MOVED! (Mods Please Lock Thread) Community Career Framework - A Balance Mod Standards Cooperative for Career Games (A Community Recommended Mod List that Commits to Working Well Together in Career Games)

[Valerian]

This is a very interesting list of mods that contains many potential candidates: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/123122-avgs-visual-ultimatum-76-non-part-mods-to-enhance-stock-visual-sound-and-veteran-career-gameplay/

[Joshwoo70]

looks like neat idea... i would love to invite @ZodiusInfuser to do the robotics parts.

[inigma]

@Yemo @linuxgurugamer @NathanKell @DMagic @Nertea @RoverDude

and others who are experienced with part costs and game balance,

It was suggested by @Nertea that the Community Career Framework (CCF) should provide a basic set of standards for career part and cost balance, rather than adopting one tech tree or one person's vision of how things should be balanced. I also think this framework should also include contract balance, hence @nightingale I would like to know if there is a general consensus also on contract rewards. Should we be using stock awards as the index standard?

I think creating these standards as CCF's approach and raison d'etre is best, but seeing as how I have no experience with balancing those items (except perhaps contract rewards), I am coming to you asking you what you would like to see as far as a framework for mod authors to latch on to when coding part costs and balances. Do you have any ideas, or suggestions that we could collaborate on to finalize some basic part costs/standards that CCF would promote and require of any mod author certifying their mod as CCF compatible? 

What do you guys think are the current imbalances in the stock Career game, as well as popular Career game mods? What would like a Community Career Framework to provide mod authors and players?

[legoclone09]

On 12/22/2015 at 1:07 PM, inigma said:

Can we get a consensus from all interested parties on the progression framework above? Is that framework out of order, or is that framework the typical approach to career most players would agree on taking (skipping any progression levels of course that don't interest them)?

I agree with the idea but good progression, I think, should so something like this: planes/sounding rockets (USI mod) -> suborbital rockets(probes, many rocketry mods) -> orbital probes -> manned suborbital -> manned orbital -> munar probe flybys -> munar orbiters -> manned munar flybys -> munar landers -> manned munar landers -> anything in solar system(jool/duna missions, spaceplanes, colonization, etc. Maybe also a rescale mod (5x Kerbol?) to increase challenge so it is recommended to do apollo-style missions, and also Kerbal Construction Time as well.

Edited December 23, 2015 by legoclone09

[inigma]

Should ground and water surface vehicles (parts and contracts) come before sounding rockets?

[inigma]

40 minutes ago, legoclone09 said:

I agree with the idea but good progression, I think, should so something like this: planes/sounding rockets (USI mod) -> suborbital rockets(probes, many rocketry mods) -> orbital probes -> manned suborbital -> manned orbital -> munar probe flybys -> munar orbiters -> manned munar flybys -> munar landers -> manned munar landers -> anything in solar system(jool/duna missions, spaceplanes, colonization, etc. Maybe also a rescale mod (5x Kerbol?) to increase challenge so it is recommended to do apollo-style missions, and also Kerbal Construction Time as well.

Something like this?

ground vehicles & boats > submersibles > aircraft > sounding rockets > unmanned rockets > probes > manned spacecraft > rover landings > manned landings > space stations > spaceplanes > bases > colonies > interstellar

• Contracts for each Progression Framework node would offer targets that are not explored, closest first.
• Research for each Progression Framework node would offer components that are most rudimentary/basic first, dependent on having researched only historically related technologies offered in Progression Framework nodes before it

I really think it would be best to stay away from requiring CCF compliant mods to be compatible with massively game-altering approaches such as 5x Kerbol. If any 5x Kerbol mod author can ensure their mod is fully compatible with CCF certified mods, that would be a different thing, and not really fit within the framework above, but such a modder could/would be able to certify their mod as CCF compliant - but they would have to do the actual work of making it so. To keep this project simple, however, I highly recommend we avoid requiring more of CCF compliant mods than the bare minimums to sustain a balanced career with other CCF certified mods. This might mean putting the onus on compatibility with the 5x Kerbol author than on all other CCF authors. Agreed?

Edited December 23, 2015 by inigma

[legoclone09]

Yes, exactly that.

I do have the basics of a balancemod out though, it makes a radial Science Jr and inline Goo, it changes the Goo and Sci Jr to have equal payoffs, 0 transmission, and they are same mass. IT follows the lines of the SETI balancemod, so maybe I can ask Yemo if we can use it for this.

Edited December 23, 2015 by legoclone09

[nightingale]

2 hours ago, inigma said:

I also think this framework should also include contract balance, hence @nightingale I would like to know if there is a general consensus also on contract rewards. Should we be using stock awards as the index standard?

Stock rewards are the easiest to balance against, and you have to assume that most contracts packs are going to get used with a mix of stock contracts, and you don't want to break the stock ones by making them not worth taking.  The other factors to look at:

1. Expected cost to complete the contract.  Seems obvious, but going to the island airfield is cheaper than returning from Eve.
2. Player time investment.  A circumnavigation of Kerbin is pretty cheap funds-wise, but takes a really long time and needs to have a high payout.

Much like the stock contracts, I try and keep the science rewards to a minimum (and have science gathered through experiments).

2 hours ago, inigma said:

What do you guys think are the current imbalances in the stock Career game, as well as popular Career game mods? What would like a Community Career Framework to provide mod authors and players?

1. I hate grindy low paying contracts (1,000 funds to test a part on the launch pad).  Just saying.
2. I'm still not sold on the progression, here's a bunch of thoughts on why:
   1. I'd like the ability to skip or defer steps in your progression (submersibles, for example).
   2. It would be nice if each type intermixed a little bit more.  Like completing submersible contracts/goals and base contracts/goals could open up a late-game contract for a submersible Laythe base, for example. 
   3. Right now the progression is a very long chain.  It's likely that 80% of players will never get more than 20% through that.  What I'd rather see is a shallow (even as shallow a 4, 5, or 6 nodes), but extremly wide tree.  That way a player can direct themselves to a specific goal (submersible Laythe bases), and complete pre-requisites with that goal in mind.  Starting a new game can give new challenges, while not forcing them to go through a long set of early stage progression items.

[inigma]

39 minutes ago, nightingale said:

Stock rewards are the easiest to balance against, and you have to assume that most contracts packs are going to get used with a mix of stock contracts, and you don't want to break the stock ones by making them not worth taking.  The other factors to look at:

1. Expected cost to complete the contract.  Seems obvious, but going to the island airfield is cheaper than returning from Eve.
2. Player time investment.  A circumnavigation of Kerbin is pretty cheap funds-wise, but takes a really long time and needs to have a high payout.

Much like the stock contracts, I try and keep the science rewards to a minimum (and have science gathered through experiments).

1. I hate grindy low paying contracts (1,000 funds to test a part on the launch pad).  Just saying.
2. I'm still not sold on the progression, here's a bunch of thoughts on why:
   1. I'd like the ability to skip or defer steps in your progression (submersibles, for example).
   2. It would be nice if each type intermixed a little bit more.  Like completing submersible contracts/goals and base contracts/goals could open up a late-game contract for a submersible Laythe base, for example. 
   3. Right now the progression is a very long chain.  It's likely that 80% of players will never get more than 20% through that.  What I'd rather see is a shallow (even as shallow a 4, 5, or 6 nodes), but extremly wide tree.  That way a player can direct themselves to a specific goal (submersible Laythe bases), and complete pre-requisites with that goal in mind.  Starting a new game can give new challenges, while not forcing them to go through a long set of early stage progression items.

Do you an idea for a base standard reward for part tests on the launch pad, and a base standard for landing at the Island Airfield so we can begin indexing costs?

Concerning the progression, the intent is for it to be completely modular. I should probably add the word "modular" to the OP, which I will do now so it's more clear.

[inigma]

Added to the OP:

 

• Mods in all families would have balanced outputs, costs, and rewards vs all other mods in all families in order to self-certify as CCF compliant by adhering to the CCF Standard Costs, Outputs, Rewards and Experience worksheet (CCF SCORE - hey I like friendly acronyms)

[DMagic]

On 12/20/2015 at 4:25 PM, inigma said:

And yes, if there are any mod dependencies required for a CCBF setup to function, then the requirement to have your mod be such a dependency would be for your mod to have MIT licensing or something similarly less restrictive, or even public domain. I also like this not just for continuity sake, but also for adaptability sake for Squad to take off with the idea if they so chose.

I was thinking more in terms of the license for tech tree definitions, Module Manger balancing changes, etc... that kind of thing.

14 hours ago, inigma said:

It was suggested by Nertea that the Community Career Framework (CCF) should provide a basic set of standards for career part and cost balance, rather than adopting one tech tree or one person's vision of how things should be balanced.

I agree that things should be easily configurable where possible, and that there should be some basic balancing guidelines, but it seems like deciding on one tech tree and building off of that would be a requirement. If someone is going to decide how much a part costs and where it comes in terms of career progression then you need to know how the tech tree is arranged.

I like the ETT, at least in principle, I haven't looked at it too closely. But the idea of having different branches is good.

12 hours ago, nightingale said:

Stock rewards are the easiest to balance against, and you have to assume that most contracts packs are going to get used with a mix of stock contracts, and you don't want to break the stock ones by making them not worth taking...

I agree with this and the rest of the comment in general. Though it is just as easily possible to alter stock contract rewards.

And I'm fairly sure that you can change the availability of parts for different part test situations. So if you want you can change which parts are available for launch pad tests, for instance.

11 hours ago, inigma said:

Added to the OP:

 

• Mods in all families would have balanced outputs, costs, and rewards vs all other mods in all families in order to self-certify as CCF compliant by adhering to the CCF Standard Costs, Outputs, Rewards and Experience worksheet (CCF SCORE - hey I like friendly acronyms)

By families do you mean parts of related types, rover-part types, base-type parts, etc...

 

Is the idea to have a several required mods, or just to provide guidelines for mods. If it's the former then nailing down the requirements would be a good idea.

Edited December 24, 2015 by DMagic

[inigma]

50 minutes ago, DMagic said:

I was thinking more in terms of the license for tech tree definitions, Module Manger balancing changes, etc... that kind of thing.

I agree that things should be easily configurable where possible, and that there should be some basic balancing guidelines, but it seems like deciding on one tech tree and building off of that would be a requirement. If someone is going to decide how much a part costs and where it comes in terms of career progression then you need to know how the tech tree is arranged.

I like the ETT, at least in principle, I haven't looked at it too closely. But the idea of having different branches is good.

I agree with this and the rest of the comment in general. Though it is just as easily possible to alter stock contract rewards.

And I'm fairly sure that you can change the availability of parts for different part test situations. So if you want you can change which parts are available for launch pad tests, for instance.

By families do you mean parts of related types, rover-part types, base-type parts, etc...

 

Is the idea to have a several required mods, or just to provide guidelines for mods. If it's the former then nailing down the requirements would be a good idea.

Deciding on a tech tree would be useful, but it using only one tech tree wouldn't be required (although I do recommend ETT, we could also ask for a volunteer to make one exclusively for CCF use), assuming other tech trees would still be able to support the modular career progression framework in the OP.

By families of mods I mean mods that are related in any sort of direct way which would affect game balance if ignored, but in the OP a family of mods would originally start with the particular progression framework nodes a specific mod supports, and all other mods that do.

The idea for CCF is to first provide guidelines for mods so authors can certify their mods as meeting the guidelines. A list of who's certified would eventually arise from this collaboration, making seeing any holes in the framework as opportunities for new mods to be developed to fill in the gap, so that eventually a full career experience if a player opts to do all progression nodes, could be served.  Essentially I felt that career seemed to be lacking a few key mods when I started my career game in November for the first time. Hence why I'm developing GAP. But I can't develop all missing elements. That and I can't self-balance all existing mods. That, and SETI is no longer being developed. So... Community Career Framework is born here to hopefully get the ball rolling on something more collaborative, open, and directional in serving this need for a solid career game experience for players.

 

First up, discussing current stock imbalances to see if there are any changes that really need to be made - if any at all.

Second, discussing what people would like to see in a collaborative mod author career project - what do people want in Career that is nearly universal?

Third, how should we balance our mods with stock or whatever stock changes we base the project on?

 

Let's publish some guidelines based on consensus, and keep it a living publication as we grow, learn, adapt, and develop.

Edited December 24, 2015 by inigma

[kcs123]

Let me to throw my 2 cents in this thread. Somehow, I got a feeling that I will end up with wall of text, but I will try to make it interesting to read.
I have watched various topics in the past regarding career modification, Yemo have even adopted some of my suggestion in SETI, so I will write some of this stuff as much as I recall.

Let's look how stock career look like, especially for players who are new in KSP.  For player who play KSP for the first time it is recommended to try sandbox game first. But for new player who are not familiar with game at all, SPH/VAB editor might be overwhelming with all those unlocked parts. New player don't know where to look at to start building his first rocket. So, new player decide to make first steps in game trough career.

On starting new stock career game, player have limited funds, have very limited access to basic rocket parts and can only create manned rocket. First objectives are to reach space and establish orbit around Kerbin. I don't like to kill many kerbals due to failed test flights, so I mostly reload saved game. That can be tedious sometimes. Other players don't care if they killed some poor kerbal or not, they just hire new one available in roster. But guess what, hiring new kerbonaut is costly and you will end game too quickly.

That is one of reasons why many of players seek for career mod that will allow to start with remotely controlled crafts, at least for the very first  tasks, like reaching space or establishing first orbit and first re-entry attempt without killing any of kerbals.

Now, let's say that player learned how to build his first rocket, he know how to make re-entry and walk out alive. Next thing who everyone want is to land as close as possible near KSC, so player can recover maximum value from craft as possible (both, science and bucks). So far so good, but where f***k is KSC location on Kerbin ????

Even veteran players of KSP could find difficult to locate KSC when it is on dark side of planet. There is no built in icon or nav point or anything that can be used to mark KSC (various mods excluded to keep things on topic). So player is advised to put some flag near runway, so he can calculate re-entry to land craf close as possible to KSC. And guess what, you no longer can plant a flag near KSC, you need to upgrade kerbonaut building first to be able to do that. And that cost large amount of money that player does not have early in career.

Ok, that can be solved in a way that you build another craft and put it near KSC, so at least you have a clue where KSC is. It is tedious to create some craft on runway each time, so you want to put it near runway or launch pad instead exactly on runway, to avoid reposition of it each time. Also it is better to use some probes instead of flags due to kraken that always watches and eat up those planted flags so often.

But guess what, you can't create craft with wheels at begin of career because it is located much higher in tech tree. Having ability to mark down runway is even more important for players who like planes, so you can align plane properly with runway even before you are able to see runway model. It is some kind of very primitive ISL, but it works for game purpose well enough. I will return to this later on.

That is reason why I suggested Yemo to make low grade rover wheels available early in game, so you can drive around KSC and create custom waypoints that serve as ILS. On top of that, early scientific parts like thermometer and barometer are also pushed early in starting node. That allowed player to grind some science points by measuring temperature and pressure near KSC, and to get familiar how science mechanic work in KSP in genaral. Yemo balanced this well enough for SETIctt, you can't get too much science from it, but it will allow you to unlock some first tier nodes if you need some part in that node that is essential for building some early rocket.

OK, let's say player get a grip with KSP, he has learned how to build rockets, establish orbit, make proper re-entry on desired position.
Next thing new player need to learn is how to dock with another craft in orbit - stock career contracts does that well enough with those rescue missions, although it silly to some degree. How some poor kerbal stranded up in space at all is mystery, since player is pioneer of space program on whole Kerbin, but never mind that. Trough rescue from orbit missions player will learn essentials how to play KSP later on. Docking procedure with another craft in space is very important for space station building and such.

After learned docking/rendezvous procedure, next thing that is covered good enough trough contracts(I'm not sure if that is from stock or some mod) is to put some satellite in exact orbit that have certain Ap/Pe/Inclination on various space objects. Those contracts were good for player to learn how to explore distant planets.

Now, let see what is next step that some player want to do in KSP. Another logical step is to build base on some celestial body. But, before building base out there player need to grind enough money for those missions and need a "good" reason to build base somewhere.

"Good" reason to build something on distant planet is various resources. I think that Roverdude covered that well enough trough USI MKS/OKS mod. He actually did that so well that it become part of stock game too in large degree. There is also mods like DMagics orbital science and SCANsat that covers exploration good for various expectations from average KSP player.

What is not covered well in stock game is how to grind money needed to build crafts and bases/probes etc.
Stock contracts like test part X at Y speed on Z altitude is good early in career, to learn how to build craft that will reach proper altitude and have required speed at same time, but those kind of contracts could become boring very soon especially when you start new career each time new KSP version is released.

That gave me idea of new kind of contract that someone hopefully will be able to create for game. Let's say that player learned to put some probe around Kerbin and discovered various resources around planet. Probably very few people will bother to create bases on Kerbin, but to be able to create some base on distant planet you will have to learn how to assembly base at all.

So, one type of contracts regarding this could be similar to station building contract packs for orbital and distant celestial body bases. Other type of contract could be that some Company have extracted some resource type based on info from your probe in space. To pay off that information to you, they have collected that resource in container instead of money, because that company is short on bucks.

At the moment you accept that contract, some debris can be spawned on Kerbin and you can recover it to earn some bucks. But it is more valuable if you create a craft (plane/boat/rocket whatever player want) and transport it close to KSC. That way you will be able to recover it with much greater value. That type of contract covers grinding money need for space exploration and also will teach player how to create his own craft that he need to use to assembly big bases on distant planets.

When I'm still on contract topic, I have also idea for GAP in mind. I already mentioned need to put crafts/flags near runway to serve as ILS (sort of) to help with landing. Main issue with flags, small probes is due to game engine physics - it could be blown away whenever you come in physics calculation range and various other kraken related issues. So, I was thinking about contract where player need to deploy navigation probes near runway. One probe 1km on land west of starting plane position on runway, one probe near runway close to starting craft position, but outside of craft spawn range and runway model range(three level of runway), another one on the end on runway near shores and last one in sea 1km from shores. All those lined up so, when targeted could serve as ILS.

Once player fulfill  contract, those deployed probes should be removed from game to not disturb kraken anymore, but instead of probes, nav points could become available that can serve as same ILS purpose. I think that something like that is feasible, only problem is that those nav points should be able to show/hide as desired. Something like contract that never expire with ability to turn off those nav points to not abuse players who don't need those in game at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end some comparison between ETT and SETIctt. Although those trees looks visually very different, ETT spreads in both directions, left and right while SETIctt have look more closer to stock tree, but both have some similarities in essence. Those similarities are already mentioned - branches.

First rule for CFF that should be respected by other mods is that player shold be able to build very first craft in a way he want, should be land/sea based craft, plane or rocket it is up to player to decide how he want to develop career later on. Should parts for those be in only one starting node or it will be spreaded trough several tree nodes, should tech tree be spreaded in one direction or two is less important. It is up to vison of moder or group of moders how they want for tech tree to look like.

Based on wall of text above, there should be starting point for very low tech level that all mods should respect:

• parts for land(rover) a like crafts - wheels and command seat from stock parts
• very basic cockpit/wing/landing gear that alows you to build first plane
• very basic command probe with built in antenna and limited range that can be put on plane or rocket without risking kerbal life, , thermometer, barometer, and lowest grade battery
• basic low tech rocket parts that allows you first manned space craft if you want to choose that path

Any other parts/tech nodes should be derived from those first branches and should be possible to use further spread of tree however some moder have his own vision how tree should look like.

I'm  divided about opinion should some moder need to give tech level required for his part or not. Sometimes part could "fit" vision of tech tree model for anyone that create career mod based on EET or SETI for example, and sometimes someone might think that this part is out of overall gameplay balance and should be put somewhere else.

It will be good if CFF compatible part gives info where should it belong: land/plane/rocket/science and give tech level number.
Tech level number should be used as general guideline how much science should be required to unlock this part, but should not be restriction if someone find it out of balance and move it higher on lower on tech node.
 

I'm running out of time, to elaborate it any further right now, I will clarify my opinions if needed in some other post.

[mcirish3]

13 minutes ago, kcs123 said:

I got a feeling that I will end up with wall of text, but I will try to make it interesting to read.

Yep on both accounts

 

[inigma]

23 minutes ago, kcs123 said:

Ok, that can be solved in a way that you build another craft and put it near KSC, so at least you have a clue where KSC is. It is tedious to create some craft on runway each time, so you want to put it near runway or launch pad instead exactly on runway, to avoid reposition of it each time. Also it is better to use some probes instead of flags due to kraken that always watches and eat up those planted flags so often.

I've always usually just created a simple probe and dropped it off at the Tracking Center front door. I called it KSC beacon or something. A contract to do something like this might help.

Quote

OK, let's say player get a grip with KSP, he has learned how to build rockets, establish orbit, make proper re-entry on desired position.
Next thing new player need to learn is how to dock with another craft in orbit - stock career contracts does that well enough with those rescue missions, although it silly to some degree. How some poor kerbal stranded up in space at all is mystery, since player is pioneer of space program on whole Kerbin, but never mind that. Trough rescue from orbit missions player will learn essentials how to play KSP later on. Docking procedure with another craft in space is very important for space station building and such.

I about burst out laughing at that comment. Ha ha. so true. A rendezvous with a monolith is space makes more sense than a stranded polar orbit space chap at the beginning of one's space program.

Quote

What is not covered well in stock game is how to grind money needed to build crafts and bases/probes etc.
Stock contracts like test part X at Y speed on Z altitude is good early in career, to learn how to build craft that will reach proper altitude and have required speed at same time, but those kind of contracts could become boring very soon especially when you start new career each time new KSP version is released.

That's why I created GAP initially. All I wanted to do was make one single contract to fly a few dozen passengers to and from KSC Island. The possibilities though to make that seem part of the game story has uh... forced me to develop a few more contracts than that. heh. And I still haven't done that contract yet. I agree that better crafted opportunities to grind funds is needed in early and mid career.  That is why I think mods allowing for the selling of ore should be taken into serious consideration as part of CCF balance and part of any recommended mod list.

Quote

When I'm still on contract topic, I have also idea for GAP in mind. I already mentioned need to put crafts/flags near runway to serve as ILS (sort of) to help with landing. Main issue with flags, small probes is due to game engine physics - it could be blown away whenever you come in physics calculation range and various other kraken related issues. So, I was thinking about contract where player need to deploy navigation probes near runway. One probe 1km on land west of starting plane position on runway, one probe near runway close to starting craft position, but outside of craft spawn range and runway model range(three level of runway), another one on the end on runway near shores and last one in sea 1km from shores. All those lined up so, when targeted could serve as ILS.

Once player fulfill  contract, those deployed probes should be removed from game to not disturb kraken anymore, but instead of probes, nav points could become available that can serve as same ILS purpose. I think that something like that is feasible, only problem is that those nav points should be able to show/hide as desired. Something like contract that never expire with ability to turn off those nav points to not abuse players who don't need those in game at all.

Great ideas! Although I think something could be done even simpler than this (and more "optional" rather than "required") - is for someone to develop a mod that does exactly this: mark out waypoints for landing assistance. I personally don't need such a marker, but I could see this as a CCF compatible idea if one were to opt installing a mod to do so! Currently I'm waiting for permanently cancellable contracts by Contract Configurator by @nightingale to implement such permanently declinable contracts.

 

All other ideas you present are amazingly awesome, and well seasoned feedback. Thanks for sharing. I look forward to any more ideas you'd like to posit and share.

As take-aways, I think you're along the lines with others that a tech tree of some sort needs to be adopted as a frame of reference, even if we just pick one, especially since what is needed for the earlier Modular Career Progression Framework nodes are parts availability. I tried to address some of this with GAP's starting contract to offer the following parts (in the future requiring a fee in exchange):

Command Seat

Cubic Strut (to actually start building things)

small ladder rungs (Pegasus I Mobility Enhancer)

small rover wheels

small battery pack

mini decoupler (to decouple spawnable manned pods from Command Seat-only crafts if one is not using the Take Command mod)

@Probus, are you interested in joining this project to allow us to base CCF mods after ETT?

 

[inigma]

For fun, anyone want to create a simple CCF logo for modders to use when they certify their mod as CCF compatible? I was imaging something as small as the CTT logo, but with the letters CCF in Kerbal green at least, with perhaps balance scales, the KSP funds symbol, and/or a node-like tree. Any takers?

[legoclone09]

9 hours ago, inigma said:

For fun, anyone want to create a simple CCF logo for modders to use when they certify their mod as CCF compatible? I was imaging something as small as the CTT logo, but with the letters CCF in Kerbal green at least, with perhaps balance scales, the KSP funds symbol, and/or a node-like tree. Any takers?

I'd like to do it but I am terrible at art.

[nightingale]

Just want to throw out that Waypoint Manager let's you drop custom waypoints (like for marking the runway). It can also report on your glide slope angle, and you can drop a waypoint without having to drive out there. 

[kcs123]

18 minutes ago, nightingale said:

Just want to throw out that Waypoint Manager let's you drop custom waypoints (like for marking the runway). It can also report on your glide slope angle, and you can drop a waypoint without having to drive out there. 

Actually, yes, I'm aware of this. Most of veteran players won't need those waypoints at all. But I was considering whole this new feautures for new players who are completely noobs in KSP, who haven't tried to build plane and find it difficult to land. I was thinking more of that mini contract missions to put probes on specific places more as tutorial of gameplay mechanic than absolute need for it.

For example, if player choose to accept such contract for probe deployment can do that as I described, he can do that and earn some money in process. If someone choose not to do that, he does not have too. In either of cases, if contract is is successful, player fail contract or refuse do do that at all, at the end nav points can become available if player need those to be displayed.

After numeruos career start, some players might find this kind of contract tedious and might choose to not do that at all. Others might find it too difficult to accomplish but might need those nav points to help them learning how to pilot plane.

In case of successful contract, player earns some small amount money - should be put in consideration prices of probes and average price of plane that is needed to deploy it and other costs. If player cancel or fail contract it could be notified that someone else have accomplished it, so he didn't earned any money, but he got those nav points free to use if he needs them. That would not be immersion breaker of whole idea.

Anyway, I'm not short of ideas, but I don't have enough time to wrote everything at once, so I will write other things that floating somewhere in my mind as soon as I can.
I would also try to be smaller wall of text to be easier to track down everything.

[CobaltWolf]

I primarily mod, rather than play, but if I may offer my two cents on something here that has piqued my interest: part balance guidelines. Having things such as a formula for fuel capacity and mass for a tank of given meters cubed, for example, would be a godsend to me and other part creators that don't get a lot of time for testing. I think @Beale feels somewhat the same, I know both our mods use somewhat arbitrary values for everything. In mine, most of the values, such as weight and cost, are often not even looked at simply because I am an artist first and foremost.

[legoclone09]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

I primarily mod, rather than play, but if I may offer my two cents on something here that has piqued my interest: part balance guidelines. Having things such as a formula for fuel capacity and mass for a tank of given meters cubed, for example, would be a godsend to me and other part creators that don't get a lot of time for testing. I think @Beale feels somewhat the same, I know both our mods use somewhat arbitrary values for everything. In mine, most of the values, such as weight and cost, are often not even looked at simply because I am an artist first and foremost.

Well why not calculate volume of the tanks and take off 1-2% of the volume for structure? I think that should be used for a formula for tank volume.

[CobaltWolf]

10 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

WellCald:Well'ssaid:Welllsaid:Wellsaid:Wellusaid:Wellsaid:Wellgsaid:Wellsaid:Wellwsaid:Wellsaid:Wellasaid:Wellsaid: Wellssaid:Wellssaid:Wellsaid:Wellisaid:Wellsaid:Wellesaid:Wellsaid:Welltsaid:Wellsaid:Wellisaid:Wellsaid: Wellssaid:Wellssaid:Wellsaid: Ellesaid:Wellesaid:Wellsaid:Welllsaid:Wellsaid:Wellisaid:Wellsaid:Wellvsaid:Wellsaid:Wellosaid:Wellsaud:Ertonsaid:Wellmsaid:Wellsaid: Wellssaid:Wellssaid:Wellsaid:Wellisaid:Wellsaid:Wellhsaid:Wellsaid: Ellysaid:Welltsaid:Wellsaid: Ellysaid:Welltsaid:Wellsaid:Wellssaid:Wellsaid:Wellisaid:Wellsaid:Wellrsaid:Wellsaid:Wellhsaid:Wellsaud:Ertonsaid:Wellcsaid:Well

 

[legoclone09]

Ok? I assume you're trying to say well said to my answer.

 

Also, @inigma, I we do need a standard for fuel tanks, probably volume of tank * 0.86 since that is Procedural Part's standard, we should adopt to that, but maybe a version for rescales that changes it slightly for each rescale, I'm thinking real (96-97) for Kerbol10x, and down to around 90 for 5x Kerbol or 64k since those make it more balanced.

@Kerbas_ad_astra I'd like to invite you to help with engines and fuel tank balancing, since you would do a good job on it.

Edited December 27, 2015 by legoclone09

[Dr. Jet]

ETT is better composed (more realistic). On the other hand SETI has better (wider) mod support.

Early land vehicles is a great idea. Though all car mods i knew were discontinued at 1.0.x IIRC. And rovers... they are quite late invention.

Boats/submarines must be optional. There is nothing to do with them at Kerbal/Laythe/Eve except err... sailing or diving. No practical use. And they are slow and dull. 

Hydroplanes on the other hand are very useful for "Rare science" contracts, which are 90% "find water where water is scarce and splash in it".

"Firespitter" mod is EXTREMELY useful for early aircraft. Recommended for inclusion.

[severedsolo]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Jet said:

"Firespitter" mod is EXTREMELY useful for early aircraft. Recommended for inclusion.

Call me biased, but everytime I've installed Firespitter it's resulted in my game going "kaboom".

On the subject of contract balancing:

I personally, build the smallest craft I can to do the job (around Kerbin if it's a multi-body contract), and then set my rewards at Random(x,y) - where x = cost to build the craft, and y is 1.5x that.

Obviously it costs more to do misssions around other bodies, but that is what the stock multipliers are for. Weirdly x always seems to come out at about 40k