Career mode Overhaul for better progression :wink:

[Gfurst]

In case some of you hadn't noticed yet, there has been quite a turmoil over the new tech tree and how career progression seems badly made.

References:

- WOW-Any-vanilla-hard-difficulty-career-mode-players-get-to-the-mun-yet?

- What-do-you-think-of-the-new-tech-tree

- And yet another suggestion for a different tech tree type

My suggestion goes a bit further, and is inspired and based on some comments from the mentioned threads.

KSP begun with as a sandbox only game, which badly implemented a career mode afterwards, definitely not the strong point of the Dev team, some people even mentioned that the new tech tree might have been designed in Kerbal land.

I have to mention, they did an amazing job with new aero and thermo dynamic stuff. The career mode however, is a bit sad for a (now released) game, specially for new players.

Thing is, you start the career with a very limited and restricting game, going through a lot of grind to unlock further stuff. As the game progresses and new parts are unlocked, if gets easier and easier, not because you've acquired knowledge and practice though. The early game feels more like a challenge to veteran players than anything else, just image how new players will feel coming into this .

Instead of limiting the players choice, I feel the game should progress instead as mission and eras:

First go for flight in Kerbin, then try sub-orbital rockets, orbital capsules, EVA, Mun fly-by, then landing and so on. Beginning with a 0.625 ballistic rocket instead of a one part rocket, most of us still don't understand how we have manned flight before even getting a very use-less early probe.

The progression of one mission to another and performing key experiments (and maybe accumulating science points) is what leads to new eras of exploration. Note that it is not limiting parts for early game, but instead a full set of lower tech parts, and as progress goes on, access to more advanced techniques, better capacity to weight tanks, more efficient engines, and so on.

This is also to provide a meaningful progression for new players as they learn the basics of space flight, getting into first orbit, the learning to go to moons, then leaving the Kerbin system and so on. Being a smoother progression that doesn't limit the player all that much.

The first stages are more of a an tutorial for newer players, then the game gets more and more open to exploration as it depends more on player choices.

Just look at Buzz Aldrin's game, I didn't particularly like it that much but it sure gives a very nice example of space program exploration progression.

There a couple of additions to make this progression even better, based on the mod Kerbal Construction Time, this is to simply give some to actually build and assemble crafts. Right now the only time progression that happens is the time it takes for completing flights, getting from one point to another. This is a major must have for a decent career progression.

Another needed and useful feature would be to have procedural tanks and modular fuels, allowing for a proper shapes and capacity, you only carry what you need. This will help a lot with part clutter, and will fit nicely with tech progression, advanced technologies allows for more variation and such, conical tanks, and etc.

Heck, you don't even need to build a lot of newer models and parts for the technological progression, just changing stats, possibilities and maybe throw in a new textures and its done.

Another mod inspired addition is Remote Tech, not only to make antennas and probes useful, but required, giving a whole lot planning challenge for the late game.

Note that this is all mostly done, as it is based off mods. And realistic speaking, you developers are probably not the best out to plan this career progression idea. Well, just the recent changes you made to the tech tree API show that, its basically saying: its in your hands now, we leave to the community to plan out a better tree. With that in mind I suggest to either hire new people, or use some of the very brilliant fan and modders. Or even just make an API with this progression in design and a very basic system and then let we come out with the neat stuff.

As I've said before, this is not to bash on the devs, the release version brought some of our dreams to reality, with dynamics we couldn't have dreamed of.

But the career game is quite an oddity, something not in the same level of greatness as the rest of the game is. Specially if its discouraging new players, on the already steep to learn curve.

Please let me know of your thoughts on this, pull this up to bring attention to the devs. Useful additions are also appreciative, and I'll sure add them up here for reference.

Cheers!

[theonegalen]

I really enjoy playing the early career game, so much so that I hardly ever get out of the Kerbin-Mun-Minmus system on career before a new version of KSP comes out anymore. I'm sure if I ever got beyond that I'd enjoy that too. I want to roleplay from humble barn beginnings to Near Future Tech, telling a story of exploration and technological advancement and overcoming adversity. I play the game like a interactive version of James Michener's novel Space that then turns into Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy.

I even add extra mods to make things more difficult at the beginning, like starting with KAX piston engines and having to fly around doing a bunch of survey/weather report contracts while the rocketry division uses RoverDude's sounding rockets starting in the second node. And I really wish I could launch those sounding rockets from the Tier 0 buildings that were teased so many months ago.

I'm not sure that would make anything easier or less grindy for new players, so I don't know if this rambling is helpful to you, but I agree that career mode does need something.

[CaptainKipard]

Gfurst. I seriously doubt any developer has the time to read that wall of text. You need to make your point briefly and concisely. You can expand on it later.

[Domfluff]

I'm actually really enjoying the career mode at the moment... on Normal. The changes that have been made to the early game and contract system seem to have been pretty well balanced at this level, and the progression feels great (five missions in, have achieved Mun orbit - I could manage a landing on mission six, but I'd have to do it without legs - that and Minmus should take me up to the stage where I need to upgrade R&D and start thinking about interplanetary missions).

I started on Hard, but with the building upgrades that's hugely grindy and un-fun. I could see playing on Normal with the "hard" options (no reverts/quicksaves), or possibly just even on Hard with the Funds penalty set to 100%.

Having said that, career mode does seem to have some game design issues - I don't think it's clear what it intends to be. Is it a tutorial? Is it a sim? It doesn't work particularly well at either right now. The main reason to play career is the restrictions funds gives you - having to build rockets under (yet more) restrictions, and the benefits of re-usability and economic design. I've never been a huge fan of the seemingly arbitrary restrictions that the building upgrades give you, and the tech tree will suffer from this apparent lack of focus as to the fundamental purpose of the mode.

[Gfurst]

Gfurst. I seriously doubt any developer has the time to read that wall of text. You need to make your point briefly and concisely. You can expand on it later.

People need to read more, they really do, including me. I know the devs will read too, its only a question of they considering the topic important enough.

I've guess the concise point is: Overhaul of career mode for better progression. As it show on the title.

I really enjoy playing the early career game, so much so that I hardly ever get out of the Kerbin-Mun-Minmus system on career before a new version of KSP comes out anymore. I'm sure if I ever got beyond that I'd enjoy that too. I want to roleplay from humble barn beginnings to Near Future Tech, telling a story of exploration and technological advancement and overcoming adversity. I play the game like a interactive version of James Michener's novel Space that then turns into Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy.

I even add extra mods to make things more difficult at the beginning, like starting with KAX piston engines and having to fly around doing a bunch of survey/weather report contracts while the rocketry division uses RoverDude's sounding rockets starting in the second node. And I really wish I could launch those sounding rockets from the Tier 0 buildings that were teased so many months ago.

I'm not sure that would make anything easier or less grindy for new players, so I don't know if this rambling is helpful to you, but I agree that career mode does need something.

Well, actually those are two stuff that should indeed make early game a lot more fun, and I've mentioned above, the low tech ballistic rocket and plane.

I'm actually really enjoying the career mode at the moment... on Normal. The changes that have been made to the early game and contract system seem to have been pretty well balanced at this level, and the progression feels great (five missions in, have achieved Mun orbit - I could manage a landing on mission six, but I'd have to do it without legs - that and Minmus should take me up to the stage where I need to upgrade R&D and start thinking about interplanetary missions).

I started on Hard, but with the building upgrades that's hugely grindy and un-fun. I could see playing on Normal with the "hard" options (no reverts/quicksaves), or possibly just even on Hard with the Funds penalty set to 100%.

To the mun is five missions, how is that even possible?

I started on moderate and haven't back yet, but after review of some other comments, I'm willing to give more a try. I'll change some of the settings to normal though.

Having said that, career mode does seem to have some game design issues - I don't think it's clear what it intends to be. Is it a tutorial? Is it a sim? It doesn't work particularly well at either right now. The main reason to play career is the restrictions funds gives you - having to build rockets under (yet more) restrictions, and the benefits of re-usability and economic design. I've never been a huge fan of the seemingly arbitrary restrictions that the building upgrades give you, and the tech tree will suffer from this apparent lack of focus as to the fundamental purpose of the mode.

Yeah, the career is not very clear on whats supposed to be, and I've said above too, it feels more like a challenge for experienced players than anything else.

It definitely not a sort of tutorial progression and I can imagine new players becoming very frustrated or giving up. As it mostly happens, players tend to get frustrated and turn to mods instead.

[CaptainKipard]

Look it's your decision. I'm telling you from experience. Take it or leave it.

[Gfurst]

Look it's your decision. I'm telling you from experience. Take it or leave it.

Alright then, I'm finding it hard to easily describe the concept without going into too much detail. Any suggestions?

[CaptainKipard]

Alright then, I'm finding it hard to easily describe the concept without going into too much detail. Any suggestions?

Bullet lists work well. There actually was a long-ish discussion about this in the Kerbal Network subforum.

My own suggestion thread, linked in my signature, does this. Most bullet points have links to specific posts discussing the point in more detail. I have it on good authority that this kind of process makes Squad employees more inclined to take suggestions on board. This way you're not overloading with information but still allowing the reader to find out your reasoning if they need or want to.

If you already have all your info in the OP then just refer to numbers or headings or something. Break it up thematically. Make it easy to navigate.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[Aelfhe1m]

I thoroughly agree that the progression of available parts seems off. Simple planes and probes should be available from the start. The progression should be more about unlocking better parts and more variety of the fundamental "types" of craft - probe, plane, manned, rover (the parts for which are ridiculously deep in the tree).

The thing I find most "grindy" about playing career on hard is the price of the building upgrades. It took me a while to realise that this was linked to the "Funds Penalties" slider since I'm careful about which contracts I accept and almost never end up getting a penalty.

[Gfurst]

BTW, as recommended above I really do need to tidy up the thread and update on the ideas, but right now too busy playing enjoy and testing a bunch of mods. be back later

[Sky_walker]

So, the most important part (as it's the only one in bold) is making Kerbal Construction Time stock? Call me sceptical, but I can think of few dozens of things that would make career progression much better than KCT does. Just think of time in KSP as an abstract value and suddenly most of the issues go away.

[ghpstage]

To the mun is five missions, how is that even possible?

I started on moderate and haven't back yet, but after review of some other comments, I'm willing to give more a try. I'll change some of the settings to normal though.

I've landed on the Mun on my fourth launch on standard hard settings. The main point is the abuse of the scientists new restore ability, and required the ability to fly without SAS, manoeuvre nodes or patched conics. On a separate run I went to Minmus on launch four instead, and came back with enough science to clear the entire T1 R&D centre tech block.

The progression is really bizarre, if you know exactly what your doing and are willing to go for it you can advance much, much faster than in 0.9 (0.9 Cash->Science strategy excepted), but if you aren't great at reaching orbit, and don't know how to get to the Mun without nodes then your stuck grinding for ages.....

Edited May 8, 2015 by ghpstage

[Gfurst]

I've landed on the Mun on my fourth launch on standard hard settings.

Actually I've only made one flight to orbit yet, with several mods, and trying patch/balance things I've find out of place, is pretty much taking my whole time :/

and required the ability to fly without SAS, manoeuvre nodes or patched conics.

I am actually looking forward to this, including thepoint to the mun when rising in the horizon strategy, first time I'm actually going to try something like a straight shot to the Mun.

The progression is really bizarre, if you know exactly what your doing and are willing to go for it you can advance much, much faster than in 0.9 (0.9 Cash->Science strategy excepted), but if you aren't great at reaching orbit, and don't know how to get to the Mun without nodes then your stuck grinding for ages.....

Yup, its pretty much the point of the thread, and its basically a design flaw and there's no way around if not a overhaul.

[Lord Aurelius]

While I do agree that the devs need to fix this in stock eventually, at the moment there are actually some mods that rebalance progression that might do kind of what you want already.

SETI and BTSM.

Both start out with small probe rockets, and both are still very much a WIP since it hasn't been that long since 1.0 came out and are in a major state of flux.

At least both of these mods could give you some additional ideas.

[ghpstage]

Even if you ignore how late the come, probes have long been underpowered compared to manned spaceflight, (being overweight, and severely lacking in capabilities) and took a sizeable relative nerf in 1.0. Do either of those mods address this well?

[Lord Aurelius]

@ghpstage

Yes, both mods are designed to start with probes. I've not played BTSM recently (it wasn't my cup of tea last time I tried it), but in SETI there's some tweaks to make probes much more viable, especially with reducing the weight. I've been helping out with SETI, the Stock Science Tweaks mod I have in my signature has been integrated and it adds a telemetry report to all probe cores (basically a lower science value crew report that's not biome dependent, it's mainly intended for the get science from somewhere contracts) and also adds a drill that probes can use to take surface samples.

[Gfurst]

@ghpstage

Yes, both mods are designed to start with probes. I've not played BTSM recently (it wasn't my cup of tea last time I tried it), but in SETI there's some tweaks to make probes much more viable, especially with reducing the weight. I've been helping out with SETI, the Stock Science Tweaks mod I have in my signature has been integrated and it adds a telemetry report to all probe cores (basically a lower science value crew report that's not biome dependent, it's mainly intended for the get science from somewhere contracts) and also adds a drill that probes can use to take surface samples.

=O I do like this very much, specially the probe features. BTSM I do his idea but is also so closed off to supported mods and balance, and basically if you add anything it throws the whole thing out of balance. This mainly was the only turn off to me.

Check out the last link on my signatures, I've doing some fixing and balancing on my own too, currently waiting for Claw's advice on how to tweak the physics parameter. On another note seems like FAR has been release,

[Lord Aurelius]

=O I do like this very much, specially the probe features. BTSM I do his idea but is also so closed off to supported mods and balance, and basically if you add anything it throws the whole thing out of balance. This mainly was the only turn off to me.

Check out the last link on my signatures, I've doing some fixing and balancing on my own too, currently waiting for Claw's advice on how to tweak the physics parameter. On another note seems like FAR has been release,

Right now SETI for 1.0 is still in the very early stages (that big list of mods in the OP is what was supported in 0.90, but eventually pretty much everything in that list should be supported in 1.0) but the concept is very much for player choice. It has configs for all those mods, but outside of a few core required mods, everything is optional, and tries to stay close enough to the spirit of stock that even mods that aren't on the supported list should still work reasonably well.

Yemo is the author of SETI and does all the balance work, I just help out with a few tweaks and basic parts to fill in the gaps. He checks the thread frequently and takes suggestions, don't be afraid to post over there, he might be able to use some of those balance fixes.