tater

One, "comm networks" as per RT are not realistic. If we had finite ground stations and bandwidth, then maybe we'd need to think about other solutions, but particularly given the tools in KSP it is just tedious (the lack of automated station keeping, for example). Two, regarding LS "adding more parts" in effect is "adding more mass." In the long run, that's all LS is, requiring bigger and more massive craft for missions that require longer durations. It need not micromanage every aspect of LS, it literally only needs to consider the base mass of the mechanical LS systems (many would be folded into existing crewed parts anyway), and then the net consumed mass per day. Sure, water might be recycled at 94% or something like that, and food much less so, but in the end all that matters is the net extra mass you must take. That's it, it's just mass. If you wanted to be more complex, do what Roverdude is talking about and have some requirement for ha volume per kerbal per unit time (they need nicer digs for a 10 year mission than a 10 day mission). If you are going to send in effect a mk1 capsule to Duna, and that's all you can manage, then it should be a probe.

"Real" space program missions (NASA/ESA/etc) are budgeted. KSP really needs a distinction between commercial contracts ("We'd like to hire you to put this spacecraft into the following orbit, please.") and "real" missions the player choses. It seems like the player could chose the body and mission type, and the game might offer budget choices to accomplish this mission based upon rep/science total, etc. That or you get the budget, and the cost of the craft involved weights the rep score you get (more rep the less you spend).

There are no constraints at all in sandbox, and frankly, aside from early in a career game, there are nearly no constraints in career, either, then at the end of career... no restraints. What career IS, and what career SHOULD BE are two things that are incredibly far from each other, frankly. If anyone has played something like Il-2 (a combat flight sim), there is a campaign mode, or short scenarios, then there is an "instant action" mode where you set some parameters of friendly and enemy aircraft around you, then just fight them. Sandbox feels like this to me. OK from time to time, but ultimately unsatisfying. Career in KSP is also ultimately unsatisfying, but only because it is so very poorly executed, I would prefer the progression. Ultimately, I think career should have a randomized solar system, forcing the player to actually "do science" to learn how to do the missions required. In the real world, Venera 4 told humanity things about Venus that were up to that point unknown, and raised more questions (their pressure sensor maxed out, and the craft didn't even broadcast from the surface). It put the kibosh on thoughts of manned expeditions to Venus any time in the foreseeable future. That's the kind of thing that would be cool in KSP. Having a range of possible values for a world that make sense---and having to actually send craft there to check it out. At the very least an AI opponent would be awesome (competing programs with meaningful research/construction time added to the game) because a "space race" would instantly give career an entirely different feel than science or sandbox mode. You'd be forced into making design choices based upon "winning" vs the opponent and safety. Rep would be the score, and loss of kerbals would give you a huge hit, and important "firsts" would give you big plusses. Things like rescues would only occur in the context of the AI opponent failing. To replicate human-designs, the game might have a toggle whereby any player's craft can be shared (complete with mods noted). So a player might be 2 years into the game, and the AI has unlocked a certain array of tech tree nodes. When the AI goes to create a craft for its next goal, it looks at the server, and grabs craft files that fit the goal, using the required constellation of nodes unlocked (i.e.; using parts that is has available). Initial career settings for such a "space race" variant might include a slider for the relationship between the opponents, as well as they type of rivalry. Types might be commercial and national, for example, and the relationship could go from friendly, to bitter enemies. The relationship value could change via gameplay. So your bitter rival has a failure on orbit, and since the system is using something like KCT has no reduce capability. The player gets a news flash that the USKR has stranded a kerbal in LKO who will die in 15 days (USILS with death). If the player manages a rescue, in addition to scoring Rep, they might change the relationship status towards the friendly end via this act of good will. When that status is sufficiently friendly, the AI might propose a joint mission (and the player is always free to do so, but the AI might reject it if hostile). Anyway, this would be fun to play, IMO.

You'd think my autocorrect would know "kerbals" by now. Sigh. I read that thread, and I disagree regarding rescues. I always try and save kerbals, but TIME should matter. The idea that it's more fun to mount a rescue that might arrive in 10 years entirely kills immersion for me. If they are stuck in orbit around Jool, and need rescue... they are likely already dead.

I think science mode is best for new players if the goal is reducing the choices to reasonable levels for a "progression." Career is definitively not really for new players, IMO, as it is in fact most difficult period in KSP career is the start.

I recall a quote by von Braun saying that the trouble with the V-2 was that it landed on the wrong planet.

In the old version of USILS you can set the cfg so kernels die. In the new version there are 6 choices you can set in the cfg, death is #5.

Mission types don't actually require much imagination. There are 4 possibilities per body: flyby, orbiter, lander, station/base. That's it. I disagree with reject's agreement with pecan on this basis, as the imagination is in HOW to fulfill the objective, not which one of those 4 it is. OTOH, I entirely agree that current career is a side quest system, hence my constant harping that it needs to be redone. It's such a fundamental problem I don't think mods can fix it.

The budget needs to constantly change based upon what you have done, not done, what has failed, etc. I'd have to write an external campaign game to do this for KSP. You SAID that was what career was for, that IS what you are arguing, if you mean something else, don't say that career is for people who lack the imagination to make their own missions. I also did not say that career should be redesigned for new players, I said it should be redesigned period. My only reference to new players was that any career system (any UI at all, frankly) should be self-explanatory. If you need to find a forum thread to realize that you can earn funds/rep without contracts, or that you need to use the ] key to rescue a verbal, the UI/career system is broken. It should be clear to any new user what gives them what. I've never said career mode is for noobs, I said that any career mode should not require reading up on a forum to make sense of how it works. In other threads I have said that career mode is backwards regarding difficulty, in fact, that it is most difficult at the beginning, then infect becomes sandbox. For new players this is exactly wrong. I like campaign/career games in general, but the KSP career is poorly executed. The goal should not (and is not) providing missions for players that lack imagination, it should be to facilitate a sense that you are exploring the unknown, and ideally it should present novel challenges. I think noobs should play science mode as it forces a progression that can help.

How does any limitation (a budget, for example) mean that everyone who plays career has no imagination. Be specific. You said that was what career was for. The science/tech interaction is terrible, actually, it makes no sense whatsoever and should be scrapped. How does money/rep/contracts NOT add complexity? You are arguing that career is for people who lack imagination, so you should be arguing that limitations don't add complexity, not that they do add complexity. I don't think career is designed to make KSP easier to learn, so I don't understand what your point is, and in addition, I also think that that limitation in career is absurd, and I'd scrap that, too. I already answered the bit about new players, I see career as something that should ideally exist for repeat players, not for new players necessarily. The current career offers little---which is a primary point of this thread as it has evolved, if you've been paying attention. A good career system would look very little like what we see in KSP, and the goal would be to limit player choices based upon constraints (budget, tech development, etc) to try and put a space program into some context. In addition, it should end up providing novel challenges that sandbox/science modes do not produce. To facilitate this, the entire contract/science/tech system needs to be bulldozed and started over. A few primary changes are required, IMO: 1. Time needs to matter. (think Kerbal Construction Time, or something less complex, but similar in some ways). 2. "Fog of war" needs to exist. Exploring is the goal, so the player should need to explore. The positions/orbits of all worlds would be known, as well as mass, etc, but much should be unknown. This means the Kerbol system should be able to change per game (stock system would be an option). The player knows what could be known via group-based astronomy alone. Want to land on the 2d world from Kerbol... better send something to see what the atmosphere is like. 3. While anathema to Squad, failure needs to be a possibility for parts. The chance can be slim, but some types can be more reliable than others, and as parts get tested/used, they can improve WRT reliability. 4. Life support. Goes with time being a thing (LS alone makes time suddenly meaningful). A huge, and important constraint that matters, and should matter in career mode. 5. A better system for researching new tech. Perhaps testing and some science are prerequisites for some tech. 6. Kerbals that can actually do things. If the player designs a good mission (waypoints), having Jeb actually fly is not out of hand (the player can always fly themselves, as well). 7. Not required, but ideally a foil for the player. KSP needs a Space Race as at least an option. With time, etc, mattering, then the player is stuck making choices of safety vs "winning" to achieve the next milestone goal. The rescues imply this already, it needs to be explicit.

This is just patent nonsense. Career provides no missions at all for the player to do, really. In every thread about career you see that in fact no one wants to do the suggested contracts, and merely try to fit some contracts into missions they have already decided to do themselves. The purpose of career (a good career system, not what KSP has) is to put the individual missions into a context that includes limitations, ideally producing novel situations/problems to solve. The real space race, while a pork fest, none the less had a limited budget, and constraints on what technology was available at any given moment. THAT is what career should be for, those limitations. Those are the kinds of decisions career SHOULD have. Test things better, or go now (I'd love a space race type career) because you worry that the other side is about to send guys to the Mun.

Career should be self-explanatory. Would a new player know that they could ignore contracts, or would they assume they need to take them? You don't even precisely know your rep except upon examining the save game window. Presumably these are the "milestone" rewards. I honestly don't even remember what the milestones actually are. I tend to not hit them as fast given 6.4X distances, and I play with LS. Even with that slight increase in difficulty, I did NOT gain rep fast enough to get the Explore the Mun contract, which it seems like I should see upon reaching orbit, no? I also never saw any rendezvous contracts, etc (given the 3.2X/6.4X) rescale in my game, I need to upgrade the facilities pretty quickly to be able to do anything (~6000m/s to orbit, and another 1200 to a mun interaction (flyby)).

Voted

I'm somewhat of the same mind. In some other thread about the (terrible) contracts and career system, I recall saying that while I think the career is badly done, doing it well is non-trivial. Squad claimed that contracts are now somehow contextual... I have yet to notice. Within the current system (science is just points, and those points buy tech), I would like to see some filtering of contracts via player strategy choices. Real strategies, not the silly exchange rep for funds, etc.. So If I chose to make my program 50% tourism, I see a ton of tourism and VIP contracts. If I chose to make my program 0% tourism, I see NONE of those contracts. Then I'd even be fine with the decline penalty (though you can always warp forward a few days instead of declining, so perhaps every time you decline a contract, you should take no hit, but warp forward until the contract offer expiry date. I mostly do, but you need contracts in the early game to get rep, so that you get offered the only contracts that I want (the explore contracts). You have to do something to score funds, after all.

I'd like to see another voting option, that it would help solve the problems with career---which it would. Hence I didn't vote. I think that the tech tree and science are also part of the problem with career, and they are all tangled together, but yeah, you have a good start here.

Sure, you need not take any contracts, but given that they exist as a thing, wouldn't it be better if they were not awful?

Noticed the 24 hour clock support added in the github notes... Maybe that was my issue as k-365 uses a 24 hour day. As always, thanks for your work!

They are KSP contracts, so they are terrible, and make no sense. That's the hallmark of contracts in KSP. I just started a new career in the 365 mod (3.2x planets at 6.4x distance from each other). I achieved orbit, but apparently lacked the rep to be presented with "Explore the Mun." The only contracts offering decent rep were tourist contracts. Really? So I had to take a couple to get offered the explore contract (though I was offered flyby). Having done a free return to the Mun, my contract office (I refuse to call it mission control, because it's not) is full of tourist and rescue contracts, along with lame stuff that would require aircraft on kerbin (something I never build).

It might be nice if you borrowed one point from OP's idea, that hab modules need to be out of EC for some extended period of time (in USILS) before the kerbals raid the supplies. I've had some difficult to reproduce issues with time compression and USILS, and I presume it is EC checking (I can't make it happen, however, just that it sometimes seems to happen at really high TC).

Awesome, will do. Great work, this is a favorite scaling for me as it is challenging with stock parts, and parts mods made for vanilla KSP.

Should I update Kopernicus, or keep the dll in the mod?

I've never blown up any building.

Very cool. An obvious extension/follow-on would be the Von Braun concept rockets never built.

They should be tweakable type things. If they want a fixed size the same as the current ones, fine. Instead of the flakey opening doors, just have pull downs to set LFO/Mono/EC/etc and be done with it. We can then make service modules that won't shake craft apart.

While I've never even tried MJ, I'll add another heresy, I think that kerbal pilots should be able to fly based upon their skill levels. Not "mech" Jeb, just "Jeb." That's almost a requirement for a more far-reaching notion of career mode, IMO.