From Long to Hard Mode

[Heimdall5008]

I would change the science parts so that you gain only negligible science and lose reputation, if you use them without a contract. Science from contracts makes sense, while science from space janitors fooling around and doing unplanned experiments doesn't.

Or maybe you would need a contract or a scientist kerbal on the ship to get any benefit from science parts.

Most people here find that the game is at the moment to much focused on the contracts and that you have no reason to make exploration missions outside of the Kerbin system. But interplantetary missions are what is the really difficult part in the game, so I think you should be more "encouraged" to do interplanetary missions the higher the difficult setting.

If you go interplanetary with contracts or without is another question. If you want to go contract driven, you could just give a maximum number of contracts per body. Therefore you are forced to go interplanetary.

[tater]

The contract system should explicitly point people to certain planetary missions when the launch windows from Kerbin are good. Instead of some arbitrary requirement like holds 18 kerbals, it should be "an ideal launch window is approaching for Duna on day 200, send a probe to gain science from Duna orbit."

This would teach players where the windows are (you only need see the relative position once. A harder version of the same might be a sample return (manned or unmanned), and it might include the best window back to Kerbin.

[ghpstage]

Isn't that against the point of playing on Hard?

There are really only around two parts that you don't get with the tier-1 R&D that are useful for interplanetary trips. Docking ports make complex missions easier, as you're no longer restricted to linear staging. Nuclear engines reduce rocket size significantly, if you're going beyond Duna and Eve. Everything else just adds more variety to your missions.

People will generally take the easy route.

If you can spam incredibly easy missions, that take very little time to complete, and have absurd payouts, then most people will.

I've got the same problem as Tater. Time is a weird thing.

My launch window to Duna is ~160 days out and I'm on tier 2 of the Tech Tree. I'm pretty sure I'll complete it just motoring around killing time and doing contracts long before the window even opens up. I tend to be a bit obsessive about 'efficiency', so I see no reason not to use all that time to my advantage before we even leave for the Solar SOI, though I do need to go stick a habitat out there.

I'm somewhere between a mediocre and a decent player. I still crash space planes, I screw up my dV needs, I poorly estimate the dV needed to 'bounce' between landing sites, etc. Hard... isn't. Some of the limitations are fun, like 30 part/18t trips to Mun. I really don't have much reason to leave Kerbin's SOI though to reach 'endgame'. I've also got all the time in the world. I can launch 12 rockets a day if I want, so there's no real feeling of pressure. The only things that 'pressure' my time are my own maneuver nodes.

I'm not quite sure how to fix that though. How do you make it so that Duna, 170 days away, makes SENSE as the next exploration target, and yet you can't complete the entire tech tree and fully upgrade before that launch window even arrives? Okay, yes, you CAN launch to Duna earlier if you want. Heck, you can Jool-5 on day 1 if you launch enough dV into orbit. That's not Hard though, just time consuming.

This is another major problem, having to fiddle around with timewarp in order to rush a planetary window is annoying, boring and goes against the natural drive to get as much as you can get done in as little time as possible.

In order to solve it the rate of launches has to be cut, and by a lot. Perhaps the mod that requires time to build rockets has the right idea on this.

I would change the science parts so that you gain only negligible science and lose reputation, if you use them without a contract. Science from contracts makes sense, while science from space janitors fooling around and doing unplanned experiments doesn't.

Or maybe you would need a contract or a scientist kerbal on the ship to get any benefit from science parts.

I disagree on this.

It would make perfect sense that the KSC would plan its own, independent science missions, and its perfectly balanced as they would be coming entirely out of the players pocket!

Requiring scientists for experiments would make probes 100% worthless, and they are already limited enough as it is. It would also make the early game extremely difficult for those who can't fly without SAS.

The real problem with science right now, is the easy, and infinite supply available from repeatable contracts. Once science from those contracts is gone, then biome science can be rebalanced as needed.

The contract system should explicitly point people to certain planetary missions when the launch windows from Kerbin are good. Instead of some arbitrary requirement like holds 18 kerbals, it should be "an ideal launch window is approaching for Duna on day 200, send a probe to gain science from Duna orbit."

This would teach players where the windows are (you only need see the relative position once. A harder version of the same might be a sample return (manned or unmanned), and it might include the best window back to Kerbin.

I would say that this touches on a significant weakness of the game. A serious lack of useful information, and basic tutorials for new players.

Once you have the basic idea of how to get into orbit, it becomes very easy, but as there is no tutorial that actually teaches it, it remains a massive obstacle for newcomers.

Likewise, once you have even a vague idea about interplanetary windows, such as Duna when its around 45 degrees ahead of Kerbin, Eve when its around 50-60 degrees behind and Jool when its a little over 90 degrees ahead, then it becomes very reasonable to get to these places . Without that knowledge however, getting to any of these places reliably is just baffling!

Edited January 11, 2015 by ghpstage
typo

[Jouni]

The real problem with science right now, is the easy, and infinite supply available from repeatable contracts. Once science fomo those contracts is gone, then biome science can be rebalanced as needed.

The real problem is that the current science system can't be salvaged. It's bad game mechanics, where you not only have to grind pointlessly, but to do so with ten superficially different systems. Crew reports, EVA reports, surface samples, and all the different science parts are all the same, but they just come with different flavor texts.

The contract system, on the other hand, shows real promise. While the science system is essentially a checklist (do all these things in all these environments), the contract system combines achievements and challenges.

The achievements could replace the old science system entirely. Once you reach a milestone (launch a rocket, reach space, orbit Kerbin, complete a flyby of a planet, land on a planet, walk on a planet), you get a reward. If the craft has an antenna, you get a part of the reward immediately. The rest of the reward comes once you have recovered the craft.

Then there are the challenges. Some would be random contracts based on your reputation and achievements. The challenges could require launching a mission-specific science package with the ship or having one or more scientists in the crew. All missions to a particular planet would deplete the same planet-wide science pool, which would grow every time you upgrade the R&D. If the random contracts aren't enough, the player could generate new challenges by choosing the destination and the difficulty of the challenge (and maybe some other parameters as well). These generated challenges would be similar to random contracts, but without monetary rewards and penalties.

[tater]

I would say that this touches on a significant weakness of the game. A serious lack of useful information, and basic tutorials for new players.

Once you have the basic idea of how to get into orbit, it becomes very easy, but as there is no tutorial that actually teaches it, it remains a massive obstacle for newcomers.

Likewise, once you have even a vague idea about interplanetary windows, such as Duna when its around 45 degrees ahead of Kerbin, Eve when its around 50-60 degrees behind and Jool when its a little over 90 degrees ahead, then it becomes very reasonable to get to these places . Without that knowledge however, getting to any of these places reliably is just baffling!

Yeah, which is why the contract system could actually educate players without having to watch tutorials. It would be neat if the contract could include a picture at the top, click it, and it shows a whiteboard, and on that whiteboard is some crappy (kerbtastic!) drawing like the IVA post-it notes. You could have a quick and dirty diagram of when the best time for a Mun shot is, or whatever.

I suggested something similar for the VAB regarding delta v for new players. As simple as a line drawing of a curved kerbin surface, and a rocket flight path curve with a rough altitude written at the top that shows how far it might go. once it hits orbital velocity for the craft, it would just draw a circle. Add more, and it might show lines to Mun and Minmus with a ? (meaning either), or Duna, whatever it might be able to go to. This gives the "no data" feel the devs seem to like, but some information for new players.

[NWM]

At first: the basic concept of the diffisculty setting is wrong!

The hardcore player wants more hardness, and not more tedious money-earning missions! Implement scale-able Remotetech, life support and more realism mods in the game as difficulty factors. Those would give more hardness for the daring players then dozens of survey missions.

Make contracts more resonable - why does a naked survery mission give more science point than a real science mission on that area?

The cost of the buildings are right (in comparison with other cost they are even very cheap! Have you ever seen pictures of the NASA's VAB?)

[Jouni]

The hardcore player wants more hardness, and not more tedious money-earning missions! Implement scale-able Remotetech, life support and more realism mods in the game as difficulty factors. Those would give more hardness for the daring players then dozens of survey missions.

People want different things from the harder difficulty levels. I'd expect that all realism features would be active on Normal, because they're just about the physics simulation working as intended. If there's an option to make a part of the simulation artificially easier, it would belong to the easier difficulty levels.

For me, harder difficulty levels mean that players should attempt ambitious missions before they're really ready for it. Restrict the amount of science and money available from near Kerbin, and the player has to launch low-tech interplanetary missions from low-tier facilities.

Features like RemoteTech and life support are gameplay features, not difficulty options. If they're implemented, they should already be active on Normal, as it's the default difficulty level the game should be designed for.

Make contracts more resonable - why does a naked survery mission give more science point than a real science mission on that area?

Because the survey missions are real science, while the missions with science parts are just janitors playing with fancy equipment.

[tater]

Life support profoundly changes game difficulty, IMO. It also changes gameplay, but of all the basic "realism" mods, it's the only one that changes difficulty IMO. You need to think about discrete missions, or actually plan. Past Kerbin SoI becomes far more complex when you need a years LS. Rescue missions become time critical. I see that is "harder."

Failures also increase difficulty. That's why going to the moon was difficult. The upper stages needed engines that would almost certainly function since any failure would be fatal, or require a backup system (even if improvised like Apollo 13) to function.

I think the devs should really reevaluate failures. They think it would be frustrating, but having to extemporize solutions is FUN, and it provides a role for skills.

[Frank327]

The way you play the game also influences how much it is either grinding easy missions or working through difficult missions. The way the creator of this thread played, it's always going to be grinding easy missions.

Three things determine how difficult (and rewarding) the available contracts will be:

1. How much reputation do you have?

2. How many pioneering contracts have you finished (like escape atmosphere/explore mun/explore eve)

3. What parts have you unlocked with science?

If you do the pioneering contracts as soon as you can and you don't give away rep in the admin building and you research specific techs early, the game will be very quick. If you sacrifice your reputation for science and don't go beyond kerbin SOI before level 3 R&D then you're choosing to make it a grindy game. Once you go beyond Eve/Duna it's not uncommon to get 4-5m funds in one launch (on moderate). And Eve/duna missions with multiple contracts can definately give you more than a million per launch.

[tater]

I don't even pay attention to funds, it's never an issue in my experience.

[fairytalefox]

What about this:

1) No difficulty settings at all. Finances and science are tuned to something reasonable.

2) You start with Sandbox mode unlocked only.

3) Achieving X (i.e. flagging Eeloo) in Sandbox unlocks Science mode.

4) Achieving Y (i.e. getting Eve soil samples back to Kerbin) in Science mode unlocks Career.

5) Achieving Z (i.e. ... dunno... something really great) in Career shows you the final cutscene and credits. After the cutscene ends, you can continue playing.

6) Everything is moddable.

Edited January 12, 2015 by fairytalefox
#6 added