tater

I agree. That or the station is still there in orbit, but you lose ownership, it becomes an "NPC" facility. These places can be a source for where "stranded kerbals" come from Perhaps future stranded kerbal missions can in fact require that they be returned to that station OR kerbin.

Yeah, they'd be particular highlands if "regions" was used. The Eastern Highlands, for example. Not generically "highlands."

Region would be more likely, but coining "geome" is fine by me for geological regions. Biome is demonstrably wrong, however, as is any word that suggests biology as a component at all.

I'll wait for the OED to change what they think, rather than using some definition at a random website (that happened to grab a good domain name early on ).

Environment means a place where life forms exist. So no.

I had a flag do this. I switched to it with the ] key and it fell through the Mun and would not let be switch to anything else because it was accelerating.

It adds not having a word that means an community of life forms (an ecosystem) applying to lifeless bodies. It'd be like having contracts request an unmanned probe, but require it have a kerbal aboard.

It's important to also realize that after what seems like a lot of grinding, I have almost everything upgraded/unlocked 100%, and my space program is under 3 months old. LOL.

Agree 100%.

Mine seems to crash at ~3 GB, not 4 (and I have 12MB installed). I'd dump spaceplane parts, I have yet to build one.

First, excellent post. Career is slapped on without a lot of thought, IMO. The bones are there, but it's like redesigning your kitchen without being able to see "outside the box" and just moving stuff around within the existing footprint. The devs need to be willing to do some demo, and move stuff around a little. On to the second, addressing the points. I like the idea of "official" vs "contract," though it might even be a base career choice at some level (private space firm, vs NASA). Forcing a progression is not strictly required (which order to visit places), but clearly the tech tree is a forced progression, and that progression should actually make sense (which is far from the current tech tree). Agree completely. Such tests should also be offered ONCE. In addition, since testing is a way to get stuff ahead of time, make real use of that in the career. Have it harder to unlock stuff, but offer contracts to use the parts when you have not yet unlocked them as "off the shelf." This can be really improved. Absolutely. The game needs more science that is not abstracted as "points" to earn, but science that is required to do something you want to do. You need to map out landing sites if you want to land. Yep. You should need to explore to land. The first manned mission to Mars would not be the first MISSION to Mars at all. By the time men walk there, there will have been dozens of probes/landers/orbiters. KSP need not go that far, and as you say it might be possible to do in one mission (perhaps a role for scientist kerbals, and another role for the lab module?). I'm meh on this idea. Perhaps engineers can construct things in space, lock parts together for orbital construction, etc? I see most tech as pretty self-contained, the time for real engineering is well before liftoff, or if there is a problem. Someone in the forum suggested allowing engineers to disassemble spacecraft, which is cool. Say your lander has a small amount of fuel on the Mun, an engineer might strip off parts to lighten it, allowing takeoff. Any ideas are worth looking at, though. I already view stupidity as the opposite of what I want, doesn't mother me. Low stupidity = intelligence. Ideally I'd like to see AI kerbals (like MechJeb, only minus the "mech"). Then I could let them actually pilot routine missions (resupply, etc). Many will disagree with you, but I'm not one of them. I have yet to build any aircraft, and I have no desire to start. I'd rather have an orbital/munar construction yard to build pure spacecraft than spaceplanes. I'd be less down on them if they were less obviously flatly magical than they are in game now. In general, I'd like to see the stage separators have a procedural control like PF does for just one element. Allow the builder to pick if the fairing will match the diameter of the engine itself, or the part it is attached to. That or have 1.25m decouplers all only make a 1.25m fairing, and 2.5m ones ALWAYS make a 2.5m fairing, etc). So if you have an LV-30 or nuke on a 2.5 m tank, and you use a 2.5m fairing, it will use a 2.5m fairing (I do this with PF already). That or a 2-man capsule. Either makes sense. Yeah, probes need love.

#2 is a great idea.

Yeah, I agree. People forget the point of a "campaign" game, I think. I will use military games as an example, because I play many of those. You can play PvP "deathmatch," by the point of a "campaign" is to create novel encounters that are not "balanced." <edit for time to type> Take Silent Hunter 4. The point of the campaign is to present the player with interesting encounters. It's early war, most of your fish are failing to detonate… you were in shallow water and got depth charged, then several days later on the way home you stumble across a carrier with just a few torpedoes left, and destroyers all over. It's the combination of all the campaign events that turn this into a challenge that is not the same as setting up an encounter with a CV as a "scenario" (sorta like sandbox). People who "get it" will understand what I mean.

I'd also love to see a 2-3 part set of 3.75m Hab units (like Mars Direct art). Think larger things that are vaguely like the Mk2 landercan. One floor per cylinder. One is cockpit/hab. 2d would be fuel and a cargo area with a working (drivable) ramp to hold a rover. A 3d might be some sort of related inflatable, or perhaps another solid type for variation.

Yeah, I posted similar ideas: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97582-An-idea-for-planetary-science-missions-and-rescue-in-career-mode

For replay, career would ideally randomize the Kerbol system enough that you'd have to consider new designs with a new career (stock system would always be an option, too, obviously). The planets would even change enough that designs for the stock Duna might not work the same for the new career (more/less atmosphere, different mass planet, etc). Then the game could hide data from players without doing "science" to get it. Duna… looks like Percival Lowell drawings, until you orbit a probe and can map it, etc. That would be fun, challenging, and self-contained. If the system gen had a "seed," then players could share novel system layouts. Perhaps they develop 20+ planets, and as many moons, and it selects 5-7 planets, and X moons per planet, so you might only see some worlds rarely.

Contracts for exploring bodies outside of Kerbin's SOI should be tied to ideal launch windows, and should explicitly mention the best (lowest dv) window to launch. So you get one for each body that might suggest launching to Duna on days 210-250, for example.

"The career system is not well thought out, so play sandbox. Have fun!" ? Wouldn't it be better to have a career mode that is actually good? Yes, we all know sandbox is available. Some people LIKE the idea of a career mode with some sort of limitations/goals/etc that is not predicated on ridiculous contracts, with no real "big picture." I'm open to the idea that such a thing is outside the scope of the game, but the devs clearly want a campaign game. IMHO, they should consider an AI/NPC competing space program on the other side of Kerbin as a foil for the players. This other program is the source of the "rescue kerbal" missions. You'd find their stations on orbit, and perhaps be given a Mun contract with a time limit because you need to beat the other program. Something like that would flesh out the career game, and some contracts could be more focused on this space race. At some point perhaps cooperative missions (resupply Kerbanov station as a goodwill mission, etc). Anyway, the career mode could use some lateral thinking, IMO.

Dozens of options for adjusting the grind doesn't change the quality of the experience, just the quantity of the grind. The game is now beta, and the point of commentary is to help the devs see where they can improve things. The career needs some qualitative changes, clearly. I don't see "grind" as that much of an issue until you get to supposedly "hard" difficulty levels (in normal the game throws money/science at you faster than you can use it, I have almost everything unlocked/upgraded in a test 0.90 campaign on Y1, day 67). On hard it becomes grinding without actually becoming harder to play (no nodes being an exception, but one that makes no sense in that early flights effectively had the astronaut as a passenger, and the flight preplanned to the second before it ever launched). Actual difficulty changes that are qualitative would include chances for failure (experimental parts failing?), life support (which instantly puts time limits on every manned flight), and possibly atmospheric effects (having reentry have a non-zero chance of death, unlike stock). There are others we could think of, I'm sure.

Except maybe Elon Musk. The players that exist by sucking at the public teat exclusively want whatever invokes the largest possible cash transfer from the taxpayers to, well, them. It was my understanding that the current standard thought on a US Mars mission is pretty close to Mars Direct, anyway, sending a few craft ahead vs complicated on-orbit assembly.

I think it is fine. Science is already too easy to gain quickly, anyway. I started a vanilla career to test 0.90. I have 2 scientists in an orbital lab. That's it. I've unlocked all the 300s, upgraded most facilities (VAB/launch pad, and research all the way), and still have over a million in the bank. Landed Mun and Minmus, with just Jeb as pilot (the few surface collections are in the CM right now, so those few hundred have not even been counted yet, only transmitted science (landed Jeb mk1, then rescued him later and used that craft and a CM to go to Minmus). You're saying I was limited because I really needed to use mission specialists? I WISH I had been so limited. I think in actual Kerbin days my space program is only a few months old, too, I know I'm well short of a Duna launch window just from looking at the map (forgot to check date).

All excellent ideas, as is 5thHorseman's idea for damage, and such damage could require repair (engineer), or evacuation. Arkie87's idea is also good, perhaps for SOME such contracts. I think in general KSP needs some "AI" or "NPC" action. Put a station in orbit for some entity, then it becomes a source for those "rescue stranded kerbal" contracts. Perhaps rescue and return to Station X you built for the other program. More variety is good.

Great idea.

Now that they have added the new contracts, they need to tweak them. 1. The visual observation, and indeed most all the Kerbin missions as written are sort of absurd. I can land a capsule in the idle of nowhere, and do the required contract, which is really complicated often, but then I hit "recover" and apparently kerbals drive up, fly a helo in, or whatever to recover my craft. Could I just bring the instruments with the recovery vehicle and save the trouble of a rocket launch? I'm fine with Kerbin science missions, but they need to make sense. Place a satellite with at a certain (unlocked for mission) science instrument in a low polar orbit, for example. There are not many that require spaceflight. 2. They need more novel rescue missions. 3. Contracts need much shorter periods to fulfill them, and there needs to be a penalty for not taking contracts at a certain point. So if you dismiss a contract without ever accepting it, you lose rep, for example. Rep would impact what kids of contracts you get. Constantly refuse contracts seeking better ones would reduce rep, and result in worse contracts after a while. A strategy at the admin office might allow you to dismiss more contracts without penalty in exchange for money, whatever ("Picky" contract acceptance). First the really lousy contracts need to be mitigated/dumped, though (test a jet engine on Minmus or stuff like that). You'd be allowed a certain number of dismissals per unit time, "free," but at some point you need to take what is offered, or lose rep. 4. Some contracts linked to good launch windows. "Launch a Duna mission between days 213 and 253." Success would be upon gaining science near Duna, perhaps, the date is just to let the player know when a low-energy launch window is. 5. Better part testing contracts that make sense. Lander company wants its landercan on the Mun. As others have suggested, variable returns based upon getting within X% of mission requirements for a test. So you have a chute contract, and if you miss the velocity by X%, your reward is decreased until you are so far out the reward becomes 0, or the failure penalty. Slop to make those missions less tedious, particularly if there is a penalty for not taking contracts in the first place.