-Career Fixes Discussion-

[Pthigrivi]

^Oh I'm sorry I misunderstood then. That's an interesting addition. In your thinking would there be other computer controlled active flights?

[tater]

Yeah, there would have to be, I'd think. It would be a cool thing to potentially see other craft. I made a long post in some other thread a while ago. In the case of any space race scenario, you'd be gunning for Rep, and certain big firsts would earn a lot (Mun landing and return, but a death or failure would hit hard, too). Note that for commercial, rep generates better commercial contracts which generates more rep, etc. SpaceX might concentrate on launches, earning rep as a launch service, then BO sets up a Karbucks on the Mun and scores big Rep. It would not be as focused as a Race to the Moon, The Koviets might go to the Mun, but you might say the heck with it, and head for Duna.

AI would be one aspect, another might be a novel form of multiplayer.

Players of this mode check a box in the setup, allowing their ships from "Space Race" mode to be uploaded to a server. Any mods would be recorded. Other players' games would then pull the "AI" opponent's ships from this database of ships that matches available tech for the AI at that moment, cross referenced against installed mods used on that craft, and the point in that "race" that I used it (basically a check vs the tech tree, pad upgrades, etc). So instead of sort of random crafts, they would in fact be player designed, and possibly surprising.

[Aristaeus]

Everything in this thread is spot on. Is anyone planning to implement some of these features in mods? If not, do you mind if I steal some ideas?

[Pthigrivi]

Of course! The purpose here really is to try to boil down some constructive feedback for Squad, but I'd be happy to see some of these in any form. If I were to pick out just one thing to delve more deeply into it would be the science system. This was the more thorough breakdown I drew up a little bit ago:

Spoiler

Crew Reports: Gathered automatically by crewed capsules and stored for each new biome the craft enters, serving as a running log of the mission.

EVA Reports: Gathered automatically on EVA for each new biome a kerbal enters and stored when they return to the vessel. Scientists gather more valuable EVA reports, and their value can be further upgraded as they gain in levels. Kerbals cannot discern between biomes above the surface.

Surface Samples: Can be gathered on EVA by any crew member, though higher level scientists gather more valuable samples. Samples cannot be transmitted unless analyzed in a mobile processing lab, but give much more science than other sources. When a sample is analyzed either in a science lab or on Kerbin it will indicate precise ore concentrations and will become available for loading into Materials Bays (more below).

Goo Canister: First experiment available in the tech tree and acts as an introduction to gathering science. When it enters a biome with uncollected science it flashes blue for a few moments and then auto-exposes. Its one-time use unless there's a scientist on board in which case it auto-collects, stores, and then auto-resets. It draws no power. By default its set to activated, but it can be deactivated and reactivated via right click if a player wishes to hold out for more a more valuable exposure. It cannot distinguish between biomes above the surface.

Thermometer: Next experiment on the tech tree, flashes blue and then takes a reading and stores automatically when entering a new biome. Its activated by default, but draws 1.5 e/m while activated and can be deactivated to save power. It cannot distinguish between biomes above the lower atmosphere or high above a body. Vessels with a Thermometer on board show overheat bars in flight, though even without the parts will still glow red.

Barometer: Arrives shortly after in the Tech Tree and flashes blue when new science is available. The barometer is activated by default when in the atmosphere, but can be deactivated to save power via right-click. Unlike the thermometer, the barometer logs science based on the vertical swath of atmosphere it passes through while continuously running. This means it gathers a lot of data on ascent and descent, but sitting on the ground it gathers next to nothing. Later in the game, a body for which the player has completed a barometric scan will show trajectory, landing site, and aerobreak predictions factoring drag for higher level pilots.

Materials Bay: Materials Bays should be able to be loaded with materials, i.e. samples, and replace the current Mobile Lab magic science generator. When a surface or atmospheric sample is recovered, it goes into a bank of available samples. Upon launch, the materials Bay can be loaded with up to 5 of these samples, and when activated (0.5 e/s) it generates and stores science based on the value of the sample multiplied by the value of the exposure location. This means that a sample from the launchpad exposed at KSC will be worth very little, but a sample from Ike exposed on Duna will be worth a great deal. Samples generate science for 30 days and then become spent. Materials Bays can be reloaded by an adequately staffed Mobile Processing Lab, but only with samples banked at the time of the Lab's launch and with samples processed by that lab. This means bringing a lab to another body will be useful for processing and gathering science from that body over time, but samples cant be magically transported across the Kerbol System. Indeed routing samples from surface to lab to materials bays (and from planet to planet even) to maximize their value would be the real challenge.

Atmospheric analyzer: Essentially works as an atmospheric sample collector. Its deactivated by default, and once activated (1 e/s) the vessel must maintain roughly the same speed and altitude for 10 seconds to collect a viable sample. Like surface samples they may not be transmitted unless analyzed by a mobile processing lab. If atmospheric xenon collection were enabled perhaps precise concentration levels could be determined from these samples.

Surface Sample Collector: This part would replace the surface scanner, and ought really to be a small arm and drill that drops down when activated. It aught to come very late in the tech tree, but in principle enable collection of surface samples by probes. Like other surface samples these would be available for loading into Materials bays and would show ore concentrations when analyzed.

Survey Scanner: Works much as it does now, once placed in a polar orbit it generates a rough ore concentration map which can then be transmitted for additional science.

Narrow Band Scanner: Works much as it does now, but could also provide accurate distance to surface information or even a topographic overlay.

Gravoli detector: This part works 2 ways, its activated by default and draws .5 e/s, and like the thermometer automatically collects and stores data for each new biome it passes into. If however it is placed in a polar orbit it gathers all biome information for that body at that altitude, and if it is attached to a vessel that also has a survey scanner it can generate an overlay map of all biomes on that body. If a mission planner were to be added including flight time and delta-v estimates, completing a gravoli scan might unlock that body in the planner, encouraging players to send a probe first if they wanted to optimize their crewed mission.

Seismometer: This part is redesigned as an impactor experiment. Once on the surface and activated (2 e/s) a blue circle appears on the body in map mode indicating the scanning radius. The higher the level scientist on board the larger the radius. If while activated another object is slammed into the surface a red impact radius is shown, whose radius is determined by the mass and speed upon impact (I can foresee some really fun asteroid antics here ) The Seismometer generates science based on the area of overlap between the scanning and impact radii, meaning more precise collisions and bigger booms make for more science. Additionally, ore concentrations can be seen with detail within this scanned area making for better landing site decisions for mining operations.

Mobile Processing Lab: With material studies now moved over to the Materials Bays, the lab can be used primarily for processing and reloading samples. In addition new contracts could provide special samples which could either be pre-loaded or delivered to existing labs for processing and/or loading into materials bays. Unlike other data sources processing samples makes makes them transmittable, with level 1-5 scientists converting samples 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% respectively. Where most capsules can store just 3 samples, Mobile Processing Labs could store 25 samples at a time. 

Transmitting data: As almost all data is automatically logged and stored, all that would be left would be transmission. For simplicity's sake, I feel like the data should be attached to the vessel, not a part. Clicking any pod or antenna ought to bring up a single data log indicating all stored data in one screen, the value of each piece of data, and giving the option to transmit. I'll be interested to see the changes Roverdude has made, but in my mind the most straight forward solution is that all data except samples should be in principle 100% transmittable, and all losses could be controlled by quality of arrays. If surface samples could not be transmitted without processing and were worth a great deal (as they should be) then returning these samples would make 2 way trips worthwhile without the over-complication and grind of multiple transmissions. 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Aristaeus]

The science system caught my eye too. I'm stuck on mobile until next week, but I'll start working on this then.

You're spot on with transmission, but I'm not sure how data could be stored per ship. What should happen if you have "one" ship with science undock into two vessels?

[tater]

Science should be less about points, and more about generating useful information. 

We need something like scansat as stock. Mapping should require mapping (not a clickfest, just place the mapper in orbit, and have it map swathes). The map zoom level should be scaled to the detail of your mapping, and ideally there would be some features small enough that mapping would be useful for landing (picking sites where you won't tip over/crash).

We had a range of possible values for pressure on Venus, for example, but until the Soviets put a probe into the atmosphere, it was a pretty wide range. Ditto what we knew about Mars before Mariner.

[Pthigrivi]

Maybe a better way to say it would be that all science information is automatically stored on all pods. If a ship undocked, the information would still be on both pods. If two ships with different data logs docked the data would be duplicated so that each had both compliments. After transmission a player could be prompted to clear data. They may want to keep it in case the new antenna system could provide a boost, or they may want to clear it just to declutter the window. 

Samples would have to be different. I'll confess Im not a programmer so I couldn't say exactly but keeping track of each sample's name and value and where its stored could prove difficult. I suggested a maximum of 3 sample slots per pod (or perhaps 1 sample slot for each seat) to give some balance to the Science Lab, and these samples would need to be tracked until they were processed or recovered. You would also need UI in the VAB and in Science Labs for reviewing previously recovered samples and loading them into Materials bays. Materials bays themselves would need a special UI so you could see what's been loaded and how far along each sample study has progressed. I imagine they would be labeled things like "Surface Sample from Munar Higlands" or "Upper Atmosphere Sample from above Eve's Oceans", or in the case of special contract samples "Larvae sample for Sean's Cannery". I think for simplicity once a sample was recovered or processed Materials bays could be loaded from it indefinitely. That way players don't feel like they have to gather 20 samples everywhere they land (this is about de-grinding things, after all). 

I'd love to see something like this in stock, but if you're really into the idea of modding this we should probably start a thread over in Add-on Discussions. 

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[KSK]

On 9 December 2015 at 11:42 PM, tater said:

I posted this in the tech tree thread, but it belongs here just as much because they are all connected...

 

Yeah, because the whole thing is bass ackwards, as they say. Exploration doesn't make new tech, new tech is purpose-built for exploration. 

What we really need, is a whole new system for creating non-commercial missions.

You'd select from lists/buttons for each numbered section. Note that you might be limited in bodies you can pick, and how much the kerbal government is willing to risk based upon REP, Rep is now the thing you want to buy the "reward" of more mission design choices:

1. Pick broad mission type (crewed orbital, crewed landing, probe orbital, probe landing, others that we can come up with)

2. Pick target body (Kerbin, Mun, Minmus, Duna, Ike, Eve, Asteroid, etc, etc)

3a. Pick broad goal (b. science, c. base/station construction, d. resupply)

3b. Set science goals (radio boxes with all the science instruments, plus EVA, sample return, etc available to check).

3c. Set facility requirements you wish to build (min crew capability, power, RCS, etc)

3d. Set resupply target, and amounts.

The game would then generate a budget based upon your stated mission parameters. This budget might include points for buying new tech to accomplish this mission. The game provide serval choices of budget, with lower budgets offering a higher rep reward (where rep might increase the base budgets for future requests). Since there are a small number of target worlds, and a smaller number of possible instruments, this really describes all possible missions. Early on, you might only have the rep for simple probe missions, and early crewed attempts, you need to build rep to be able to build more complex missions.

Not sure how I missed this the first time through but I would play that game.

As an extension, and probably taking this even further into the land of Notgoingtohappen, I would suggest taking a leaf out of the KCT playbook of gaining science by building spacecraft. KCT provides that as just another way of earning science - I would rework it so that building spacecraft earns the player Engineering points, which are then used to unlock the tech tree (and are the only way of doing so).

I think that would add some interesting tensions between the four 'resources' (Engineering, Science, Funds and Rep). You need to fly missions to earn the Engineering points to unlock the tech to fly more advanced missions. But you can't be too conservative and grind your way to Engineering points by flying easy missions because otherwise you won't earn the Rep to unlock more advanced missions. Science is a good way of earning Rep but to do more Science you need to unlock the relevant tech tree nodes.

It all becomes a balancing act and I think it would make the Strategy system much more relevant as a way of holding that balance. Plus it encourages creative engineering - the more you can do with the early parts the better.

 

 

 

[tater]

KCT is awesome, I'd totally go there as well. The whole "economics" of a space program is so poor in KSP precisely because time is meaningless, and there are not (even abstracted) real costs and benefits to reuse, etc.

[KSK]

18 minutes ago, tater said:

KCT is awesome, I'd totally go there as well. The whole "economics" of a space program is so poor in KSP precisely because time is meaningless, and there are not (even abstracted) real costs and benefits to reuse, etc.

Yup. It also gives you a ton of new options for KSC improvements to augment the fairly coarse grained system we have right now. Want to speed up those roll-outs to the pad? There's an upgrade for that. Want to build multiple craft at once? Upgrade the VAB to include another production line. Waiting too long to refurbish the pad between launches? Buy another launchpad or upgrade the facilities at your existing one.

When time matters, there are so many more other things that matter - or that can be made to matter - at the KSC.

 

[Wjolcz]

I think the tech tree should start with LF-only tanks, a plane cockpit and tiny sized tanks to recreate sounding rockets. Then it should progress more or less like the technology progressed IRL since the WW2. It also should be non-linear. There should be more than 3 branches from the start and they should advance from tiny sizes to bigger ones:

-Atmospheric/Jets/LF-only research branch

-Solid fuel branch

-LF+Ox branch (maybe the engines should be separated from the tanks/have their own branch)

-RCS branch

-Electric stuff branch (with electric propellers by the end maybe?)

-Construction and advanced materials branch (KIS/KAS things, I beams, H beams, trusses and so on)

-Sth else?

IMO such tree would be less frustrating even if some parts were moved between the updates, because we wouldn't have to pay so much science points for nodes where there's the engine we need (and have been using before the update)+all the crap we don't need and don't plan to use.

Oh, and btw OP: dV and transfer windows should be available ALWAYS!

Edited January 14, 2016 by Veeltch

[Hysterrics]

Woah! It's alive! This thread used to be dead and kinda snuck up on me when people started posting again. I'll work on getting the list updated.

Edit: Alright, I got it all updated.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Sequinox

[nikokespprfan]

On 3-12-2015 at 2:08 AM, Sequinox said:

Career Mode Fixing Discussion
Please someone suggest a better name

A great help in designing things (whether it is products, software or game mechanics) is a List of Criteria (LoC). It is a list that describes what you expect of your final product. It is a list you can look and evaluate your product to.

So what do we want from Career mode? Do we want players to be gently introduced to the game, or to have an intensified space program managing experience, or just another way of making science mode more hardcore? Do we want all, and have them depend on the difficulty setting? What must reputation do? What should reputation represent?

Here is an example:

Spoiler

Career mode itself

-career mode should be a game that gently introduces new players to the game

-career should also be an enhancing game mode for the middle-skilled players

-career mode should be a way to make things hardcore for the real Scott Manleys

-The difficulty setting must change the game mechanics' balancing in such a way that Career Mode morphs into one of these three purposes.

  -This means that when difficulty is set to easy then....

Reputation and Funds

-funds should represent the money of your space program.

-reputation should represent ....

-more example criteria

Contracts, milestones, missions and strategies

-

Experience

-

Building tiers

-

and other major components

I think having a LoC for Career mode, as well as for it's major components, is a good thing to have. For us, when we are coming up with solutions, and for SQUAD, that gets to know what the players think Career mode is/should be.

Edited January 16, 2016 by nikokespprfan

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, nikokespprfan said:

-reputation should represent ....

I know this is just an example but this is an excellent question. I've been playing a while and I have the rough sense that more rep leads to bigger and better contracts, but I'll be honest I have no real way of predicting this and so I barely think about reputation. This is the reason I suggested listing the reputation needed to secure an advance ahead of time, so players could look and say "Okay right now my rep is X. I could go for the contract without the advance, or I could increase my rep to Y first to get the advance." Not only would this allow players to make informed choices, but it would make much clearer what reputation was for. 

Edited January 16, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[tater]

Yeah, nice post nikokespprfan.

If you look at my posts about career (my first post here was about that about 1.5 years ago), I tend to post "gut it and start over" ideas that include science/tech/career together because they are all connected. I think that the step you propose was not really done, career feel tacked on with no real attention to goals.

Quote

-career mode should be a game that gently introduces new players to the game

I think this cannot possibly be the goal, as the early game is in fact the hardest any way I can formulate it in my head. Currently that would mean fewer, and less capable parts, along with untrained crews (no holding prograde or target nodes, etc, heck, no maneuver nodes at all) to do whatever. It is fundamentally a much harder game for a noob.

So what's the point of career? In not particular order:

1. A chance to lose (whatever that means)

2. Setting up novel problems for the player to solve within a context.

3. Forcing the player to operate within "realistic" (from the standpoint of a space program/rocket company---don't derail on my use of realism, I mean it at the zeroth order here, any budget limit is "realistic" in this sense vs none) limitations of budget, technology, even time.

4. A chance to "win?" (this has to have a foil, IMO, so this one is not strictly required).

#1 we theoretically have, running out of funds, but running out of Rep would work here as well (let's assume Rep, Science, and Funds are all still tracked). This is really the easy part mechanically, the problem is that in career now it's impossible unless you play on "hard" mode (which is just "grind" mode, IMO).

#2 is the real point to me, but ideally this requires Time to start being a thing, and honestly I think part failures should be a thing. Remember that failures need not affect ALL career modes, or can be a setting. Novel problems are Apollo 13 situations, for example. If time is a thing, and craft don't instantly appear on the launchpad, then a failure in flight requires you to figure out what you can do, and try and pull out some solution. Early in my KSP days I accidentally hit "z" after unlocking and damaged by return vehicle in a collision. The craft ended up with the CM not aligned with the axis of thrust. I had to get to to return (I could have done a rescue with no LS mod, but I treated it as an Apollo 13 thing, and flew it back) using small burns that allowed me to hold the node somewhat without tumbling. It was fun/rewarding. I don't think part failures should be common, but I'd like to see it possible, with realistic design options to make such failures less likely (variable part mass/volume based upon built in redundancy, for example).

#3 This is the funds/rep situation we sort of have now, but funds are never a problem in KSP for me, and it just feels wrong as it is. I'd rather see the player choosing the goal (Kerbals to the Mun and back, for example), then you get a budget to try and accomplish that goal, along with some points to spend on tech. The tech tree would be far flatter, and wider (using the way it is visualized now), and the player could develop tech to do things the way they want. Needs fleshing out, but a different paradigm from the current situation. Time should matter as well, and perhaps certain kinds of missions/testing can shorten dev time (say developing a huge engine from career day 1 would take many months, but if you develop s ambler engine first, the dev time is shortened. If you make that smaller, related engine, then test it a number of ways, the dev time shortens further, etc.

#4 I've posted about, this would be the implicit space race in KSP made explicit. Winning would mean beating the foil. Budgets for both could be weighted by Rep, and while the game would be balanced such that it would not be over anywhere near one side landing on the Mun, as you get later and later in career, the side that is losing might have to do something really spectacular to pull out a win.

[Pthigrivi]

23 hours ago, tater said:

I think this cannot possibly be the goal, as the early game is in fact the hardest any way I can formulate it in my head. Currently that would mean fewer, and less capable parts, along with untrained crews (no holding prograde or target nodes, etc, heck, no maneuver nodes at all) to do whatever. It is fundamentally a much harder game for a noob.

I think this has to be at least part of the goal. In most any game you start out with fewer tools and slowly add new capabilities as you master old ones. All that matters is that capabilities you are provided with at any given time scale to the challenges you're being asked to face. I agree that at the moment some of the progression dynamics don't quite scale, but thats not to say they couldn't. To me its a matter of identifying and fixing the problems, not throwing our hands up and saying its impossible. Its really just a matter of providing players with some better tools earlier, probably distributing upgrades more smoothly across 4 building tiers, and maybe most importantly scaling back rewards later so that funds still mater in the late game. 

 

On 1/16/2016 at 0:25 PM, tater said:

#3 This is the funds/rep situation we sort of have now, but funds are never a problem in KSP for me, and it just feels wrong as it is. I'd rather see the player choosing the goal (Kerbals to the Mun and back, for example), then you get a budget to try and accomplish that goal, along with some points to spend on tech. The tech tree would be far flatter, and wider (using the way it is visualized now), and the player could develop tech to do things the way they want. Needs fleshing out, but a different paradigm from the current situation. Time should matter as well, and perhaps certain kinds of missions/testing can shorten dev time (say developing a huge engine from career day 1 would take many months, but if you develop s ambler engine first, the dev time is shortened. If you make that smaller, related engine, then test it a number of ways, the dev time shortens further, etc.

 

I actually agree that adding time based mechanics could make for some very interesting gameplay, but I also acknowledge that this going to be very hard. If time is going to be a factor for building or development or long duration experiments time will need to come with a cost. If there is none, then players can just time warp through and mechanic becomes meaningless. Reputation bleed off and upkeep costs could possibly work, but so far I can't see a way around time warp, especially if we're hoping to also give players more choice of where to go. The trouble is they eat away linearly but time in the game does not pass linearly. If I send a probe to Minmus, no problem, maybe I lose a little bit of rep in transit and then gain it back and then some when it gets there. But what if I send a probe to Eeloo? I might lose all my reputation, bankrupt my program and lose the game before it gets there, and worse, because the game currently has no mission duration estimator I would have no idea this would happen ahead of time. It ends up becoming very frustrating for new players, chokes off the freedom to send missions wherever we like, and at best would result in very weird, dangerous swings in players' basic currencies.

Really the only time based cost I can imagine working is life support. Life support runs into some of the same issues with time-warp that upkeep costs would, but given a few simple tools could at least be manageable on a mission-to-mission basis. If a mission planner provided duration estimates you could stock up each mission with enough supplies, and even if you switched vessel focus to do something else your kerbals would be okay so long as you'd planned right. There could also be ways with greenhouses and ISRU to make bases and stations potentially self-sufficient and take them off the worry list completely. 

 

On 1/16/2016 at 0:25 PM, tater said:

shortened. If you make that smaller, related engine, then test it a number of ways, the dev time shortens further, etc.

#4 I've posted about, this would be the implicit space race in KSP made explicit. Winning would mean beating the foil. Budgets for both could be weighted by Rep, and while the game would be balanced such that it would not be over anywhere near one side landing on the Mun, as you get later and later in career, the side that is losing might have to do something really spectacular to pull out a win.

The game doesn't necessarily need a foil. Plenty of games don't have one. In many ways the real foil is overcoming the challenges of spaceflight and the Kerbol system itself. That said, its an interesting idea. I could see some cool multi-player options involving something like this. 

[KSK]

5 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I actually agree that adding time based mechanics could make for some very interesting gameplay, but I also acknowledge that this going to be very hard. If time is going to be a factor for building or development or long duration experiments time will need to come with a cost. If there is none, then players can just time warp through and mechanic becomes meaningless. Reputation bleed off and upkeep costs could possibly work, but so far I can't see a way around time warp, especially if we're hoping to also give players more choice of where to go. The trouble is they eat away linearly but time in the game does not pass linearly. If I send a probe to Minmus, no problem, maybe I lose a little bit of rep in transit and then gain it back and then some when it gets there. But what if I send a probe to Eeloo? I might lose all my reputation, bankrupt my program and lose the game before it gets there, and worse, because the game currently has no mission duration estimator I would have no idea this would happen ahead of time. It ends up becoming very frustrating for new players, chokes off the freedom to send missions wherever we like, and at best would result in very weird, dangerous swings in players' basic currencies.

Hmm, you seem to be assuming that missions would always be run one at a time. Personally, I'd fire that probe off to Eeloo and then get on with whatever else I was doing. Kerbal Alarm Clock (or similar) would make running parallel missions a lot easier but it's not that hard without it either. And as soon as you put time based mechanics into play, parallel missions almost become a way of life, simply because tech tree progression takes so much more in-game time.

Which, I find, is the nice thing about it. Racing to unlock the key techs that I need before the first realistic launch windows start opening and running my first interplanetary probes whilst I'm still only part way through my Mün / Minmus science program. Having multiple things going on at once gives my game a much more 'space program' feeling, rather than just being a linear string of flights.

[Pthigrivi]

15 minutes ago, KSK said:

Hmm, you seem to be assuming that missions would always be run one at a time. Personally, I'd fire that probe off to Eeloo and then get on with whatever else I was doing. Kerbal Alarm Clock (or similar) would make running parallel missions a lot easier but it's not that hard without it either. And as soon as you put time based mechanics into play, parallel missions almost become a way of life, simply because tech tree progression takes so much more in-game time.

Which, I find, is the nice thing about it. Racing to unlock the key techs that I need before the first realistic launch windows start opening and running my first interplanetary probes whilst I'm still only part way through my Mün / Minmus science program. Having multiple things going on at once gives my game a much more 'space program' feeling, rather than just being a linear string of flights.

All Im assuming is that missions could be run one at a time. Upkeep costs don't just encourage concurrent missions, they basically prohibit long single missions. You also have to consider just how many monotonous Kerbin SOI missions you'd have to run to keep the lights on while you waited for your Jool probe to arrive. I also like to run a lot of simultaneous missions but at certain points I will switch back to that deep space mission and time warp several hundred days. 

Im not saying the problem is insurmountable, but within the current structure of the game I just feel like there are cleaner, less restrictive solutions.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[KSK]

3 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

All Im assuming is that missions could be run one at a time. Upkeep costs don't just encourage concurrent missions, they basically prohibit long single missions. You also have to consider just how many monotonous Kerbin SOI missions you'd have to run to keep the lights on while you waited for your Jool probe to arrive.

Ahh, fair enough. Upkeep costs would need to be carefully balanced certainly. As for the monotony, having your spacecraft taking time to build helps with that too. Rather than having a single, long timeworn, you have a bunch of shorter ones with things happening between them. Plus you wouldn't necessarily be running Kerbin SOI mission - plenty of other interplanetary windows will open up whilst your Jool probe is in transit.

[tater]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I think this has to be at least part of the goal. In most any game you start out with fewer tools and slowly add new capabilities as you master old ones. All that matters is that capabilities you are provided with at any given time scale to the challenges you're being asked to face. I agree that at the moment some of the progression dynamics don't quite scale, but thats not to say they couldn't. To me its a matter of identifying and fixing the problems, not throwing our hands up and saying its impossible. Its really just a matter of providing players with some better tools earlier, probably distributing upgrades more smoothly across 4 building tiers, and maybe most importantly scaling back rewards later so that funds still mater in the late game. 

I can't see any possible way that you start with less capability (like Tracking station not upgraded) and have the game be easier at the start. I tend to think it is fundamentally impossible to make the game easiest at the start. 

I'm operating under the assumption that the game is not going to do things for you, or make choices for you early on. The pieces we have to play with are facility unlocks (maneuver nodes), parts types, and parts limits/masses. I suppose they could introduce engines with a greater vectoring capability right away... or probe cores that can do things right away. Adding a KER-like functionality would be huge, but the lack of maneuver nodes is a big deal.

 

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I actually agree that adding time based mechanics could make for some very interesting gameplay, but I also acknowledge that this going to be very hard. If time is going to be a factor for building or development or long duration experiments time will need to come with a cost. If there is none, then players can just time warp through and mechanic becomes meaningless. Reputation bleed off and upkeep costs could possibly work, but so far I can't see a way around time warp, especially if we're hoping to also give players more choice of where to go. The trouble is they eat away linearly but time in the game does not pass linearly. If I send a probe to Minmus, no problem, maybe I lose a little bit of rep in transit and then gain it back and then some when it gets there. But what if I send a probe to Eeloo? I might lose all my reputation, bankrupt my program and lose the game before it gets there, and worse, because the game currently has no mission duration estimator I would have no idea this would happen ahead of time. It ends up becoming very frustrating for new players, chokes off the freedom to send missions wherever we like, and at best would result in very weird, dangerous swings in players' basic currencies.

In career mode, you should not be warping to completion of any mission. While your probe is en route to Eeloo, you have another going to Moho, and manned missions to other places, etc. Life support would help here as well. You could have a system like some proposed here where you pick your destination, then you are given a budget (in advance), and also a time frame to complete the mission. You'd only take a hit if the mission doesn't hit whatever that date is.

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Really the only time based cost I can imagine working is life support. Life support runs into some of the same issues with time-warp that upkeep costs would, but given a few simple tools could at least be manageable on a mission-to-mission basis. If a mission planner provided duration estimates you could stock up each mission with enough supplies, and even if you switched vessel focus to do something else your kerbals would be okay so long as you'd planned right. There could also be ways with greenhouses and ISRU to make bases and stations potentially self-sufficient and take them off the worry list completely. 

I always play with LS once mods catch up with a new update, so I know how this forces time to be meaningful. A planner would be ideal, though

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

The game doesn't necessarily need a foil. Plenty of games don't have one. In many ways the real foil is overcoming the challenges of spaceflight and the Kerbol system itself. That said, its an interesting idea. I could see some cool multi-player options involving something like this. 

Well, there is already a foil implicit in the rescue missions, as well as the firsts (why bother with noting YOU are the first if you will necessarily be the first because there is no one else?). Again, I think this would be an alternate career mode. I see people post who routinely blow up kerbals, for example. I almost never lose any, so that when I do it's a big deal. The reason I like the idea of a foil is that it adds a really unique design trade off if done right... safety vs firsts. With no foil, and time making no difference, there is no reason not to just do everything right/perfectly, particularly in replay for those of us that have at least some clue what we are doing. Life Support makes my planning even more careful, so I personally think it would be fun to have some idea that my opponent (either a Cold War analog, or BO vs SpaceX, whatever  ) is doing something that leads me to think that he might be attempting a Mun shot before me, so I might as well go with my marginal craft to beat him, but at some risk. Again, not required, but I think it would be fun, particularly for replay value as it's entirely different from what we've had.

[Pthigrivi]

7 minutes ago, tater said:

I can't see any possible way that you start with less capability (like Tracking station not upgraded) and have the game be easier at the start. I tend to think it is fundamentally impossible to make the game easiest at the start. 

I'm operating under the assumption that the game is not going to do things for you, or make choices for you early on. The pieces we have to play with are facility unlocks (maneuver nodes), parts types, and parts limits/masses. I suppose they could introduce engines with a greater vectoring capability right away... or probe cores that can do things right away. Adding a KER-like functionality would be huge, but the lack of maneuver nodes is a big deal.

 

It can be easier from the start because the goals are easier. You're using a limited kit of parts to get one kerbal to orbit, not to deliver a ISRU capable base to Laythe. So long as the tools scale with the difficulty of the challenge theres no reason why the game can't be simpler and easier at the beginning.

 

12 minutes ago, tater said:

In career mode, you should not be warping to completion of any mission. While your probe is en route to Eeloo, you have another going to Moho, and manned missions to other places, etc. Life support would help here as well. You could have a system like some proposed here where you pick your destination, then you are given a budget (in advance), and also a time frame to complete the mission. You'd only take a hit if the mission doesn't hit whatever that date is.

Well this is why I suggested just making the Explore contracts available from the outset. You 'pick your destination' by selecting the explore contract for that body. Those contracts already have budgets (advances) and due dates. There's no real need to re-write anything, or to deal with the pitfalls of time-based funding. 

 

41 minutes ago, tater said:

 

Well, there is already a foil implicit in the rescue missions, as well as the firsts (why bother with noting YOU are the first if you will necessarily be the first because there is no one else?). Again, I think this would be an alternate career mode. I see people post who routinely blow up kerbals, for example. I almost never lose any, so that when I do it's a big deal. The reason I like the idea of a foil is that it adds a really unique design trade off if done right... safety vs firsts. With no foil, and time making no difference, there is no reason not to just do everything right/perfectly, particularly in replay for those of us that have at least some clue what we are doing. Life Support makes my planning even more careful, so I personally think it would be fun to have some idea that my opponent (either a Cold War analog, or BO vs SpaceX, whatever  ) is doing something that leads me to think that he might be attempting a Mun shot before me, so I might as well go with my marginal craft to beat him, but at some risk. Again, not required, but I think it would be fun, particularly for replay value as it's entirely different from what we've had.

Yeah I mean I'm pretty capable of suspending disbelief on some of this stuff for the sake of a functioning game. These are little green people who live on a planet with a space center and no other buildings. The fact that there's a kerbal from another program stuck in space doesn't rattle me too much. I do like the idea of potentially going one on one vs a computer or even a recording of another player's performance, but its not a big priority for me. I'd much rather see some of these finer game mechanics ironed out first. 

 

[tater]

59 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

It can be easier from the start because the goals are easier. You're using a limited kit of parts to get one kerbal to orbit, not to deliver a ISRU capable base to Laythe. So long as the tools scale with the difficulty of the challenge theres no reason why the game can't be simpler and easier at the beginning.

Certainly the goals can be pretty simple, but again, the game will not be easiest at that point, it will be easy, then harder, then easiest, then slightly harder, etc. Simple question, is the initial goal easier in sandbox or career, yes or no? Could you do the first orbital launch in career easier at the point you can accomplish this in career, or once you've unlocked all the tech and upgraded the facilities? Clearly it is easier in sandbox, or the career equivalent which is all the tech and buildings unlocked than it is at the point it first becomes possible in a career game. So the Career game is necessarily harder earlier than later, I don't see any way around this.

The only way it gets harder late game is if you take ridiculous contracts as some sort of challenge. I have zero interest in hauling ore from Duna to Ike, for example, that's an absurd request. Sure, it's harder than mining Ike, but it makes no sense, so I don't do it.

Quote

Well this is why I suggested just making the Explore contracts available from the outset. You 'pick your destination' by selecting the explore contract for that body. Those contracts already have budgets (advances) and due dates. There's no real need to re-write anything, or to deal with the pitfalls of time-based funding. 

I've suggested basically the same thing, we're in agreement. My point about budgets is not that they are given in advance, but they are doled out over time in advance. This creates time as a thing without KCT mechanics. Say the Explore Duna advance is 600,000 funds and 300 science points to buy tech, and the mission must complete in 5 years, then perhaps it funds the advance over the whole duration. You'd get 120,000 per year. You can arbitrarily divide the Kerbin year into 6 months of 71 days, then you'd get 20,000 funds per month. The science might be given as a lump to buy tech needed for that mission. You still have other flows of science/funds during the dev period for that mission. If you want, you can warp ahead a few 71 day months to build up the funds if needed.

Quote

Yeah I mean I'm pretty capable of suspending disbelief on some of this stuff for the sake of a functioning game. These are little green people who live on a planet with a space center and no other buildings. The fact that there's a kerbal from another program stuck in space doesn't rattle me too much. I do like the idea of potentially going one on one vs a computer or even a recording of another player's performance, but its not a big priority for me. I'd much rather see some of these finer game mechanics ironed out first. 

I'm not disagreeing---again, I suggest this as a new type of career mode, not as a replacement.

Edited January 17, 2016 by tater

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I don't think we disagree, semantics aside. To me for any game to be good it ought to be challenging but manageable throughout with minimal grind. It's totally possible accomplish this and teach new players bigger and better things as you go. Veteran players might get to orbit in a launch or two and the Mun a few launches after that, where it might take more incremental, less efficient launches for new players. That's not a problem for me so long as the tools players need are within reach by the time they need them. I actually think they're close. With an additional building tier and more manageable step-ups between, some minor shuffling of things like action groups and maneuver planning and adding things like mission pre-planning and dV calcs I think we'd have what we need to soften the learning curve.

I also tend to feel like in general the simplest, clearest solution is usually the right one. If something like conducting science or awarding funds could be done with less fuss and complication that only frees players' time to focus on the core experience of the game. 

[Hysterrics]

Hello everyone! To organize an simplify the submission process I have created a Google form. Submission is easy: Type your answer in submit it! This will simplify it for me as all answers will go to a spreadsheat where I can organize your ideas! Upon submitting, please organize your thoughts. State your idea and then give an explanation along with it. Thanks!

http://goo.gl/forms/5eMyLdvSOv

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

Be able to customize the types of contracts you would like to recieve when creating a new game. For example, you could increase the frequency of tourist contracts, and could play a space-tourist game. Or, what I'd like a lot, would be orbiter contracts. You're given a pre-made, un-editable cargo which you have to orbit somewhere. Once it's there, you can finish the contract and lose control over it.