revision and the ones showcased in all likelihood will therefore not be ready for 0.90. Fear not, as we have a whole second tier of visual buildings (think industrial park turned space center) that need only minor adjustments and will be there to showcase the upgradable buildings as a feature.

So once more, thank you for your feedback, enthusiasm and support. Where other communities would have turned downright toxic you (mostly!) just showered us in constructive criticism and we can never be thankful enough for that.

They may have decided to just nix the barn, and start at industrial stage. but have the currant visual stage 1 as stage 2 and adding in the barn series as the new stage 1 with current stats and adjusting the prices for 4 states would change the costs a bit.

either way, i don't find the costs much, after only 5 missions i've upgraded 1/2 the buildings to T2 and am almost at the unlock point for the >100 science in the R&D. i have my Moon mission and am building a rocket and lander for it now testing out the different components and finish contracts (i got my first rescue mission after finishing my first orbit contract! Yeah for 60k.

[asheft]

If i remember from a Tuesday neb note a month ago, there is supposed to be another stage to the upgrade but they didn't finish it in time, and rather then delay the update or push a poor product the decided to hold it till the next beta patch.

They may have decided to just nix the barn, and start at industrial stage. but have the currant visual stage 1 as stage 2 and adding in the barn series as the new stage 1 with current stats and adjusting the prices for 4 states would change the costs a bit.

either way, i don't find the costs much, after only 5 missions i've upgraded 1/2 the buildings to T2 and am almost at the unlock point for the >100 science in the R&D. i have my Moon mission and am building a rocket and lander for it now testing out the different components and finish contracts (i got my first rescue mission after finishing my first orbit contract! Yeah for 60k.

Hopefully while they are revising the barn tier (or possibly later during beta) they can add in another tier (preferably one higher than the "current" (pre-0.90) one) so that there can be the full 5 upgrade tiers...

Edit: Also, which difficulty setting are you using?

[SkyRender]

Hopefully while they are revising the barn tier (or possibly later during beta) they can add in another tier (preferably one higher than the "current" (pre-0.90) one) so that there can be the full 5 upgrade tiers...

Edit: Also, which difficulty setting are you using?

And what contracts are you taking that pay out so well, for that matter? Most of them seem to peak at around 50,000, which leads to an awful lot of grindgrindgrindgrindgrind just to get even one building upgrade.

[Robotengineer]

I believe the current prices for buildings are reasonable, and it is actually the contract/funds system that is broken. Some contracts are just plain stupid, what difference does it make if I text a small gear bay landed in Minmus or orbiting Kerbin? Aside from difficulty?

I would opt for a budget system, in which your rep determines your budget size, and missions have to be funded, for the duration of the mission, and science will allow new parts/technologies, and upgradeable parts. NASA's VAB wasn't built before the Apollo missions, so you shouldn't need to upgrade your VAB before you go to the Mun. I do like the Fine Print additions, I think there should be more story to them, i.e Kerbin is experiencing climate change, take barometer and temp readings from x, y and z.

On the mission funding, currently there is only the launch cost, which is ridiculous. You should have to have some Scientist Kerbals to be able to analyze the data, and you should have to pay them. There should be hazards, not necessarily DangIt, but some sort of surface volcanoes or geysers maybe. I need to get my thoughts organized and make a mod.

[SkyRender]

I believe the current prices for buildings are reasonable, and it is actually the contract/funds system that is broken.

How exactly are building prices reasonable when I can run a full-scale mission to Jool and all of its moons for less than it costs to upgrade just the R&D facility to level 2? I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this.

EDIT: Converting prices between US dollars and Funds (approximately), the Kennedy Space Center would have cost about $25,000,000,000 US to build if it were built at KSP prices.

Edited December 17, 2014 by SkyRender

[Aragosnat]

Yeah. They do need some adjustments. In my 0.25 save. I had a contract to have a newly descovered roid towed to Duna for an advanced of what was(?) 250 to 500 k for and end of 1.5 mil funds. Sure I would have plenty of time since it said needed to be completed within 5 years and could have funded it. But, if my KSC was not maxed out already. I still would not have had enough to make such possible. As getting such a mission at the start of any game would not happen. At a guess unlikely too.

So in a sense it is a combination of contracts are not paying enough to as well as the building upgrades being expensive. But, I look at what the ships that I make cost and think most of the contracts are just right for doing that.

[SkyRender]

In the interest of being a helpful tester, I did a few test runs with current pricing on Normal, adjusting down funds penalties for failed contracts as a makeshift building price adjustment slider. What I found is that the "sweet spot" for your typical player (ie. the sort who would choose Normal instead of Easy, but would steer clear of Moderate or Hard) would be somewhere around 50% of current prices. I was able, upon achieving orbit, to upgrade enough facilities that I would be able to reasonably perform a Mun mission in short order were I a typical player (ie. I had the tracking station, astronaut complex, mission control, and launchpad upgraded to rank 2; the VAB upgrade is the main hurdle left, and at it's well within reach via another launch or two). The price level wasn't quite as bad off as I thought, which was a nice surprise! Though custom control of building prices with an intuitive and independent difficulty slider is definitely something I'd recommend for a future update.

[impyre]

In the interest of being a helpful tester, I did a few test runs with current pricing on Normal, adjusting down funds penalties for failed contracts as a makeshift building price adjustment slider. What I found is that the "sweet spot" for your typical player (ie. the sort who would choose Normal instead of Easy, but would steer clear of Moderate or Hard) would be somewhere around 50% of current prices. I was able, upon achieving orbit, to upgrade enough facilities that I would be able to reasonably perform a Mun mission in short order were I a typical player (ie. I had the tracking station, astronaut complex, mission control, and launchpad upgraded to rank 2; the VAB upgrade is the main hurdle left, and at it's well within reach via another launch or two). The price level wasn't quite as bad off as I thought, which was a nice surprise! Though custom control of building prices with an intuitive and independent difficulty slider is definitely something I'd recommend for a future update.

This is my original point. The problem isn't contract payouts or building prices... it's having building costs linked to failure costs. For those of us that want a more risky game (hence turning off quicksave/quickload) by decreasing payouts a bit and increasing penalties for failure, it turns into a grindfest because building prices scale way too fast. Since those percentages can't be changed once the game starts, you have pretty much two choices: 1) turn up payouts, in which case the beginning is more reasonable... but then when better contracts come in money quickly becomes an issue of the past... essentially making all the upgrades just one more thing to spend endless funds on, or 2) turn up penalties... in which case the later game makes more sense, but the beginning is unbearable.

Simply unlinking costs and penalties would do the trick... and it's an easy enough fix. One variable and one extra slider. This way you could increase penalties for failure and reclaim the feeling of risk that made hard mode so great in the last version, without introducing grind-fest.

As a side note, I personally think it would be nice if there were also a contract difficulty setting that could decrease deadlines (based on the location of the task) to actually create some risk of failing contracts... as right now it's pretty much more than enough time to get any contract done... even if it takes you 20 tries or more (at which point it really becomes more about cost vs payout and less about failure vs success).

EDIT: Sorry if that sounded argumentative, it wasn't meant that way.

Edited December 17, 2014 by impyre
clarification

[MKI]

How exactly are building prices reasonable when I can run a full-scale mission to Jool and all of its moons for less than it costs to upgrade just the R&D facility to level 2? I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this.

EDIT: Converting prices between US dollars and Funds (approximately), the Kennedy Space Center would have cost about $25,000,000,000 US to build if it were built at KSP prices.

Don't compare this game to real life. in terms of finances. Its bogus, ESPECIALLY when we are talking a video game with a monetary system called just "funds"

Building prices are reasonable.

Because they are critical, and you can't go to jool if you don't upgrade your buidlings. Hell you can hardly go to the moon without upgrading something.

They keep you from progressing to fast, and force you to fund some back end support with your missions rather than just re-investing your cash into more missions.

Like any stratigy game there needs to be some sort of upgrading/ risk and reward system. You can invest into a higher tech, or invest into more right . Same goes for this game, you can invest into high prices buildings for the future. Or invest into missions right now to get by.

You must remember Career is just as much upgrading your Facilities as it is building your crafts and flying them.

If you neglect 1 of the three you will have trouble.

I have so far played the game on Moderate and found myself thinking creativly to get through the early stages of the game.(also no mods either)

Simply put the 3 most critical upgrades are in this order:

1. Launchpad

2. VAB

3. Tracking Center

Being the three critical buildings (SPH is fourth but only later) they have the most impact on progression, especially early. The rest of the buildings provide support and functionality, but are not critical to mission building or handling.

Simply put the launchpad is the hardest one, and by far the most important. For the most part your left with Sub-Orbital missions and Orbital missions. I personally got creative and did a flyby of the moon to pay for a majority of my Launchpad upgrade. And Probe landings and Satellite missions to pay for the VAB.

So no its not unresonable pricing, its totally possible to play the game on moderate. I consider myself a solid KSP player but no pro. I took some chances and enjoyed the fact that if i screwed up (I actually had to redesignated a Moon mission due to lack of Delta-V) I Would be set back a lot.

Otherwise the early game does need tweaking. Your space center is very strapped for cash early on, and you really need to focus on what you do early as every move and mission is critical. It doesn't hurt to do something very daring early (like my 3 moon missions before the VAB upgrade) but it also makes things much more gridy if you don't.

I totally believe another tier (which is in development) would help smooth out the early transition. As once you get those three buildings upgrades things get much easier. 125 part count is a huge jump from 30, and allows you to do almost anything inside the Kerbin System with ease.

In the end even on normal it shouldn't be so easy as you can get through most of the career early on without much trouble. I believe Career has been to easy. And this update changes that by forcing you to pay to get better functionality out of your facilities. Things still need to be balanced out, but until then things are still good enough to play through. If anything the game can only get easier from this point on until Squad adds something totally new to impact career progression.

Edited December 17, 2014 by MKI

[ddenis]

I don't see any sense in arguing about the prices of buildings... because we all play with different difficulty settings... at least without adding your settings before you words.

E.g. mine:

Upgrades cost:

Launchpad - 104 000

VAB - 420 000

Tracking station - 280 000

R&D - 1 020 000

Mission Control - 64 000

I've started with 10 000. After completing next contracts (below) I have "66 000"

So my point is - There's no point in discussing prices or in words like "I've managed to update main facilities after X missions". I think it would be right to say, that a separate settings is needed for prices. They have to be a separate difficulty scalier, not less, not more.

[korvanos]

I was really interested in the upgradeable buildings, not just for "challenge" but because it gives the game depth and feeds the player almost a story.

But at least on the default normal settings the buildings cost way too much, and the early contracts just don't pay enough. Not only that but these contracts are essentially idiotic. I'm getting "survey random kerbal spot" missions before I have aircraft, before I can make manuever nodes (hell before I can even eva). And even if I can manage them, they don't pay beans.

It just leads to grinding away at unfun and annoying contracts to get enough cash to build buildings. Instead of building rockets and doing cool space stuff (which I have the tech for), i'm struggling to upgrade the kerbal hotel so my kerbals can eva. Or i'm scrimping up change to upgrade the launchpad.

Either buildings need tweaking, or the contracts. Probably both.

[basic.syntax]

As you complete contracts, reputation goes up and contract quality / pay go up. It does seem a bit grindy through the first 20 contracts, but that impression also depends on if you think working with the first level VAB and 30 parts is a "grind" - or an interesting set of puzzles to solve. (I'm not using any mods.) I was reminded of a scene in the movie Apollo 13, after a big accident knocks out C02 scrubbers, the guys in mission control dump a box of random parts on a table: the sum total of what the returning crew has available, and come up with an ingenious solution.

Once you start getting orbit contracts, and figure out the method of matching orbits, funds start rolling in. Those plus some aerial surveys (that I did by launching a parachute-plane attached to a clamp above the runway, because I didn't have wheels yet) brought me to the first VAB upgrade.

Then I was offered an orbit contract of *the sun*, that would pay out 4x the typical Kerbin orbit... and decided I had met my personal limit of challenges for the day, and let it go

[harlikwin]

I think there is a basic misunderstanding of how to use your reputation to manage contracts. the more rep you have the better they pay and the better contracts you get. On normal mode I got a 750k contract to test a toroidal aerospike in like a 100k orbit. That was some absurdly EASY money... Especially since I just replaced my normal injection stage motor with it and used it on my way to another Mun survey contract.

I think the key thing is not to turn your reputation into science or money as you end up with crappier contracts. I usually have more science than cash by mid-late game so thats an easy thing to convert to either rep or cash.

A new strategy I'm testing is turning early game sci into repuatation which should = more cash and sci...

Also I think it would be trivial to add a building cost slider to the difficulty screen and this would greatly reduce complaints.

Edited December 22, 2014 by harlikwin

[bdito]

I don't think the upgrade prices are too large but they have to rebalance the administrative building perks a bit to make it easier to earn money. The perks maximum trade off for turning science into money is 10:1. So for a mission that pays 200 science (a tonne in the KSP universe) I can only turn that into $2000. That's way too low when a mission that pays that much science usually pays out something like $100,000+.

On the flip side, the maximum money to science ratio is about 35:1. It's not balanced.

[Wanderfound]

At least a part of this is based on players thinking that they need all the building upgrades when they really don't. Going to the Mun with all buildings still at base level is quite simple; just use the old "burn at Munrise" trick, and cut thrust when your apoapsis hits Munar altitude. Patched conics displays are a luxury, not a necessity.

The most limiting initial building restrictions to me are the 18t Launchpad weight limit (which is plenty enough for a Munar flyby, but is a bit tight for a land & return mission), the EVA ban from the basic Astronaut Complex, and the 2-contract limit from Mission Control. Those are the only buildings that I've bothered to upgrade so far.