tater

The tech tree cart is before the horse. You should decide to unlock certain tech, THEN use it/test it on missions that might then get you science. Apollo was designed to get to the moon, they did not get to the moon to develop apollo via the study of lunar geology. Such a paradigm would have the player select a strategy for their program (unlike the current strategies, these would be goals for their space program), which would unlock various tech. They would then test it in cool ways, which would be what would provide the points to open further tech. There might be a couple possible at a time. Strategies might be like: 1. Orbital presence (stations and satellites in Kerbin orbit) 2. Mun or Bust! (think Apollo) 3. Planetary probes (JPL) 4. Eggs out of the one basket (Duna exploration for possible colonization) 5. Fly to orbit (X-15 to spaceplanes as the focus) 6. etc. Each would set up a tree with certain items already unlocked, but the path started. Other lateral tech still possible, but the path of least resistance would be the "strategy" path---which the player could change at some cost. Contracts and rewards would be tweaked based on the strategy. Not thought out, this is stream of consciousness, but it could work.

The best "technology" would be to not have Congress decide what NASA has to buy. We'd not have multi-billion dollar stuff like Orion (less capable than Dragon 2), and we'd not have congress quashing orbital refueling every time it pokes its head up.

You could combine your original post, 5thhorseman, with Claw's (good) point, and have them be in orbit, but owned by another entity. Then new missions could be generated around that, for example resupply missions, or even taking up kerbals. Instead of endless build a station, then the same entity can ask for expansions to their existing station. Regarding "grindy" minimalistic stations, the requirements could always include specific parts (habitat, science lab, etc) as many already seem to have.

I've been playing vanilla 0.90 career since the update (though I finally got bored and put FAR/DRE/etc back in) and thought I'd post some observations. Some pertain to the career as it existed pre-0.90, others are obviously directed at Fine Print as implemented in 0.90, and a few perhaps at the new facility upgrades, etc. Overall, little has changed in the "big picture" sense. You can still start from nothing, and have bases on other worlds (Mun/Minmus) in a few months of game time. John F Kerman: "We choose to go to the Mun in this decade (aid whispers in ear). "Sorry, this month…" (aid whispers again)... "by the end of the WEEK, not because it is easy---OK, OK, because it is easy!" The only thing that pushes time forward in KSP is time compression for missions to farther bodies. Stick around Kerbin SOI, and it's impossible not to unlock/upgrade everything before the first Duna launch window happens. I got a friend to buy the game, and I will ask how he's doing (I know he crashed on the Mun the other evening after a few nights of play, but Jeb survived so he was planning a rescue). Science: Sadly, unchanged. Cart largely before horse with this and tech tree, IMO. Tech Tree: Again, sadly, unchanged. I'd like to see more variable paths through the tree, and have them make more sense. Contracts: A few general observations before specifics. 1. There are too many of them, and many are just absurd. 2. Dismissing a contract should not replace it with a new one. Contracts should expire in a semi-random date range between a few hours, and a few months (they are sort of like this now). But no new contract should be forthcoming until the existing ones expire, if you take them or not. Rescue missions would expire very quickly, and would require near immediate completion. Parts testing: 1. Many (most?) already in game need to be done away with. Jet engine on a world with no oxygen to burn? Deleted. Spashed down engine tests? Deleted. Booster rocket tested at 12,000m? Deleted. You get the idea. Few would remain, frankly, almost all are just dumb. Any that remain should have intelligent requirements. 2. Some new contracts need to be added, however. "Test the Mk1-2 pod reentering from an apoapsis of 12 million meters," for example. Or "Launch 2 clamp-o-trons, and successfully perform a docking in orbit around Kerbin." Test landing legs on minmus, or whatever. Realistic flight tests that drive actual missions, not contraptions to test something in an odd way. 3. Parts testing contracts should only rarely happen more than once, if they ever do at all. You static tested the 909 engine at KSC? Great, it's 1 in 1000 that you'll ever see that mission again in this career (or simply zero if that is easier). 4. Perhaps part testing can be an additional requirement to open tech tree nodes? i.e.: science points PLUS a few targeted part testing contracts. 5. If a part really needs another part, they should come together to test. No giant engine tests without matching fuel tanks, no ion engines without xenon tanks, etc. Make it possible to use parts testing for REAL missions, not just absurd contraptions. Exploration: 1. These can be increased… add some general explore options for solar orbit, flybys, etc. Plant flag: 1. Meh. These can mostly go away and be replaced with specific part testing contracts. If a device mfg wants you to "plant a flag," what they want is their part on the Mun. Regardless, they should be geome specific (I'm not gonna use "biome" for places sans "bio" any more). Stepping out a few times a month to plant a flag next to your lander to gain funds should not be a thing. Visual Observation/Surface collection/EVA report/Temp/Seismic/Atmospheric Observation (new with 0.90). Good idea, needs a lot of work.: 1. Visual observation needs some new parts. Cameras at a few levels. Low res (wide field), medium res, and high res. Can be added to probes, or assumed for some command/habitat pods, or can be new science parts you have to add to craft (in which case the low res camera should be available right away). Mk1 and early probe core have low res. Mk1-2, and science lab have all 3, other might have medium. Perhaps a scientist gets 1 camera better than the pod has (in which case they all top off at medium, and the scientist is required for high res images that are useful). Other instruments possible as well. 2. Assuming #1 above, the altitude requirements for visual observations would then be replaced with a limit based on resolution needed. With lower res you might need to be at <6000m, but that might double for medium, and double again for a high res camera. This would allow completion at various levels of play. So instead of observing Nerd's Gamma from under 7500m, the requirement would be to take high resolution imagery of Nerd's Gamma (which might then be defined as Below 30,000m for a high-res camera, 15,000m for a medium res, and below 7500m for the low res. 3. EVA reports. These are OK, but it's really hard to find the sites once landed (mark on navball is not a thing for EVA). Perhaps these could be related to one another, as they come in groups. Do the camera pass, which then gives a more precise target marker on the surface for EVA/collection (maybe doing the camera pass successfully could allow the map views to be zoomed in more so you know which way to walk?). So VO pass unlocks positions for sample/eva missions. 4. Sample collection. Same as 3, should be linked as above to the orbital observations. 5. Kerbin versions should all require orbital stuff, not surface collection. I need to build a craft to fly to the north pole, yet I hit "recover" and we can simply drive a truck there to retrieve my spacecraft? Why did I risk a spacecraft instead of just driving? I'd dump all those, I never do them, exploring Kerbin seems absurd to me when I can recover spacecraft instantly from anywhere. Satellite contracts: 1. These mostly make sense, it's something space programs do. Around Kerbin, that is. 2. Dump the ones for other worlds or rewrite them as space probes (camera, perhaps other instruments?) until the player has already unlocked the "explore" contract for that world (don't need a comsat around Duna if no one is there). Stations/bases: 1. They are OK, but some make no sense, and I've had trouble building them from sections and having the game accept them (contrary to the unlocking exploit posted here, I cannot get them accepted, lol). It's why I have not taken Mun base contracts as I don't want to work for a Hab for 18, get it all hooked together, then find that it won't accept it because the first part I landed didn't have an antenna, because the science lab part already did, and I didn't want one on each or something. 2. Getting them for other worlds when I have not yet explored them seems dumb. There should be a reason to explore or send a probe first. Science from orbit: 1. It's fine, even with the ability to switch to a station, and do it over and over, but the contracts need to be spaced out in time, right now you could probably do dozens of these before the spacecraft completes one orbit if you were willing to dismiss contract after contract. Rescue: 1. I have a long post on this. They need to have ships, crashed landers, etc. Progression: Generally, they need to make more sense as the game progresses, and they need to be spread out so that you don't have a Mun colony a month after the space center opens. Parts testing contracts with useful goals can facilitate early players doing stuff they lack the unlocked parts for. Larger engines need to come with appropriate fuel tanks, for example.

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).