Simple suggestions to improve stock Game Balance and Functionality

[Kerano]

Hi devs and fans,

I absolutely love KSP - it's one of my favourite games ever made. I've spent over 1000 hours playing the game since I discovered it in July 2013, and it just keeps getting better with every update. So hats off to HarvesteR and the whole team for their brilliant work!

Over the past few weeks I've invested around 100 hours into a stock KSP 0.90.0 career on Normal difficulty to get a good feel for the new update. (Hey, it's the holidays after all!) In the course of playing, I've noted down a few simple suggestions which I think would greatly improve balance and functionality of the game. I'm sure most of these things have been mentioned before, but I thought it would be nice to compile a whole bunch in one thread. Without further ado, here's my list:

Contracts (functionality)

- Auto sort: By closest deadline

- Auto sort: By planet/moon association

- Auto sort: By reward value

- Auto sort: By contract type

- Custom sort: Allow player to reorder contracts so relevant ones can be pinned at the top of the list during flight, and irrelevant ones stay at the bottom

- Notify player about the maximum 15 contract limit or change it (level 3 upgrade is not "unlimited", if you have accepted 15 contracts no more generate until you finish one)

Contracts (balancing)

- Don't offer unprofitable contracts: Part test rewards in particular should at minimum cover the cost of the part plus a bonus

- Increase most part test rewards by 5-10x to be more in line with Fine Print contract rewards

- Gravity scans of Jool should pay out ~2x current value ($1,000,000+)

- Satellite contracts in low orbits around Jool should pay out ~2x current value ($1,000,000+)

- Satellite contracts in low orbits around the Sun should pay out ~10x current value ($2,500,000+)

- Class D/E asteroid redirect contracts to other planets/moons should pay out ~2x current value ($5,000,000+)

- Don't show class D/E asteroid redirect missions before at least one successful class A/B redirect mission

- Don't offer asteroid redirect missions to a new planet/moon before at least one other contract has been completed at that planet/moon

- "Explore new planet/moon" contracts should be heavily prioritized when appropriate conditions are met (I couldn't reliably get them to generate after Duna and Eve)

Admin

- Balance Funds to Science strategy: ~750 funds to 1 science (currently too powerful)

- Balance Science to Funds strategy: 1 science to ~500 funds (currently too weak)

VAB/SPH

- Add at least one upgrade level between 30 parts and 255 parts

Launchpad/Runway

- Add at least one upgrade level between 18 tonnes and 140 tonnes

Tracking Station

- Add ship identification category: "Planes"

Upgradable Buildings

- Scale upgrade costs based on difficulty level: 0.5x on Easy, 1.5x on Moderate, 2.0x on Hard

- Reduce upgrade costs by ~30% on Normal difficulty (I found it quite challenging as a veteran player, my brother as a relative newbie got stuck)

Biomes

- Consistent results when doing science high above a body: should always be "in space high above X" (sometimes you instead get "in space high above X's midlands/other biome", doesn't make sense when you've just entered the SOI and the planet is a few pixels across)

Reputation

- Make the asymptotic reputation system less obscure: List the "real" gains/losses from the missions (e.g. when you're at 900 reputation and get +100 from a mission you don't hit 1000 reputation)

Parts

- Bigger wheels

- Bigger wings

- Bigger jet engines

Bonus

- Gas Planet 2?

Please feel free to add your own suggestions below.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Kerano

[Commander Jebidiah]

This should be in the suggestions and development discussion sub-forum not in this sub-forum.

But other than that I agree with you but I think my favorite thing on your list is a category for planes

[Troubletcat]

I generally agree, but I'd like to point out that building upgrade costs DO scale with difficulty - specifically, they're based on the "Funds Penalties" slider. Although upgrade costs should really have their own separate control.

Also don't personally agree with reducing upgrade costs on normal, I found getting to the second tier of buildings on normal to be very quick.

I think there was mention of bigger landing gear/legs being planned for a patch in the near future. I also think that there's going to be an intermediary stage of upgrades for weight/part counts like you mentioned - remember, one tier of the KSC was pulled from the update because people didn't like the art for it, to be included again later.

But yeah, good points about balance, especially strategies - those really need some tweaking. I haven't noticed inconsistency with science high above planets but if that's there it should certainly be fixed.

[CaptainKipard]

tl;dr

Just some advice. Don't make suggestion complilations. No one likes reading them. Do one at a time.

Advice #2, give your thread a meaningful name.

[Xavven]

I've noticed the Gravioli detector gives you biomes "above midlands" etc. from high in space above x. Everything else that I know of just gives you a single "in space high above x" without the extra biomes.

EDIT: Huh... I rather enjoyed the compilation of suggestions since they were each well thought out. Oh well.

[CaptainKipard]

Maybe it's just me, but I've been here a while and it's getting really difficult sifting through all the nonsense. There's a lot to read in this whole section, not just this thread.

[Kerano]

I find the suggestions forum difficult to read precisely because ideas are often spread - and repeated - across too many different threads. I've tried posting things individually in the past and they just get lost after a few days. I prefer having a single "to do" list I can link to, especially when they're (mostly) all pretty quick fixes. Each to their own I guess.

And this bulletpoint-list style is me being concise by the way. I'm usually much more verbose.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Kerano