Thoughts on 1.x Career Mode

[Geschosskopf]

I've been playing with career mode a lot recently, trying to come to grips with the various changes since 1.0, and have formed some opinions. So I'll post them up and invite others to do the same, to see if we can form some sort of consensus that Squad might find useful in tweaking the system.

NOTE: I won't discuss the costs MOST stuff (building upgrades, part entry costs, etc.) or the difficulty sliders for rewards/penalties. Those are things that are matters of personal taste and can be tweaked in many ways. I'm more interested in the underlying mechanics of the system as a whole.

1. Kerbal Recruiting/Hiring, Classes, Skills, and Experience

I know Squad claims to be doing some work along these lines for 1.1 and that thought scares me. I really do NOT like anything at all about the current class system and what little I've heard about what Squad's got in mind make me expect it will make what I consider an inherently flawed system and make it wose. I would prefer to see it totally scrapped and replaced with something I think would be a lot better. I wrote up my ideas in detail in this thread.

But regardless of all that, what I would really like most of all is for the game (and mods) to NOT reference class names (i.e., pilot, engineer, scientist) but instead reference the skill name (repair, science, SAS for now, whatever new skills come along later as well). It is possible at present to create your own classes of Kerbals with multiple skills, or give all skills to the existing 3 classes. But because most functions look at the class name, this does little good. Sure, you can make it so every Kerbal can fix rover wheels but a "pilot" with science and repair skills can't reset Goo experiments or build stuff with KIS because he's a "pilot", not a "scientist" or "engineer". I find this quite annoying.

Also, no matter how the rest of Kerbal systems end up, the whole way of recruiting Kerbals needs to be redone. The hiring cost is just ridiculous (soon approaching the price of a Jool mothership), for which you get a totally unskilled Kerbal. Even worse, you have no control over the class and stats of the applicants, which is bothersome if you need an engineer but none have applied, and this is exacerbated by the inability to dismiss applicants you don't want so that better ones might show up later.

If I have to pay for Kerbals, then I want control over the applicants. I should be able to dismiss unsuitable candidates without penalty, same as with contracts. I should be able to hang up a sign saying "Now hiring engineers" and have only engineer candidates appear. And 0-star Kerbals should always be dirt cheap---I should only have to shell out vast sums for Kerbals that already have several stars.

2. Tech Tree

This has gotten even sillier since 1.0, largely because all the parts you need to make a rocket of a certain size have been dispersed hither and yon. This takes away the freedom to pursue specific paths concentrating on certain things at the expense of others. Now you're forced into a "broad front" strategy of having to get all (or most) nodes on the same teir before moving on, simply because 1 key part is on a node with a bunch of stuff you don't care about at the moment. The result is more grindiness because you've increased the number of nodes needed per rocket size. So I'dd rearrange some of this so that rocket stuff (like fairings and heatshields) are with other rocket stuff, airplane stuff is with airplane stuff, and rover stuff is with rover stuff (and closer to the front, too---see below).

I would also change the starter set of parts and what's available on the 1st few nodes. Instead of starting with goo, I'd start with thermometers and barometers (which go back to the 1700s, way before rocketry). You'd also start with the ability to make simple rovers (cars also predate rockets) so you could get the KSC biomes early on when they actually mean something, without needing a silly jet-propelled wingless airplane to do them. Next few nodes would let you make very simple airplanes for the survey contracts in the vicinity of KSC (planes also predate spacecraft). Only after this wold you get the ability to build rockets and the tree would fork at this point into rocket and more advanced airplane branches.

3. Contracts

These definitely need a pass that makes them fit in better with what the player's capabilities are at the moment, how much is a fitting reward, and not spamming low-ball contracts once the player has moved on to bigger and better things. Also, having some use for the stations and bases would be nice. There are a number of good examples of contract pack mods that address these issues so I won't go too much into details there.

The big thing to me, however, is the way 1.0 took most of the science out of contracts. OT1H, I can see this as the player needing to do business-stuff (tourism, launch services) for money to fund his own research program, but OTOH this turns doing the tech tree into a "scavenger hunt" for part blueprints hidden on Mun. Seriously, what's the connection between observing Goo on Mun and learning how to build a bigger rocket? To me, it seems you learn just as much about rockets by moving tourists and launching satellites as you do carrying a Goo container to Mun, so why not get fairly significant science rewards for such chores? Or at least make that an option.

4. Mobile Processing Lab

Prior to 1.0, the MPL was a very useful thing because it alone had the ability to reset experiments like Goo. Combined with its unique ability to hold multiple copies of the same experiment from the same place, and you had a key part of a major science-pillaging expedition. You could put an MPL in orbit with a bunch of fuel and have it refuel and reset a lander that hit all the biomes. Then bring the MPL home with a clean sweep of all the science in each biome (thanks to multiple copies). This was an expensive, complicated, time-consuming mission, but the rewards were worth it.

Now, however, any 0-star scientist Kerbal can reset experiments on EVA, so all you need to pillage an entire moon is 1 lander with a scientist and enough fuel to hit some number of biomes and return. You don't get quite all the science this way due to the lander pod's inability to hold multiple copies, but this is made up for in cheapness and simplicity. No docking required. No huge lifter needed for the MPL and all the fuel. Less fuel required because you can go from biome to biome without returning to the MPL in between. No need to land the MPL back on Kerbin. As a result, the MPL is largely useless.

Yes, the MPL now has the ability to create extra science. However, just a single Minmus surface sample is all it can handle at 1 time, and with a 1- or 2-star scientist aboard (the best you can get within Kerbin's SOI), it will take about a year of gametime to convert that into science. That's ridiculously slow compared to the speed with which you can get way more science just picking it up off the ground, so that by the time the MPL is finally done with it, you could well be done with the tech tree already. You'll at least miss many transfer windows waiting on it. Not to mention your best scientist is tied up for the duration, when he'd probably give you more benefit buffing science returns on conventional missions, and buying a new scientist and training him up to the same level is quite expensive. Also, if you play with life support, you have to keep him fed all that time.

So all in all, I think the MPL is about useless in 1.x because of EVA experiment resets and also because its new feature's timescale is so far off from that of conventional science-grabbing missions to Mun and Minmus. I think either some limit needs to be imposed on EVA experiment resets or the MPL's data-to-science conversion rate needs to be dramatically increased, or both.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Thats exactly what I think about the contracts. They definetely need to be revisited.

Why can we have a Storyline (Contractline?) in Carreermode?

[Geschosskopf]

Why can{'t?} we have a Storyline (Contractline?) in Carreermode?

I think that's going to happen at some point. Some of the groundwork has already been laid. If you look in GameData\Squad\Resources, you'll find a StoryDefs.cfg file. The top of this file says:

// definitions for the storyline generator used in contracts and such.
// WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS






















// you should stop scrolling if you don't want to read any spoilers

Not wanting to spoil it, I have heeded these warnings and never looked at what's below all this.

[SmallFatFetus]

Another thing that bothers me is "Observe mystery goo ______" contracts. Suborbital, orbital and escaping are all the same thing when it comes to goo. Space is space. Speed doesn't matter to your experiment.

[Jarin]

I think that's going to happen at some point. Some of the groundwork has already been laid. If you look in GameData\Squad\Resources, you'll find a StoryDefs.cfg file. The top of this file says:

// definitions for the storyline generator used in contracts and such.
// WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS

Not wanting to spoil it, I have heeded these warnings and never looked at what's below all this.

Sorry to disappoint. All that file contains is the string-construction system for the current (gibberish) contract descriptions. No "story" spoilers here.

[Moh1336]

I too would like a more realistically structured career/tech tree that starts from the beginning. Why am I making basic rockets when my kerbals haven't even mastered craft with propellers.

If I had a perfect dream of an extended career mode it would be something like this:

Starting off with basic manned ground probes for basic science exploration in and around KSC then allow you to pick a branch between advanced ground probes (still manned) that allow for further and faster travel for surveying further afield, or look towards flight. First flight aspects would be debatable of course. I wouldn't say no to hot air balloons leading into gliders > prop planes > jet engines and so on.

They could even make the tech tree two fold. Give you the option of buying tech that is of a similar nature for a higher price (both science and money) or for a reduced cost, give you a tech tree specific to what you are wanting to achieve. Be it low/high altitude craft or rocketry.

The Kerbal pricing is certainly a sore point. I believe they may have gone in this direction due to the lack of any real wage system, so the cost increases as it is one off. Maybe if they gave the Kerbals wages, they could do away with the otherwise silly system. Kerbals could be hired for X a week, with skill levels changing the base price. Then add risk bonuses on for first flight tests, space bonuses that increase the longer a kerbal is not within Kerbin's atmosphere. This would give you more to think about with money than just hiking up the price per hire.

So far with contracts I haven't really had anything pop up yet that would be outside of my current tech abilities. So it's hard to really say what I do and don't like there.

One thing I would really like to see added though, is the ability to put something in the cargo hold and have a Kerbal EVA to strap it down so it can be returned to Kerbin without having to use the Klaw to return it home.

[micha]

1. Kerbal Recruiting/Hiring, Classes, Skills, and Experience

Pretty much fully agree with what you've written here, and most of what's in the linked thread.

The current Kerbal management system is not that great. As well as what you've written I just wanted to highlight the following point:

Apart from the early game being difficult (due to lack of multi-Kerbal capsules), the mid-game is difficult because the Engineer can't level up enough to perform basic repairs, which your early Mun/Minmus missions are likely to require without going to Duna.

If not a complete overhaul as you suggest, at the very least the experience system needs to be changed so that people can grind away in the Kerbin SOI to get enough XP for Level 3. Just like you can either grind low-value Science in Kerbin to unlock nodes, or go on a far more lucrative mission further away. However, I would argue that repeating an activity yields progressively less XP each time until eventually the payoffs are too low to bother with. Classic RPG mechanism.

XP gain should also be somewhat linked to the skills. So every Kerbal gains XP for being on a mission, but Pilots get bonus XP for piloting, Scientists for performing science, and engineers for repairing things or transferring resources when docked etc. This might be a bit difficult to implement though.

Also, I would restrict the multi-classing (skilling) of Kerbals somewhat. I think Kerbals should still be primarily Pilot/Engineer/Scientiest/<whatever>, in which (set of skills) they can progress all the way to the top, but would still be able to progress somewhat in the other disciplines. Otherwise you just end up with people having Kerbals maxxed out in all skills and being able to do everything. IMHO there should still be a benefit to bringing multiple Kerbals on a mission.

2. Tech Tree

Largely agree with what you wrote here, except that rockets actually predate planes. Ok, not manned rockets, but the Chinese already used rockets in warfare over a thousand years ago. Also, I don't like planes that much. It's KSP - Spaaaaaaace!!! - after all.

I do agree that the tech-tree needs a major revamp to more logically isolate the technologies into functions so that you can build rockets (or planes, or rovers) based on tech primarily in their part of the tech tree. So instead of a "historically accurate" or "tech accurate" version of the tech-tree, I'd prefer to see one in which the various streams are more separated, perhaps with players being able to choose very early on whether to initially go for planes or rockets. The game could easily do it by giving you an initial node and 1 Science Point which you can use to unlock either the rover, plane, or rocket starting node.

The current tech-tree also rather weirdly gives you a lot of tech before you get the tech needed to actually use that - such as the Rockomax adapter before you get Rockomax parts. If nothing else, at least that needs fixing!

3. Contracts

Not entirely sure what you're proposing here.

The current contracts DOES need an overhaul. The descriptions still read like placeholders, and the timing of various contracts are very weird. Tourist-contracts after you launch your first rocket?

Duna contracts before you've reached the Mun?

etc.

Apart from that I do like the nerfing of science from contracts - it's easy enough to get science as it is.

Perhaps a better question in reply to your point is: "Should Science be the currency to unlock the Tech Tree?" But if not for the Tech Tree, what other uses are there for it? In the Real World, it's mostly the actual end result of why we go to space. Sure, there are HEAPS of real-world spin-offs in terms of technical progress, and some of the science we gather is useful to drive progress en masse, but on the whole, what is the point of knowing the Lunar regolith's composition? It's knowledge for knowledge's sake, which isn't a bad thing.

So in-game, perhaps it could be turned into the high-score?

So if not Science for the Tech Tree, what else? Funds is the obvious one, but it's already used pretty much everywhere in the game. So add another currency, Tech Points, which you get for technical-related stuff (launching and recovering vehicles, parts-testing, etc). Might add unnecessary complexity though.

4. Mobile Processing Lab

Not entirely sure how to fix the MPL, but I largely agree. It made some sense that you need a Lab to reset certain experiments. OTOH there is a need to have long-running uses for orbital stations which the new MPL kinda fulfills. Although I prefer the mod approaches of having long-running experiments.

Even if Scientists should continue to be able to reset instruments - they only be able to do so on Lv1 or 2. Engineers can't do anything interesting until Lv2 - but this really goes back to Point 1 above.

[Dilli]

Kerbal Recruiting/Hiring, Classes, Skills, and Experience

1. Not having to return to KSP to level up;

2. Award some experience for repeat flights to space;

3. Some form of Training.

Contracts

The initial world record height and distant contracts are great; The same system should be used for all the flyby, explore and return from contracts available.

These also represent one of the best ways to control game progression in terms of science and reputation points.

[Alshain]

1. I think classes are getting better. More of them serve a more defined purpose than in 0.90. There is actually a reason to take scientists now, but engineers need more purpose.

2. I can't agree more. Personally I think they need to get rid of the "nodes" and unlock each part in a related tree individually but at the very least they need to group like-sized parts in one or two "columns" of the tree. The plane parts are all over the place. It's really easy, Mk1 in the first two columns, Mk2 in the second two columns, Mk3 in the last column. The same for rocket sizes, but the only 1.25 probe core is locked way at the end of the tree for some reason.

3. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Any contract that can not be performed after a certain action has been completed should be automatic. I really like this idea here.

4. Well you were doing good but no, I like the MPL and the Scientist they way they are now. You get more science from more remote locations, that is by design. If you don't get the science from the Mun, go drop the MPL on Laythe instead.

[Warzouz]

I agree with the idea of not having to come back to KSC to harvest XP. Kerbals should get XP immediatly. That would help roleplay when we want to build a space station network or planet to planet exploration (not kerbin) especially if we have ISRU/mining.

Kerbal hiring price increase should come with experienced kerbals. We unlock the techtree much faster than getting high level kerbals.

[micha]

Kerbal Recruiting/Hiring, Classes, Skills, and Experience

1. Not having to return to KSP to level up;

I agree with the idea of not having to come back to KSC to harvest XP. Kerbals should get XP immediatly.

JFYI, in case you're not aware of it: the Field Experience mod. (Yes, it should be stock).

[Alshain]

I think more important than the getting XP immediately is that Kerbals should get XP for "landing on", not "planting a flag on". Because that is just annoying.

[basic.syntax]

1. I like the idea of more RPG elements added to Kerbal skills... but some of that can conflict with the game balance of wishing you had X, that drives you to need every one you can get. And for that, the hiring costs are irrelevant: rescue contracts are the way to go. I only hire to fill class holes in my line-up, up to 200k funds. After that, rescues are the only way to fly I think it would be cool if the MPL could level up Kerbals out in the field. I wouldn't mind a class retraining option, if it was very expensive to keep it from being an easy way out. If career got to the point where you could have everything you want with little effort, I think it would be too much like sandbox-with-contracts. (That can be achieved with new game setup options: increase rewards for funds/science/rep, decrease penalties.)

2. I agree that tech tree plays out in a "broad front," with few exceptions. I ignored air parts for a while, skipped ahead one level to get a "cool part" when I could, but it's all needed eventually. Many forum threads have rewritten the tech tree, and there's a few overhaul mods out there. I don't know if I want rover wheels earlier; the game encourages silly contraptions, I think that's part of the charm. I found things to do with the 2.5m decoupler, before I had tanks and engines to go with it.

3. tater has written extensively about contracts along these lines. I think removing science from contracts was a necessary balance change, even though it creates the scenario of looking for blueprints on the Mun. I think it's good that the game now pushes us farther out for science... and I "made that worse" for my own career game, by nerfing science rewards. Which leads neatly into:

4. The MPL is an awesome science supplement in the mid-game, if you're still needing science. I brought back ~1000 science from one Minimus trip, but the MPL is hardly useless. Especially if you get a little tired of biome hopping One ability you may have overlooked in this writing, is running multiple MPL's. This certainly runs into your expense concerns, but I'm doing fine with Funds due to getting paid to rescue most of my staff instead of hiring, and running tourists around Kerbin's moons. (And no life support.)

Each MPL can be loaded with the same experiments. Even after you've recovered experiments on Kerbin, (one reason to delay this) you could obtain those same reports and experiments all over again, just to load those into a new MPL. Every occasion I timewarp nearly two weeks for Mimimus round trips, I can download bonus Science from the MPL's.

[mikegarrison]

Some of my thoughts:

1) I like the idea of science as a high score.

2) If I were doing the tech tree from the start, I would have two tech trees. One would be "science", where early experiments on Kerbin unlock new experiments for other surfaces, and experiments done in space unlock new experiments for space. The other tree would be for tech. It should be more focused, like all the 1.25 fuel tanks being unlocked together, etc.

The tech tree now is not really a tech tree, it's really just a way to drive mission grinding. It's more oriented toward restricting you to find crazy Rube Goldberg designs than providing any roleplay kind of effect. For instance, early on all you get is the really stubby 1.25m tank, so you have to stack a whole bunch of them -- right when you also have a 30-part limit on your rockets. By the time you have likely paid for an upgraded VAB and now have a 255-part limit, you get the bigger tanks anyway.

3) You can tell skills and experience are an afterthought. I like the Elder Scrolls approach of leveling up by repeatedly doing. Kerbals should gain science experience by doing science. They should get pilot experience by piloting. They should get repair experience by going on EVA and repairing. It's silly that they get experience just by flying past the Mun, for instance, but they only get it once. A pilot gets the same experience for being in the pilot seat for 10 Mun landings versus sitting back in a Hitchhiker for one Mun landing.

I like the idea of cross-trained Kerbals, but there should be something that differentiates them. Maybe they can all learn everything (slowly!) but some start with a base of science, others with a base of piloting, etc. And maybe for each mission you designate the role of each Kerbal -- for this mission Jeb will be the pilot and Bob will be the science specialist, so Jeb gets experience points from this mission in piloting and Bob in science. Next mission it could be the other way around. Let the player decide on his own to create specialists because it's more efficient to train up specific Kerbals for specific jobs, or decide that the flexibility of cross-training is more important.

A Mk1 capsule has one slot, which must be tagged as a pilot for that mission. A Mk1-2 must have one Kerbal tagged as a pilot for the mission, but the other two could be tagged as either pilot or engineer or tourist. The MPL has slots only for science specialists. Etc. You could do a lot with something like this.

4) Speaking of the MPL, there maybe should be a 1/2-size MPL. It would seat 1. It would be idea for being on a lander, and you would do time-based science but you would have to do it on location. It would have it's own dedicated experiments that would require it to be in place. Something like that. the current 2-person lab could be specialized for orbital use, and could further refine the science brought to it by a lander science module. It could also do specialized orbital science experiments. Goo and thermometers and such could still be added to ships that don't have a science lab, but you should get a lot less science from them.

If science ends up being the high score, then the end game might be to have permanent science bases running all over the system.

[Yemo]

I've been playing with career mode a lot recently, trying to come to grips with the various changes since 1.0, and have formed some opinions. So I'll post them up and invite others to do the same, to see if we can form some sort of consensus that Squad might find useful in tweaking the system.

NOTE: I won't discuss the costs MOST stuff (building upgrades, part entry costs, etc.) or the difficulty sliders for rewards/penalties. Those are things that are matters of personal taste and can be tweaked in many ways. I'm more interested in the underlying mechanics of the system as a whole.

1. Kerbal Recruiting/Hiring, Classes, Skills, and Experience

2. Tech Tree

3. Contracts

4. Mobile Processing Lab

Those are very much the areas I dislike myself, together with the horrible part "balance" and the player harassment by locking action groups away

1 Kerbal command pod: 0.8 tons

3 Kerbal command pod: 4 tons

*censored...

They were the basis for my 0.90 SETI-BalanceMod, where I

- Extensively rebalanced masses, experiments, EC and parts in general

- Rebalanced the TechTree progression (starting with probes and aircraft)

- Introduced a new sensible contract progression (not offering Duna right after the first Mun contract)

- Refined the old MPL

- The only thing beyond my control was the horrible experience system, where you need to send a kerbal to another planet to teach him to repair wheels...

Then came 1.0.x and shot the SETI-BalanceMod dead for no good reason.

I managed to work on the TechTree and Contracts again, so those are ok again.

Recently, I introduced a config for my SETIctt which fixes the hiring cost of kerbals and unlocks action groups from the start, if CustomBarnKit is installed.

But, instead of fixing the abysmal experience system, they expanded it to other areas and restricted config modding.

Especially the MPL is a balancing disaster and today I learned, that one of the config parameters is defined as an integer to prevent nerfing it too much. *censored...

If anyone could write a plugin which sets all kerbal experience to 5 stars right from the start, that would be great!

And if anyone could write a plugin which returns the old MPL behaviour (module), that would be really helpful for managing this "balancing" disaster!

Edited July 6, 2015 by Yemo

[matts73]

Yes I fully agree but I don´t think that anyone at Squad will read this or take care of this - sadly. But it doesn´t matter someone will surely post that there is a mod for everything...

1. I think classes are getting better. More of them serve a more defined purpose than in 0.90. There is actually a reason to take scientists now, but engineers need more purpose.

Yes, what I don´t understand why the engineer isn´t the person who restors the science experiments - he is the the tech guy ( or girl) the scientist is for interpretation of data from the experiments.

[Dirty Bob]

As far as the tech tree and contracts go, mods are the answer. These are two points that everyone has their own personal tastes with and I see it as a waste of development time to focus on. I don't understand why people are so stuck on wanting their version of what they like to be the stock game. They could put exactly what you want in the stock game and the next day there would be a thread about how KSP is doomed because the new changes aren't the preference of another group of players.

In all honesty, you've already seen what they've done with it so far and I wouldn't have any kind of high hopes for what they'd put out in that department. I'd rather see them put time working on core issues and bugs than to flavor the game a certain way.

[Alshain]

Yes, what I don´t understand why the engineer isn´t the person who restors the science experiments - he is the the tech guy ( or girl) the scientist is for interpretation of data from the experiments.

That wouldn't make much sense. When scientists need the beakers and flasks cleaned they don't call and engineer.

[mikegarrison]

That wouldn't make much sense. When scientists need the beakers and flasks cleaned they don't call and engineer.

In the real space program, these people would be called "mission specialists" and many of them have degrees in both engineering and science. Some in medicine, too.

[klesh]

I think more important than the getting XP immediately is that Kerbals should get XP for "landing on", not "planting a flag on". Because that is just annoying.

I must say, I do not enjoy trying to come up with reasons to plant so many flags at a given landing site.

Do you still get the XP points if you plant the flag, then remove it?

[Alshain]

I must say, I do not enjoy trying to come up with reasons to plant so many flags at a given landing site.

Do you still get the XP points if you plant the flag, then remove it?

Yes, but that still leaves the annoyance of getting everyone out of the command pod, getting everyone to plant a flag, getting everyone to remove their flag, and getting everyone back in the command pod.

In the real space program, these people would be called "mission specialists" and many of them have degrees in both engineering and science. Some in medicine, too.

What? People who clean beakers and flasks are called lab assistants and they are usually scientists in training.

[mikegarrison]

What?

What what?

You won't find them listed as "scientist" on a ISS roster. More like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Chang_Díaz

Engineer and physicist, helped in the construction of the ISS and also studied high energy plasmas.

They don't have lab assistants in space. Nobody is going to fly a lab assistant up there just to clean beakers.

[regex]

Lordy, career mode is terrible. While they certainly reduced the grind in 1.0.x, that still doesn't address the fact that none of the features that comprise it really work coherently together.

[Jart]

I see little reason for Squad to change much in the tech tree. The best introduction to the game is getting Kerbals into space and blowing things up. Starting without them is not a big attention grabber to playing/buying a game.

For more dedicated players. A constant big thanks to folks like Yemo.

[mikegarrison]

Do you still get the XP points if you plant the flag, then remove it?

Yes.

I do the flag grind routine. Everybody hops out of the lander and plants a flag. They all grab a surface sample, too, until I don't have anywhere to store the samples.

Anybody who has already been there, though, gets to sit inside and relax while the newbies are planting flags.

Then I take down all the flags except for one that I leave behind.