Wjolcz

Welcome to the stock career mode, OP! This wouldn't happen if we were able to pick the themes of missions ourselves. If programs replaced strategies we could do whatever the heck we desire and do so anytime. Let's be honest, making those strategies "balanced" was a waste of dev time anyway.

I agree, but only if something like Kerbal Krash System became stock. Otherwise 30 meters long fuel tanks would simply go *poof* in the middle and everything would fall down and also get poof'd.

Pretty much this ^^^ They simply make things go backwards. Now it's: Gather science -> build better things. In a proper career it should like this: Spend time and money on tech -> build a probe with sensors -> understand the world sorrounding you (and get rep for it, because kerbals like to read about new scientific facts, but mainly to close the loop). Well, and there's a dose of roleplay from me for today.

Or do you mean the way the player would have to pick things himself? The goals and experiments could be hidden, of course, and simply auto-collected. That gets rid of the Mission Control goal cycling and clickiness, I guess. But I think that it is always nice to keep track of your own goals. Having it in your in-flight UI is even better. If you set yourself a goal of, for example, achieving a Jool orbit then you should be able to check the state of the goal anytime and anywhere. That way it could also serve a role of a mission planning tool. Depends on how it's balanced. Right now we have too many resources (money, rep and SP). It's the main reason why it sometimes can get grindy and why the strategies were first OP and now are almost useless. There's no hazard of grind if you can't exchange the SP for money, or rep (the closed circle mechanism posted somewhere above).

I agree. That's why I think the automation of experiments is a great idea.

Again, sorry if this doesn't get merged. I have nothing against the automation of experiments. You would pick the goals, fly in there, do a bunch of manouvers, go high, go low and see how many of them you got completed. That's a really good idea. That's exactlt why there should be no penalty for declining the previously activated goals. Since the program is all about the SOI there's no problem with that. All you have to do is to collect the experiments. Who cares if you split your probe in half if one half is going low and the other high? The experiments are gathered and that's all that really matters.

That could be easily dealt with by applying filters.

Sorry for multiposting but I'm unable to edit. IMO declining the goals/missions shouldn't be penalized. Each program would give you money to complete the said program. Each completed goal would give you rep and help you progress. A number of completed goals would make your program ready for finalisation (you get rep for it). The experiments give you rep, the rep give you money and the money gives you tech and science equipment, which when performed give you rep. That way the circle is closed and no resource is useless. Even if the whole tech "tree" (which isn't really the tree that we know and more of a bunch of loosely connected nodes) would be completed there would still be plenty of things to do (science experiments which fund your program).

The points are tough to deal with because they exist. That's why we get the "tweaks" all the time and why the parts tend to move around the tree every update. The more types of points there are the longer they take to balance. Especially when they have influence on each other. A "good" stock mission (I'm assuming you mean a single contract here) doesn't give you the final reward if you miss one of its objectives. Good luck getting all of them checked if you forgot one of the experiments specified in it. But that's what reverts are for, right? The mechanic of multiple and independent program goals (missions) rewards you for each experiment performed independently. Think about it: 1. Go to the Mission Control we have now -> cycle through a bunch of RANDOMLY GENERATED contracts until you find the one that interests you (has the exact combo of goals that you actually want to do). How much time did it take you? 2. Now let's go through the "science-points-free" concept of career mode: Go into the admin Building -> pick the Jool (it's only an example here) Exploration Program -> go to the Mission Control -> there's the tab called "Jool Exploration Program" -> a long list of missions (experiments that can be performed around Jool) rolls out -> you pick the ones that you want. Now tell me which one was easier and faster to go through? Let's not assume you were super lucky and you got what you wanted right away in the contract lottery in the current game.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Key_bindings

The only major change to the UI would be program tabs in the Mission Control and missions in them, which wouldn't even expand when clicked on ("Perform temperature scan in space high above Jool" is IMO enough of an explanation about what the mission wants from you). You get what you have to do in the title and once that is selected you simply click "Yes" or "No" button. The current UI for missions is more complicated than that. Do you want me to draw it for you?

You can't really compare them like that. NASA does way more research. SpaceX uses the experience and tech of previous projects, not necessarily their own (the reusable VTOL rockets were originally proposed by NASA, I think). BUT I feel like if NASA gets more focused on the tech and SpaceX on providing launching capabilities they both could coexist and work together really well.

What? This makes no sense. The player could do experiments with and without accepting the missions. But the completed missions would help you to complete the program, which would unlock more programs. Basically what we have now, except you pick the theme of missions yourself and get rewarded with cash and rep instead of science points (which are the main reason why the game still needs "tweaking"). Ok, I get it. You are trying to strawman me to death, because I'm a pest here. Fine, I will leave and never bother this thread again.

True, but that way the player would have the flexibility needed in case when not all of his/her objectives went according to the plan (forgot one of the experiments/a parachute/ran out of fuel, etc.). They could pick missions before and after the launch. It would also be very handy for someone who would want to extend the mission of his/her vessel. A good example of this is the currently ongoing Dawn mission. It is now orbiting Ceres, but the Dawn team thinks they can go to some another minor planet. If this was a case in someone's game, he/she would simply pick another set of missions connected to what they want to do next.

Yes. Not exactly. The science performed influences the rep, which influences the money you get. If you want to keep your space program running then prove yourself useful by exploring the solar system (by doing the science experiments). I was actually thinking about this one and came to conclusion that choosing the missions shouldn't be chosen before the flight. The program should. So: Pick Jool exploration program -> Build a Jool probe and launch it -> get to the Jool SOI -> accept missions from the program (picking the ones that suit you best) -> perform science -> get rep (#getrep)

: OOOOO

THANK YOU! This is something I wanted to be a stock thing for a while now.

Doing God's work there, @inigma. Thank you.

More science instruments would be nice to have. We still lack a magnometer, cameras, telescopes and a few other things. Not sure about the progression of scientific instruments, though. KSP was always meant to stay "balanced" and worse->better parts' progression would make some of them completely obsolete and useless.

I'd prefer if the game allowed to pick programs for different bodies. That way we wouldn't have to worry about strange missions the game generates now, because we would set the goals ourselves and the rest would simply not show up in Mission Control.

You still don't get what I'm trying to say, do you? Right now the science points are useless once you finish completing the tree and people either exchange them for rep or money anyway, so why not do that in the first place? It would simply feel as if you activated one of those strategies that give you rep for science and another one that gives you money for rep. If there were no science points the players would still be able to explore and do whatever the heck they want. The difference is they simply wouldn't be rewarded with science points and get reputation instead (which would have an influence on the annual income). And reputation is something we have in real life and people know how to deal with it. It's not my fault there are no cities on Kerbin. What made you think I think that warping is bad? It's a good thing. The problem is that during the time compression not much is happening. If tech was time and money dependent, time warping would actually be rewarding. The game would be way easier to balance and tweak if we had only two resources instead of three and this thread would probably not even exist. I'm also starting to think you don't even want to understand what I'm trying to say.

The problem here is not realism, though and you both seem to be missing my point by justifying the tech progression by some sort of science sharing cultural thing. The point here is that the science points mechanic works backwards. As I said in the other thread: You build a rocket (with limited resources) to send a probe somewhere which once at the destination gives you the ability to build a better rocket. The problem here is you either have to go to outer planets or biome-hop on Mun and Minmus. If you desperately need some new tech and the amount of science to unlock it is really high you have to do one of the two: 1. Science grind in Kerbin's SOI 2. Build a probe and then timewarp until it reaches the desired destination. With tech research based on money this wouldn't happen, because there would be no rush involved. You could research any piece of tech without the need to wait 'til your Joolian probe harvests the science from Jool. The career mode is not balanced because of those points. Rupees are easy and fun to collect because we know how money works IRL, but those science points are nowhere near anything we know. That's why they are very hard to balance. The tech research should be based on something everyone knows, which is money, not because I want to, but because SP are too abstract. The concept of money is simply easier to understand and implement. Voaygers' flybys did nothing to the research of the Space Shuttle, so why should they in KSP?

Yeah, that's actually a better example.

That's exactly what I was thinking. If Dragon V2 is successful it could become the 747 of space travel.

It's so ridiculous I don't even know what to say.