What DON'T we want in KSP?

[Dunbaratu]

I don't ever want to end up in a situation where the only way I can advance monetarily is by doing some set-piece mission

And I don't want to end up in a situation where to play the game I'm required to perform one of those asinine dance-dance-revolution style simon-says sequences where the computer scrolls pictures across the screen and you have to hit the buttons at the rignt time as the icon scrolls by. And I don't want to have an action sequence in which I have to fight my way through a horde of zombies to get to the launchpad to get into space and escape the undead apocalypse. And the likelyhood of those things ever being implemented in KSP is no less likely that what you're saying you're afraid of having happen. It's not even a remote possibility so it's an odd thing to mention as if it was.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Steven Mading

[peadar1987]

I'd have it as a branching system of accomplishments (combined with a sort of "fog of war")

So you'd have at the start:

-Send something into space

-Get something into orbit

-Orbit the Mun

-Orbit Minmus

-Impact the Mun

-Impact Minmus

-Land on the Mun

-Land on Minmus

Which, once you'd orbited the Mun or Minmus, would get you more possible achievements such as "retrieve soil sample from X region of Minmus", reflecting that you now know more about these bodies and their characteristics.

...

Then more branches later on, such as:

-Land on Jool

Transforming to "Deploy atmospheric probe into Jool" once you get close enough with an appropriate science probe to realise it's not got a solid surface.

This could also mean that you increase the functionality of your space stations, as objectives like "Add a Science Module to your space station core", or "Construct a space telescope with X, Y and Z parts" could be added to the tree of challenges.

This should give direction to novice players without overwhelming them, while hopefully still keeping the people who want to go straight to Eeloo reasonably happy by giving them Eeloo-based objectives (even if the start is just "send a probe to Eeloo", so you can find out which experiments are going to teach you the most about the place)

[Kegereneku]

I disagree with you allmhuran, terminology is important.

Grinding (money) describe being forced to redo in loop similar missions to gain finite amount of consumable resources.

Needing to explore biome to gain Science isn't grinding as the science-point and (as of now) tech-tree are unlocked for good, even if there's biome left.

end goal doesn't necessarily apply to mission-based progression, the end goal of career mode could as well be to unlock all tech and have little to do with exploration.

Non-repeatability in a game is best accomplished as part of a semi-guided progression where you are given constrain at first (less tech) and then bigger challenge with newer tech. The opposite is not being able to afford some tech because you need to grind for money again.

Then there's thing that can only be done with scripted progression.

like rescue mission, you can't be rewarded for that if the game can't tell if you didn't staged it yourself.

or building particular ship you would have no need for yourself (many sort of satellites on very original orbit).

I don't see why any of those should be a part of KSP. If I want to play a career focused entirely around Duna, setting up surveyor satellites, and then [...] then that should be a viable way to play

You realize that you are asking the developer to deliberately ignore how a space program is funded in any credible way with the crazy prospect of going to Duna exclusively ?

Are you asking a sandbox mode where budget and tech-tree evolve in a way totally independent from player's actions ? Or something that can be maxed out at moment notice ?

Ok, maybe we use different words right there, but is just the same that I want.

Actually I meant that I would accept FTL or any sort of magic as long as it doesn't break the game. Since I have fun building things I would also have fun with an anti-grav/FTL device as long as it's not just "handed to me" before the very end when I got bored of everything else. I wouldn't mind your beam-sail concept either ... if it was actually possible.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Kegereneku

[CyclonicTuna]

Anything non scientific or related to war. If they at one point decide to add a lasergun to sample rocks with, thats fine. But KSP should always be about exploration and science.

[regex]

It's not even a remote possibility so it's an odd thing to mention as if it was.

There are people in this thread and elsewhere advocating a railroaded experience with scripted "missions" or talking heads setting my budget and objectives for the year; I don't think it's too far-fetched to see that happening with KSP's career mode. And, again, this thread is about what we DON'T want to see in KSP, so I'd appreciate it if you could lay off the thinly-disguised insults regarding my sanity.

Then there's thing that can only be done with scripted progression.

like rescue mission, you can't be rewarded for that if the game can't tell if you didn't staged it yourself.

or building particular ship you would have no need for yourself (many sort of satellites on very original orbit).

The game should provide "organic" excuses to do all those sorts of things. I don't do a rescue mission unless I've made a mistake and my Kerbals are stranded. I don't build a satellite network without some reason like that provided by RemoteTech (this could easily tie in with science, having to use repeater satellites). At the end of the day, KSP should be about my space program, not about some scripted nonsense where I groan about having to put yet another satellite into Eeloo orbit because that's the "available mission" or having to pick up some random Kerman from the Mun because they need "rescuing".

Are you asking a sandbox mode where budget and tech-tree evolve in a way totally independent from player's actions ? Or something that can be maxed out at moment notice ?

No, budget and tech tree grow through the player's actions, just like the tech tree does now. I decide when and if I do science on Duna or a Joolian moon and, similarly, no one should tell me how to approach my space program

Edited November 13, 2013 by regex

[PDCWolf]

No, budget and tech tree grow through the player's actions, just like the tech tree does now. I decide when and if I do science on Duna or a Joolian moon and, similarly, no one should tell me how to approach my space program

This is something that needs to be cleared up by the devs. Is it really our space program? are we really playing an endless family with infinite money or does the space program depend on politics and stuff like that? Because as it is now, we are just little green men on a weird continent with infinite money that decide how space exploration evolves and we don't have competition either so there's noone to beat.

On the other hand, you could do missions and then (or at the same time) do whatever the hell you want with your spare budget. Guess we'll have to wait for politics/reputation and the rest of career mode to arrive.

Edited November 13, 2013 by PDCWolf

[Kegereneku]

The problem regex is that having a minimal amount of "script" is certainly the only way you'll have a space program that "make sense" unlike what you claim. How launching the equivalent of a 1000tons Manley-powered mothership to Duna before you even reached the Mun could make "more sense" than (example) being tightly restricted in budget until you have managed to manage more and more complicated mission ?

Funnily, putting all this together make it feel like someone disappointed by our pansy space agency without the gut to colonize Mars and burst through technological limitation along the way.

But seriously, if you want a WAY more coherent tech-tree and budget-system than from beta-career, the developer will need some leverage on you.

Leverage like the "RemoteTech" you quoted (although its a mods). This is a mods that Coerce/force you to launch satellite, satellite which have a cost, must be "justified" to whoever fund your "space program" (because we can't have infinite budget again and don't want grinding).

I'm not in disagreement that everything you ever launch shouldn't be mission-based. I'm just outraged by the implication that the goal of guided progression would be to prevent you -personally- from having fun. Plus Career mode shouldn't be a watered down sandbox (yes) where you roam around aimlessly without doing anything relevant other than "winning point".

And let's not forget newcomer, those who don't know yet what an orbit is.

It doesn't matter if you believe to be capable of managing the program all by yourself. Because it would still be like a Trial and Error Gameplay which is a horror of the past, as you shouldn't need to ask on the forum or suffer through a context-less tutorial.

In short : Career-mode is the occasion to turn a wacky exploding-rocket assembly game into a tales of engineering prowess leading to mind-blowing accomplishments echoing through history.

"That's one small step for Kerbal. Wait ! its more like one giant leap, the gravity if funny here."

This is something that needs to be cleared up by the devs. Is it really our space program?

I really find this question funny because a space program can't rise from nothing. Unless you are both a rocket-engineer and the despotic-ruler of Kerbin.

And I think it's irrelevant, following a Career you expect to live an interesting history of rocket-science, including the up and down (success and budget cut)

Would a down phase (after Apollo) where you are highly encouraged (coerced) to use cost-efficient probes really be bad if it's followed up by a new Era of manned exploration ?

Most good game have up and down making the game more immersive.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Kegereneku

[Tank Buddy]

What's wrong with the NERVA engine? I know it is amazing in real life, but the LV-N was nerfed to 60 KN instead of the NERVA's 333 KN.

[coolitic]

As long as they dont make kerbals do rick-rolls i think I'm fine.

[regex]

The problem regex is that having a minimal amount of "script" is certainly the only way you'll have a space program that "make sense" unlike what you claim. How launching the equivalent of a 1000tons Manley-powered mothership to Duna before you even reached the Mun could make "more sense" than (example) being tightly restricted in budget until you have managed to manage more and more complicated mission?

My problem with that sort of restriction is that it isn't fun, especially when you're starting your third career mode save. Why do I need to stick to Kerbin SOI for my first ten flights? Why not this time go to Duna, or Eeloo, or Moho, or Jool? The parts clearly allow this.

I'm not so much interested in the game "making sense" as I am it providing fun and challenging gameplay.

But seriously, if you want a WAY more coherent tech-tree and budget-system than from beta-career, the developer will need some leverage on you.

Leverage like the "RemoteTech" you quoted (although its a mods). This is a mods that Coerce/force you to launch satellite

This is what I describe as an "organic" excuse, not "leverage". In order to properly control probes under RemoteTech you need a satellite network that can extend your communication range, which gives you reason to actually launch satellites. This reason not only provides different gameplay mechanics and interesting choices (I personally don't play with RemoteTech because I fly primarily manned missions), it avoids having an arbitrary "mission" assigned where you launch a satellite for no other reason than to launch a satellite.

If I'm going to launch a satellite for no other reason than to launch a satellite then it should be a personal goal of mine, not something doled out by a "mission".

satellite which have a cost, must be "justified" to whoever fund your "space program" (because we can't have infinite budget again and don't want grinding).

That's right, we don't want grinding. "Doing missions" for no other reason than to gain money is what I would define as "grinding". This is why I would prefer a system where the player gains money, prestige, whatever by simply doing what they want to do in the game. This works well with the current tech tree and science mechanics, I don't see why a budget system couldn't be built in the same vein.

I'm not in disagreement that everything you ever launch shouldn't be mission-based. I'm just outraged by the implication that the goal of guided progression would be to prevent you -personally- from having fun. Plus Career mode shouldn't be a watered down sandbox (yes) where you roam around aimlessly without doing anything relevant other than "winning point".

One of the hallmarks of a good sandbox game is being able to set and meet (or fail at) your own goals, and a mission system defeats the purpose of that by creating set piece gameplay, often times for no other reason than to "complete a mission" for some sort of points. The problem with sandbox gameplay is that it is, dare I say, advanced gameplay. It demands that you set your own goals, it doesn't lay them out for you in nice little packages, so if you're "wandering around aimlessly" you clearly need to figure out what your goals are and that can be confusing for new players. On the other hand, it is much more rewarding than set piece gameplay.

My biggest fear of missions is that they will cut out the sandbox gameplay by providing the only means of gaining a crucial resource. Clearly some people would like missions (or is it "contracts" in KSP parlance now?) to provide some guidance; I see nothing wrong with that, but sandbox gameplay should not be eschewed in favor of set piece gameplay. KSP's career mode should be able to reward you for setting and meeting your own goals, even if you never accept a single mission.

And let's not forget newcomer, those who don't know yet what an orbit is.

It doesn't matter if you believe to be capable of managing the program all by yourself. Because it would still be like a Trial and Error Gameplay which is a horror of the past, as you shouldn't need to ask on the forum or suffer through a context-less tutorial.

This is very true, KSP is terrible at conveying the core concepts it is built on at the moment but I see no reason to turn career mode into some sort of newbie tutorial play where every time I create a save I have to suffer through that sort of thing.

In short : Career-mode is the occasion to turn a wacky exploding-rocket assembly game into a tales of engineering prowess leading to mind-blowing accomplishments echoing through history.

I completely agree, I'd just prefer if I were able to manage the direction of my space program, not some faceless lines of code.

[allmhuran]

I disagree with you

Sorry, can't respond to this post because I can't figure out what you're trying to say, and I don't think you know what I was saying either.

[AngelLestat]

My problem with that sort of restriction is that it isn't fun, especially when you're starting your third career mode save. Why do I need to stick to Kerbin SOI for my first ten flights? Why not this time go to Duna, or Eeloo, or Moho, or Jool? The parts clearly allow this.

If you dont wanna have restrictions, play in sandbox mode, that mode is made for that.

But if you wanna play career mode, then it will be "logic" to have things and restriction like you would have in a real space program.

After all that is the tittle of the game.

That's right, we don't want grinding. "Doing missions" for no other reason than to gain money is what I would define as "grinding". This is why I would prefer a system where the player gains money, prestige, whatever by simply doing what they want to do in the game. This works well with the current tech tree and science mechanics, I don't see why a budget system couldn't be built in the same vein.

Not just becouse you may have a limit in budget is mean that you can not make some big mission.

How I explain this.. mmm I dont know how it will be, but lets imagine that we have X amount of cash.

Some ways get founds can be:

-put some private satellites in orbit.

-space turism

-minering

-make a space solar collector and sell energy to kerbin.

-obtain a bonus by certain amount of science points.

-by making some achievements.

-get a loan that you can paid in installments (turns based).

-etc.

All this adds gameplay.

But if you are only limited by your tech tree. Then once you have vertical and horizontal decouplers, docking port and duct pipes you can go anywhere. Really? what can stop you there?

Of course a good monetary system needs to be very well planed to prevent bored loops in missions.

And the way you make money it will be your choice. So people will choice launch some satellites or others just do explorations.

After all, when nasa or other agency arrives to a new planet, it gets public attentions, that can be traslated to money incoming. Also new planet pictures can be imprented in books or used for documentary.

Edited November 14, 2013 by AngelLestat

[regex]

If you dont wanna have restrictions, play in sandbox mode, that mode is made for that.

But if you wanna play career mode, then it will be "logic" to have things and restriction like you would have in a real space program.

After all that is the tittle of the game.

So because I want the freedom to conduct my space program in the manner that I see fit, setting the goals that I want to complete, I can never do so with the added challenges of budgets, a tech tree, hiring crew, and any other resource restrictions? I have to "do missions" in order to have that sort of challenge?

Of course a good monetary system needs to be very well planed to prevent bored loops in missions.

And the way you make money it will be your choice. So people will choice launch some satellites or others just do explorations.

After all, when nasa or other agency arrives to a new planet, it gets public attentions, that can be traslated to money incoming. Also new planet pictures can be imprented in books or used for documentary.

That's pretty much exactly what I want to see in KSP; the freedom to choose how your own space program will unfold. I personally don't want to use some cookie-cutter procedural mission generator to "add content" to the game for me, I want to get my crucial resources by doing the things that I want to do, by setting and achieving my own goals, but that doesn't mean that missions don't have a place in how I see career mode working. What I've really been trying to say in all my posts here is that the sandbox gameplay that makes KSP so awesome should be preserved in career mode. I don't think anyone should ever have to "do missions" in order to advance their career, but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for them or that people couldn't use a mission system to have an enjoyable KSP career game.

[Kegereneku]

Why do I need to stick to Kerbin SOI for my first ten flights? Why not this time go to Duna, or Eeloo, or Moho, or Jool? The parts clearly allow this.

Why would you ? Surely for the same reason you don't jump from "invent a wooden wheel" to "invent composite Nerva-engine" ? And because it make sense ?

edit : it roughly fall down to how many flights for how long game-time completing career-mode will take, and where do the progression end.

Glad you heard of the "Prestige" idea because I like it.

Just to be clear : Would you consider a budget limitation "organic design" ? Because being limited in budget because you need to show results is also to be considered part of the game mechanic. Same for requiring field testing which -following your logic- would be a freedom-killing mission. On this note I wouldn't mind needing to accomplish a launch-return flight (transparent mission) using tech I want unlocked.

Here is what I read until now :

- Some don't want to grind money/prestige or in fact do anything for funding.

- Some want all unlocked parts to be accessible forever in any quantity (yes I read that)

- And some don't even want to be asked to do science or anything unrelated to their own objectives.

Problem : What the hell does it leave ?!

Adding all this together, you expect to be funded/gain prestige, to advance the tech-tree, gain science, doing nothing but having the prospect of going to Mars. It's like Mister the President ordering "Send a manned-mission to the surface of Mars !" without wanting to hear about "development cost" and "field testing".

The fact that parts for a big-budget Mun-mission would allow a Duna-Direct landing-and-return is certainly a problem too. We are all used to a sandbox where Kerbun-life and time-warp cost nothing, because it made it easier when you had nothing to do. So sometime I wonder if the Developers will end up building a life-support system just to keep you around Kerbin. As part of what you accept : an "organic game design".

so if you're "wandering around aimlessly" you clearly need to figure out what your goals are and that can be confusing for new players.

Don't go patronizing, I had a mobile based on Duna, I explored the Joolian system with Man and probes, same for Eeloo, all of them got back and it was aimlessly.

Don't get mistaken you are wandering around aimlessly, this is a video game so you can't claim to be exploring anything since the code-source of the Kerbal-verse is known, neither developing tech since all technology is accessible and have fixed-specs. Again I wouldn't mind needing to "upgrade a part".

In conclusion : I'm pretty sure we are on the same page here and you understand that whatever you do in Career-mode will have to be guided as a gameplay experience. You are just stuck in the belief that rules are bad and that more freedom make better game (which is very false). Obligatory Mission can(do for me) fit seamlessly into a Space-Program because it make sense and it's credible. The head of the Apollo Program didn't say "Hell with that ! I want to go to Mars, give me budget !".

Lastly, I can think of semi-guided progression with obligatory prestige mission and field-testing that can still allow you to "progress" by focusing at 80% on a single planet.

Sorry, can't respond to this post because I can't figure out what you're trying to say, and I don't think you know what I was saying either.

Understandable, you were already answering someone else.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Kegereneku

[peadar1987]

Perhaps a simple check box to turn the talking heads giving you missions on and off would do the trick. First-time player who needs a bit of guidance? Or just someone who likes meeting specific objectives? Leave the talking head on. Done it all before and want to unlock the entire tech tree in 4 missions, starting with an Eeloo colony? Turn it off.

[Tw1]

-snip-

The thing is though, it's not about rules and restrictions getting in the way, it's about who's making the choices of what's going to be done.

Are you working under the instructions of some other organisation, them giving you money to achieve their goals?

Or are you running an organisation of your own, that seeks funds from others to achieve its own goals?

I bought into the game partially at the idea of running my own space program, not running someone else's. This is likely why I'm not a fan of set missions. I'd like to take my program in the direction I want.

If you've got the budget somehow, got the technical expertise (player skill), and a trip to Duna is the first thing you want to do, why not?

Budget, tech tree, and life support are realistic constraints within the game universe, same as the fact that you need a certain amount of delta V to get to orbit, or certain TWR to land without crashing. The challenge is working within the many constraints to achieve what you intend to do.

"Missions" like "You must do five Mun landings before you can go to Duna" are arbitrary restraints.

Why five? Why isn't it X? Duna's there, I have parts, funds, and the skill, why can't I try to go to it?

Failure- loss of a kerbal- will have consequences, and that will deter those who aren't confident they can support such a mission.

Testing and practice will happen naturally as you play, unless you want to risk failure.

I don't think any guidance is needed, at least, not on what to do.How to do it maybe.

You're given a set of spaceship parts. Out there is a solar system. Shouldn't it be obvious?

Perhaps a simple check box to turn the talking heads giving you missions on and off would do the trick. First-time player who needs a bit of guidance? Or just someone who likes meeting specific objectives? Leave the talking head on. Done it all before and want to unlock the entire tech tree in 4 missions, starting with an Eeloo colony? Turn it off.

The thing is though, I'd love contracts to enhance the game, rather than being sets of instructions you must do or not do.

Things like, Prof. T. Kerman wants to get ---- data on ---- on Duna, could you do that for him? Or Ben Kerman wants a trip to Dres, could you take him with you on your next trip?

Etcetera.

If you've got plans to go to Duna, might as well do the test Prof. Kerman wants, it will make him happy. But, if you've got no plans to go to Dres in the near future, Ben will have to wait.

Or, you could take pity on him, and start planning a Drew mission immediately.

See, this kind of system would give a far more dynamic, and interesting experience, than a "Now you're going to do X" type system.

We play this game for entertainment right? Not to tick boxes.

I want to experience managing a space program, not ticking boxes.

I want to generate my own kerbal histories, as sandbox has demonstrated is possible, not just follow pre programed paths.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Tw1

[Wahgineer]

I believe that there is a simple solution to the problem of missions/contracts/tasks:

difficulty settings

Much like minecraft, these settings could determine whether you want to play sandbox with science+money, limited parts with science + money with lightly structured missions, or Manley Mode, with structured missions, politics, reputation, low budget, low science returns, and Permadeath (i.e.: if a kerbal dies, you will never see him again. You also will have a limited number of kerbals.).

instead of bickering back and forth over whether career should be sandbox with money and science or Manley Mode, why not compromise, and make those options witch the player decides?

[regex]

Just to be clear : Would you consider a budget limitation "organic design" ? Because being limited in budget because you need to show results is also to be considered part of the game mechanic.

Absolutely, the added intricacy and challenge is welcome. And there are other ways to show results and measure success than completing a set piece mission.

Same for requiring field testing which -following your logic- would be a freedom-killing mission. On this note I wouldn't mind needing to accomplish a launch-return flight (transparent mission) using tech I want unlocked.

This sounds like about the most boring thing you could do to a player in KSP: force field testing. I can build some really basic designs early in the tech tree that I know will make it to the Mun and Minmus, why the hell should I have to field test them? If I'm working on my own complicated design it should fall on me to field-test it, not someone telling me that I should do it.

Here is what I read until now :

- Some don't want to grind money/prestige or in fact do anything for funding.

- Some want all unlocked parts to be accessible forever in any quantity (yes I read that)

- And some don't even want to be asked to do science or anything unrelated to their own objectives.

You are incorrect on all points, at least insofar as I am concerned. My point is that I shouldn't be forced to do set piece missions in order to advance in the career mode, I should be able to set and meet my own goals. Doing so under budgetary/science/prestige/whatever constraints is just added challenge and very welcome.

So sometime I wonder if the Developers will end up building a life-support system just to keep you around Kerbin. As part of what you accept : an "organic game design".

This is an excellent idea. In fact, I am trying out a career mode with TACLS right now and, because of my self-imposed tech tree assignments (because I'm using custom parts), I had to do a lot of science around LKO because the capsules carried so little electricity. In fact, my Kerbals use enough electricity under TACLS to make sending science back via antenna a very poor choice until I unlocked solar panels.

Don't go patronizing, I had a mobile based on Duna, I explored the Joolian system with Man and probes, same for Eeloo, all of them got back and it was aimlessly.

Don't get mistaken you are wandering around aimlessly, this is a video game so you can't claim to be exploring anything since the code-source of the Kerbal-verse is known, neither developing tech since all technology is accessible and have fixed-specs. Again I wouldn't mind needing to "upgrade a part".

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

In conclusion : I'm pretty sure we are on the same page here and you understand that whatever you do in Career-mode will have to be guided as a gameplay experience. You are just stuck in the belief that rules are bad and that more freedom make better game (which is very false). Obligatory Mission can(do for me) fit seamlessly into a Space-Program because it make sense and it's credible. The head of the Apollo Program didn't say "Hell with that ! I want to go to Mars, give me budget !".

No. I am arguing that career mode can have arbitrary "mission" direction if you so choose, but I am against it being the only way to advance the career and, in fact, that you should never be obligated to do anything for a talking head. Obligatory missions are about the worst sort of gameplay I can envision for KSP. What if I've got Kerbals to rescue and their life support is running out? As Tw1 rightfully points out:

I bought into the game partially at the idea of running my own space program, not running someone else's. This is ;likely why I'm not a fan of set missions. I'd like to take my program in the direction I want.

[vetrox]

50% of players want missions 50% dont. (percentages just randomly made up btw)

Neither side is going to convince the other. Even with some of the cool suggestions I've seen and had. I'm sure squad will work it out. From the AMA it looks like they already have a concept in place. We need it released so we can stop this part of bickering and move onto the next part (which will be almost identical to the science points bickering that happened when .22 was released)

[Kamsko]

That's the point: money isn't a reward, it's a means to an end. That's why I'd hate to end up being limited by timewarping for cash.

Why would any one pay a space agency to hold the fast forward button on the VCR? I don't think time warping for free cash would be a game play problem in the end, and if it was it would just be a huge gameplay oversight I don't think even the most amateur game dev would make. However here we are discussing it like it could actually happen.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Kamsko

[regex]

Why would any one pay a space agency to hold the fast forward button on the VCR? I don't think time warping for free cash would be a game play problem in the end, and if it was it would just be a huge gameplay oversight I don't think even the most amateur game dev would make. However here we are discussing it like it could actually happen.

Does anyone around here ever read an OP or thread title?

(E: It's also worth mentioning that I've seen several suggestions recently regarding yearly or monthly budgets and "time-based" mechanics.)

[cooptimo]

To go a bit meta here, I think we are talking about what direction the game's career mode is going to go in and what that means for people. I like lists so here are some possibilities.

* The 'Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space'/Liftoff Model. Liftoff was a 1989 board game and BARIS was the PC version. It was a competitive game that took place using turns where players competed to land on the moon first. The economic model involved was part of the competitive nature of the game. *IF* KSP wanted to implement a competitive model, that would be interesting and fun for a lot of people, but would need to stand apart from the solo game. I have no desire to play a KSP/BARIS/Liftoff game against a computer opponent though. Not my idea of fun.

* The 'mission campaign' model were a specific missions are generated randomly or given in a set order or some mix where a player is given a specific goal and some kind of reward for achieving it. Mission 1: Suborbital Flight: reward $1000. Something like that. Honestly, not that interesting to me, but I guess adding something like this as a more structured tutorial level for the early game might work well.

* The Unlimited Cash, but we think you are cooler if you do it cheaper model. This could be some kind of achievement unlock model, where players can unlock (gods of Kerbin forgive me) badges for say landing on the moon with a craft under a certain weight or cost or both. This would require some er.... significant anti-cheating checking and would probably ignite the MechJeb flamewars to biblical proportions. But it might actually be fun if it's set up right.

[Kegereneku]

Well, I think we are in agreement anyway Regex.

You fear a very badly made sort of strictly-mission-based gameplay that isn't in the spirit of KSP anyway, and I'm just criticizing your naive phrasing of the benefit of no-constraint-ever in game design, even if my English isn't perfect either.

The thing is though, it's not about rules and restrictions getting in the way, it's about who's making the choices of what's going to be done.

Are you working under the instructions of some other organisation, them giving you money to achieve their goals?

Or are you running an organisation of your own, that seeks funds from others to achieve its own goals?

You make some choice or it wouldn't be a game (interactive)

But I see nothing bad/annoying at considering yourself like a "Private" Space Agency working with governmental found (we have example) as long as you do a frankly very very reasonable amount of interesting contract (mission) as part of what a Space Agency is expected to do.

SpaceX wouldn't fare long if Elon Musk put all the budget into a manned flight to Mars for the benefit of nobody, and was outraged to be required by "the system" to actually offer Space Launch service.

And again this is NOT going to harm the game anymore than a badly-made "sandbox career" where one can trick the game for reward in a non-fulfilling way because he didn't wanted to be constrained by fail-safe game mechanic.

Our world is so egocentric nowadays, I swear someone will want a Mario Game where Mario is free to NOT save the princess, or a strategy game where you are free to win by loosing every battle. And there's maybe something to say about "hard gamer" ashamed about the idea of not CRASH-TESTING new player into a wall until they like the game.

[allmhuran]

(snip exactly what I would have said)

So much is right with this post. The point about arbitrary restrictions being the thing to avoid is perhaps the most important and the key difference between the two points of view.

In fact, I honestly don't really believe anyone would, in fact, enjoy a game more if it had arbitrary restrictions. Perhaps those holding a contrary position just haven't really thought it through, or are misinterpreting the concept. I think the note about how vs what is well made. I have no objection to a set of tutorial "missions" for people wanting some guidance when starting out.

[Kegereneku]

Please, you don't realize how every game rely on substantial amount of arbitrary restriction. It's one of the building-block of video game !!

It's like fearing a linearity that haven't been heard of since the invention of video-game !

There's nothing wrong with "have something keeping you from Scott Manleying Career mode in 1 hours or reach Duna before landing on the Mun". It's just common sense. Nobody is defending an invisible barrier at the limit of Kerbin's SOI or forcing player through a succession of timed-mission not allowing them to reach Duna.

The debate came from the argumentation that absolutely no form of guided-progression should ever happen, which question the whole point of a tech-tree, budget limitation, science system and finally Career mode.

There's players who would like for KSP to be like Minecraft.

So to work with this analogy : if Sandbox is Creative mode, then Career would be Adventure. And all Minecraft player know there's a frigging lot of arbitrary restriction making this mode interesting.