Career 'hump'

[Xavven]

Slash -- Just curious... what difficulty are you playing on?

I don't notice a career mode hump on Normal as it's simply painfully easy. If you already know what you're doing, you will be swimming in cash and science after 2 launches. The only way it could be challenging is if you were new to the game and had several failed launches do to inexperience.

I haven't tried moderate, but on Hard there can be a difficulty hump depending on your progression choices. To the OP, I've found that the easiest way to break Hard mode is to get the Astronaut Complex upgraded pretty early (right after the launchpad) because spamming EVA science is overpowered. For some reason it feels cheesy to me -- why is it that you only get a crew report "in orbit" and "in high orbit" but EVA science gives you points over every biome in low orbit? Presumably the science is from sightseeing? Can you not see out the capsule window or something? Why do you have to EVA to get the points? But I digress...

To round out my analysis of early game, I've also tried to see if deliberately avoiding upgrading the Astronaut Complex would make progression severely difficult. In this playtest, I instead go the unmanned probe and upgraded VAB route. That strategy makes it a lot harder and will put your piloting skills to the test, what with no SAS and a very draggy probe core at the top. I swear the Stayputnik is a horrible, horrible part that makes your rocket want to flip like no other. On top of that, you have to scrape science together, often times repeating experiments in the same biome, to unlock the Octo probe core and solar panels, giving you a decent shot at a Mun flyby.

The conclusion I drew was that EVA science (Astronaut Complex) is the way to go, by a pretty big margin. IMHO it sacrifices player choice when one upgrade is so good and all other choices are far inferior. I'm okay with there being a "best" choice, but I think KSP still needs rebalancing to make the early game have a better difficulty curve.

[GoSlash27]

Xavven,

 Yeah, I'm talking about normal difficulty mode. As you have observed, there really isn't a "hump" there unless the player makes one. Depending on how the difficulty is adjusted, there may be points where the game gets tough or grindy in various spots (I haven't tried them all), but honestly I fail to see the point of discussing the difficulty/ ease of various points in the game when it's been adjusted.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 5, 2015 by GoSlash27

[NecroBones]

On 12/5/2015, 12:12:01, WuphonsReach said:

One problem with Career balance is that the buildings only have three tiers.  We told Squad last year that three tiers was not enough of a nuanced approach and that they really needed to go with five or six.  There should be new tiers inserted between the existing tiers, especially for the hangar, VAB, launchpad and runway.  It shouldn't go from 30 parts to 255 parts to unlimited, it should be more gradual like 30 / 60 / 100 / 150 / 250 / unlimited, or the launchpad mass limits of 20t / 140t / unlimited should be 20t / 60t / 120t / 180t / 300t / unlimited.

And what's great is technically they could add this without any new art assets. They could use each building model for two tiers.

[Superfluous J]

I have the opposite experience that GoSlash* has. I don't experience the hump because those early building upgrades (For me they're mission control, tracking station, vab, launch pad, and astronaut complex in no real particular order, all before R&D) are so cheap as to be free in my experience. I've never budgeted for them, just as I want what they give, I have the cash, and I do it.

I also play on Normal mode and I assume the OP isn't saying "I play on super hard and want to discuss how we can fix how hard it is," because that's just silly.

*I tried to tag you, but that doesn't work. I won't bring up how access to the base code to the post would allow me to do it.

[Xavven]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

I also play on Normal mode and I assume the OP isn't saying "I play on super hard and want to discuss how we can fix how hard it is," because that's just silly.

It looks like the OP is playing on Hard (I just re-read the post to make sure) and noticed that the difficulty progression could use some tweaking.

 

IMO, regardless of the difficulty level chosen, you want the game to generally be easier at the beginning and ramp up the challenge towards middle and end game. That's no to say that you can't vary the difficulty up and down as the game progresses (this is called "pacing" as many of you are probably already familiar with).

Normal mode pacing is actually pretty decent, I think. This is because unlocking buildings isn't really that big of a problem -- this leaves exploration as the real challenge. KSP's progression in that regard is very good. Think about it...

1. Suborbital hops
2. Reach orbit
3. Get to Mun (no inclination, big SOI)
4. Get to Minmus (inclination, small SOI requires a very accurate burn)
5. Landing on Mun/Minmus
6. Interplanetary (you have to figure out launch windows, etc.)
   1. Duna (closeby, no inclination)
   2. Eve (inclination)
   3. Jool system (lots of Delta-V needed to explore)
7. And when you finally get the hang of that, you have the biggest challenges in the game, like:
   1. Tylo landing (hardest landing in the game)
   2. Moho landing (lots of delta-v needed)
   3. Eve return (hardest ascent in the game)

There's a steady and ever-increasing level of challenge. This is also the reason why Science Mode was so darn good. I joined around version 0.21. I love Science Mode.

Hard Career pacing is a little off. Here's my experience in it, generally:

1. Suborbital hops
2. Reach orbit
3. The "hump" that the OP speaks of. Getting the parts and facilities needed for a Mun flyby is difficult right here. You're stuck in Kerbin's SOI where science points and money is scarce. You don't have the right parts unlocked to make money and more science very easily, so you end up repeating some experiments and re-lauching the same craft to different biomes.
4. Mun flyby achieved. Now the rest of the game is very easy. It might be a little more grindy than Normal diff. but you're definitely not "stuck" per se, just more gated/restricted which forces you to take a couple more contracts before moving on.

So it's just the observation that there's a difficulty spike right there that could use some smoothing.

BTW, the spike is smoothed out slightly if you don't mind exploiting the "EVA while in flight" bug (I'm assuming it's unintentional at least). When you land somewhere, if you EVA and take a report while still holding on to the ladder, it counts as "in flight" and you can get more science. Feels cheesy to me, so I intentionally avoid it. This makes the "hump" worse, however. I know we're all hyper-sensitive about the whole "cheating" subject, so I will add the disclaimer here: You are not a cheater if you do this even though I don't. Yada yada it's a single player game, and you're a special snowflake.

With love,

Xavven

[Renegrade]

2 hours ago, NecroBones said:

And what's great is technically they could add this without any new art assets. They could use each building model for two tiers.

I'd love it if they'd do that.  I'd really love to see a smoother progression myself, and I don't need any more eye-candy.  If they wanted to throw two or three upgrades into each visual model, I'd be perfectly happy.

A particular note is that I don't think I've ever even used more than 250 parts on the launchpad (outside of BTSM)...  The only reason why I buy the last VAB/SPH upgrade is for those durned action groups.

[Kerbart]

On 12/4/2015, 1:45:49, Shania_L said:

(…) However, where I disagree with you is funds, funds are a massive bottleneck for me, in pretty much every game I have to weigh the benefits of launching a fun mission versus a profitable mission. I am currently up against a wall of trying to save to upgrade my R&D to the final level, and it is taking me ages. (…)

Without intending to sound smug, but what I find is that it pays to be really critical on the contracts you accept, and working on aligning them with what your income needs are. Practically every mission I run, even if it's refueling my lunar stations, has one or more contracts riding on it. I'm not saying that I'm drowning in cash but money is not a problem (mainly a challenge) when you ensure that every launch is at least 75% (and preferably double than that) paid for by your contracts.

[Finox]

On 12/4/2015, 12:54:19, Hyomoto said:

...The jump between 30 and 255 parts is pretty much endgame material—you can build a ship to go anywhere with those restrictions, and later contracts give exponentially more rewards versus difficulty so money is really only an issue as long as you are stuck on Kerbin.  It seems, more than anything, this has the single largest detrimental effect on the progression of career since, in my experience anyways, my first hurdle is literally to expand the VAB and launch pad and then that's it: hurdles over...

Agreed, the jump from 30 to 255 is way too much.   I played KSP on an older laptop from versions 18.2 until 1.0, so being able to build a ship with unlimited parts wasn't much of a goal as my computer couldn't possibly handle much over 200 anyway.   Heck, I haven't had more than a dozen craft with greater than 255 parts in the ENTIRE time I've played KSP and I've been to every planet by now.   So unlocking the ability to have 255 parts is the equivalent of telling me "build whatever your system can handle", its not really a useful limit.   A slower progression, like mayber; 30 to 75 to 150 to unlimited, would work much better from my perspective, but that's just me.

[Xavven]

25 minutes ago, Renegrade said:

I'd love it if they'd do that.  I'd really love to see a smoother progression myself, and I don't need any more eye-candy.  If they wanted to throw two or three upgrades into each visual model, I'd be perfectly happy.

A particular note is that I don't think I've ever even used more than 250 parts on the launchpad (outside of BTSM)...  The only reason why I buy the last VAB/SPH upgrade is for those durned action groups.

Agree 100% with this.

 

I'd rather that action groups and part count weren't the reason to upgrade the VAB. Honestly I think the devs were grasping at straws here for a reason to make the player upgrade the building, and the restrictions seem too contrived for my taste. Dimensions should be the VAB's restriction instead of the launchpad's. The launchpad restriction can probably stay as just weight, or possibly total fuel allowed (launchpad facilities have to constantly refuel cryogenic propellants while the rocket sits at the pad since it boils off).

[Hyomoto]

GoSlash, I apologize if I was too heavy on the sarcasm.  I thought I'd written I was playing on Hard which based on feedback, clearly makes a difference.  I get there are ways to cheese the game for veterans.  I mean, you can suicide launch someone into Kerbol orbit to pull a couple world firsts for some easy cash.  Give em an antenna and you can even send back some decent science.  You can skip the Mun and hit up Minmus in 30 parts which has better contract payouts, higher science, and is cheaper in deltaV.  It's also flat out easier and safer to land on which yields even greater payouts and science.  But despite that, I still find the jump from 30 parts to 255 parts as more beneficial than being able to, for instance, EVA or take on extra contracts.  Primarily because once the pad and VAB are upgraded, I can pretty much go anywhere.

So I read, "You just gotta be more efficient in your designs." as somewhat facetious.  If I turn up payouts and skim right over it, I might never notice it, but since I've played this way I know it's still there.  As an aside, it's interesting because once you have those first two upgrades, the launchpad tonnage becomes the next real limitation since you can max 140 in six parts, but less so than 30 parts because you have a lot more breathing room to work efficiency, at which point I wholly agree with you.  There's really only so much you can do with 30 parts.  Heck, there are docking ports in the first set of R&D nodes, so if you are willing to build in space you can go as big as you want, efficiency be damned.

I thought I wrote that I was playing on Hard in the OP, I'll add it if it isn't there.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Hyomoto

[Xavven]

3 hours ago, Hyomoto said:

I mean, you can suicide launch someone into Kerbol orbit to pull a couple world firsts for some easy cash. 

Yeah, this makes a big difference too. I think the reason I also experience the career "hump" (or maybe I should call it difficulty spike) is because I also play with some reasonable self-imposed rules, like not planning manned trips as one-way.

Wow... stock could really use life support + rep penalties for losing kerbals. Optional, of course.

[GoSlash27]

Hyomoto,

 Likewise, I apologize if I came off as facetious; that really wasn't what I was getting at. All I was saying was that I had also noticed a "hump" in early career, but after working on how I was approaching that part of the game it disappeared. I realized that the "hump" I had previously experienced was of my own making, not anything intrinsic in the game.

 It is possible to put 3t of payload into orbit within the limits of the base facilities. If you can do that, you can do almost anything you want from there including returning science to Kerbin from the munar surface or manned (not suicidal) science flights in solar orbit.

 I've just started a hard career to see what you're talking about, but it's still way too early to notice a bottleneck. I'd imagine if I run into a problem tho'... it's not going to be due to the part count or mass limit, since I already know how to "strip mine" the entire Kerbin system for science under caveman conditions. I can picture running into a science shortage or funding problems down the line, but I can't picture being hindered by the part count or mass limit.

 To your original point, I agree. It would be nice to have a more gradual progression for mass, size, and part count. Jumping from 30 to 255 is pretty silly.

Best,

-Slashy

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Hyomoto]

That's a good point Xavven, I definitely have a self-imposed set of rules that make the game harder.  For example, I always want to leave and return with the same ship, but if you're willing to put a bit of infrastructure to use it's easier to build the ship to get the science in one big gulp and have it rendezvous with another one thus saving a lot of engineering headaches.

GoSlash, I'll be interested to see how you fare.  The yields are lower but grinding doesn't make the game harder, though I think it does exacerbate a couple things that might otherwise be unnoticed.  Whether that proves they exist or they are self-inflicted thereof I suppose is the topic of debate then.

[GoSlash27]

Hyomoto,

 So far no problems. I have 4 nodes left that are useful for strip mining the Mun and Minmus, and I'm at a level where I can do nearly full science flybys (don't have the barometer yet). I'm on day 2.

Cash is definitely tighter than it was in normal mode, but I have enough in the bank for maybe 8 flights. I may have to work a contract or 3 down the road.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

After completing my series of Mun and Minmus flybys, I'm going to officially call this myth "busted".

 I have unlocked all of the important nodes, I have a comfortable bankroll, and I'm capable of returning science from the surface of Mun and Minmus. I never had to grind for science, never needed to take any contracts, and never entered the Admin building.

There is no early game "hump".

I did have to complete one very difficult step: Returning from a low Munar flyby for science with no SAS and no solar panels. That's something I never had to do in normal mode and it was *very* challenging. Other than that, same as normal.

Best,

-Slashy

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Hyomoto]

I think you keep fading into another thread.  Once again, this isn't a complaint about the difficulty of the early game.  It's not about funding, or contracts, or science unlocks—it's still a conversation on the initial launchpad and VAB upgrades.  My observation is I experience a hump getting to that point, and then afterwards the entire game opens up.  This is not something you can "debunk" unless you can prove I've never actually experienced this.  Though I think you've actually proven my point better because you got me thinking: I do make the game a lot harder on myself, you are right that I don't build "efficiently".  I take lots of contracts, and my missions are almost always to complete at least one, but usually two, three or even four on a single mission.  So I guess I can see why the game is so easy for you, it's not that you are some superhuman player (though obviously you are quite good) it's that you take the most direct route to victory, ie: unlocking parts and upgrading buildings.

If I was willing to just grind past the 30 part limit, which you are right: it's completely easy to do, I'd never experience that.  I tend to meander around the early game where I am limited in parts, part count, size and weight.  But that only further reinforces my hump because once past the 30 part limit, there are no real limits any more.  With 255 parts to play with, trying to figure out how to fit two satellites on a rocket that needs to orbit Minmus and return two tourists isn't "easy", but it's nowhere near as hard as figuring out how to haul a Flea, radial decoupler, Mk-25 parachute and take a temperature reading in a single flight with a plane that can't reach the altitudes needed to perform two of the tests.  Because that's when I get really creative, and I'm sad when I get over that hump and I no longer have viable restrictions on my progress.  I should have picked up on it when you used the term 'strip mine', but we clearly have nothing in common with the way we play.  Though it does explain why other people have other humps, we all have different things we want to achieve and different walls we encounter doing so.  It's not that there are no humps, but as I said in the title of my post: this is my hump, it's how I experience the game.  So if you'd like to 'debunk' something, do it somewhere else where your post doesn't come off as trolling.

How high do I have to take this again?

[GoSlash27]

Hyomoto,

 I would never attempt to "debunk* your personal experience". That would be a silly argument. All I'm saying is the exact same thing you are: There is no early game hump intrinsic to the game itself, only that which the players create for themselves (intentionally or otherwise). This holds true for hard difficulty mode as well. There was nothing I did that's beyond the capability of average players, I merely, as you put it, "took the direct route".

 I should add that I didn't upgrade any of the facilities through this exercise and the part limit was never an issue.For a little while I thought that funding would pose a problem, but it turns out that the "world first" awards provide plenty of funding.

 Having said that, I'm going to move on to greener pastures. Your habitual and completely unwarranted rudeness is frankly tiresome.

Best,

-Slashy

* The phrase "I'm going to officially call this myth busted" is from a popular American TV series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters#Outcomes_of_the_experiments

Edited December 7, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I tend to agree that the jump from 30 parts to 255 is a little absurd, more granularity would be appreciated. 

Feels like you go immediately from having barely enough parts to more than you'd typically need in one upgrade.

On top of that, most computers struggle to maintain good fps at anything over 300-350 parts, so the jump from 255 to infinite is largely pointless in my opinion.

[Xavven]

21 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

After completing my series of Mun and Minmus flybys, I'm going to officially call this myth "busted".

 I have unlocked all of the important nodes, I have a comfortable bankroll, and I'm capable of returning science from the surface of Mun and Minmus. I never had to grind for science, never needed to take any contracts, and never entered the Admin building.

There is no early game "hump".

I did have to complete one very difficult step: Returning from a low Munar flyby for science with no SAS and no solar panels. That's something I never had to do in normal mode and it was *very* challenging. Other than that, same as normal.

Best,

-Slashy

 

Hm, I draw the opposite conclusion, GoSlash. By your own report, you had a very difficult Mun flyby, after which you are now rolling in cash and science. Hard Career mode will not challenge you like that again until you decide to hit the harder intrinsic challenges in the game, like an Eve return or Tylo landing. You're at the part of the career where it's basically like sandbox with funds grinding. Your Mun flyby was the hump -- the difficulty spike that put your design skills, mission planning, and piloting to the test with limited resources and strict design constraints. My main point (and I won't speak for the OP but I think it's his/her point too) is that the difficulty curve is too uneven -- I don't think anyone is asserting that Hard Career is too hard and can't be beaten.

Anyway, no offense intended, but I'm having trouble taking your post as a serious gameplay analysis. I'm good at this game too -- I know all the tricks and I can play the game in such a way as Hard Career is a cakewalk with no "hump" when the right strategies are chosen and/or certain tactics are employed (many of them a little cheesy). However, that doesn't mean that the game doesn't have its flaws and couldn't be improved upon, so I have a suggestion:

Now that you have a baseline and a known winning strategy, I encourage you to do additional playthroughs, each time using a different strategy to see if there is more than one viable strategic choice in the game. For example, try going unmanned ASAP and see if you can advance your space program without going into a low polar orbit and spamming EVA science. Or, try unlocking airplane parts first and see how viable that is. Also, see what the game is like if you don't do launchpad science, followed by runway science, followed by walking around KSC and getting EVA reports science at every building (or even taxiing around KSC with goo/science jr. for science). You'll probably see that it is not impossible for an experienced player to advance, but that the game doesn't flow very well. KSP is harder at the beginning and gets easier afterwards, when good games tend to have a difficulty curve the other way around.

I'm talking about game design here. Yes, for those who read the forums, you know that there's a tundra biome close to KSC which makes for an easy boost to your early game science. No, it is not good game design to balance the career mode expecting players to know this, or to expect players to know that they can grab EVA "while in flight" science either while clinging to the exterior of the pod while it's parachuting down (what insane idiot would do that IRL?) or while actually LANDED but the game calls it "in flight" if you're at least 2 inches off the ground because you're on your pod's ladder (what I will personally call an exploit). What I'm saying is that it's better to balance for player skill and experience, not the odd quirks in your game or hidden obscurities, and it's also better to have multiple viable paths to victory to cater to different playstyles and add depth and interesting choices to your game. I think a good playtester can pick up on these nuances and provides feedback on how the game could potentially play out in multiple scenarios, not just beating the game, declaring victory, and frankly calling other players "not skilled enough" if they make an observation contrary to yours.

 

[Superfluous J]

I don't think the problem is the existence of a hump (I too don't think it exists) but the fact that after a certain point (for me it's clicking "start") there is no challenge.

And I don't even think that's a problem. I can't name a video game where, after 1000 or more hours, any particular part of it should be expected to challenge me.

[Hyomoto]

Yeah, that's pretty much my experience as well Xavven.  I don't think you can use intrinsic knowledge of the games quirks, flaws and interactions as a basis to say there is no hump.  I certainly agree with both you and GoSlash, Horseman, that you probably don't experience them anymore because you've become so accustomed to them but from a game design perspective it's not just there, it's glaringly obvious.

As a small example, the launchpad upgrade is to 140 tons.  You can easily max that out with 30 parts, making the upgrade to unlimited weight very useful and viable.  But, as many others have also pointed out, most people don't build 255 part craft, let alone above (and I'd wager those who do are primarily creative players), meaning that initial jump from 30 to 255 is terribly significant.  It's telling that most people say they unlock the final tier for action groups, also a highly useful upgrade, rather than for unlimited parts.  So yes, more efficient designs, higher skill levels and a general knowledge of the game will certainly make 30 parts less of a restriction, but it won't make 255 parts less of an upgrade for the simple fact it is the most significant upgrade.  It would be as if you jumped from 100 points to 1500 when you unlocked the R&D building.  Yeah, you'd still need the science for the nodes but it would definitely diminish the purpose of the third upgrade.  So perhaps it would be incorrect to link difficulty to part counts but at the same time it's not as if it's without merit and has increasing significance for players the more they lean towards various challenges over calculated efficiency.

We'll have to see what 1.1 has on offer in this regard, but it might be interesting to see this made more open to modding.  I admit, I haven't looked into it but based on the lack of mods in this category I'm guessing it's fairly obfuscated.

[Superfluous J]

My big problem is the term, "hump." That implies difficulty and required work to overcome. "The 3rd tier of the VAB is useless" has nothing to do with how difficult it is to upgrade things.

The purpose of the limits is to make you upgrade the buildings. They're not super sensible limits and a lot of the problem is that there aren't enough tiers to upgrade through. Personally I think there should be 10 or more levels with very granular and increasing rewards. Don't have 10 models. When you upgrade from tier 4 to tier 5 launchpad, you don't get a whole new launchpad but it instead adds the water tower or those big tanks. I don't know. I don't design video games for a living. Just "Crap, good, awesome" are too few tiers.

But anyway, without limits upgrading is useless. I'm not defending the current limits as perfect or even good or even sane. I'm just saying that they are not difficult to overcome, which the term "hump" implies.

[severedsolo]

Actually there is a mod for this by sarbian, it's called custom barn editor (or something like that, I'm on my phone but can't check)