Career mode still needs something...

[Xavven]

I think KSP career mode is not living up to its potential. Contextual contracts seems like an improvement overall, but are there some other changes that could be more impactful and meaningful to the game progression, challenge, and fun of career mode? How would you improve it? I've read some of you would even overhaul it completely -- what would that look like in your opinion? How about that controversial addition of rep penalties to declining contracts?

Here are my suggestions to get the discussion started, but by no means do I want to limit the discussion to just these ideas:

[LIST=1]
[*]Patched conics and maneuver nodes should be available from the start. My reasoning here is that game progression should start easy and gradually increase in difficulty, and KSP has done the opposite here. It's hard for new players to get to Mun's SOI and back home because they don't have the tools to see what will happen to their orbit if they burn in different directions at different places in their orbit. Instead, patched conics and maneuver nodes should only work in the Kerbin system at tracking station tier 1, to simulate weak radar and poor precision. At tier 2, patched conics and maneuver nodes could be available out to Duna and Eve. At tier 3, it would be available everywhere. This still creates a sense of progression but allows new players the tools to get around the local neighborhood.


[*]Contracts that ask for "science data around X" should be replaced with a contract type that requires you to bring a new science experiment part specific to that contract from Kerbin. The science experiment has a unique identifier (just like how waypoints are generated with a unique ID) so it is the only one that can complete the contract. This is to prevent free funds/science/rep from transmitting yet another temperature reading from Mun for no effort because you already had a satellite there.


[*]Reduce the electrical cost of crew reports to 10 units. This eliminates the tedium of making multiple launches in early game to get your "while flying over Kerbin's shores", "while flying at high altitude", "while flying over water", and "while splashed down on Kerbin" reports. It's also perhaps a little unrealistic that I can't get my "in space high above Mun" and "in space near Mun" crew reports in a single flyby during very early game without coming dangerously close to losing battery by having to do a transmit.


[*]AND/OR, maybe crews should just be able to take multiple crew reports at different places without overwriting the previous report. This should be really easy to code, guys!


[*]EVA science while in orbit above certain biomes is tedious to gather, yet also kind of overpowered with the amount of science points it yields. I'd like to see this limited to "in space near" and "in high space above" just like goo/science-jr. etc. A camera or telescope part mounted to the exterior should instead be added and serve to take pictures over biomes for science points. This subtle difference would mean a lot IMO.


[*]The Mobile Processing Lab should cost money for every point of science you transmit back to Kerbin. It's too easy to finish the tech tree by time warping ahead while it churns out 1000's of science points for free. The game would be made more challenging and interesting if there was a tradeoff that forces you to make a strategic decision. Also, having it charge you when you transmit the data back is better than having it cost funds over time so that players don't get caught off guard by a shrinking balance when they time warp.


[*]In the tech tree, all fuel tank sizes of a given diameter should be unlocked with the first engine of that diameter. Spamming 8 FL-T100s because that's all I have unlocked and hitting the tier 1 VAB part limit as a result is not really an interesting design challenge, but rather more of an unrealistic and frustrating experience IMHO.


[*]The tech tree may have improved a little this round, but it still needs more work. For example, on the first Aviation node, you get a whole lot of parts that can technically allow you to build a plane all in one shot. Almost perfect, Squad! But... the Mk1 Cockpit is a part that is incompatible with the small circular intake, so when you first unlock this node, you either have to make your plane with a Mk1 Command Pod instead (which looks stupid), or you have to have more advanced design skills to mount two Juno engines and their associated circular intakes either under wing or along the fuselage, which is something new players are going to have trouble achieving (I got it to work but I have a lot of experience with planes). And why are there 0.625m parts this early in the tech tree when everything else is 1.25m? I think the tech progression needs to be rethought here -- this node is not making a lot of sense. The Juno might make more sense being introduced further down the tree when you have unmanned probes.


[*]Here's another example: The Heavy Rocketry node contains 2.5m engines, but no fuel tanks for it. Those fuel tanks are located in the Fuel Systems node. There is no actual choice now -- you have to unlock both nodes or you have a useless setup, or at least a very stupid-looking rocket when you attach your Skipper to a 1.25m FL-T400 tank. The tech tree should be about choice and be grouped by logical capability. Think about what the player can or cannot design with and without certain parts. Group these parts together and make the node cost more, but don't scatter the minimum parts needed for a single capability across multiple nodes or the element of choice and strategic decision is actually removed.
[/LIST]

That's all I can think of for now. What are YOUR ideas?

[Hysterrics]

The tech tree could use so much overhauling. Right now it's very linear. Something like this [url]https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/901/Engineering%20Tech%20Tree[/url] would be wonderful.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I love stock but there's definitely room for some polishing here. I haven't thought a lot about how the tech tree itself could be rejiggered, but I definitely agree that science in general could use some work. It's grindy, but in some ways the clickiness feels more intrusive on gameplay. In broad strokes I think most science could be gathered and stored automatically, and all data could be %100 transmittable. I just don't see that time spent clicking through 8 different parts over and over again adds anything to the game, and in many ways low transmission values further complicates the matter. To balance that and encourage crewed return missions surface samples would be non-transmittable and both they and EVA reports would be worth much more. I wrote a little breakdown [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/137829-Let-s-talk-about-how-Science-can-be-improved?p=2270321&viewfull=1#post2270321"]here[/URL].

I also hear what you're saying about the maneuver nodes. Some of this could be solved when they bump up to 4 building tiers; if patched conics started at an easily accessible second-out-of-four tiers things would be easier to handle, but I like your approach of upping the range based on building upgrades. A number of other things like dV prediction, transfer alarms, and transmission/reception range could also be upgraded by buildings. And yeah, +1 for sure for more involved mission planning tools.

Another thing that needs a big pass is the experience system. Again there's bit of grind and opacity here. I'm sure they have plans to fill out the upper levels with cool new abilities. There have been a number of threads on ways to extend the usefulness of pilots. More broadly though I'd love to see a richer GUI that made it obvious what players need to do to gain experience and what they will achieve by doing it. I've suggested a series of badges in the past, with more difficult to reach worlds yielding more experience. It might also help to extend this to biomes; hard-to-reach biomes could yield more experience and more science, making the worlds in general feel less flat and rewarding players for precision landings and reaching more challenging locations. I would also love to have a way to level-up kerbals without returning them to Kerbin. Edited November 25, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Hysterrics]

[quote name='Pthigrivi']Yeah I love stock but there's definitely room for some polishing here. I haven't thought a lot about how the tech tree itself could be rejiggered, but I definitely agree that science in general could use some work. It's grindy, but in some ways the clickiness feels more intrusive on gameplay. In broad strokes I think most science could be gathered and stored automatically, and all data could be %100 transmittable. I just don't see that time spent clicking through 8 different parts over and over again adds anything to the game, and in many ways low transmission values further complicates the matter. To balance that and encourage crewed return missions surface samples would be non-transmittable and both they and EVA reports would be worth much more. I wrote a little breakdown [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/137829-Let-s-talk-about-how-Science-can-be-improved?p=2270321&viewfull=1#post2270321"]here[/URL].

I also hear what you're saying about the maneuver nodes. Some of this could be solved when they bump up to 4 building tiers; if patched conics started at an easily accessible second-out-of-four tiers things would be easier to handle, but I like your approach of upping the range based on building upgrades. A number of other things like dV prediction, transfer alarms, and transmission/reception range could also be upgraded by buildings. And yeah, +1 for sure for more involved mission planning tools.

Another thing that needs a big pass is the experience system. Again there's bit of grind and opacity here. I'm sure they have plans to fill out the upper levels with cool new abilities. There have been a number of threads on ways to extend the usefulness of pilots. More broadly though I'd love to see a richer GUI that made it obvious what players need to do to gain experience and what they will achieve by doing it. I've suggested a series of badges in the past, with more difficult to reach worlds yielding more experience. It might also help to extend this to biomes; hard-to-reach biomes could yield more experience and more science, making the worlds in general feel less flat and rewarding players for precision landings and reaching more challenging locations. I would also love to have a way to level-up kerbals without returning them to Kerbin.[/QUOTE]

Imagine a system where you had to actually make something out of the science, rather than, "Oh look! Mun![SUB]lets write that down, get some sweet science[/SUB]Oh! The Mun is [I]x[/I] Temperature![SUB]write that down too and we gon get science right now mmm look at that[/SUB]" So you would have to study the observations made. I don't know how this would work, I'm just spit balling some ideas.

[MKI]

@1. Early game you should have a hard time getting to the moon. The three important upgrades are important because they are vital to expanding your space program in terms of cash(VAB/SPH, Launchpad/Runway and Tracking Station)
You need to either invest in one of these buildings early game to make the most of your space program.
-Invest into VAB/SPH for more parts or more complexity at the cost of weight and flight software. Good for Smaller complex builds.
-Invest into Launchpad/Runway for more weight, at the cost of complexity and flight software. Good for Large part builds, at the cost of payload complexity
-Invest into Tracking Station for better control/data on your flight. Good for more accurate capable flights, at the cost of launch complexity and size.

So a new player should invest into the tracking station first, theirs no harm in such. Such an upgrade HELPS them through out the game, at the cost of getting more "effective" launches going first. Better players invest into the other options at the cost of flight software help, since it doesn't directly affect what you can do, it only helps.
A new player is held down to Kerbin, and thus is FORCED to learn in Sub Orbital launches or basic orbits. This makes sense, and doesn't hold down better players. No change.

@2 no. Sending a new satellite to do the same job I literally just did should not exist. (Thats what Contextual contracts are here to fix hopefully.)
The removal of repeatable missions as it currently stands is more up in the air. On one hand you get paid off for having the facilities to do it again and get easy cash, on another it is cheap cash.

@3 Better fixed by overhaul of Electrical systems. Solar panels further down the line and fuel cells become more of a priority. Crew reports are hard to spam to prevent amazing players from gathering them all to quickly without electrical support that come in later missions. Thus going through the tech tree to quickly. It also gives a player reason to come back to Kerbin with more advance tech, for atmospheric flight to gather all the free science regardless of skill level.

@4 Same as above

@5 Like it

@6 Don't like it. There is already a building to transfer science to money and vice versa. Adding a part that does the same isn't necessary. I am on the fence about the Lab giving out science. I could of swore there were preventative measures to prevent infinite spam of the science it creates. Regardless it creates the science very slowly.

@7 Either invest into the VAB upgrade, or deal with it. Its a barrier to making huge ships early because allowing such would be OP. On top of that it would also make the smallest fuel tanks far less useful as you can just use the biggest tanks all the time.

@8 Its a jet engine that is totally keeping you from space. Getting it later is irrelevant because by then why use a small weak jet engine when you can use a larger one?
Yes its hard to design, and yes it isn't very easy to build with but if its that difficult then don't use it. Jets at early game are here because people want a more "logical progression" which is fine by me. But to say they are hard to build with isn't justification to put them further down the line where they not only are just as difficult, but more or less useless when compared to the more capable engines that are also capable of getting to space.

@9 Unlock both nodes or you do have a "useless" part.
Since larger Engines/Fuel tanks are THE most important parts beyond science Upgrades to getting more of the tech tree I'm fine with them being split up and hard to get.
Until you unlock the max rank on your VAB, part count matters. And thus larger parts/engines help you go further than spamming smaller fuel tanks and engines. So keeping them from easily becoming unlocked is important to keep the player from upgrading to quickly.
Also I used the Skipper Once with 1.25m parts on top.I had multiple tanks with fuel leading into the engine. Worked well, took up a lot of parts but did its job. So there is a choice, A very important one in fact. Either Spam smaller engines with a large fuel tank OR spam fuel tanks for a larger engine. I used to engine Cluster a large portion of my launchers until they buffed the Mainsail. Thus I didn't need the Mainsail for a while.

[Hysterrics]

Speaking of fuel cells, is it just me or do they seem kinda useless as of now? I mean, for stuff near the sun you can use solar panels, and for for stuff away from the sun you use the thermoelectric generator.

[Pthigrivi]

[quote name='Sequinox']Imagine a system where you had to actually make something out of the science, rather than, "Oh look! Mun![SUB]lets write that down, get some sweet science[/SUB]Oh! The Mun is [I]x[/I] Temperature![SUB]write that down too and we gon get science right now mmm look at that[/SUB]" So you would have to study the observations made. I don't know how this would work, I'm just spit balling some ideas.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I suggest some things in that link. Mainly I think science aught to yield information thats useful outside of the tech-tree: for instance a craft with a thermometer would reveal heat-bars rather than parts just glowing red. The Gravoli could map biomes if placed in a polar orbit, and the seismometer could be redesigned as an impactor experiment and accurately map resources within the yield radius. Not only would this add a real reason to conduct science, but it would extend their usefulness even after the tech-tree is completed.

[quote name='Sequinox']Speaking of fuel cells, is it just me or do they seem kinda useless as of now? I mean, for stuff near the sun you can use solar panels, and for for stuff away from the sun you use the thermoelectric generator.[/QUOTE]

The best way I've seen them used is to streamline ISRU operations, especially around Jool where the sun is weaker and panels become cumbersome.

[tater]

Yeah, science should be useful, not just points. Map view could have the zoom-in scaled to regions that have been mapped via photography (add a few camera types---high-res can be automatic on all manned craft, but they have to return to kerbin to be developed/analyzed. Later probe cameras can vary based upon what science they can send home via antenna (low res would require lower orbits/impacts (Ranger) for surveys, higher res would have lower data rate and would take longer to map, etc).

Tech tree unlocks could require specific types of science...

[Xavven]

[quote name='Sequinox']Speaking of fuel cells, is it just me or do they seem kinda useless as of now? I mean, for stuff near the sun you can use solar panels, and for for stuff away from the sun you use the thermoelectric generator.[/QUOTE]

I like the idea of putting them earlier in the tech tree so they're useful before you get solar panels. They're also good for mining rigs where you don't want to ship tons of PB-NUKs.

[quote name='Pthigrivi']The Gravoli could map biomes if placed in a polar orbit, and the seismometer could be redesigned as an impactor experiment and accurately map resources within the yield radius.[/QUOTE]

I love the idea of an impactor experiment. At the least I think it should be a contract type, and it even fits in with the whole "Kerbals love explosions" concept, despite it being a real-life experiment as well. I hadn't thought of a part that would [I]only[/I] work if it were used an an impactor, though -- I like it!

[quote name='tater']Tech tree unlocks could require specific types of science...[/QUOTE]

This would add SO much to the game progression. For example, you couldn't unlock the Hypersonic Flight node until you had performed a high altitude flight at a certain speed and collected data with it. You can't unlock ISRU in the "Advanced Science Tech" node until you've collected surface samples from a number of biomes.


Keep the ideas coming :)

[Hysterrics]

[B][U][SIZE=7]Squad pls listen

[/SIZE][/U][/B][SIZE=2]Also, what if we moved this to a career mode improvements brainstorming thread[SIZE=2]? I feel like modders [/SIZE]would be more likely to listen, and it would get more traction. Career mode needs an overhaul.[/SIZE][SIZE=3] Really badly.[/SIZE][B][U][SIZE=7]
[/SIZE][/U][SIZE=7][/SIZE][SIZE=7][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=7][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=7][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[Pthigrivi]

Well I don't think there's a reason to get snippy. They do read these threads. Obviously they're always looking for ways to improve things but they've got a lot on their plate and actually making a game is a lot harder than spitballing ideas.

[quote name='Xavven']I love the idea of an impactor experiment. At the least I think it should be a contract type, and it even fits in with the whole "Kerbals love explosions" concept, despite it being a real-life experiment as well. I hadn't thought of a part that would [I]only[/I] work if it were used an an impactor, though -- I like it![/QUOTE]

Yeah I mean the general idea is to make experiments fun to actually engage in by requiring the player to do something besides click on the part. If this were so the rest of the process could be automated so players could focus on the core of the game: namely building, planning, flying, and exploring.

[Hysterrics]

I didn't mean to come across as snippy. I apologize if that is the case.
--
Also, an idea. This one is a bit of a rough one and needs some shaping done to for it to actually be a clear and reasonable idea. As of now, the career mode is supposed to be a space program that you manage, right? Well, as of now it doesn't really feel like that. It feels like Sandbox with limitations and [B]few [/B]things to manage. I wish you could actually have a complete company to manage. Maybe be able to set if it's government funded or private funded. Which ever way would yield different benefits and challenges.

Also, this one is a small one right here. What about a list of history that is recorded to a list in the game? (First launch, orbit, mun landing, etc...) Edited November 25, 2015 by Sequinox

[Hysterrics]

I'm going to go ahead and take the liberty to compile a list of the ideas we have so far to organize.[CENTER][SIZE=3]Presenting...
[SIZE=5][SIZE=7]The Big Ol' List of Much Needed Career Overhauls!
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/CENTER]

[LIST]
[*][SIZE=3][B][U]Science[/U][/B][/SIZE]
[/LIST]

[LIST=1]
[*=1][I][SIZE=3]Contracts that ask for "science data around X" should be replaced with a contract type that requires you to bring a new science experiment part specific to that contract from Kerbin.[/SIZE][/I]
[*=1][I][SIZE=3]Crews should just be able to take multiple crew reports at different places without overwriting the previous report.[/SIZE][/I]
[*=1][I][SIZE=3]EVA reports should be limited to "in space near" and "in high space above" just like goo/science-jr. [/SIZE][/I]
[*=1][I][SIZE=3]A camera or telescope part mounted to the exterior should be added and serve to take pictures over biomes for science points. [/SIZE][/I]
[*=1][I][SIZE=3]Science Collections should be more involved.[/SIZE][/I]
[*=1][I][SIZE=3]Science should be more useful than just points. [/SIZE][/I]
[/LIST]
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]

[LIST]
[*][U][B]Tech Tree[/B][/U]
[/LIST]

[LIST=1]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]Fuel tank sizes of a given diameter should be unlocked with the first engine of that diameter[/I][/SIZE]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]Tech progression needs to be rethought.[/I][/SIZE]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]A non-linear tech tree[/I][/SIZE]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]Tech tree unlocks could require specific types of science[/I][/SIZE]
[/LIST]
[SIZE=3]
[/SIZE]

[LIST]
[*][U][B]Misc.
[/B][/U]
[/LIST]

[LIST=1]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]The Mobile Processing Lab should cost money for every point of science you transmit back to Kerbin.[/I][/SIZE]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]Space program should be more manageable[/I][/SIZE]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]History that is recorded to a list in the game.[/I][/SIZE]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]Reduce the electrical cost of crew reports to 10 units[/I][/SIZE]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]Let the player choose his or her own agenda - Maybe penalty for not completing on time?[/I][/SIZE]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]Rep penalty for manned landings without exploring the body first with satellites or landers[/I][/SIZE]
[*=1][SIZE=3][I]"Fog of War"[/I][/SIZE]
[*=1][I][SIZE=3][/SIZE][SIZE=3]Folder structure and categories for contracts*[/SIZE]
[/I]
[*=1][I][SIZE=3]Simulation mode: Gets more accurate the more the body is explored.[/SIZE][/I]
[*=1][I][SIZE=3]Mission planning with own goals**[/SIZE][/I]
[/LIST]
[CENTER][INDENT][SIZE=3]* - Needs more explanation
**- Explanation Provided in post.[I]
To-do:
Color Code these.
[B][U]

Please notify me if I missed anything. I will then change it as soon as I can.[/U][/B]

[/I][/SIZE][/INDENT]
[/CENTER] Edited November 27, 2015 by Sequinox

[Hysterrics]

Anyone got some ideas?

[Octa]

[quote name='Sequinox']Anyone got some ideas?[/QUOTE]

- Folder structure and categories for contracts: "Part tests", "science", "space program"
- Let the player choose his own agenda, like manned mun landing, probe exploration or satellites, encourage a "normal" progress in the players space race (maybe with daily budget like governmental agencies IRL)
- Rep penalty for manned landings without exploring the body first with satellites or landers (too risky)
- Simulation mode: Gets more accurate the more the body is explored. Parameters like gravity or atmosphere vary less after you returned the fitting experiments
- fog of war, it's called dark side of the moon for a reason
- mission planning with own goals (Radar/Biome scan -> unmanned landing -> pick landing site -> testing/simulation of manned mission-aspects on kerbin -> actual manned mission)

[Hysterrics]

Added! Thanks for the input!