tater

You said and end goal, not an "end game" (like, "Congratulations, you won the solar system!"). A goal would be the idea of what the end game should look like in career, IMHO. The tech tree is absolutely the de facto end game in career. Most of us play on for other reasons, but game design comes with some psychological baggage that the designers and players need to be aware of. Players will play to the reward system unconsciously. It's well established, and it's why some cheap little app games are in fact so addicting. The notion that the tech tree introduces parts in some meaningful, instructive way is clearly false, one only need look at the tech tree arrangement. Where are aircraft parts relative to the landing gear? The fact is that most of the tech tree in RL is concurrent, and the arrangement currently makes the game EASIER later in the game, not harder. It would be possible to arrange it so that the first nodes would force the player to learn stuff, but I just don't think this is the case. A goal is what all the gameplay design decisions should drive. If the goal is "tycoon," then they should add features that make management, not piloting, more of a thing, instead of a tacked-on afterthought. If the goal is "Science!" then make the game push/incentivize that behavior, and make science useful in actual gameplay. I don't expect a "game over, you won!" moment, I just want the design goals to actually be coherent. The basic question is still up in the air, IMO: What is the point of KSP career mode? Apparently Squad once said "like Tycoon, but with a space program." (my paraphrase, not a real quote) If that is the goal, it fails---badly, IMHO. Does anyone want to play that game? Some might, particularly if Science mode was like career, but with science play rather than business play as the design goal. Seriously, if it was a management game, the kerbals should be capable of acting autonomously. Not "mechjeb," but functionally similar, except the actual astronauts doing missions you design without your input. Develop a resupply craft, and task part of your program (and astronauts) to keep your space facilities in supply. Could the player do it themselves? Sure, but the game should allow you to play as designer/manager if "Tycoon" is really the goal. I never played any, frankly. If there was a railroad tycoon game, would people here expect the player to manually hook up every piece of rolling stock, then act as engineer for EVERY trip made by every train in their entire, national rail system? I think not. Imagine if in some "RTS" (which are neither real time, nor strategy, but I digress) required that you have to swing a hammer for XX minutes to upgrade each facility---that is entirely analogous to KSP right now. So Tycoon is not even a remote model to look at minus AI kerbals. Or of course TIME mattering… at all. The player as the sole pilot is a fundamental problem of KSP as a management game. Personally, I play for the spaceflight and design elements, but I'd love having kerbals that could do, well, anything, by themselves, but particularly routine missions later in the game (LS resupply, etc). Heck, even just having the astronauts or probes execute planned maneuver nodes would make "management" more of a real thing. Is the design goal of end game pre-colonization? That sounds closer with ISRU coming.

Good thread. Fixing this makes me want to dig in and learn to start modding KSP myself, frankly.

I disagree, entirely. KSP has 3 games within. Sandbox, Science, and career. Career requires that at the very least the devs have an end-goal in mind. They do, in fact by default, which is the end of the tech tree, and the entirely arbitrary order it is arranged. The FIRST step in game design (I'm talking broadly here, even board games (geek I am that means a hex map to me)), is the goal, the POINT. If they want to sell us an add-on, say (which I would prepay for now, I've gotten way more enjoyment than I paid for), it would be nice to know that KSP is set from 1955 to the 1980s (an alternate reality where we actually did stuff) with "pre-colonizartion" as the end goal (habitats, but not permanent societies). Some sense of the point of career, or even multiple points the player can choose from. Career games need goals/rewards. Sandbox, etc is a different story. Heck science mode needs an entire revamp---the solar system needs to be what is know by telescope from Kerbin, and the player should have to learn via the space program anything unknown by telescopic observation (but that's another thread).

Sadly it's not even a tycoon game, regex, as there is no real management involved, at all, and can't be, really since time doesn't matter. For "management" game I'd expect some fixed and some recurring costs, and construction and development times so I would have to balance things like sticking with a "production" rocket to pay the bills, vs spending on novel, new crafts that might or might now be cost-effective. Sigh. So is it possible to do a total makeover (as a mod) of the career using the tools we have? For example, could you make the map view disallow zooming past the camera at some point in space that is determined by how close you have visited before? I'm not even wanting a "science" simulator, I just want to have to do USEFUL "science" from a gameplay standpoint. No good map view unless you photograph the planet, and even that depends on what resolution camera. Radar mappers for planets with an atmosphere (course we'd need clouds)… Maybe KSP 2.0?

I would answer "no," because a private company can't make something that is not close to cost-effective and stay in business. If they had other goals, presumably any business with enough excess cash to spend billions on spaceflight would also contain people smart enough to not waste money, even if the goal was not spacecraft as a business, but to use it for some other purpose. In that case they'd still go with something else. Long story, short, the shuttle is a poor thing to recreate, and only something a government would come up with in the first place.

This is the primary problem with the entire science/gameplay model for KSP. I'd argue that for replay you'd also want the Kerbol system randomized (at least as an option) each game. Different size/mass worlds, different atmospheres, different orbits. Science from Kerbin would give you at least some idea of all the worlds (except perhaps very small moons). You'd have masses, and gross atmospheric data, but details would need to be unlocked via real exploration. You don't even need easter eggs, just a system for creating possibly novel topographies (within reason) so that your first view upon sending a probe might be really amazing. Sumghai has some great ideas, above. There was as similar discussion (not as nitty gritty) in a thread about cameras as parts a while back I posted some ideas:

Very cool! Hard to control for me, at least in part for lack of landmarks. It might be nice if it were aligned so that the hatch (if you were to add it) was where the hatch is on a capsule.

I'm hoping it's going to be at the very end of the tech tree. This is where the terrible nature of tech and KSP enters the fray, IMO. I'd much rather see a complex tech tree that doesn't unlock with science only, or science and Funds, but one where certain tech requires specific science missions be done. I'd prefer to see ISRU (is this doable via a mod, Roverdude?) such that certain bodies require different ISRU hardware. Then require specific mission types (specific science) be done to unlock them. Munar ISRU? Sample return is required so they know what they have to work with. If ISRU is going to get oxygen and hydrogen, then same return from the areas where such resources exist. Duna? Same thing, atmospheric data if it is using the atmosphere, and soil samples if it is drilling. Not that sample return might noit be required with a better science system. Require 150 points of soil science points from the body (or whatever), so you could broadcast, but you'd need to land more probes than a single sample return mission might buy you).

It's not out of scope at all, because as was correctly observed up thread, the increasing cost is entirely a kludge for the fact that there are no recurring costs/revenues at all in the game because in KSP, time is entirely meaningless. With meaningful time, your astronauts or other staff might be an overhead cost that would require you to take commercial launches, or use your budget effectively (since real time could also have budgeted programs).

All of them, I don't quick save.

I think I'm still confused, lol. So you launch a duna ship with 3 crew, and it contains inline consumable parts (I would personally add them to the HH part as well, since my ship would likely have 2 of those and a lab with 3 crew just for the transfer vehicle). Around 15 days, they start using the supplies, right? They consume these at some rate, though, right? How would I know how much to bring for 2-3 years times 3 guys? Presumably each pod has some recovery percentage (you listed a few for the OKS parts) which generalized means that the supplies are mostly food by mass as air/water are recovered at some rate, and the eaten chow becomes "mulch," right (stop me if I'm totally off-track ). I'm confused by the "is going to break open said biscuit tin, and discard the rest out of the airlock." statement. If I were to land next to already landed Habs, and walked my first crew over, would that one crew throw all the excess consumables away because I can only transfer 1 crew at a time? If I were to rescue a guy with a ship with 3 crew, but spaces for more, would there be supplies for the new, 4th guy, or would they have thrown those supplies away?

I was unaware of that, cool. Then the models should at least show that… would it compromise the heat shield at all? Perhaps require slower reentry (orbital, vs translunar velocities)?

Yeah, easy fix for me. Seems like a habitat module should have that as its entire purpose is really LS. How is a HH different from a kerbitat?

That Titan II looks like the one here in Albuquerque at the Atomic Museum. It would be nice if they actually had craters on Duna.

Given my Snacks! use, I do Duna missions as a sort of "Duna Direct," and send Hitchhiker habs ahead, for example (since my crews needs to stay alive until the return window). Strikes me that this would not work with USI, and I'd have to just send inline consumables? Would it be possible to add consumable storage to the various Hab parts as an in-between option?

I agree with roverdude completely on simplifying the resources to ONE as an aggregate representing all the consumables. It all boils down to how much additional mass is needed per person, per unit time. Period. Dealing with different wastes, etc, is needlessly complex. I think I'd prefer adding LS to the pods as the only change (instead of just the time limit), but that might just be me misunderstanding it---if I sent an empty pod to the surface of the mun, could a kerbal crash land nearby, then walk to it and have 15 more days LS? Anyway, one possible addition might be to have tech tree variants between the sort of 100% recycle greenhouse and just more consumables, putting anything near 100% far out on the tree since in current KSP the end game is actually easier than early game. This might make the intermediate game more challenging. Mod looks very cool, roverdude, kudos. This is why I was defaulting to Snacks! with my cfg altered to kill kerbals instead of the rep hit. I think I'm gonna use USI next time (though I might like a simplified OKS since I am not using karbonite right now (though with 1.0 this obviously changes ).

Currently time is mostly meaningless in KSP. It is something to be warped through en route to a distant world, or to a transfer window, nothing more. I've read (second hand) that Squad doesn't like the idea of science over time because people could exploit it by warping years into the future. This is a non-argument, frankly. Anyone willing to do this in career could also just give themselves science at the start of career or play sandbox. Players "exploiting" in a game where they have 100% control of everything anyway is not a thing to be concerned about. If I use "Mission" instead of "Contract" I mean the "Explore" missions, only expanded a great deal, possibly including some/many of the current "contracts" that are asking the player to do science. Missions are YOUR PROGRAM setting possible goals. Your science guys spitball ideas, and they are presented as "Missions" to accept or pass on by you (the management). I assume some major changes in the contracts in general to fit the new mechanic, whatever it is. I'm going to try and stick with GAMEPLAY as the goal here. Suffice it to say that time mattering is clearly more realistic than time not being a thing. Realism arguments simply don't matter for stock in this case, let's stick to gameplay. Anything that seems too hard? Have a difficulty setting, problem solved. How to add time with minimal changes. I will add pros and cons (gameplay!) below each (I'm sure I missed something, add more!): Assume that the stated "warp to waypoint" feature for 1.0 could have a button at KSC that warps to the next calendar Minmonth (every 50 days is one Minmonth (Minmus month)) for the ideas below. 1. Life support. This creates a time-limit for all missions based upon craft design. Pros: Creates challenges for designs---and makes later game harder, which is the opposite of current KSP. Makes for interesting rescues when something goes wrong (some of my most fun missions have been this). Creates meaningful in-game time by virtue of resupply, etc, for some facilities. Cons: Almost none, it's a difficulty setting with no LS, LS has some minor effect (rep hit, lazy kerbals, etc), and death). Don't like it, turn it off. OK, ONE con… you need to schedule resupplies, then do them. Can get grindy with many facilities and no automation. 2. Time-based science. Having certain experiments generate science over time (orbiters, for example). This can be via contract science/time, or actual experiments. It can be SLOW, BTW, like 1 science point every Minmonth, every 6 minmonths, whatever this can be adjusted). Pros: New mechanic offers new Mission profiles. Orbiters "mapping" to gain science over time, for example." Missions could possibly pay science over time as a science budget (before mission completion). You can use the "prepaid" science points to buy parts for a specific Mission (as NASA developed the LEM for the Moon mission). Reduces grinding exploits that are already in the game that do the same thing, but with endless clicking (science from orbit, etc). Cons: None. Seen as possible to exploit by warping, but this is a non-issue since it is only an issue because in current KSP time is meaningless. 3. Time-based funds acquisition. Having some contracts (Missions) generate funds over time, exclusively. Ie: "Explore the Mun" pays out 7,000 funds per minmonth until the total reward (budget) is paid. The amount is scaled to how long the devs think that should take in "kerbin time." Note that there are MANY more missions added that do this, small minmonthly budgets. Pros: Creates a sense of budget, and literally creates time as a meaningful aspect of the game as all non-commercial Missions will have minmonthly budgets. Blow up a rocket that used all your funds? Warp to next minmonth, and try again (1 new button at KSC). Allows for a small, constant fund stream for new players so that a single failure cannot instantly end your program (without this KSP is most difficult for NEW players, and only gets easier). Reduces grinding for funds via repetitive contracts. Kerbal hiring costs go HERE. Small cost for each astronaut over time. Orange suits are free (folded into whatever the fixed costs are). Cons: Seen as a possible exploit, but only because time means nothing. Once time means something, not a problem. 4. Time-based expenses. Having some costs occur over time. Pros: Solution to 2 and 3 (above) being seen as exploits. Expenses over time makes warping to max science points or funds not possible, or not as rewarding. Some currently expensive things could be paid for over time (facility upgrades, for example), reducing grinding to get X million funds. Cons: You could possibly go bankrupt (is that a con, or just a meaningful end-game?) by doing nothing, and spending to do so. Number 4 is basically the solution to the notion of "exploits." Commercial contracts would mostly pay on completion, and internal contracts (Missions) would ALL pay by the minmonth. Note that the Missions have expiration times, so when you hit the end of the mission, the stream of funds stops. Rescue missions would have meaningful time limits. Accept NOW, or lose them, and they expire based upon the situation. Lone kerbal in space? Whatever the EVA LS time should be. Longer rescues would have the kerbal in a pod, and would have LS to last whatever stock LS would add (Roverdude's new LS mod uses 15 days, Snacks! defaults to ~100 days, the more realistic mods (IFLS/TAC) are more like Roverdude's new one). Kerbal in pod with whatever that pod contains. Have the star-rating of those missions reflect this. Lone kerbal rescues might be 3 star, pod rescues are easier as they have longer timeframes. Note that this creates meaningful time completely within the context of KSP as it already is as incentive/disincentive, with no new mechanics required for the game at all (though a "warp to XX days ahead" feature would be a nice addition).

Read my suggestion above. There is no need to divide attention when a chunk of the "contracts" are replaced with "Missions" that pay out minmonthly (50 Kerbin days). If you have 40 flights in progress, you are dividing attention anyway, and if you launch to Jool, and warp, as "management" you need to make sure you have some time-based cash flow. Note that anyone playing 1 mission at a time has no need for a huge astronaut payroll, anyway, that is only necessitated by many flights in progress.

I agree with Mr. Scruffy completely. Many things are being kludged to avoid the non-exploit of "warping" that Squad thinks is an exploit for some bizarre reason. You can start a career, and upgrade/unlock everything, and have manned bases on planets in a few months from Jeb starting out not knowing which end of the rocket it's bad to stand near. Time---we are talking about CAREER MODE---is unambiguously a good thing for gameplay. Time limits are good, they make something now trivial a challenge (like rescuing a kerbal would be if you needed to do it the same orbit as launch or he'd run out of air). Right now, funds are acquired entirely by 3d party contracts, some of which are seemingly for pure science research (something you'd think your own program might be for). How is grinding through parts testing contracts, or using your orbital lab or satellite to "get science from orbit" via clicking/grinding for funds/science better than having a budget that doses out funds over time? Easy addition of time to KSP: Take Explore "contracts." IMO (I've posted this before), most all the science contracts should be renamed "Missions" and they are not 3d party, but internal ideas from Werner, Linus, and other staff at your own KSC. Setting that mission goal (by "taking the contract") would give you the entire funds reward---and possibly some or all of the science reward---as a budget per XX Kerbin days. Say 49-50 days (a minmus month). The installments start at the time of selection, so if you run out of funds, you need to warp ahead XX days (or take grindy contracts which would still be there as they are now). Note that I included science as dosed out that way---spacecraft are designed to do a specific mission (except Orion ), with new technology being invented to do so many times. Science in advance could be a new paradigm for a tech tree that is less linear and allows more player direction---you have a small budget of tech to spend to get a lander, or instruments, etc, before you go. That's it. The mechanic above instantly makes time matter as all the "big" goals are budgetary items now. Note that the Explore missions can be rewritten to be more complex, with more steps, in addition to adding more such contracts ("Explore Kerbin Orbit" (science from orbit missions) or "Perfect Orbital Maneuvering" (rendezvous, docking, and plane changing missions), etc). THEN you add labor costs. Having a fixed minmonthly (minmus month time frame I have now named minmonthly just now ) cost per astronaut is fine, just assume that total labor scales to astronauts as a simplification. If so, have some long-term Missions that pay out enough to mostly cover such costs. Say there is a Mission for 'Long Term Orbital Science" the description would say it's about kerbals spending long periods in space. Have milestones like relieving the crew at various intervals (return crew after 1 minmonth, then 3 minmonths, then 1 year, etc.) This would pay out for years, but if you do that one mission you need not worry about payroll, basically, unless you have huge numbers of astronauts.

If you are talking about a combat situation, you can certainly launch a lot of them. Remember that the goal for a sensor is not an HST, but wide angle scans. You also need to describe what a warship (drone or otherwise) looks like, what the role is. It needs to have directed energy weapons, or it needs to impact the target. The former generates vast amounts of power (you need ~2 MJ/cm^2 to burn through a single cm of steel), the latter requires loads of dv (for energy delivery, as well as actually hitting the target (even should it disperse shrapnel)). Nuclear weapons require near contact hits to be a problem (nuke-pumped x-rays are another option here). If you stick with realistic weapons (note that some nuclear drive options ARE weapons), then engagement ranges are going to be pretty short, well under 0.1 light second. At some decent multiple of this engagement range, any ship you care to posit is visible, IMO. If you are talking about spotting it in orbit around Jupiter at opposition from Earth, then sure, you might hide a stealthy ship… but it's not like you can engage it, and if you try to get there before its crew dies of old age (via sails, etc ), it will see you coming. That's really what needs to be defined, at what range is hiding impossible under a particular set of assumptions, and how does that compare to ranges where weapons systems can be employed.

I'm with sumghai. I'd like to see no moving between modules with heat shields between them, too.

RTG probe to another planet? In another star system? If you have stealthy craft, they have stealthy sensors platforms someplace, and you have to radiate away, not isotropically. This was eliminated on usenet groups before most people here knew what the internet was (or were born), heck, before the web was a thing. Back then the price of entry for the discussion was being a science or engineering person (the only people on the net, basically). Any weaponry requires loads of power (directed energy weapons), or loads of kinetic energy (a huge exhaust plume). Pick one. If we are talking near future, there is still no hiding, as the craft have been observed since launch. Sensors might be placed all over using sails, perhaps (though you then must be careful do to reflect light the wrong way), but all sides can do this, scattering sensors… of course any sensors between (or behind) the home planets can capture any broadcasts them make of detections. And again, what possible weapon can be stealthy, and still effective? Posit a stealthy system, and sensors use it, and there is a sensor arms race until they are scattered all over, eliminating directional radiators as useful. The next issue is of course KE weapons as WMD (also beaten to death on the net before 99% of the people on this forum were born, I imagine ).

Will the different stock habitable parts have different durations? Hitchhiker, etc? Or are all 15 days?

You cannot know where the enemy is ahead of time. The more directional you imagine radiators, the less you can also know about enemy dispositions. Such a universe results in distant observation sats looking all around. If you are talking science fiction warships, you are talking about a 293 K crew compartment as a minimum. How big are those radiators for the telescope? How big would they need to be for a larger crew compartment at room temp? Any power production for propulsion or weaponry must radiate 100% of the energy produced.

Are you using the most current version of KJR?