Career mode missions worthless?

[Superfluous J]

Sometimes a "station" is just anything that can fit five Kerbals, has power and antenna, and has a docking port. That pretty much defines any ship I ever use after the early game. So I especially look for "station" contracts that can be met by a ship I was going to send anyway.

Same here, really. Usually a station wants - say - 10 people and I'm sending 3. So I tack a hitchhiker with 3 lander cans somewhere on the ship as dead weight. I RP that the astronauts use it for extra space, and then toss it once I've made my cash.

[mikegarrison]

Same here, really. Usually a station wants - say - 10 people and I'm sending 3. So I tack a hitchhiker with 3 lander cans somewhere on the ship as dead weight. I RP that the astronauts use it for extra space, and then toss it once I've made my cash.

Or you can use it to take tourists along, and get cash from that, too. But then you need a way to bring it back.

Also, science labs count for two Kerbals of capacity and can really rack up the science on a long mission. Sometimes the station contracts even require them.

The ones that I usually avoid are the ones that call for 3000 units of monoprop (or whatever).

- - - Updated - - -

One thing that would make station contracts a little more interesting is if they had to be in particular orbits, like probes.

Edited July 15, 2015 by mikegarrison

[Terwin]

The ones that I usually avoid are the ones that call for 3000 units of monoprop (or whatever).

If landed or in orbit of the moon/minmus these are not so bad(monoprop is the worst though as I do not use it very often)

I just make sure I have large enough containers for the ISRU on a mission I was sending anyway to fill it up near by...

[GoSlash27]

Yes, if you notice, I mentioned those. But they are contracts, even though they are automatic and mostly hidden. If you go look at your list of completed contracts, you find them there.

Besides, they don't even get you enough money to build out KSP. Really they only give you enough money to bootstrap your program until you can get to orbit and maybe do Mun/Minmus flybys. You have to start taking other contracts really quickly.

They are contracts, but not contracts you have to *accept*, which is what I was saying.

During my "caveman" career, they allowed me to unlock everything that can be unlocked without a R&D upgrade and I was able to not only fly by Mun and Minmus, but actually land, collect lots of science, and return it to Kerbin.

Early career is almost all about science, not cash. And once cash becomes an issue, satellite and rescue contracts pay the bills nicely.

Best,

-Slashy

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for all the responses guys! It seems to me that I should be more picky about which contracts I take and perhaps I should consider dialing up the science/cash rewards in the difficulty selector. I've always kind of been a "vanilla" mode purist who hates changing any sliders but perhaps I should make an exception in order to avoid the "grind" and keep moving ahead in the game.

Sounds like the contracts get more interesting/doable towards the mid game as well. So far I've achieved Orbit and all that but haven't gone to the Mun so I'd say I'm still in the early game. Really looking forward to unlocking more parts and designing more complex ships, anyone have an opinion on double science rewards? I saw one fellow suggest it but I don't want to unlock everything too fast either. I guess what I'm asking is do most of you use normal 100% science rewards? If so, was it a grind?

Thanks again for the responses/help, I really appreciate it! I should'ave known a game like this would have a knowledgeable and helpful community!

Chibbity,

There's no reason for the early career to be "grindy", even with a vanilla career. You should be able to collect enough science in the first 2 "flights" to unlock the parts needed for orbit. After your first orbit, you've got lots of cash. Your next flights can harvest science from KSC's building "biomes", which unlocks the ability to go to the Mun and Minmus (and complete the really lucrative contracts).

Once you have the ability to do that, it's just a matter of time until you've unlocked everything.

Best,

-Slashy

[klgraham1013]

The reason wheels are late game is because the test vehicles kept flipping over. Eventually the development team ran out of money trying to solve the problem and just released the wheels anyway. (When you think on it, NASA only introduce the concept of the rover very late in the Apollo program so in a way that tech tree reflects history, even though it doesn't really make any logical sense.)

Yet, you can collect science around Kerbin. Something in which a vehicle with wheels would be very useful. By the time you get wheels, the science values on Kerbin are nothing compared to the science values you've already gotten on other planets.

- - - Updated - - -

You guys are doing the station missions wrong. You don't build a solar station and send it up there to do nothing.

You take a contract to put a station in orbit of Kerbin, another to put a similar station in orbit of Sun, and a third to put one in orbit of or landed on wherever you're going (let's say Ike).

Then you take one station along with whatever you were sending anyway, and you get those contracts automatically just by doing the mission.

Then you leave it behind because really it's a huge waste of dV

A prime example of why the current "missions" are meaningless.

Edited July 15, 2015 by klgraham1013

[GoSlash27]

KSP is one of the few games I know where people defend poor mission design. Side-quest design has been lambasted for it's simplicity and drudgery in so many games for so many years. Fetch quests and kill "x" of "x" quests are a common gripe among RPG players. No one's defending them because you can "decline" them; because they're optional. Would a game not be better if the developer strove to make all quests enjoyable?

True, in real life, not all contracts are fun, but I think that's the sort of realism we would all be happy to do with out.

Clearly, if you knew what would make us "all happy", then you wouldn't be scratching your head over why the rest of us aren't all up in arms about this like you are. Have you ever considered the idea that you're mistaken about what the rest of us actually want?

Best,

-Slashy

[Wintersdark]

I definitely do think the Kerbin science is really messed up.

For example, it returns very little (understandable); but to actually recover it is more difficult than getting massive science bursts from the Mun and Minimus. On Kerbin, you need either a fairly advanced aircraft (or to be waaaaaay better at basic aircraft than I am), ideally some powered wheels to get around, etc... but once you have those things, Kerbin science income is worthless.

In my saves? I get science from KSC itself early in the game, then I never really bother much with Kerbin science again after that. I'll do some EVA's over biomes in low and high orbit, of course, but I won't land again.

Because landing in every Kerbin Biome (and taking off again!) is way, way harder rocket science than:

Command Capsule w/ Parachute, Heat shield, decoupler, and basic small rocket stack; send to Mun on a polar orbit, EVA over every biome, return to Kerbin.

Repeat with the same vessel on Minimus; or even in the same mission if you've got enough dv. This gets you near half the tech tree on it's own.

I've never - since Career mode started - bothered with Kerbin science. It's a waste of time and totally unnecessary.

[mikegarrison]

I've never - since Career mode started - bothered with Kerbin science. It's a waste of time and totally unnecessary.

You can pick it up for free, though, when you land after missions. Land in the desert? Grab the desert biome science. Land in the highlands? Grab the highlands biome science. Etc. Sometimes you get really lucky and land in a lake, so you can get (for instance) a fresh set of grasslands science because you are "splashed down" instead of "landed".

But yeah, it's all peanuts compared to what you can grab off of one or two Minmus biomes. It's easy to come back with 2000ish science points from landing on Minmus, hopping to another biome or two, and then coming back. And it barely takes any delta-v to hop across half the globe on Minmus.

[Wintersdark]

You can pick it up for free, though, when you land after missions. Land in the desert? Grab the desert biome science. Land in the highlands? Grab the highlands biome science. Etc. Sometimes you get really lucky and land in a lake, so you can get (for instance) a fresh set of grasslands science because you are "splashed down" instead of "landed".

But yeah, it's all peanuts compared to what you can grab off of one or two Minmus biomes. It's easy to come back with 2000ish science points from landing on Minmus, hopping to another biome or two, and then coming back. And it barely takes any delta-v to hop across half the globe on Minmus.

Yeah, I should have been more clear about that...

The Kerbin science is worth grabbing when you happen to be whereever, but it's absolutely not worth "grinding" - you don't go out of your way to get it, or carefully land everywhere, because it's just not worth the resources and time. Well, unless that's really fun for you anyways.

I think this is why people tend to feel science/career mode is so grindy, as the process of getting Kerbin science all done is so tedious with low-end tech (or even better tech, actually), and it requires SO MUCH WORK to get any amount of science points.

The reality is that even with very early entry level tech, it's trivially easy to just flyby Mun or Minimus, even without landing, and score hundreds of science with EVA's from low orbit alone.

I'm not really sure what the best solutions would be. Certainly, wheels should be lower on the tech tree; but really would wheels even help? Even if, say, the first wheels where in level 1 of the tech tree, that'd help you get KSC, grasslands, shore, and maybe mountains/highlands tech, but without batteries or solar panels either? Ugh. What a headache. You could bring a small fuel tank and engine specifically to use the alternator, but... eww. Driving further with basic tech+wheels would be horrible.

It's a problem, though.

[SAI Peregrinus]

You can pick it up for free, though, when you land after missions. Land in the desert? Grab the desert biome science. Land in the highlands? Grab the highlands biome science. Etc. Sometimes you get really lucky and land in a lake, so you can get (for instance) a fresh set of grasslands science because you are "splashed down" instead of "landed".

It's not quite free, since you have added recovery costs, and need to choose to land somewhere other than the KSC. But if your goal on landing from orbit isn't to touch down on the helipad atop the VAB you're clearly not aiming properly.

In all seriousness it's good advice. And you can get grasslands, shores, and ocean science easily without any significant recovery cost loss. And the recovery costs are pretty minor for the smaller early-game landers when the miniscule amounts of science you get from Kerbin matter.

[Superfluous J]

IMO the purpose of Kerbin science is twofold. One, it's a little bonus for doing the slight extra bit of work to land somewhere new. Two, it's an easy way to get over the hump if you have 87 science and need 90 to unlock that node you really want before going to Duna.

Farming it for actual solid gains isn't even in the cards, and it's why anybody who puts a lot of effort into it gets discouraged.

[mikegarrison]

IMO the purpose of Kerbin science is twofold. One, it's a little bonus for doing the slight extra bit of work to land somewhere new. Two, it's an easy way to get over the hump if you have 87 science and need 90 to unlock that node you really want before going to Duna.

Farming it for actual solid gains isn't even in the cards, and it's why anybody who puts a lot of effort into it gets discouraged.

Yeah, I definitely have been just a few points short and realized, "hey, I haven't used a gravity sensor on the runway yet!". Runway and launchpad are totally free science, because you just slap the sensor onto a pod, "launch," grab the science, and recover -- for full money value, too.

[tater]

KSP has sandbox, and it has science mode.

Career is bad because it is simply not thought out as a whole. Everything in career (science work done, the tech tree, contracts, etc) are all interconnected, and they feel nothing short of slapdash. Might as well have a button in the VAB of sandbox that says "press to be asked to do something stupid," and be done with it.

[klgraham1013]

Clearly, if you knew what would make us "all happy", then you wouldn't be scratching your head over why the rest of us aren't all up in arms about this like you are. Have you ever considered the idea that you're mistaken about what the rest of us actually want?

Best,

-Slashy

I think there is such a thing as bad art/design/etc. Everyone else can use the politically correct answer that "someone out there might like it", but that's not me. I legitimately think that contracts could be better in such a way that everyone would enjoy them more.

Edited July 16, 2015 by klgraham1013

[Hickey676]

The question now is, why dont u scale Science, Money etc... down ?

Your post reads like:" im playing on very easy and its not difficult enough"

Try Science Rewards 10%, and im sure it gets hard enough

There are enough options to make the game really difficult.

[Captain H@dock]

You guys are doing the station missions wrong. You don't build a solar station and send it up there to do nothing.

You take a contract to put a station in orbit of Kerbin, another to put a similar station in orbit of Sun, and a third to put one in orbit of or landed on wherever you're going (let's say Ike).

Then you take one station along with whatever you were sending anyway, and you get those contracts automatically just by doing the mission.

Then you leave it behind because really it's a huge waste of dV

Now, I consider completing several contracts with the same station as cheating!

Unlike sending a grossly poorly-equipped empty station on a random solar orbit, which is surely not!

More seriously, it's all about the money gain compared to the time it needs. I play multi-mission (KAC), and solar station are simple: launch, burn all your fuel, set KAC alarm for sun SOI. 1d later you can cash the reward and get a new contract. With mun (and kerbin) station, they are that good breed of contract that won't clutter your "active contract" section for too long. But sure, they make no sense...

(My career is around Year1 Day40, and I've probably flown 500 contracts already... I only go interplanetary once I've got a complete tech tree and level3 crews, until then I usually have KAc events regarding contract on an hourly basis)

Edited July 16, 2015 by Captain H@dock

[Kegereneku]

Just saying :

I don't consider it bad to be able to Max-out science from one or two fully explored planets. It give the choice of focusing on a planet and a high-return even if you are a not-yet-veteran player with less-than-efficient probes.

However I do have a problem with the simplistic Cost-increase curve of the Tech-tree. It's because of it that you are forced to make further planet extremely rewarding.

I'm pretty sure you could flatten the curve, increase science reward for Kerbin and achieve a balanced technological evolution. (Not that I play with the horrible Stock-Tree, I use Open-Tree, much more intuitive and fulfilling)

[Superfluous J]

I think there is such a thing as bad art/design/etc. Everyone else can use the politically correct answer that "someone out there might like it", but that's not me. I legitimately think that contracts could be better in such a way that everyone would enjoy them more.

I don't think the problem is whether or not people think it's bad (though I won't speak for everybody for the obvious reasons earlier in this thread), it's whether or not people think it's worth getting all upset about.

Take early TV sci fi like Doctor Who and the original Star Trek. Their special effects and some of the acting was ridiculously atrocious. They did not have the ability (both technical and monetary) to make them better, so our literal choice was what we got, or nothing. There was no option to get a "better" Doctor Who with millions of dollars spent on special effects. We got guys in rubber suits and supposedly stone walls that rippled when the actors ran by. Now I have friends who simply cannot watch those episodes. They see the bad special effects and are DONE. No way. I, personally, don't even notice them compared to the amazing stories they crafted for that show. Same with Trek.

This is similar. Squad does not have infinite time or resources to work on every single thing everybody in the world doesn't like about their game, and the 3 (or so) people actually doing the coding have their own priorities that likely don't perfectly match the priorities of ANY single player of their game. So, every decision they make will peeve someone, and few decisions will please more than 50% of their player base. And they can't just "make it better" because there is no such thing as "better." All they can do is change it. When they have time. If they have time. Which could take a very long time, considering the number of things they have to do.

So we as players have two choices. We can scream into space about how much everything sucks (yet keep on playing for some reason) or we can accept things the way they are, overlook the flaws, and actually enjoy the game for what it is.

I'm not saying don't constructively criticize, of course. A lot of career mode could use a lot of work. But as a thing to give us reasons to go into space, it's kept me interested for years so - like cardboard walls and Styrofoam rocks of the old TV shows - I'll happily accept it as a functional substitute.

[GoSlash27]

I think there is such a thing as bad art/design/etc. Everyone else can use the politically correct answer that "someone out there might like it", but that's not me. I legitimately think that contracts could be better in such a way that everyone would enjoy them more.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the question. If you knew what everyone would enjoy more, then why isn't everyone as upset about this as you are?

Best,

-Slashy

[tater]

There are still people who prefer the souposphere, so perhaps squad should not have bothered? It's a game, and gameplay matters. I suppose many of us might forget than the game jumped from alpha to beta to release faster than we thought, and are still pitching constructive criticism.

Regardless, bad game design is bad. Career is 100% a game design issue, so why not have an arbitrarily good career?

[Mikki]

I am playing a nearly 18 month RL Stock Careersave and the contracts are simply nuts, but pay a lot, up to six, seven millions at the moment.

I use to make multimissions and hit several goals in one mission, good for economy... bad for the partcount.

I think SQUAD has some surprises for everyone... who knows...

[match]

I like to equate the contracts to the forum posts, some are good, some bad, some may be fun, and some I just completely skip.

I take them as suggestions, not as orders. As such, I realize some are ridiculous and may even be intentionally so in order to test my ability to sort through the crap in order to get the cream.

I thought I would try to accept them all at one point, but soon came to realize that I would not be playing the game I enjoy if I did. I remain selective now.

[Wintersdark]

There are still people who prefer the souposphere, so perhaps squad should not have bothered? It's a game, and gameplay matters. I suppose many of us might forget than the game jumped from alpha to beta to release faster than we thought, and are still pitching constructive criticism.

Regardless, bad game design is bad. Career is 100% a game design issue, so why not have an arbitrarily good career?

There is no question that Career mode could be better; but HOW bad it is, and what should be done to make it better? Ask 3 people, you'll get 5 different answers.

I certainly don't argue that Squad shouldn't improve it, but to be honest I'm not sure how they should go about improving it.