Mr. Scruffy

I was thinking about the program based progression model a bit more and found a possible exploit stemming from the combination of suspendability, program-based tick-down of rewards over time, and completing missions before you get them: If there is nothing to prevent this, it would be prudent for a player, who already knows what missions are contained in each program, to finish as many as he/she can before even initiating the program, as to reap the full rewards for them. To prevent this, this ´launch a new vessel´-condition (known from various existing contracts) should apply, after you have (re-)initiated a program - so that you do not launch your Jool-exploration flotilla, wait until it arrives, and THEN initiate the Jool-program. So, in effect, you can only skip ahead missions on active programs. If you launch a vessel to Moho and do not have the Moho-program active, none of your achievements there will count. It could turn out to be a bit frustrating sometimes and is also sort of illogical, i admit, but i dont see a better way to prevent this possible exploit, yet.

Well, i am not saying i was enthusiastic about that decision either, but alas... I would very much like to see procedural worlds and all that Jazz, i just dont think it is ever going to happen in stock KSP. You have great novel ideas and i love most of them, but they´d be a huge risk for the devs to take, while scripted programs would be based on tried, established-in-the-industry concepts, that offer the prospect of $ at limited risk, by getting more players to play the game, instead of catering to the ´freakish stuff´ already convinced fanboys like us may want. ;D EDIT: To me, it is all about time (see sig). I want it to play a significant role in KSP´s career mode. That´s all. I want that to be achieved with the simplest tools possible, that come with the least amount of confusion for new players, reasons to get frustrated, addition of new mechanics or general revolution possible. At this point i am even dropping out of the construction-time and life-support camp (for now, at least), because i think with the changes and additions mentioned above, those could be reasonably abstracted away for the sake of a smoother gameflow, since R&D times, wages and depleting program-rewards have them covered. If it´s time we are aiming for, there is no need to shoot at it from like a dozen directions at once. EDIT2: That´s also, why i´d prefer the programs to be body based (and generally focused on exploration, with all the rest being seperate from the programs): 1. It would feature less individual properties (tick-times for entire programs), making it simpler, less error prone on both ends, 2. It´d be more akin to that RPG-experience, where, by-and-large, you go from town to town completing one after the other, more or less (of course with the occassional return). I think it´s more intuitive, offers more affordance. Mining & tourism i just see as something that you´d run on your own accord. Mining obviously requires the equipment and once you have it, you can run mining operations. See to it that they turn out profitable (or useful). No program required. Toursim? Well, depending on your REP (3rd way of destroying REP: killing tourists) tourists line up - the further you take them (and back), the more you can cash on them. No program for that, either. (Thats not to say, that the body-themed programs couldnt contain mining/tourism missions/branches here and there) Then there would be contracts like we have them now (minus what is covered by the programs). Tourism & mining contracts would be more of the kind where you set up infrastructure for someone else, instead of doing the actual business of ferrying ore or tourists (those would only occur rarely if you have already had one of those infra-setup-missions first). And finally, and this is something i would really love to see, there is this special program, that doesnt offer any rewards at all really, game-currency-wise, but guides you to explore some mystery around the anamolies, and which gets triggered after you have found your first. EDIT3 (sorry): You know what? Actually, the body themed programs should have at least tourism branches (starting maybe around tier 6) for bodies, where it makes sense, focusing on building destinations (accomodation) - and tourists would only want to go to those. Then you´d get contract-offering for those destinations and each destination (or rather their capacity as you´d expand each ´hotel´ over tiers 7, 8, 9 and 10 of each respective program-branch, if you so chose) would increase the number of such contracts showing up.

Well, then this about the themes of the programs, then. I previously refered to them as body-themed, but they could also be purposed themed, i guess. That would shift some of their properties down to the missions, though (like the tick-down, cause a toursim mission to kerbin sub-orbital is quicker to complete than one to Laythe and back). But i do think, that they should be predefined. That mission generator is a) hard to code and balance and b) something that i presume not all that many players would want to toy with. It´s a very complex concept, hard to get right on both ends, the devs´ and the players´. It also offers no guidance to new players. One has to keep in mind that the devs opted for ´sharable player experience´. If that wasnt so, my opinions on some things would be quite different. But since that foundation has been laid out, it should be followed suit in the design of the rest of the game.

Obviously we are not agreeing to each other fully on the mission/program part, Veeltch. But that´s fine. We are close enough to each other, i guess. As for the parts... I sort of agree with here, too, to the same extent as for programs (so like 80%), but on 3) i balk a bit: I seriously do not want to do static tests. That would be just added tedium. Testing should be part of the R&D-process. Maybe you could choose to ´over-research´ some things, at disproportional cost (in time & money), to add another % of performance here and there. But please dont make me do obligatory manual testruns on engines! That´d be like Windows acting AS IF it was ready after boot-up (and if you ever had a slow WIN-PC, you should know, how annoying that is). When i see this pop-up telling me ´Engine XY research completed´ i want to be like ´yay - now i can finally build the vessel for mission Z´, insetad of ´Ugh! Another test-run pending - better be done with that: *clickclick-clickidiclick-*roar*-*bling*-click* - Now where was I?´. But i want to get back on programs for a bit more: What i proposed above would also make the game start simple and widen the player´s possibilities has he/she collects REP. You´d start out in a rather tight alley, with a lot of guidance, but as you go, the game would branch out with the possible goals it presents to you. Say, once you have collected 5 REP you can initiate the mun and minmus programs. 5 REP would require you to complete either 2 tier2 missions + 2 tier1 mission (since you cannot complete 2 tier2 missions before having completed their respective tier1 missions, even though it may all happen in the same launch), or 1xt3, 1xt2 and 1xt1 - so even before you get this far, the question may be: specialization or broad approach - do i follow both branches to tier2, or pick one and stick to it until i reach tier3. And when you did reach those 5 (actually 6, in both cases) REP the questions becomes: Do i initiate the mun or the minmus program first? Now, or do i proceed along the Kerbin program a bit further, first? (remember: once initiated, a clock begins to tick on any program´s financial rewards) Do i suspend the Kerbin program while i am doing the mun/minmus one (or both in parallel?)? And then, before any of your current programs hits tier10, you reach the threshold for the Duna and Eve programs, and the options just become more and more... I think a rather ´flat´ tech-tree, with a broad root, would suit this nicely. It´d be more about the time some items take to be researched individually, than beelining for them up a tree. "With my tier1 R&D building only able to research at 1Sci/d, when fully staffed, do i really want to start on that 1000 SCI project first or should i maybe stick to the cheaper ones first?"

@Pthigrivi: Well, i think a program-based game-progression model would be exactly that easy to understand, intuitive middle-ground. Career starts off with a couple of programs avaiable, which would pretty much encompass all you could achieve at the beginning anyways, by having multiple starting missions for each program offered. You simply pick the general direction (=program) you want to go and go. You´d not even have to specify which mission you are aiming for - just the program. The first couple of missions in each program would probably resemble what are now milestones, the later be more like what are now contracts. For each mission completed you get a fixed amount of REP, according to its tier within the program, that does not decay (two ways of losing REP: Dead kerbals and suspending a program, the later you can resume for no REP-cost, so you do not end up trapped because of that). More advanced programs may be listed early on, but only get unlocked if certain conditions are met, one of which could be a REP-threshold. For more details read my previous posts. I think this is pretty straight forward, without being too linear and would nicely deliver the feeling of progression, while at the same time provide a good basis for balancing and tutoring and also be in compliance with general video-game experience. It would be about as linear and complicated as your standard open-world RPG, giving about the same feeling of progression. Like, look at the different programs as analogies to, say, the factions in Fallout: New Vegas, for example. If you choose to help one of them (which you dont have to), they will offer you quests, in a certain sequence (but sometimes multiple at once). If you have already completed one of them, before it gets even offered to you, that´s fine too. Feel sick and tired of this one faction? Well, go somewhere else and help another for a while... and the overall game-progression depends on who you helped to what extent. And then there are these completely unrelated sidequests, which would be the equivalent of the occassional contract you pick outside of programs, just to get some extra-funds. And of course, you can still just goof around, trying to see if you can go ´there´ (wherever) just for the lulz or out of curiousity. EDIT: I am thinking of like 1-3 missions for each tier of each program and each program having like 10 tiers. With like 10 programs around, that would total to something like 200 ´quests´ and about 1,000 REP to collect, so each point of REP would roughly resemble 0.1% towards game-completion. And there is still independent contracts, tourism and mining for you to do outside of the programs, plus any personal goals you may have in mind. EDIT2: Science would be the analogy to (craftable) loot, the science lab would be your workbench, transforming the loot into something useful, science instruments would be your backpack (or your "vest with [x] pockets")...

If that´s what it takes, make me slam down another 10 bucks and call the whole thing KSPs (Kerbal Space ProgramS).

Well, if it´s just one or two prices we have to track, the ´stock market´ (that sounds way too complicated for a mechnaic that is just based on die role, basically) would be preferable. Finding worlds with high purity of ´unobtainium´ (="gold") would give an added incentive go strive outward, IF that independent kind of ´ore´ can be distributed seperately with a focus on hard to ´trade with´ worlds. The ´fuel-ore´ could than be distributed at will, as suits campaign-play, to encourage ISRU-application. I dont even think, it should have a market-price. Maybe even ´gold-ore´ doesnt need it fluctuating - it could have a fixed price - it was your idea to have the price rise and fall... i just tried to pick up on it. So, yeah, as for mining: - No mining programs - Only occassional commercial mission, requiring you to just set up a drill for someone else - maybe with mantainance run follow up transport contracts attached. - Split fuel-ore from cash-ore, the former for ´personal use´ the later for selling. " Instead of the mission tree there could be Program tabs in the Mission Control with a few missions at once. If you chose a mission and completed it a new one would appear in its place and the rest would still be available. " Yes, that´s how i see it, actually. But behind the curtain, each program would be a tree. Well, actually, i wouldnt even have to choose a mission - you choose programs. You could, however, assign a mission to a vessel at the launch-pad, to give it a scripted name. Also, you can complete mission, that you dont even see yet. The ´mission control´ only show you your current tier missions, but you can skip ahead, if you are more ambitious and able to pull it off. Every condition towards a program gets saved - every record and achievement - and then appiled to each tier´s missions as they come up. You hit tier 3 of manned mun and have already landed two kerbals and returned them home? Great, skip to tier 4 of manned mun.

Well, that´s a thing. It´s observerable even among this like half a dozen people who are engaged in this debate here on this sub-forum. We have many overlapping things, though varying foci. I guess even if we were put together in a team, the result would feel sub-optimal for all of us. I guess, this career mode thingie is a ´presidential´ thing, in which someone must be elected to take the lead and be allowed to follow his/her vision - even if the result will not satisfy everyone fully, at least it could be expected to be coherent within itself. Maybe the devs should look out to add an experienced designer to their team. Someone who knows about how to design a campaign and game mechanics in general. I just kinda of feel, that the team is sort of out-its-turf when it comes to this. KSP´s basic idea was never meant for an engaging management gameplay, after all. See if you can hire a guy who worked on X-Com, say, for a short period of time, to simply tell you how its done and why. Career mode in KSP (the rest is swesome) is just like the bare minimum, right now, when it could be so much more, for not too much coding effort really, i might add. It should, imho, be the standard way of playing, the rest be more like turorials or ´simplified mode´. A good career mode could really slingshot KSP to legendary - you know like railroad tycoon legendary. The devs aim for comparable player-experiences, so why not throw in some modern RPG-elements? You know like main and side-quests kind of things, that are, yes, dread-it, scripted. That´s what the decision on comparable player-experiences indicates anyways- simply stick to it and follow through. GIve campaign play some structure. It´d make it more handlable (give hints on how to proceed, in and outside the game) and more comparable ("so i am currently running THE third mission down the "manned" line of the Jool tree, but i cant figure out how to build a base holding 4 kerbals in Jool´s orbit - any hints? - PS: I did read the in-game mission guide carefully, as i have that option on - i am a noob ;P"). Give us some exciting main-quest, around the annomalies, while you are at it, too. Some 2001-esque mystery.

Hmmm, for ore, why not simply have a fluctuating price and no missions at all for it? At each day, the current price gets modified more or less randomly (with the change being capped to be marginal on a daily basis) - you decide if and when it´s worth the hazzle. Problem with this approach to mining would be, that it wouldnt matter where the ore came from - hauled from Elloo or the Mun - it wouldnt make a difference. But should it? It´s the same ´ore´, right? Or is ore from A something different than ore from B? Well, anyways, if it is the same stuff, it could vary in its ´purity´ or ´saturation´ and incidenteally *cough*, the purer ore would be found in hard to reach and take-off from places. So 1t of ore from the mun could contain, say, only 50kg of the stuff (5% purity), while ore from, i dunno, say, Tylo contains 500kg/t (50% purity). I must admit, i never did much mining in KSP (i find it sort of unrealistic in and of itself - i dont think something like that will ever be economically worthwhile - but alas). You can turn the ore into fuel, right? Well, that´s a problem: How can the unrefined stuff be more valueable than the refined stuff it takes to haul it? The amount hauled should be like an order of magnitude above the mass of fuel expended to mine and transport it, in order to make it all make sense (unless there was no fuel avaiable on Kerbin otherwise), right? Maybe it would be a good idea to have 2 kinds of ore - one for fuel-generation (which is not profitable to sell) and some sort of ´gold-ore´ which can not be turned into fuel, but can be sold at Kerbin. The former would only play a role in your mission-planning (e.g. refueling plans for your ships), while the later would only be for money.

How about: Organizing missions into programs in a tree-like form, or simply as a collection of achievements. You´d activate a program and the game would give you missions associated with it, following some sort of tier-system. Like, say, you pick ´mun-program´ and there are, say, 2 tier1 missions scripted to it: 1. Manned fly-by, 2. Probe in orbit. Once completed, each has follow up missions. For example: 1a) Manned Orbit and 2a) Probe in polar orbit below x. And so forth. You can complete higher tier missions, that are not yet presented to you, in advance and thus skip ahead, but the game wont tell you about these, before you havent ´unlocked´ the ´node´ below (so experienced players can rush through a mission-tree, if they know what will be asked of them). You only get rewards for completing goals of active programs, and each mission´s reward would shrink by a well balanced amount down to a well balanced cap as time passes. So once you´d activate a program, the ´race´ would be on - not a race against some competing agency, but the race against the clock. It wouldn´t be a hard deadline like ´before this decade is out´ or an expiration date, as we have in the game now, but more like a soft-cap, where you simply get more rewards, the sooner you complete each goal. This way, we dont need REP decay and it´d be more forgiving than hard deadlines (no frustration from completing a mission just one hour ´too late´, f.e.). Programs themselves could be tiered and certain, more advanced programs require you to collect some REP from lower tiered programs first, before they appear and can be activated. There could also be programs that become avaiable after a certain mission within another program is completed, as sort of a spin-off. Once you have scripted programs like that, you can add in-game walkthroughs for them, which are presented piece by piece in a tutorial like fashion to any player with the according option in his/her game-setting activated. It would be a bit like having the option in modern 3D-RPGs to turn on/off these markers that tell you exactly where to go next in order to complete your active quest. For each mission there could be text-popups or hints from advisors, on what the player has to do and how. Since every program´s rewards could be tailored towards the missions it contains, there wouldnt be an issue arising from the great difference of time needed to reach different bodies: The mun-program´s rewards could decay say by 1% per day (pulling numbers from my rear for now, obviously), while the Jool-program´s rewards decay by 1% per month. Each to a cap of say 50%, so no matter how much time it takes you, you will at least get half the reward in the end - but it pays off to do it quicker, which is the point. Since the clock would start to tick on all missions within a program once it is activated, higher tier missions should either feature a disproportionally higher base reward or tick down slower than the lower tier ones. Programs should be suspendable for a REP-cost, pausing its tick-down but also barring any rewards for it, until re-activated. To avoid exploits, some time needs to pass between suspension and re-activation of a program, which probably should also be program-specific (longer for inter-planetary programs than for kerbin-SOI programs). EDIT: Since this would replace the 0/1-consequence of time-related failure to complete a mission with a soft continuum, more akin to the ´land close to KSC´-mechanic, balancing it would probably not be so crucial after all. The amount of frustration that can arise from it this way is inherently limited, while still giving sufficient incentive to care. Like landing on the other side of Kerbin, an unplanned delay in completing a mission would be something you´d try to avoid, sure, but if it does happen it´s nothing to ragequit or even reload for, as it would only make you miss out on some percentage of the reward, not all of it. Assuming you are not playing on some really hard difficulty level, any reward you get on top of the capped minimum, due to completing a mission quickly, could be regarded as an extra ´nice-to-have´. Crank up the difficulty, and you will either have to pick up these extras more or less regulary or occassionally complete one-shot commercial missions outside of programs to keep you in funds. EDIT2: Once all the programs are layed out and scripted, we´d also have a rough (!) idea, how long a game should take (in game-time). Say (for sake of example) these would be the programs (time to capped reward minimum in days): Kerbin (50); Mun (100); Minmus (200); Kerbol, Eve+Gilly, Moho (1000 each); Duna+Ike (2000); Dres (3500); Jool + moons except Laythe (5000), Laythe (spining off Jool-program, 5000), Elloo (8000). 8000+5000+5000+3500+2000+3000+350 = 26850 days ~ 63 kerbal years. Seems a bit long maybe... Anyways, point is, this would (assuming more thought out numbers) give us a ballpark of how fast tech should progress. Certainly, the tree should be completable well before you complete your final program (which would be pretty much ´game won´). Assuming an expected playtime of 50 years (you will run some programs in parallel at times, i guess) the techtree should IMHO be completely unlockable, depending on effort put into it, between year 20 and 40. R&D-times, if implemented, be balanced accordingly (it seems their current SCI-point costs might fit quite nicely for a direct 1:1 transfer to kerbal days, incidentally) EDIT3: Then i´d like to have the kerbal ressources (personel) reworked: - flatten the initial lump sum to hire a kerbal - have ground personel assigned to facilities. For now, only R&D, but could be expanded on later for other facilities. These cost wages and their number is limited by the tier of the R&D-building (expansion of which would be less costly). Obviously, these guys modify research-speed. The R&D-building works pretty much like a big science lab (that part) and all SCI collected would feed into it as data. Tech is picked in advance and science generated directly allocated to it. Say, each scientist generates 0.2 Sci/d and tier 1 holds upto 5, so you can research at 1 Sci/d. Tier 2 can hold 10 and Tier 3 20. Or somesuch. To avoid exploits, these guys get paid daily. Maybe you can overfund them in order to squeeze some extra out of them for disproportional cost (e.g. +10% research speed for 20% more cost). - kerbals in space get a salary depending on the duration of their current deployment. Something like 5000 per month started and an additional 1000 for each month passed upto a cap of 25,000 per month. - a training facility where paid kerbals can hone their skills on the ground. XP cap and training speed depending on building tier. And that´s all what i´d change in career mechanically that i can think of right now. Anything beyond that, like construction time or life support, i´d leave upto further consideration after the above is implemented first. Which, i think, is not too revolutionary to have a chance for it to happen. It´s more like a reform and additions (one major: scripted programs, and several minor) than a complete revamp.

@tater : I get your point, that timewarp is not an inherently bad thing and thus there is no need to dis-incentivize its use, really. But, imho, that would only give time its ´role-playing´ value, while adding incentives to ´save time´ sort of promotes it to a proper part of game-mechanics. That´s what i´d like it to be, in the end. BUT, i will admit, that baby-steps are probably the proper way of locomotion, here: If we had time elapse semi-realistically modeled for role-playing purposes only first, it would be a stepping-stone to implementing mechanics that carry it beyond that purpose. The problem with this approach though seems to be, that for players who do not mind that role-playing aspect, really, this stepping-stone amounts to little more than added tedium and higher numbers on the ingame-clock. I can understand, how people with less spare (real) time on their hands, will find that rather annoying than beneficial: "Before, i could build a rocket and just hit launch - now, i have to do a timewarp in-between these two... why?!" (assuming implementation of something like construction time). And as long as there is no cost to warping, this problem will remain, cause it wont be something that people can strategize and play around with. It wouldnt add anything meaningful to the game - and as such, it might (and even should) be left out altogether in the first place. So this ´implentation for role-playing purposes´ should (nay: must!) be followed up by some meat added to that bone asap, or else, this will make the game worse for many players, simply because it would force them to spend (real) time on something they do not (have to) care about, really. Being left inconsequential, time would be little more than the science-clickfest of now. I am only okay with this RP-type implementation, because balancing periodic costs is a toughy, in my expectation, be it qualitatively (WHAT should it cost) or quantitively (HOW MUCH of it, should it cost), and should be approached from the bottom (rather set the costs too low, than too high and encroach on the ´correct´ values from below). Also, first all the time-consuming events need to be identified and quantified (e.g.: construction time y/n? how much - depending on what?...), before any costs can be attached to them. By way of having an RP-type implementation first, you´d get a more or less fixed frame of reference to attach the costs to and which they can be balanced around: It´d be like taking one ball out of the juggling act (though, if needed, it can be still tossed back into it occassionaly). EDIT: Like, take construction time. If it doesnt really matter, how long it takes to build a given rocket, than things like say an expandable construction facility would be pointless. What´s the point of being able to construct faster, when time does not matter? With time having costs attached, suddenly ´sub-optimal´ transfers might make sense, too: Say, Kerbals would have a periodic cost (aka wages) that increases while they are on the same mission - now it might make sense to send them to Duna on a non-Hohmann transfer, even without life-support implemented. Also: Leaving that Kerbal stranded forever? Not a good idea, since you´d get taxed for that, periodically, and that tax would be quite high after a while (though should still be capped somewhere). Things like R&D-time (to get back to OP) would be pretty much pointless without cost-to-time (in whatever significant form) and you would very rarely try to accelerate reserach by any means, if you can just accelerate time by the factor of one-hundred-thousand (unless you plan the game to span thousands of years and make research realistically slow by default with huge, like trump-huuuge, modifiers for acceleration methods). We could have staff on the ground and/or maintiance cost, instead of these huge (dito) pay walls for buildings....

Well, it would still make ´medical points´ rather moot, once you have it all set-up, if there is no cost in maintaining these labs (plus now, it seems the kerbals would be an infinite source of data, even aggrevating the problem on that side - while lessening it due to making the currency it produces less applicable, at the same time). I dont mind splitting up science, maybe, but that idea is besides the point. Which is: If time is meant to play a major role in the management game, without timewarp becoming the by-many-dreaded i-win-button, there needs to be some sort of trade-off(s) for having it elapse. The game should be designed in a way, that makes you make it elapse a lot more than you now do (esp. in the early game), sure. Only then, it becomes meaningful trying to save it - if the difference between ´time-effecient´ play and not caring much about it at all, amounts to landing on the Mun for the first time an hour sooner or later, it simply doesnt matter. In an hour ingame time, you can collect a lot of science at the start of the current game and use that instantly to improve your techs and go to the mun much more comfortably than if you hadnt. With expanded R&D-time, the time-difference between the two would be much greater, as it would take time to develope those techs. By this, the amount of time-difference becomes potentially meaningful. That potential has to be filled with actual costs (in whatever form), though, or else, it matters nill and we might as well leave it with instantanious techs.

Well, contracts expiring would be a drawback to time-warping just as well, just different in kind. Point is: If warping can give you something, it should also cost you something. If there is such a thing as the science lab, which pays out sci-points over time, at no cost (you dont need missions going on for that), there is a balancing issue: Once you have the nodes unlocked, launch a station with lab, feed it with data and hit warp: it will take you a long way through the rest of the tech-tree - and as long as you dont mind a high year-count in your save, it wont make the slightest difference, how long that takes. It almost turns into a tech-singularity kind of thing. Now, i actually like the way the lab works - dont get me wrong on that, please (it pretty much mimics how the actual process of R&D should happen, as per this thread, if i am not mistaken). I like it not despite but because of timewarp. It just sort of falls flat on its face, because it is pretty much the only time-relevant thing in the game and thus generates a lot (compared to the data required) of science at no cost (past the initial set-up). I think it´s wierd from a design POV, not because it was a bad idea in itself. It´s more like planting a tree after making sure, the place you will plant it on, is a desert. Tree good, desert bad. In this analogy, tighter expiration dates for contracts would fertilize the ground just as periodic wages for the staff would.

@Kosmognome: Yeah, the science lab... it´s just puzzling from a design POV. I mean, first they decide to bend everything over to make it work in an environment, in which time is pretty much meaningless (e.g. to name but one: 1 increasing lump sum for hiring kerbonauts, instead of wages) and then they put it in a part, that basically generates ´points´ (the in-game currency most directly tied to the sense of progression and reward in the entire game) over time. If the scientists running that station would have to be paid in intervals, and the payment per interval would rise over the timespan of a single deployment (according to a formula, that must be carefully balanced as to not prohibit long-term kerballed missions), there would be: a) a payoff to the science generation in the lab (first cheap, but getting ever more expensive, if you dont swap crew), b) a reason to swap the staff out, periodically, and c) one reason less to have a life-support system with cruel consequences in case of failure and added part-count tedium.

I thought i tried to answer that, pthigrivi. With programs you can have each progress at its own pace, seperately.

@Veeltch: Well, i was more thinking along the lines that each program would have, well, a mission tree, very much like a tech tree, and you can choose one or more of the next tier in order to proceed, and they give you rep, when you complete them. Each program would also have a base funding per interval (and - as said - its own interval), which would get modified by the rep you have in this program. BUT, at each interval, each program also has an individual rep-decay. So, as long as you have that program active, you should get ahead with it. But you can choose to disengage, at a cost (maybe something like 5x intervals worth of rep), and resume later. It´s not ONLY based on your progression within the program, but also on the time it took you to get there. And that makes all the difference, in our usual discussions about a meaningful time-aspect in the management game. (keeping to edit- sorry): Heck, you could even tally up a score, once all the programs are complete, which would be directly related to the time it took you to get there (and the number of kerbals). Each completed program pays it remaining rep into your score. Or you can have it as funds... whatever... but there is an incentive do proceed quick. And that´s the point, when you want to make time meaningful.

...and then, as i mentioned before, you attach to each program an evaluation interval, depending on the distances involved, at which each time a rep-cost (also program-specific) is paid by the player but for the rest rep you get a modifier for funding (also program specific), during the next interval. Each program´s rep and funding accounting happens seperately - at their own times. If you feel you have done all you can or feel like doing in a program, and there are still missions left, you can cancel the program for a lump rep-cost, and so choose to avoid being taxed in rep for it, when you dont proceed in it. You can pick it up later again, where you left off, at no cost. EDIT: This would then more feel like you´d have to complete all the programs instead of completing the sci-tree, in order to ´win´. The prgrams could be sort of inter-tiered, too, so that you have reason to re-visit where you already have been, as the game progresses. Also: Maybe make the science thingies a hell of expensive outside of the programs, for which you´d get them dished out for free, where missions demand (1 each - no sending dozens of them around everywhere for free).

You know, since they do aim for the same player experience (no procedural worlds and such) they could just go all they way and simply make some ´main quests´, which would be like the exploration contracts, but with tiers and a central role in the progression system, in a rather scripted fashion. Those would be these programs that are being suggested. You pick like a body each as a mission-tree, quite scripted, then you can follow. Besides that, there are still some ´side-quests´, which would represent commercial endeavors mostly, and maybe some science missions. There could an intermediary thing between these two where ´side-quests´ sometimes may have mini-trees hidden behind them. And a forth kind could be triggered by those anamolies and serve as a story-line.

How about you can set the intervals at which you are evavluated and funded? At the beginning you might want monthly ´board meetings´ but when you are running Jool-missions exclusively, you might want them to be bi-annual. Picking the next interval at each time you get funds and rep-decay could add another interesting decision. "Okay, i am pretty much done with mun and minmus now - lets change the board meeting routine to once a year, instead of monthly." EDIT: Or the individual ´programs´ could have evaluation intervals each. And rep-decay rates. The Jool program runs on a tri-annual evaluation basis with tiny rep-decay.

The setback of the node was meant to be the mechanical part of the visual explosion, anyways, if i am not mistaken. It´s not like you´d lose a tier of the R&D building!

Yeah, i like that, Tater. About the exploding science facilities: It may be funny the first time, but to prevent making it a nuisance later, several precautions should be taken, imho. It could for example only happen, if, under the mechanics described by tater, you fuel your R&D with money to a high percentage. It should be a risk you can take, but you dont have to take. Every buck you spend on science could push the risk of something like that happening up a bit - and once it does happen, savescumming wont help much and would get increasingly impractical, if you keep pushing the risk up. Since when exactly it will happen is random, you cant aim to save right before it does happen. It may be should be limited to higher difficulty settings.

An in game record and replay function is a great idea. You know like in World of Tanks or in racing games.

Hmmm... just a little brainstorm idea here (havent thought this through yet): What if the player could decide when the next board-meeting will be held? Those board meetings would be when you get your rewards and rep-costs. You are currently actively exploring the kerbin system? Well, you probably want to set the date for the next board meeting in a month, maybe. You are exclusively having probes to Jool running? Well, the next board meeting is held in 3+ years from now. All accounting, except immediate expenses on rockets, is in haitus between board meetings. No board meeting -> no income, but also no rep-cost. Edit: Oh yeah, on topic: I like the idea.

Well, unless the parts´ stats´ descriptions are dynamic, also. Under no circumstances should it read: "impact tolerance = 8m/s", when really, for whatever reason, it is only 7m/s. If they are though, i´d think that having them impacted by difficulty setting would be a good idea, allthough i realize, that squad probably wont agree to this, with their desire for common player experience and all that.

Okay, i have just transfered my save from 1.05 to 1.1 and am running it on 64bit (windows). My waiting (for transfer windows) station around Duna (181 parts right now) is going all smooth at 100x now. Still a few ´yellow´ frames but mostly green. Orbital indicators are where they are supposed to be for me, as does the UI seem okay (no fonts issues). Running on an I5-3210M at 2.5 Ghz and an NVidia Geforce GT 650M attached to a 22" 16:10 screen at 1680x1050 fullscreen. Other than resolution and fullscreen all settings are on default (edit: forgot: set vsync to 60 fwiw).