inigma

@Probus would you be interested in having ETT adopted as one of the base tech trees for the Community Career Framework project? I want to invite you personally to join in on it, and if not, to at least join in on the discussion and give us permission to fork ETT, or else request github pushes.

I've always usually just created a simple probe and dropped it off at the Tracking Center front door. I called it KSC beacon or something. A contract to do something like this might help. I about burst out laughing at that comment. Ha ha. so true. A rendezvous with a monolith is space makes more sense than a stranded polar orbit space chap at the beginning of one's space program. That's why I created GAP initially. All I wanted to do was make one single contract to fly a few dozen passengers to and from KSC Island. The possibilities though to make that seem part of the game story has uh... forced me to develop a few more contracts than that. heh. And I still haven't done that contract yet. I agree that better crafted opportunities to grind funds is needed in early and mid career. That is why I think mods allowing for the selling of ore should be taken into serious consideration as part of CCF balance and part of any recommended mod list. Great ideas! Although I think something could be done even simpler than this (and more "optional" rather than "required") - is for someone to develop a mod that does exactly this: mark out waypoints for landing assistance. I personally don't need such a marker, but I could see this as a CCF compatible idea if one were to opt installing a mod to do so! Currently I'm waiting for permanently cancellable contracts by Contract Configurator by @nightingale to implement such permanently declinable contracts. All other ideas you present are amazingly awesome, and well seasoned feedback. Thanks for sharing. I look forward to any more ideas you'd like to posit and share. As take-aways, I think you're along the lines with others that a tech tree of some sort needs to be adopted as a frame of reference, even if we just pick one, especially since what is needed for the earlier Modular Career Progression Framework nodes are parts availability. I tried to address some of this with GAP's starting contract to offer the following parts (in the future requiring a fee in exchange): Command Seat Cubic Strut (to actually start building things) small ladder rungs (Pegasus I Mobility Enhancer) small rover wheels small battery pack mini decoupler (to decouple spawnable manned pods from Command Seat-only crafts if one is not using the Take Command mod) @Probus, are you interested in joining this project to allow us to base CCF mods after ETT?

Deciding on a tech tree would be useful, but it using only one tech tree wouldn't be required (although I do recommend ETT, we could also ask for a volunteer to make one exclusively for CCF use), assuming other tech trees would still be able to support the modular career progression framework in the OP. By families of mods I mean mods that are related in any sort of direct way which would affect game balance if ignored, but in the OP a family of mods would originally start with the particular progression framework nodes a specific mod supports, and all other mods that do. The idea for CCF is to first provide guidelines for mods so authors can certify their mods as meeting the guidelines. A list of who's certified would eventually arise from this collaboration, making seeing any holes in the framework as opportunities for new mods to be developed to fill in the gap, so that eventually a full career experience if a player opts to do all progression nodes, could be served. Essentially I felt that career seemed to be lacking a few key mods when I started my career game in November for the first time. Hence why I'm developing GAP. But I can't develop all missing elements. That and I can't self-balance all existing mods. That, and SETI is no longer being developed. So... Community Career Framework is born here to hopefully get the ball rolling on something more collaborative, open, and directional in serving this need for a solid career game experience for players. First up, discussing current stock imbalances to see if there are any changes that really need to be made - if any at all. Second, discussing what people would like to see in a collaborative mod author career project - what do people want in Career that is nearly universal? Third, how should we balance our mods with stock or whatever stock changes we base the project on? Let's publish some guidelines based on consensus, and keep it a living publication as we grow, learn, adapt, and develop.

Fun with CC bug testing... these guys were about to be rescued by a brave helicopter crew... when the sea kracken grabbed them and their ship and sent them to the bottom of the sea: i do have to admit, testing and developing contracts has been a lot of fun. (and is it me, or is that the mun on the left side of the picture?)

I added this Monday night:

all boats so far added here. thanks guys! https://github.com/inigmatus/GAP/tree/master/Assets/Sea

Added to the OP: Mods in all families would have balanced outputs, costs, and rewards vs all other mods in all families in order to self-certify as CCF compliant by adhering to the CCF Standard Costs, Outputs, Rewards and Experience worksheet (CCF SCORE - hey I like friendly acronyms)

Do you an idea for a base standard reward for part tests on the launch pad, and a base standard for landing at the Island Airfield so we can begin indexing costs? Concerning the progression, the intent is for it to be completely modular. I should probably add the word "modular" to the OP, which I will do now so it's more clear.

oh and @Speeding Mullet post that bad boy on reddit.

holy hand grenade i won't make you do an actual passenger load with that beast (although I'm sure there's a mod for that, isn't there?). You take the top spot in the passenger category. shiminy whiskers. updated OP. @Speeding Mullet hey man if you want to re-do that mission with live Kerbals, go for it. let us know if you find a mod that helps loading that many Kerbals on board.

Something like this? ground vehicles & boats > submersibles > aircraft > sounding rockets > unmanned rockets > probes > manned spacecraft > rover landings > manned landings > space stations > spaceplanes > bases > colonies > interstellar Contracts for each Progression Framework node would offer targets that are not explored, closest first. Research for each Progression Framework node would offer components that are most rudimentary/basic first, dependent on having researched only historically related technologies offered in Progression Framework nodes before it I really think it would be best to stay away from requiring CCF compliant mods to be compatible with massively game-altering approaches such as 5x Kerbol. If any 5x Kerbol mod author can ensure their mod is fully compatible with CCF certified mods, that would be a different thing, and not really fit within the framework above, but such a modder could/would be able to certify their mod as CCF compliant - but they would have to do the actual work of making it so. To keep this project simple, however, I highly recommend we avoid requiring more of CCF compliant mods than the bare minimums to sustain a balanced career with other CCF certified mods. This might mean putting the onus on compatibility with the 5x Kerbol author than on all other CCF authors. Agreed?

Should ground and water surface vehicles (parts and contracts) come before sounding rockets?

@Yemo @linuxgurugamer @NathanKell @DMagic @Nertea @RoverDude and others who are experienced with part costs and game balance, It was suggested by @Nertea that the Community Career Framework (CCF) should provide a basic set of standards for career part and cost balance, rather than adopting one tech tree or one person's vision of how things should be balanced. I also think this framework should also include contract balance, hence @nightingale I would like to know if there is a general consensus also on contract rewards. Should we be using stock awards as the index standard? I think creating these standards as CCF's approach and raison d'etre is best, but seeing as how I have no experience with balancing those items (except perhaps contract rewards), I am coming to you asking you what you would like to see as far as a framework for mod authors to latch on to when coding part costs and balances. Do you have any ideas, or suggestions that we could collaborate on to finalize some basic part costs/standards that CCF would promote and require of any mod author certifying their mod as CCF compatible? What do you guys think are the current imbalances in the stock Career game, as well as popular Career game mods? What would like a Community Career Framework to provide mod authors and players?

You guys are so awesome!

Thank you! I will include all of these once I test them.

You qualify for top leader spot for tonnage. Unfortunately, live Kerbals are required for the attempt for # of passengers. Updating OP...

This isn't a mod docket. This is a mod author symposium to set standards for game balance among career mods, and to list such participating mods and allow mods to certify as CCF compliant.

With SETI on hold, and the need to continue and encourage further career balance mod development, I think we need a serious discussion on career game balance mod development, but in a more open format and involving the community of mod authors: Community Career Framework - A Balance Mod Cooperative to Career Games (A Community Recommended Mod List that Commits to Working Well Together in Career Games) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/128056-community-career-framework-a-balance-mod-cooperative-to-career-games-a-community-recommended-mod-list-that-commits-to-working-well-together-in-career-games/

Can we get a consensus from all interested parties on the progression framework above? Is that framework out of order, or is that framework the typical approach to career most players would agree on taking (skipping any progression levels of course that don't interest them)?

I have finished 0.4, but won't be releasing it since Contract Configurator 1.9.1 contains a few bugs that break GAP. So I've moved on to working on 0.5 as well. I hope to release 0.5 after CC 1.9.2 comes out. 0.6 will have seaplanes! See the current GAP milestone progresses here: https://github.com/inigmatus/GAP/milestones

I tried 0.0 and 20 and no alt. 0.0 and no alt has kerbal spawn on surface but when flying close to it kerbal stays but after a few seconds or more it suddenly loses buoyancy... all kerbals seem to lose it too aftetwards requiring a game restart. Alt 20 spawn has kerbal spawning on ocean floor. Its interesting. Ill have to create a bug case and submit to you replication steps but I think you might be onto something regarding the landed vs splashed state change.

I'm still gathering data and steps to replicate. I will soon. Prob late late tonight. When it happens, all Kerbals lose buoyancy, including my own crew such as Jeb or Bill if I EVA them out of the helicopter and have them go for a swim.

Haha its mine. GAP. Go to your GameData\ContractPacks\GAP folder and delete the Development folder. You must have downloaded a dev version of GAP. Its a bug test contract for Contract Configurator I made. Gives lots of science so I can rapidly unlock the tech tree. Don't play it. Delete the Development folder in GAP.

I keep running consistently into a scenario that when I spawn a kerbal on water, and I fly in a craft to rescue him, as I approach the kerbal or hover over him, the spawned kerbal starts to sink. Rapidly. In fact he will sink all the way to the ocean floor. It's as if he loses all buoyancy. If I then load another contract that spawns kerbals on water after that point, even if I load the kerbal directly first before flying over to him, he spawns on the ocean floor and starts to float up or in most cases just has no buoyancy and stays walking on the sea floor.

thanks for this mod!