Kerbal Space Program 0.22 anticipation thread

[Sandrew]

...and so it begins ;)

Now I'm almost tempted to buy KSP...

[devak]

...and so it begins

I so wanted to just launch something up and have it crash back down, rather than being forced to be conservative on Kerbals. Thanks

and yea, a solid rocket brings stuff up pretty high, pretty fast. Can't wait till my Stayputnik stays put (in orbit!)

[FlowerChild]

it actually is on the game but it only work for low orbit EVA reports...

Interesting. I might be able to do something with that then as there's apparently a number of bit flags for determining experiment context.

[Taleric]

Weeeee!

Spoiler

Show

Bring on the rest of your nerfed design Squad so it can be molded into proper fun. Skip all the Jeb fluff please...

[FlowerChild]

Hehe...Apollo recreations are good fun.

I opted on a more low tech approach on my last moon landing, involving separate missions to first deliver an empty 3-man command module into orbit around the Mun guided by a probe core, then 3 separate single man lander missions (each on their own rocket) to different parts of the Mun to then take off, rendezvous with the command pod, and have their passenger EVA over to it (I hadn't unlocked docking ports yet in the tech tree).

I only completed the first of the three lander missions before deciding to start revamping the tech tree, but was likely the most fun I had with the vanilla one :)

As for my own tech tree, after a few more hours on it tonight, I feel comfortable with everything up to and including tech level 3, by the end of which, you should be on the verge of actually attaining a stable orbit with an unmanned probe roughly equivalent to Sputnik level tech (well, slightly below but a single purchase in tech level 4 should get you there).

So yeah...it's just a wee bit slower pace than the vanilla one ;)

I may upload a pre-release thingy here soon so you guys can give what I have so far a whack at the first few levels. I've been completely revamping the science parts so that they serve rather different functions than in vanilla that correspond to the type of gameplay you're at. For example, I've turned the Gravioli detector into something that is unlocked at tech level 3 (thermometer is at 1, barometer is at 2) which is really only effective to perform orbital scans (I plugged into the stuff I mentioned above about being able to scan different biomes from space), which makes tech level 3 interesting as while it would be exceedingly difficult to attain a stable orbit with the parts you have unlocked at that point, you can send probes off on different trajectories over different biomes to accumulate the science you need to make it to tech level 4 and finally attain orbit (I suspect it's probably theoretically possible at tech 3, but I wasn't able to pull it off in a few attempts).

After doing some reading on the initial historical spaceflight missions (like I said, that's kind of become a hobby of mine as of late ;) ), I decided the Gravioli detector made a good fictional and abstract parallel to the initial scans of cosmic rays and radiation that lead to the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belt based on where Sputnik 2 and Explorer 1 were over the earth. I also plan on using the Goo container at level 4 as a parallel to early animal launches before sending manned missions up, and have some ideas about how to change the part to make it more interesting and fitting to that role.

Oh, and one nice little thing to note: I axed the way vanilla science is a total click fest by greatly increasing transmission times, but having 100% data transmission on a single experiment. There was really no good reason for vanilla to be operating that way as it was just a nuisance, so I can only assume it's an incomplete feature at present.

Anyways, I'm quite pleased with the results so far and looking forward to sharing them.

[Taleric]

Yeah that was the most fun I got out of .22 besides some rovers.

The prospect of focusing on design and science collection at the smallest level is very exciting :)
All those cool data collection instruments just beg to be sent everywhere in the system.

All the awesome tiny parts to focus on and stress over.

Taking things nice and slow, fostering an appreciation for finite changes in aero dynamics/flight profile will make a great base to build on.

The prospect of a failed manned mission should be so punishing that heavy recon is the only way to go. Envisioning a Mun landing well after my proxy gemini, mercury, surveyor, Viking, and voyager missions is gold :)

[devak]

Oh, and one nice little thing to note: I axed the way vanilla science is a total click fest by greatly increasing transmission times, but having 100% data transmission on a single experiment. There was really no good reason for vanilla to be operating that way as it was just a nuisance, so I can only assume it's an incomplete feature at present.

I think the main reason transmissions aren't 100% is to provide incentive to actually bring back your ship rather than just transmitting stuff. Although admittedly, in vanilla after unlocking Batteries it's much easier to just spam a bunch of transmissions and get like 90% of the science.

It sounds so far like you're going for a much more linear play, is this something you've set your mind on or is this more of an on the fly thing?


EDIT:

This is pretty insane:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIjqvLcsz8g

Basically a guy unlocks nearly the entire tech tree on 2 missions.

[FlowerChild]

I think the main reason transmissions aren't 100% is to provide incentive to actually bring back your ship rather than just transmitting stuff. Although admittedly, in vanilla after unlocking Batteries it's much easier to just spam a bunch of transmissions and get like 90% of the science.

Except it doesn't work. Right now, you get 100% of the science you could accumulate from an experiment by just spam clicking multiple instances of the same experiment. Even if there is a small loss (and nothing I've read indicates there is), there's so much science available out there that there's very little incentive to return with it.

What I'm doing instead is having separate experiments that need to be returned to KSP to process the results, and ones that you can just transmit, because with the way the code is working now, the end result is identical either way.

At tech level 3, the difference is simply in whether you can return your craft and collect the associated science bonus for a recovered mission or not, but I already have plans for additional experiments down the road that will *need* to be returned in order to be of any value. Soil samples for example, which I'm going to break into two separate experiments: on the spot observations, and actual soil analysis which needs to be performed at KSP. The points you can get from those will be entirely separate. Goo will be similar in that you'll be able to get low-value data from it in flight, but the big pay-off will come from returning it to base for "dissection" or whatever.

It sounds so far like you're going for a much more linear play, is this something you've set your mind on or is this more of an on the fly thing?

Yes, yes and yes :)

I wouldn't personally say "linear", but rather "structured", but yes, the whole idea of me doing this is to create a slow progression where the player's abilities expand as they move up the tech tree. The branching nodes and rocket design choices are still there. As you move up, you still have your choice of performing multiple different mission types, BUT your choices are much narrower at start and widen as you progress based on what you can effectively do with the tech at your disposal.

To me, that's the whole point of a campaign like this over sandbox play: providing additional structure to play with more clearly defined goals as you progress.

And yes, I am doing much of this on the fly because a lot of it involves me massaging values, testing them in game, seeing what I can and can't reasonably modify within KSP, and so on. At present I haven't even touched any code and have restricted all my editing to the .cfg files, so it's basically pure balance work and tweaking at this point. I have some ideas for changes or additions I'd like to make code wise as I'm going along, but for the first pass I just want to try and better balance the stock tree using the existing code and then see where I want to take this from there. In the meantime, I'm learning quite a bit about the way KSP works just from what's possible in the data values.

[devak]

Except it doesn't work. Right now, you get 100% of the science you could accumulate from an experiment by just spam clicking multiple instances of the same experiment. Even if there is a small loss (and nothing I've read indicates there is), there's so much science available out there that there's very little incentive to return with it.

Yea we're talking about the same thing. Some nodes simply have an insanely low transmission rate (like, 20%) so at the end you've got to click a dozen times to milk the cow dry.

Did i mention you're awesome for doing this?

[Sarudak]

I'm getting a sensation. It is the desire to purchase KSP...

[FlowerChild]

Did i mention you're awesome for doing this?

Well, it's largely for me right? I love playing KSP, was anticipating the career mode for a very long time now, and to me it was just a big let down.

Yes, I know it's still in early development, but the statements I've heard coming out of the devs just don't give me hope I'll ever see what I want out of it.

Here, let me find a post I came across last night on their forums...

If you're the sort of player who can max out the tech tree in 5 missions, then in all likelihood you already have a pretty good notion of what all the parts are and what they're meant to do.

The tech tree is balanced to introduce, not to restrict. If we made it challenging to veteran players, we'd be making it downright impossible for new ones.

That said, tweaking the definitions is not only something we expected already, but I'm actually looking forward to see what you guys come up with.

Happy tweaking.

Cheers

From this thread:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/thr ... ceDefs-cfg

That's the lead dev on the game speaking.

First of all, the thread is just about editing the .cfg files (which is why I was in there in the first place), and suddenly the lead dev pops out of nowhere and makes the above statement, which strikes me as rather weird and defensive, telling me that he's likely to not want to consider changing his approach.

Secondly, when I read the following sentence:

The tech tree is balanced to introduce, not to restrict. If we made it challenging to veteran players, we'd be making it downright impossible for new ones.

I practically screamed at my monitor: "why the hell can't you do both like almost every other modern game?"

It's just a huge face-palm for me and gives me a clear indication that this guy just doesn't "get" campaigns or tech progression and is entirely sandbox centric. He's talking about what can be two complementary goals in a design as if they're mutually exclusive or something, and like I've been saying, I've been getting an additional face-palm out of this process, as I think the tech tree I'm working on now actually serves as a BETTER introduction to the game than what's currently in there, even though that wasn't my goal :P

Now, given that I love KSP almost as much as I love MC, and given that designing this kind of progression has become a bit of a specialty of mine as of late, and given I want to learn more about Unity anyways for potentially using it in RTH, and given it looks like the KSP devs aren't going to produce something that I'll find satisfying and I don't really trust the community to deliver it either (I kinda gave up on that when the first modded tech tree released came along with the "probes first just isn't Kerbal" statement I quoted in an above post) it just makes sense for me to spend some of the time I'd be spending playing KSP anyways, also tweaking and massaging it to get it into a form that I'll find more enjoyable instead of just swearing about how I wish it was.

On the community front that I mentioned above, I honestly doubt anyone in the community would be like minded enough with me and what I want out of this where I'd wind up being satisfied with it. Some people want more plane centric campaigns, some more rocket, some think "realism" is the priority and that say wheels for buggies should come very early so you can drive around the planet. I just don't see it being very likely that someone will pop up with my mix of design priorities, and frankly, I doubt there are many people that have the balls to take it as far as I would. Like for example, I don't think I've seen any mods that have the gall to go and start rebalancing weight values and even redefining the functionality of stock parts and shit like I'm doing to get the effect I want :P

Anyways, I honestly find it a great way to unwind at the end of the day. It's way less technical than the stuff I generally deal with, it gets me out of the MC mindset for a bit and thus serves as recreation, and all around I'm having a lot of fun with it, so yeah, like I said, I'm largely just doing it for my own benefit :)

[Sarudak]

Have you released anything yet or do you want it to be in a more finished state?

[FlowerChild]

Have you released anything yet or do you want it to be in a more finished state?

Not yet. I was tempted to release something here last night for the first few tech levels, but ran out of energy and decided there were a few more tweaks I wanted to make first based on my last play through.

Will likely be within the next day or two though. Right now I'm back to working on BTW, as I've put a personal rule in place that I only work on this KSP thing during my evening "game time" so it doesn't delay dev on BTW :)

[dawnraider]

This actually looks really good. I haven't ever played KSP, just watched, and I didn't want to get it until campaign came out, which when it did come out, got rid of any desire to get it. But now, I may have to :)

[Sarudak]

KSP never really appealed to me because it seemed to lack any sense of structure. Even with research I feel like there needs to be some kind of economic aspect or something to it for it to really feel like a game. :P

[FlowerChild]

KSP never really appealed to me because it seemed to lack any sense of structure. Even with research I feel like there needs to be some kind of economic aspect or something to it for it to really feel like a game. :P

Yeah, I agree. One of the first potential tasks I'm considering undertaking once I complete the tech-tree rebalance is to either integrate and balance for Mission Controller Extended (which provides an economic aspect) into a "required mods" list, or roll my own solution to do something similar (I need to play around with MCE more to see if it'll do what I really want). Also, as far as I know, an economy system is on Squad's todo list, which means that aspect may be coming to vanilla anyways and I may eventually be able to just tweak that.

Actually, one of the things I really don't get about Squad's approach is they seem to intend to add extra depth to the campaign mode, while at the same time making statements saying it's meant to only serve as an introduction to new players. There seems to be yet another identity crisis going on there.

But yeah, at present while I'm tweaking the research progression tree and parts themselves to provide incremental design constraints, there's still nothing stopping you from building an absolutely ridiculously sized rocket out of crappy parts in order to get the job done, especially since aerodynamics aren't a concern at present, which is where an economy would come in. I started off playing around with this with FAR (aerodynamics mod) installed, and was planning on making that my first "required mod" but the rebalancing I'd have to do on the parts would be so extreme in that case to limit the player at start (simple rockets actually fly WAY better with FAR installed than without), and there were a few other problems involved, so I opted to just go pure vanilla for this first pass.

[Sarudak]

I think I'm still inclined to wait until things are a little more developed. I feel like I've ruined games for myself before by playing them so much in their unfinished state I was sick of them by the time they were done and couldn't enjoy them...

[Taleric]

Devs purposely leaving projects as a sandbox with a tutorial is either extremely lazy or smart.

For all those waiting on KSP I recommend grabbing it on the next steam sale for sure. Just have fun with the sand box and get the feel for manuvers. Then give it a rest, by the time you come back it will be an actual game you can quickly enjoy because you already know the basics.

[Sarudak]

See I would rather learn how the game plays in the context of the actual game. I want to feel a sense of accomplishment when I conquer the game.

[Taleric]

I can appreciate saving it all :)

Much more will power than I have. A spoiler or trailer only wets my appetite and things are a shell of the play the final product will offer.

Squad did do an excellent job capturing a satisfying surface to orbit experiance and vice versa.

[Gunnerman21]

I agree very much to what Harv said about science being the tutorial. The career mode is no where near being complete, and if someone can complete the tech tree in 5 flights then good for them, I'm doing it the non-spammy way. The only science I transmit spammingly are crew reports, because it makes sense that they would keep in communication with KSC throughout the flight and explain what they see and such. I try to roleplay ksp like a real space program (for kerbals) that makes sense (to kerbals). And for anyone that doesn't know, you can see the prices of all parts in the science building, as a grey number around the 1000's of moneys looking like this: 1000cc. So we know almost exactly how money will be used. It's a shame though that some people think career mode is done :(

[FlowerChild]

K man, you're sounding like a broken record, and it's a record I've heard many times before. In fact, it's eerily reminiscent to what people were saying to me about my objections to wolves, before I decided to just go and do something about it myself.

I think we're all well aware that both career mode and the game aren't finished, and this isn't the KSP forums. There's more than enough "problem? there's no problem! the devs can do no wrong!" fan boys over on that site to go round, so maybe you'd feel more at home there.

Anyways, take a breather under Rule #3, as you're really starting to piss me off.

[devak]

I've been getting an additional face-palm out of this process, as I think the tech tree I'm working on now actually serves as a BETTER introduction to the game than what's currently in there, even though that wasn't my goal :P

This is actually kind of funny because after playing a bit more KSP, i'm at a point in the tech tree where i'm absolutely friggin lost about what to unlock next. I frequently find myself staring at nodes thinking "i really need that one part, but why would i want the rest?" Why something so useless as a ladder is coupled with something so useful as a Gravioli detector is beyond me, as is the fact that half the Spaceplane parts are in one node yet the critical landing gear is somewhere else entirely.

I'll see if i can get some moon samples because apparently, the moon has biomes too.

[TheAnarchitect]

On the subject of mods:

Messing with the tech tree is as easy as modifying a .cfg file? So if I add a mod with parts like, say, Remotetech, it would be pretty easy for me to insert those parts into appropriate parts of the tech tree myself, right?

[abzu93]

On the subject of mods:

Messing with the tech tree is as easy as modifying a .cfg file? So if I add a mod with parts like, say, Remotetech, it would be pretty easy for me to insert those parts into appropriate parts of the tech tree myself, right?

I loaded in Procedural Fairings and they appeared in my tech tree. So apparently they are doing it and that would be a good place to look to see what changes they made to make it happen.