Some thoughts on the state of Career Mode.

[Endersmens]

- - - Updated - - -

What you're asking for is beyond Squad's career mode design. You need to turn to mods. This is why I still call career mode "substandard" gameplay.

I'm not so sure about that being beyond SQUAD's design. I mean, they already have it where you don't get contracts for a place till you've at least been there. Who's to say they won't make the contracts dependent on existing craft? IE "build a base" later: did they build the thing? If yes, add things to the thing for profit and science and fun and things

[Wanderfound]

A few points:

* Not finding science grindy at all. I was in orbit by my third launch, and pulled over 1,000 science from an early-game low-cost Minmus mission. Sending one-way roboprobes to other planets is also very doable in the early game.

* It's good that contracts are now about money and rep instead of science; more exploration, less satellite grinding.

* I like the flyby/rendezvous/dock contracts. Gives more of a historical step-by-step feel to the progression, and is an elegant way of introducing new players to the concepts.

* Tech tree is improved, but still needs work. If it's a technology that was used by the Babylonians (e.g. ladders), it should be in the starting node.

* The new aero is a huge improvement, but I still jumped ship to FAR as soon as possible. Yay for area ruling; much fiddling fun.

* The tier one runway is now usable; this is good.

* Action group restrictions are still stupid and annoying.

* Maximum altitude for low-tech aircraft:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/9vptzzhq8knsoaj/Kerbodyne%20Hiflyer.craft?dl=0

[regex]

I think more like: the logs say the average user has trouble getting into orbit, and so more effort has gone into basic UI work, like the VAB info panel, which saw more developer work in the last go-around, expanded to an "engineer's report" to help players with the most basic rocket building difficulties. Given time, I think Stock could end up with some KAC-like features.

They'd do it wrong, I guarantee you. It'd be something that would yank you away from the current task to focus on the next vessel or something. Squad unfortunately has a problem taking good ideas from the community, like flight-screen-level information and configurable alarms with a wide-range of options, and completely ignoring them in favor of design tragedies like, oh, making Kerbal professions only visible in the map view and rendezvous burn length hidden in a rarely-open widget.

[Wanderfound]

They'd do it wrong, I guarantee you. It'd be something that would yank you away from the current task to focus on the next vessel or something. Squad unfortunately has a problem taking good ideas from the community, like flight-screen-level information and configurable alarms with a wide-range of options, and completely ignoring them in favor of design tragedies like, oh, making Kerbal professions only visible in the map view and rendezvous burn length hidden in a rarely-open widget.

...or integrating all of the features of Enhanced Navball, except for the only ones that I actually care about (i.e. resize/relocate).

The rendezvous burn length thingie must be very obscure; I'm not even sure what it is that you're referring to.

[adinfinitum]

. ... rendezvous burn length hidden in a rarely-open widget.

Slightly off topic, or maybe a lot off topic, but what is the rendezvous burn length, and why is it there? I've never known that was a thing, and never stumbled across it.

[regex]

...or integrating all of the features of Enhanced Navball, except for the only ones that I actually care about (i.e. resize/relocate).

Seriously.

The rendezvous burn length thingie must be very obscure; I'm not even sure what it is that you're referring to.

Slightly off topic, or maybe a lot off topic, but what is the rendezvous burn length, and why is it there? I've never known that was a thing, and never stumbled across it.

Can you spot it here? I don't have a rendezvous set up so there aren't any numbers, but it's at the bottom of the info window. Useful? Maybe. Something I remember to bother with during a rendezvous? No.

[adinfinitum]

Ah, yeah I've seen that before, I just figured it was more of a reference point for suicide burns, or something to... I don't know, it seemed like a really odd piece of data for them to show, out of everything they could've chosen. Like inclination relative to the ecliptic would've been nice instead.

[regex]

Ah, yeah I've seen that before, I just figured it was more of a reference point for suicide burns, or something to... I don't know, it seemed like a really odd piece of data for them to show, out of everything they could've chosen. Like inclination relative to the ecliptic would've been nice instead.

It's not so much the piece of information that's important, it's the presentation. It's hidden in an info window instead of, say, next to the rendezvous or on the flight screen or near the navball where you're making sure the burn is lined up. This is a problem with KSP; the information is in the game but it's not always where you need it. Sometimes it's even hidden from you, like the inclination relative to the ecliptic (you can easily pull that from the Orbit object...)

[FlipNascar]

I am unhappy with career mode - however I'm having the hardest time articulating sane, reasonable and objective reasons for this.

I could rant and rant and rant about certain aspects. I think, and I stress the subjective nature of this, the contracts system needs a lot more refining. And yes I can, and probably will just have to, download the various contract mods or even start writing my own. My issue is that they just don't make enough sense! At a certain point there should be contracts there that actually make you add on to things already there (yes there's a space station contract mod! woohoo).

Fund rewards - these don't seem to make a lot of sense at Normal. At Normal you don't even need to multi-contract (again subjective here because it depends on play styles...) to make them profitable. On Hard mode, well it just seems a bit more grindy. Perhaps the differences between Normal and Hard should be the type of contracts - as in Hard contracts are f'kin hard to do!

I feel somewhat lost in my two career games (Normal and Hard) I treat my career games as a pseudo-sandbox. I still build all the stuff I want, I just do the contracts to pay for my own bits and pieces. But I can't get past the early grind hurdle - yes I can do it, I just can't be bothered.

So it's off to the mod bin to pile up on a bunch of mods and start Sandboxing for fun.

I still love KSP - and spend far too much time doing Rocketry. But for now, I don't have the patience for career mode.

[Wallygator]

As I said in another thread...

snip...

KSP needs a convincing Macro-model framework (A rug that ties the whole room together)

A future KSP requires a complete "do over" of the career and experience dynamic (including as mentioned above - a revised R&D mechanism and tech node/part construct)

The relationship between a player's space program and the various subcontractors needs to be turned on its head. Currently the player is working for the subcontractors and needs them to provide Funding for any exploration - which is totally the opposite of any analogues to my knowledge. Let the player plan exploration programs, allocate budgets , select subcontractors to assist based on their bids and historical reliability and performance, and allow reputation to drive annual funding. This game is missing a convincing Macro-model.

EDIT: And BTW, the excuse of "KSP is a sandbox game" does not support implementing a crappy and grindy deterministic career mode - either do it right or don't do it at all.

[Hotaru]

I like career mode, although the contracts and tech tree could still do with some improvement on the whole it feels much more balanced in 1.0 than it did in 0.90.

My solution to the early-game grind is to start out my career save with extra funding (150-200%), which gets me through the first few tech levels without too much of a grind, then, when I get to the point where funds stop being an issue (usually around my first Mun landing) I edit my persistence file to give myself a "budget cut" down to 70-100% or so. (I figure this makes a sort of sense, seeing as NASA had its budget cut right around the same time as the Moon landings.) It's not perfect but at least I get out of the early grind without having funds become pointless in the late game.

I do wish we had a better end game, either a bigger tech tree (mods like Near Future or Modular Kolonization help, although I'm trying to keep my current save mostly stock) or something else to do with science points once the tree is finished, like using them to train kerbonauts. Still, right now I'm enjoying career mode more with fewer mods than I had in 0.90, already built my first career SSTO, some space stations, looking forward to trying out ISRU. Maybe this time I might even make it to Duna before I start over!

[Guest]

1. Having building costs increased by the PENALTIES slider seems wrong, and is a big source of the grindiness of hard mode.

Now I know why my buildings are so expensive. I started a custom career, and set the penalties slider to 300% "failure is not an option people!" and now upgrading my buildings costs several million spacebucks each.

- The tech tree and the part progression are still incoherent. I'm finding myself not unlocking half the parts that are available so far.

Why oh why do I unlock a TRI-coupler before a BI-coupler? It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever, and I've hated it since the moment I first saw it.

- Some contracts seem completely out of place, like tour missions when you don't even have a 2-Kerbal pod.

You also can't simulate Gemini missions either, which were the coolest missions in the whole NASA space program.

I'm actually thinking, in this light, that the Mk1 jet fuel tank needs to be buffed to contain about twice the fuel and moved down the tech tree as necessary, to be replaced by a smaller one and the structural fuselage for those beginner planes.

Or the Nuclear Engines could be put back the way they were, and use LiquidFuel and Oxidizer again. Then we don't need to have any new fuel tanks at all. I never had a problem with the nukes in the first place. It wasn't strictly realistic, but who cares?

Cash really never seemed to be an issue early on, because when you're in Kerbin's SOI you rarely spend more than 30K on a rocket. Once you start using Mainsails the cost increases, and once you're using SLS parts you're easily pushing 100k per rocket, which means you have to pile on contracts to make a profit.

This cuts right to the heart of my only major complaint about career mode, the lack of some kind of stage recovery feature, which would solve this problem outright. Personally I play career mode on 'custom' and manually set my funds rewards slider to 300%, and set the funds penalties slider to 300% as well (might as well keep things in balance). The only big problem I have right now is the cost of upgrading buildings, but I can see things will be getting very expensive later on, since the prices for buildings and such are set by the penalties slider.

Let the player plan exploration programs, allocate budgets , select subcontractors to assist based on their bids and historical reliability and performance, and allow reputation to drive annual funding.

You might as well let subcontractors design and build the rockets you fly as well, since that's how it's done in real life. What you are really looking for is some type of space program management game, so why not go out and get one? They do exist.

something else to do with science points once the tree is finished, like using them to train kerbonauts.

You can go into the administration building, and sell your unused science for cash, then just stop collecting science.

I personally have never understood the drive people have to unlocking the entire tech tree as fast as possible. Working towards the next node of the tree is part of what makes career mode fun. It gives you a goal to work towards but once you achieve it, the game devolves into sandbox mode with some cash strapped to it. I've been playing nothing but career made since it was first introduced, and if you'll allow me to make a few suggestions:

1. Do not spam science. Just because you can max out the tech tree without leaving Kerbin's SOI, don't do it. Once the tech tree is completely unlocked, you're going to get very bored, very quickly.

2. Do not build anything that does not service a contract. Just because you can send robotic probes to the far reaches of the Kerbol system, if no one is asking you to, don't do it. The contracts generated by the game do seem to follow more of a progression, so use that to guide your gameplay. I'm not saying don't be creative, just use the contracts to guide your creativity.

3. Don't be afraid to set your difficulty settings to suit your playstyle, SQUAD included adjustable difficulty settings, with sliders and toggle buttons for a reason, use them. Don't feel you need to play some type of "hardcore" mode to be a "real kerbonaut" play the way you want to.

4. Don't hire Kerbals unless you have to. Don't kill your Kerbals if you can avoid it. If you want a never-ending stream of cannon fodder to fire into various planets, don't play career mode. Before career mode existed I never had a single thought about rescuing a Kerbal stranded in space, because there was a never ending supply of them. Now that I only play career mode, the life of every Kerbal is precious, and I have even gone so far as to design and use specialized rescue craft to save their lives. Why did I do this? Because the cost of launching a rescue mission is far less than hiring another Kerbal.

5. The Administration Building exists, use it! I ALWAYS have something active in the Admin Building, at all times. Mostly I trade reputation for more cash, and I use it to reduce launch costs as well. I do sincerely wish there was some function of Stage Recovery in the game, considering the description of the big solid boosters specifically states they were designed to be recovered, but you can use the Administration Building to relieve some of the cash crunch later in the game.

Anyway, that's all I have for today. This is a good thread and raised some good points, one can only hope they get noticed by the devs.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Guest
Spelling Error

[Superfluous J]

Now I know why my buildings are so expensive. I started a custom career, and set the penalties slider to 300% "failure is not an option people!" and now upgrading my buildings costs several million spacebucks each.

Hey, it makes as much sense as tying profession to name. Caste system much?

Why oh why do I unlock a TRI-coupler before a BI-coupler? It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever, and I've hated it since the moment I first saw it.

That's nothing. The first Mk2 parts you unlock are the decoupler and a Mk1-Mk2 adapter. Quite literally the only thing big enough to use the decoupler on is the adapter, and the only possible use of the adapter is so all your other parts can be hooked to the decoupler.

You also can't simulate Gemini missions either, which were the coolest missions in the whole NASA space program.

Why not? They put the Jr docking port quite low in the tree. It was one of the (few) things I really enjoyed about the new tree.

Or the Nuclear Engines could be put back the way they were, and use LiquidFuel and Oxidizer again. Then we don't need to have any new fuel tanks at all. I never had a problem with the nukes in the first place. It wasn't strictly realistic, but who cares?

I like the new nukes. Of course, I can set what fuel my tanks hold...

[Guest]

Hey, it makes as much sense as tying profession to name. Caste system much?

I don't understand you, how does cost equal penalty? The words mean different things.

Why not? They put the Jr docking port quite low in the tree. It was one of the (few) things I really enjoyed about the new tree.

I meant about having a two-Kerbal command pod. We have a one man pod, and a three man pod, where is the two man pod?

I like the new nukes. Of course, I can set what fuel my tanks hold...

I assume you mean the realfuels mod or procedural tanks mod because for stock players, the only option is to drain the Oxidizer from existing tanks (which screws up your mass, and kills your total delta-v) or stack LF-only tanks together (Mk3-2-1 fuselage tanks which have lower fuel/mass ratio than standard rocket tanks) which is at best a poor solution leading to an extremely large craft or much higher part counts. In my opinion, the best overall solution is to change the nukes back to the way they were, and we can wash our hands of the whole situation.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Guest

[Sky_walker]

IMHO tech tree is what needs most attention as soon as possible.

It should be expanded, require by far more science to research in 100% but possibly less for an individual nodes. I wouldn't mind doubling or tripling the amount of nodes and grouping them in something that makes logical sense. Also some of the techs need to be moved earlier or later in the tree (eg. LV-N should be in a last or second-to-last column because of just how uber-capable this engine is).

Or the Nuclear Engines could be put back the way they were, and use LiquidFuel and Oxidizer again.

Please, don't. Last thing we need is making a step back after months and months of complains to get it fixed.

[Yemo]

I dont care much about current state of career as long as stuff is moddable and mods do not get broken for no reasons at all.

Stock game looks good in "reviews" and casual streamers/players can explode stuff and derp around.

For everything else there are mods (like KerbalEngineer actually providing the crucial infos to plan missions and KerbalAlarmClock to actually work with warping for longer/multiple missions).

Until those functions/infos are not provided by the stock game, the partition of focus groups/playstyles is pretty clear, and it works.

Based on that logic, balancing stuff like command pods/Materials Bay/Tech Tree/whatever is simply out of scope for stock.

Which is totally fine with me, as long as stuff is moddable.

PS: I made the Materials Bay lighter and rescaled it to 0.625m diameter using ModuleManager, which works pretty well for probes.

[regex]

Which is totally fine with me, as long as stuff is moddable.

I don't agree with this sentiment at all. Squad should be trying to make KSP as awesome as possible, not leaving the tough designing, features, and actual gameplay up to outside programmers. It's basically a license to be lazy. And the truth is, modders are going to have a long time salvaging or co-opting a failed system.

The problem with career mode is that it wasn't designed from the ground up, it was just a cherry-picked group of unrelated features mashed together. For what it is, Squad has done a relatively decent job, but what it is isn't special or really good.

Edited May 15, 2015 by regex

[Parkaboy]

I love career mode, but rejecting tons of contracts in order to get the one you want gets really old after some time. I wish the mechanic for picking contracts were a bit different, something like this:

- You can open new "programs", such as a Mun program, a Minmus Program or a Duna Program. When you open a new program, you get first the "explore body" contract, then start getting other types of contracts. If you close a program for a certain body, you no longer get contracts for that planet.

- Maybe we could even have sub-programs, such as, for example, "Mun Orbit Operations" (satellites, space stations, rescue missions); "Mun Surface Exploration" (plant flag, surveys, etc); and "Mun Tourism" (tourism contracts). And certain types of programs could become available as you upgrade your Mission Control and Tracking Station buildings.

Just an idea, but I doubt they'd change the mechanic after 1.0.

[Yemo]

I don't agree with this sentiment at all. Squad should be trying to make KSP as awesome as possible, not leaving the tough designing, features, and actual gameplay up to outside programmers. It's basically a license to be lazy. And the truth is, modders are going to have a long time salvaging or co-opting a failed system.

The problem with career mode is that it wasn't designed from the ground up, it was just a cherry-picked group of unrelated features mashed together. For what it is, Squad has done a relatively decent job, but what it is isn't special or really good.

I noticed .

I just wish they would stop introducing new features unmoddable first and then (perhaps) make them moddable later, like the new scientist abilities or traits in general. Like they did with the building upgrades...

Must be twice the work that way instead of making it properly the first time...

And yes, the mission control/contract restrictions are annoying. And I m not aware of a way to circumvent them...

[Pax Kerbana]

I love career mode, but rejecting tons of contracts in order to get the one you want gets really old after some time. I wish the mechanic for picking contracts were a bit different, something like this:

- You can open new "programs", such as a Mun program, a Minmus Program or a Duna Program. When you open a new program, you get first the "explore body" contract, then start getting other types of contracts. If you close a program for a certain body, you no longer get contracts for that planet.

- Maybe we could even have sub-programs, such as, for example, "Mun Orbit Operations" (satellites, space stations, rescue missions); "Mun Surface Exploration" (plant flag, surveys, etc); and "Mun Tourism" (tourism contracts). And certain types of programs could become available as you upgrade your Mission Control and Tracking Station buildings.

Just an idea, but I doubt they'd change the mechanic after 1.0.

I like this, that is a great idea. There could also be a "Preliminary Explorations" contract/program to send probes on fly-bys. To satisfy half the contract (and make it complete but not with full rewards) all you would have to do is have a probe on intercept with enough dv to complete. Then completing the mission gains you the remainder funds plus the science.

To build on this, maybe add a few big first "mandate" contracts. Like a Mun landing and Minmus fly-by. You don't HAVE to do them but they would be automatically accepted and in addition to the contract limit.

[Guest]

- You can open new "programs", such as a Mun program, a Minmus Program or a Duna Program. When you open a new program, you get first the "explore body" contract, then start getting other types of contracts. If you close a program for a certain body, you no longer get contracts for that planet.

This right here is a fantastic idea. Perhaps a program would become available after you get one of the World First contracts, so you would actually have to send a craft to the place you wanted to open a program about. It would allow the player to send some kind of exploratory mission first, without an accompanying contract. Stepping off into the unknown as it were.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Guest

[AsterXiphos]

- You can open new "programs", such as a Mun program, a Minmus Program or a Duna Program. When you open a new program, you get first the "explore body" contract, then start getting other types of contracts. If you close a program for a certain body, you no longer get contracts for that planet.

- Maybe we could even have sub-programs, such as, for example, "Mun Orbit Operations" (satellites, space stations, rescue missions); "Mun Surface Exploration" (plant flag, surveys, etc); and "Mun Tourism" (tourism contracts). And certain types of programs could become available as you upgrade your Mission Control and Tracking Station buildings.

I like this, that is a great idea. There could also be a "Preliminary Explorations" contract/program to send probes on fly-bys. To satisfy half the contract (and make it complete but not with full rewards) all you would have to do is have a probe on intercept with enough dv to complete. Then completing the mission gains you the remainder funds plus the science.

To build on this, maybe add a few big first "mandate" contracts. Like a Mun landing and Minmus fly-by. You don't HAVE to do them but they would be automatically accepted and in addition to the contract limit.

This right here is a fantastic idea. Perhaps a program would become available after you get one of the World First contracts, so you would actually have to send a craft to the place you wanted to open a program about. It would allow the player to send some kind of exploratory mission first, without an accompanying contract. Stepping off into the unknown as it were.

Came out of my Lurk-Mode cave for this idea and subsequent suggestions. I like career mode, but would LOVE to see something like this. It would be a great way to tie everything together and make you feel like you're really managing missions and goals and really making history. One of you three need to take this to the Suggestions forum!

[RogalDorn]

I love career mode, but rejecting tons of contracts in order to get the one you want gets really old after some time. I wish the mechanic for picking contracts were a bit different, something like this:

- You can open new "programs", such as a Mun program, a Minmus Program or a Duna Program. When you open a new program, you get first the "explore body" contract, then start getting other types of contracts. If you close a program for a certain body, you no longer get contracts for that planet.

- Maybe we could even have sub-programs, such as, for example, "Mun Orbit Operations" (satellites, space stations, rescue missions); "Mun Surface Exploration" (plant flag, surveys, etc); and "Mun Tourism" (tourism contracts). And certain types of programs could become available as you upgrade your Mission Control and Tracking Station buildings.

Just an idea, but I doubt they'd change the mechanic after 1.0.

I knew I wanted SOMETHING different about the contracts. This nails it perfectly on the nose. That is EXACTLY what would make contracts amazing! Great Idea!

[Hotaru]

4. Don't hire Kerbals unless you have to. Don't kill your Kerbals if you can avoid it. If you want a never-ending stream of cannon fodder to fire into various planets, don't play career mode. Before career mode existed I never had a single thought about rescuing a Kerbal stranded in space, because there was a never ending supply of them. Now that I only play career mode, the life of every Kerbal is precious, and I have even gone so far as to design and use specialized rescue craft to save their lives. Why did I do this? Because the cost of launching a rescue mission is far less than hiring another Kerbal.

Kerbal hiring costs are one of my main issues with career mode. I've got 20 or so Kerbals right now, all from rescue missions except the original 4; it would cost 400,000 space bucks to hire another one--or I could use a reusable SSTO and get paid to rescue one, or even several at once, for basically just fuel costs--potentially a million-dollar mission if I take into account both the profit from the contract and the savings from not having to hire the Kerbals myself. Even if I consider the entire cost of the SSTO (40,000), the entire cost of the space station where it refuels on-orbit (150,000), and the entire cost of the refueling tanker that services the station (90,000), that's STILL less than it would cost to hire a new Kerbal!

I wonder if Kerbal hiring costs are tied to the "funds penalties" slider like building upgrades? Like you, I always thought of that slider as a "failure is not an option" mode and cranked it up; it never occurred to me till reading this thread that it might be responsible for high upgrade costs.

- You can open new "programs", such as a Mun program, a Minmus Program or a Duna Program. When you open a new program, you get first the "explore body" contract, then start getting other types of contracts. If you close a program for a certain body, you no longer get contracts for that planet.

That would be extremely cool.

[RogalDorn]

Kerbal hiring costs are one of my main issues with career mode. I've got 20 or so Kerbals right now, all from rescue missions except the original 4; it would cost 400,000 space bucks to hire another one--or I could use a reusable SSTO and get paid to rescue one, or even several at once, for basically just fuel costs--potentially a million-dollar mission if I take into account both the profit from the contract and the savings from not having to hire the Kerbals myself. Even if I consider the entire cost of the SSTO (40,000), the entire cost of the space station where it refuels on-orbit (150,000), and the entire cost of the refueling tanker that services the station (90,000), that's STILL less than it would cost to hire a new Kerbal!

I wonder if Kerbal hiring costs are tied to the "funds penalties" slider like building upgrades? Like you, I always thought of that slider as a "failure is not an option" mode and cranked it up; it never occurred to me till reading this thread that it might be responsible for high upgrade costs.

That would be extremely cool.

I think people underestimate the training / development / pay / organizational costs / even the PR issues if one dies that are associated with a Kerbalnaut...I think 400k may actually be an understatement of the real cost. But then again...you can't build a rocket for a 50k IRL...so who knows!