Has anyone else not bothered with career mode?

[basic.syntax]

I would be more interested and engaged with career, if it told me a story about humble beginnings, and gradually uncovered explorations and discoveries, by these plucky green folks.

Current career casts you as a role-player, making up your own story from bits and pieces of procedurally generated contract text.

I can certainly play along, or not even read that stuff and make up my own reasons for why I'm taking contracts, but, I'd like Squad to write a story-based campaign game mode.

[Valley]

I try career but always end up using up more money than I can create.

[goldenpsp]

I did what I think others mentioned in this thread. I like career in the aspect of running some missions and trying to keep my rocket building within a budget. I'm tired of starting from scratch with unlocking all of the parts. I've already done all the stuff without all the best parts. So I hacked myself enough science to unlock the nodes.

So I still needed to generate funds to fly and upgrade buildings.

[SpaceSmith]

Here is my thing with Career mode that I have found... I often want to start out big... I always have this feeling that starting out with Careers I should have more than I start with.... so I set the sliders up and do one quick mission and get as much science and funds as I can to unlock and upgrade what I can and play from there.

I hate the silly restrictions that some of the upgrades seem to have... And the contracts are... tiring to say the least. I don't know, maybe I need more time with it but as of now its eh..

I really like the strategies and the fact that you have to manage funds for your ship.. also science gives me reasons to send things to places.. but starting out where you do just kind of sucks for me.

[Asmayus]

I've played ksp on and off since 0.17. Until career was added, the point of the game was getting to far away places by any means that took your fancy. Which was massively entertaining. I think the problem with the science and career modes is that they're focused on restricting the player in the name of creating gameplay. It isn't fun (for me!) to play missions until I can get those part count and tonnage limits lifted. That feels like grinding to get to the point where I can have fun.

I'm going to reminisce a little here, but there's a point, so bear with me: I remember building awful (and entertaining) rockets in the old demo. And then, after a little while, I got the game. Boom. 0.17. New planets, new parts, new things to do. And then 0.18 hit. That was brilliant. Same thing all over again. And then the next update, and the next... That was fun. That was a tech tree all on it's own. Remember when the mainsail was added? How easy (and rapid) orbit was with it compared to the tri-coupler behemoths we (I?) used to have to build? Remember when docking arrived on the scene? How suddenly, space ships went from things with very definite lifespans to something we could fly endlessly? Even rescue? Remember when NASA teamed up with Squad to give us the monstrously powerful SLS parts and freaking asteroids to play with? How about electricity? How about lights? Suddenly, we could lithobrake in the dark. That was cool.

You see? This is what a tech tree should provide. Instead, we've got something that makes us stop looking towards space, and makes us start looking for mission waypoints and objectives in order to get to the fun stuff. In my opinion, it's missed the point completely. The demo was fun. 0.17, 0.18, 0.19, etc... they were all fun. Progressing from one update to the next and playing with the new parts was fun. And then career gets added, and suddenly we have to deal with arbitrary restrictions for the first time, and equally arbitrary contracts to over come the restrictions. That isn't fun. That's fencing off portions of the game to create a... whats the phrase? Treadmill? Grind? Power progression? Whatever it's called, the end result feels hollow.

So, um, in conclusion, I'm not playing career mode And I'll add that if anyone likes career and is appalled by what I've written - that's ok. KSP is, thankfully, a big enough town to accommodate both of us

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

@ Asmayus

I feel very much the same way about contracts. Working with a budget is fun, but grinding contracts isn't. Contracts seriously limits my creative gaming by forcing me in to directions I don't want to go. I really think there should be other means of making money next to the contracts. Right now, I am using a mod that gives some money for science experiments. Very simple, but it brings back the "set your own goals" back to the career mode.

[WalkingShadow89]

I usually play career, get bored and go back to sandbox. It's just such a drag to get started with low tiers and it's very stressful trying to complete a lot a lot of contracts at once. Plus you have to play with no mechjeb at the start and the pilots are HORRIBLE in the beginning

[WinkAllKerb'']

it's interesting to manage missions request, flight planning ,cost, unlock, recovery (and design & piloting vessels) all at the same time.

I personaly enjoy it a lot.

not played since .235 .24 mostly to test the resulting gameplay interest with all the career and science implementation polished in 1.0

[Frostiken]

The biggest problem with career mode's tech tree complaints is that... the tech tree sucks. Seriously, it's awful.

1) It's possible to 'tech yourself into a corner'.

2) Several techs are spread out with the sole purpose of making you grind out more science. For example, the 2.5m engines, 2.5m tanks, and 2.5m decoupler / adapter are in three different nodes. Probe engines, probe cores, and power, again, three different nodes. Even RCS and docking ports, again, different nodes. It's designed so that unlocking one node by itself rarely is useful whatsoever.

3) In my experience, science income tends to plateau around just before you have all the 90-science tier 4 techs unlocked. The problem I always run into is getting landers to the Mun and back for science purposes, because I don't have any good lifting rockets. I have to strap stupid numbers of boosters on (and it's even harder with the new aerodynamics basically killing asparagus staging) to get my wiggly hot dogs into orbit. This would be greatly alleviated if they moved the 1.25m bicoupler down to around Tier 3, leave the tricoupler at Tier 4, and move the quadcoupler to Tier 5. Right now, the tricoupler you unlock first (because that makes sense) at Tier 4, which is the same tier you get 2.5m tanks and engines at... if I have 2.5m parts, why the hell would I still want these couplers? Tier 6 for the quadcoupler is just ridiculous, I have no use for it by that point.

Changing the tech tree to a sort of 'tech web' would be much better, as would better progression in how parts unlock. I should have the tricoupler before I have 2.5m rockets.

[roosterr]

I just want to build, fly, and dream. Now I can program with kOS and that adds a whole nother layer to KSP, that has changed my world. Career mode hampers all of the above.

I will say that I get the concept that career mode is a great way to introduce new player to all the parts. I have been playing since .15, and now there are more than double the parts. I am sure the newb would be a bit overwhelmed without career mode to break them in.

[WinkAllKerb'']

The biggest problem with career mode's tech tree complaints is that... the tech tree sucks. Seriously, it's awful.

...

2) Several techs are spread out with the sole purpose of making you grind out more science.

yup but it become damn interesting in term of rocket design with a limited part pool and found (for exemple with very high diff career setting or if you're a beginer without much rocket knowledge and experience in the background)

3) In my experience, science income tends to plateau around just before you have all the 90-science tier 4 techs unlocked.

...

I read somewhere and also found true by experiencing it myself (without rushing too much) that throwing a series of landers with the first basic sciences device unlocked to minmus and mun and also @ different altitude over the biomes and bring them backs without the use of antenna allow to unlocks the whole trees pretty quick.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Science#Activities

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Science#Celestial_body_multipliers

Edited May 10, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[Jaeleth]

I've had this game since 0.19, before career mode was introduced, and have never really bothered with it, it just seems like too much work.

Has anyone else not played the career mode?

Career mode is the real challenge, specially in hard mode. And it's more fun too, since you can manage the entire program an choose the appropriate science path and investment strategy.

[Creature]

I play career but I don't really like the way it works. I don't hate it either but it's just that I want some sort of progression in my game and so far career is what gives it.

But it feels very arbitrary. If KSP was a city building game, we wouldn't get money from balancing taxes or building industry and commerce and residential areas to support the workers who in turn need entertainment and so on. Instead we'd get random miniquests telling us things like "build a road to a random hill and get money" or "build a swimming hall next to a lake and get money" etc. And that would be all. Contracts don't drive my gameplay, they're just something to do. It doesn't matter so much what I build, where I build or in general what I do in the game. I'm just chasing the randomly generated objectives. It's like an entirely different design paradigm compared to the building and flying part which is where the greatness and fun of this game is.

[jarmund]

I've always played science mode, but I'm currently on my second career game. The first time around I gave up on the career as I found myself either grinding contracts for funds or editing saves for the same reasons. This time around I'm faring much better at it - Expenses are a lot more balanced, and I'm able to go for contracts that are pretty much in line with what I wanted to do in the first place.

Career mode in my current save adds the addition of budget-rocketry - I can't just strap on stage upon stage without any consequences, I actually have to try to limit the expenses, as well as try to develop reusable vehicles. Another part that I really like is the fact that I now have to train crew(wo)men, and the pool of skilled labour is actually limited.

I am currently in the process of returning a 9-man Duna expedition, and it's been a blast, especially considering that I'm using TAC life support, and supplies were limited. When they make it home, it will serve to complete two contracts:

- Minimus 3 Course

- Return to Kerbin from Duna orbit

....In addition to the ones I completed by going there in the first place.

In short: I like career games now. If you plan ahead, you won't need to grind for funds.

[hellion13]

I've been at this game since .16. Right about time the ability to do crew reports got added, my PC went poof. Fast forward almost a year, I get a PC capable of playing KSP again, redownload it off Steam. It was .25. Played that for about 5 days when it went to .90 beta. (Literally jumped back in on the last legs before beta)

Stayed in sandbox the whole time. Career mode involved me remembering to click for science. Brain dont work like that really. Then I seen a mod called Science Alert. Changed the nature of the game for me. Career mode became doable. Now Ive been sucked into the grind.....

Edited May 10, 2015 by hellion13

[treejoe4]

I play career mode, but firstly I cheat to give me science and to get that dolla dolla to unlock all buildings alongside a starting budget. Then I manage my money by doing contracts whilst playing the game to investigate science and too build space stations and stuff, that way I can have the fun of managing a budget while doing science. It just isn't fun playing this game from scratch after almost 2 years of playing, especially with numerous updates that has made me want and need to start from scratch.

I've played from scratch before anyway, and I unlocked everything, so I don't want to keep doing it again because I have too.

[Dewirix]

I've been playing career mode ever since it was introduced (and I played a lot of science mode before that). For me, the challenge comes from putting missions together under tight constraints which forces me to look for innovative solutions.

That said, career mode is far from perfect. I'll echo the charge that the tech tree is oddly designed and the interplay between the limited parts available and the part count limit in the very early game makes things more difficult than they need to be - a 30 part limit when all you've got are 100-litre tanks is pretty brutal.

I think funding needs a rework: as people have said, the space programme should be funded on a regular basis (e.g. annually) with some form of Football Manager-style "the board expects you to land on Minmus this year" type goals. For more long term goals (such as visiting Eeloo) this might require a longer timescale, but that shouldn't be too tricky.

Reaching or exceeding funders' expectations should result in an increase in the size of the regular payments. Failure would bring a decrease in reputation and funding, although the latter should never fall below it's starting level. Contracts could still be offered in the current manner, but they'd be a top up rather than a necessity.

[Lord Aurelius]

I've been playing career mode ever since it was introduced (and I played a lot of science mode before that). For me, the challenge comes from putting missions together under tight constraints which forces me to look for innovative solutions.

That said, career mode is far from perfect. I'll echo the charge that the tech tree is oddly designed and the interplay between the limited parts available and the part count limit in the very early game makes things more difficult than they need to be - a 30 part limit when all you've got are 100-litre tanks is pretty brutal.

I think funding needs a rework: as people have said, the space programme should be funded on a regular basis (e.g. annually) with some form of Football Manager-style "the board expects you to land on Minmus this year" type goals. For more long term goals (such as visiting Eeloo) this might require a longer timescale, but that shouldn't be too tricky.

Reaching or exceeding funders' expectations should result in an increase in the size of the regular payments. Failure would bring a decrease in reputation and funding, although the latter should never fall below it's starting level. Contracts could still be offered in the current manner, but they'd be a top up rather than a necessity.

These are some great ideas and would definitely help out with the "managing a space program" aspect that's more or less missing from the current career. Combining those ideas with something like Kerbal Construction Time would definitely add a time management aspect that is almost entirely missing from the game at this point.

Edit:

Here's a mod that provides some of the funding aspects (unfortunately not updated for 1.0 yet): Kerbanomics

Edited May 11, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[Kegereneku]

I gave it a few chances, especially it's supposedly 1.0 version.

Don't get it wrong.

The gameplay, the parts, the building upgrade, the whole framework is awesome.

But Career mode is about 90% of good ideas... made utterly pointless by 10% of idea so horrible or flaws not solved before 1.0 release.

1) The tech-tree is horrible, all forced grind, no actual choice.

It seem to be built so as to make choice the most pointless possible.

It is as if they purposely separated every inter-dependent parts so as to make them the least useful possible at any point of the game.

The only rational reasoning I can find behind that design would be that the common-player was deemed too stupid to invest on the right technology and had to specifically be prevented from making choice and made to grind everything equally.

Mods put aside, more intuitive rework of what we have now have been suggested since before 0.90.

We know they have to manage their time, make choice and face forum-outburst.

But frankly, I can't believe they couldn't have done better than this on the first try, they must have really been short on time or the development process went wrong that day.

Result : This is "1.0" and yet they have to rework it entirely. Breaking savegame is a necessity here.

2) The (good) contract system is still generating 80% of ........ & NOT helping the new-player with rational mission.

You would think SQUAD would at least filter the impossible combination (testing Stability Enhancer in orbit and the like), let alone have a system that check where you haven't gathered science and make mission there to help you.

But so far you have to test ridiculous stuff in precisely ridiculous way, launch stuff for absurd reason and overall in the most grindy, non-dramatic way.

The only redeeming thing is that they do actually have all the framework to make it into something awesome, this is better than game that could only be bad because the framework was bad.

3) The Administration facility current balance is pointless.

Before, we knew there was one strategy overpowered and that recovering rocket first stage was pretty much impossible.

Right now, there is no point in using ANY strategy.

Sacrificing 50% of a resources give you like 1% of another. GREAT DEAL.

Some MAJOR rebalance is in order.

A fail-safe Government-Budget would be great too, I foresee it improving contract dynamic.

Even if I had discovered and bought KSP today, those 3 points would still be a problem (plus my current signature).

On the other hand, there's a few thing I'm happy they left out. Like "Kerbal Construction Time" linked above.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Kegereneku
typo

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Another sandboxer here. Career is great, at least in part, to force me to do stuff I wouldn't have bothered otherwise... because, you know, in sandbox I have all the parts I like and all the money I want, so who cares if my ship is 200 tons and costs millions?

That being said, after the first couple of tech tree levels, it looses all of its charm to me. I always end up giving up and going back to sandbox after hitting Duna.

Career to me has always felt like a collection of unrelated ideas thrown together hoping they would produce a "career" somehow.

[Drethon]

I always play career to force myself to do things with less. However I like the idea of the unlock progressions be more focused toward something. For example you start with just a capsule and a contract to do science from Kerbin. The science that produces unlocks the first science tier with enough to reach suborbital and you get a suborbital contract. The science from this can unlock enough for orbital or else basic flight and with the science unlocked you get a contract appropriate. Then it branches from there.

[Wjolcz]

The tech tree still sometimes doesn't make much sense, but career mode is pretty fun to me. I like the limitations it has. Really makes you think and improvise from time to time.

[Curiosity7907]

Why I hate career.

1.Tech tree I hate starting from the command pod mk1 with solid booster.Later I also hate carrying the mystery goo and being fix with the mystery goo and not moving atol.

[Miro Beero]

I play in Career mode but I edited the save game file to grab a bit more starting cash.  I pick up contracts that do not feel like a grind, but the first chance where I see contracts that start repeating I win the Lotto and always do what I want to do.

I mostly do this as I want to have Kerbals with Experience points.  You cant seem to have that in sandbox mode.

[GoSlash27]

I love career mode. It forces me to plan out and achieve specific objectives with limited tech, part count, mass, and money. Unlocking a career without having to grind is a challenge in itself.

Sandbox is a great place to experiment, learn, and generally goof off... but when everything is unlimited I don't feel challenged enough to stay interested.

Best,

-Slashy