Research Changes

[Master]

I've been playing the same since the first public concept demo and I really enjoy seeing the direction the game is going in but I have one problem which pretty much destroys any fun I have in the game.

The tech tree...

The way the tech tree is set up still feels like a temporary fix and it destroys any fun you can have in the career mode. There is no randomness to it and there is no actual research. You just buy groups of unrelated tech with a research currency.

I would rather see a tech system more similar to that in a x^3 game (explore expand exterminate). Something like in Sword of the Stars or Masters of Orion.

You select a category and research over time based on how much money and how much research in related fields you put into it.

The problem with the current system is that if you want to build a plane or something with wheels you have to put a ton of research into completely unrelated and unwanted tech.

It would also be nice if there was a bit of randomness to the parts you research. I know there was a huge stink about parts needing to be universal for space ship consistency between players but really that is not needed for career mode. Keep all the parts at 100% in sandbox if you must but allow different levels of the same part in career. SO you might research an specific engine and that engine might become more powerful / better fuel efficiency if you put more research into it and level it up.

There has to be a BETTER way to do the research. I hate the current way.

[Bill Phil]

I think there should be "cheap" parts, and these parts that are cheap will have random failures.

[tater]

I think there should be "cheap" parts, and these parts that are cheap will have random failures.

The devs don't like random failure, apparently.

I think that the tech tree should be redone, and when you "unlock" tech, it is "X-tech." Experimental tech can fail, and it cannot become "flight rated" until run through tests that are less silly than current part test contracts.

Unlock a new engine, then have to use it for XXX seconds, for example, a percentage of with have to be different places (orbit, Mun orbit, whatever).

[Sof]

I think there should be "cheap" parts, and these parts that are cheap will have random failures.

There won't be any parts that have inherent failures built in.

The KSP devs have stated that part failure is out of the question, thus any failures can be traced back the players mistakes (ideally)

Any rocket built in KSP will always fly the same as any identical rocket every time.

[Yemo]

I consider the "science" resource to be something like influence on the public/government/scientific community.

Eg pictures/experiments from the mars rovers today help to secure the development of new vehicles/rockets/parts for future missions.

If you want a more reasonable progression (within limits, since SQUAD decided to make the initial missions not moddable and eg the altitude contracts can only be done by manned vessels),

you may want to check out my SETI-BalanceMod. It rebalances the gameplay with the help of other mods.

On level 1 you only have unmanned solid boosters, level 2 gets you simple manned rockets, on level 3 you may make meaningful choices, like liquid fuel rockets or jet planes.

Level 4 offers the standard crew capsule for space manned space flight, level 5 provides docking ports, rover wheels and landing cans.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Yemo

[Bill Phil]

Oh, yeah. But the point is if you use the super cheap stuff it's your fault if it fails because you chose to be greedy.