Community Career Framework - A Standards Cooperative for Career Games (Standard Career Progression and Part Balance Recommendations for Mod Authors and Players)

[inigma]

Community Career Framework (CCF)
A Standards Cooperative for Career Games (Standard Career Progression and Part Balance Recommendations for Mod Authors and Players)

Tech Trees | Contract Packs | Stock-alike Recommended Standards for Part Mods

 

Greetings mod authors and players of KSP! 

There was a consensus developed between a number of mod authors in a previous discussion in the Add-On Discussions Forum that we want to finally introduce here. This consensus believes there should be a standard career progression that is modular and developed by consensus, and a stock-alike balanced part value recommendation set that is driven by community recommendations and thus easily adoptable by mod authors.

This project aims to:

1. Offer tech trees certified with the outlined progression below.

2. Offer contract packs certified with the outlined progression below as well as overlap compatibility.

3. Offer a recommended standards list of values for part mods - keeping it as basic as possible and assuming stock values remain unchanged. 

4. Allow for part mod and balance mod authors to acknowledge CCF compatibility. Essentially this would give balance mod authors a framework to be creative and offer their balance visions as separate creative mod offerings.

CCF is therefore made of two parts:

• The Standard Career Progression - a modular career progression for career games 
  (tech trees, strategy mods, and contract packs can certify their compliance)
   
• The Stock-alike Recommended Standards for Part Mods - a set of recommendations for part balances
  (part mod authors can tag their creations as compatible). 

Both parts will work hand in hand to give mod authors and players a set of  community driven guidelines when developing or tweaking mods for the most common modded career games.

Let get started!

 

CCF Standard Career Progression:

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

This progression is modular, meaning that in theory, any certified mods (tech trees, strategy mods, or contract packs) that support the framework should technically remain balanced if a player so chooses to ignore certain nodes in their career games. If players don't want to play a career game that has ground vehicle or boat parts and contracts, and want to just skip to unmanned rockets, the idea is that any CCF certified mod (tech trees, stragtegy mods, or contract packs) will still be playable and balanced with other CCF certified mods.

A mod may be certified to work either by the mod author, or by the community. If by the community, then "recommend" will be listed until the mod author agrees.

List of CCF Standard Career Progression Certified Mods: 

Tech Trees:

• recommend: Engineering Tech Tree by @Probus
• recommend: SETIctt by @Yemo
•  

Strategy Mods:

• recommend: Strategia by @nightingale
•  

Contract Packs: 
- Contract packs must have no overlapping contracts with other contract packs listed in order to be listed as certified.

• Giving Aircraft a Purpose (GAP) by @inigma
• Contract Pack: Sounding Rockets by @inigma

The above listed mods are welcome to certify as CCF certified with the following badge:

  
 

 

Stock-alike Recommended Standards for Part and Contracts:

• CCF Standards for Contracts - Rewards, Penalties, and Experience (TBD)
• CCF Standards for Parts - Costs and Outputs

Any mod that meets the CCF Standards for Parts is welcome to certify as CCF compatible

 

 

Thanks for reading!

At anytime you disagree with these standards or anything in this project or this original post in this thread, please respond to this thread and let's talk about it! We're here to develop this project by consensus, not by fiat. Let's have fun, and let's discover what we can make together!

Edited May 31, 2016 by inigma
Update title.

[inigma]

Re-inviting consensus makers: 

@RoverDude @linuxgurugamer @kcs123 @Randazzo @DMagic @legoclone09 @Nertea @Nereid @severedsolo @Valerian @CobaltWolf @theonegalen @Vesparco @tjsnh

Edited January 12, 2016 by inigma

[legoclone09]

Ok, I think the most important part is finding things, I have found SETI Contracts (yet another awesome mod Yemo has made) works well with ETT as well as SETI mods, but Dawn of the Space Age (KSP_Jack's contract pack) looks like it fits as well, but it is WIP so it might need some time.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Greetings,

At first thought I dont see any problem with overlapping contracts unless they are by the same modder; probly wont happen there. The reason is that while declining incurs a penalty, there should be plenty of contracts to offset any penalties; I also even kind of like the idea of overlapping contracts by accident as one player might prefer a certain agency roleplay-wise or for other reasons; by accident not intentionaly or purposefully.

Certain agencies might only aspire to certain contract ideas which should prevent most overlapping contracts.

My question now is what happened to the Community Tech Tree? Are the aforementioned tech trees more logical and allow certain lines of play that the CTT didnt?

Such as say a player just wants to focus on ground operations to the MAX at first etc...then fly planes...then send unmanned probes...then send kerbals up there in space...and is there a possibility to get to space quicker, using Science and the Stock Tech Tree 'IDEA' but a little more oriented to MODS...basic and small technologies to medium and large (1 idea)...this format seems to be a norm but there could be other formats.

The endgame is moving parts to science nodes that the player would rather have to make it more realistic if necessary; ie some of the stock parts I am moving up etc; we as players just go ahead and do that even tho it is not a part of the certified process here but also defeats the purpose; it also can augment the purpose here and be called a fine tuning of realistic game progression (my thinking as every player would want to personalize their game to some extent).

The Tech Tree - UGH ARGH what next...well now KSP 1+ does not even have the ability for porting parts to nodes (outside of the game; we can still make changes to nodes; I dont know about moving parts other than modifying mod cfg files and certified/mod-compatible parts assigned to agreeable logical gameplay progression.

Then you are dealing with the balancing of parts - I am not going there because my post doesnt, and it is a seperate part of what is going in here is my guess; wouldnt this just be modders responsible for balancing their mods?

Example - some of the first survivability mods used raw ore to make things without some refining; no problem as it is mod-progression; do you involve the CRP which at last look is very extensive; my resources will be compared to the new CRP common list but after hours of work from everyone including me on my own it is getting closer to reality, as long as players (and modders) understand the conversion convention in the game (0.001=1.0 something along that line; not sure if that has changed!). Also was the weight loss or change of weights of useable fuels used in the game to change d/v etc? There was alot of talk on this and maybe you can have some links to 'mod-compatible' CFF err MODS that work for KSP Space and RSS (??) and make sure we dont mix up KSP Space, RSS, etc or balance of MODS goes out the door; I havnt figured out modular fuel yet or even looked at it; I play KSP Space but have an interest in RSS etc.

Good luck I hope you have the volunteer manpower here especially with balancing MODS; I think the CRP is a good place to start; in fact do those 'real' values apply to KSP Space (?); if so maybe that is why getting to space was so easy? If this is true, porting to RSS should see no difference; the only question is how KSP Stock balances; I believe it was impossible to play RSS from KSP Stock; in the earlier versions there could have been 'cheating' going on; no drag...no weight changes d/v ??? I dont know as this gets even more into the realism of the game.

PS Maybe procedural parts needs to be explained?

Commander Zeta

Edited January 12, 2016 by Cdr_Zeta

[Cdr_Zeta]

Greetings,

I thought the certified tech trees MUST follow and add to the Stock Tree, not replace it nor change any of the positions of the nodes (?); or any of the names of the nodes in the Stock Tree as well?

This is important so that original mods can be placed in Stock nodes; otherwise we are losing modders as it is just too much work to make patches for every tech tree under the sun; am I wrong here?

I dont have a problem with replacing the stock tree maybe as long as ALL of the node names still exist so that at least parts have a 'hard-coded' 'un=patched' home.

I looked at the Engr Tree and as a standard, which is what I would be looking for here to at least run off of, is not even close; it is a tech tree that a player can progress however they want; which is fine, if the node names can be used in another or other more logically oriented 'standard' for realistic gameplay; IE one researches before they build for example.

Or one has to acquire some raw materials before they can even build; I have some basic mining early on, not as an endgame. This is why the Stock Tech Tree seems to fit very well; I have basic mining in general construction I think; and in fact there is no R&D maybe thus us where contracts come in.

Also a player should know they can change the Science values on the nodes to skip or not use them and setup a gameplay that way; it is more work for the player but an option.

The Community Tech Tree is dead?

Commander Zeta

 

 

 

 

 

[inigma]

Cdr_Zeta, CCF is not a mod. It's a career progression map and a recommended part balance sheet.

If a tech tree supports the progression, its certified. If a part mod has part costs or output values aligned with the recommended part balance sheet, it's consdered compatible.

CCF does not promote any MM configs, nor require them. Tech trees may do whatever they wish to solicit adoption by modders or do the MM config work themselves (recommended). As long as the tree supports the CCF Standard Career Progression,  its certified. No manpower needed except for the tech tree author.

Same thing for balance mod authors.

Edited January 12, 2016 by inigma

[mcirish3]

Two things; 
1. Will you or can you include links the the listed mods in the OP?
2. Isn't this a Mod list essentially with a common thread.  Thus bringing it in line with the goals of the Mod Docket;

On 12/7/2015 at 10:00 PM, mcirish3 said:

Each category contains (or will contain soon) several links that will take you to a user recommended list of MODs that both work well together and share a common theme.

As such I would like to ask; may I have permission to list this thread as a Mod list in the "The Mod Docket"?  I do not list mod lists that have not been ok by the maker(s) of said list.  If approval is give please state who/whom should be sighted as the author(s) of the list (not the mod authors).

[inigma]

4 minutes ago, mcirish3 said:

Two things; 
1. Will you or can you include links the the listed mods in the OP?
2. Isn't this a Mod list essentially with a common thread.  Thus bringing it in line with the goals of the Mod Docket;

As such I would like to ask; may I have permission to list this thread as a Mod list in the "The Mod Docket"?  I do not list mod lists that have not been ok by the maker(s) of said list.  If approval is give please state who/whom should be sighted as the author(s) of the list (not the mod authors).

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

Bear in mind that CCF will only list tech trees, strategy mods, and contract packs.

Edited January 12, 2016 by inigma

[mcirish3]

1 hour ago, inigma said:

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

Great!

1 hour ago, inigma said:

Bear in mind that CCF will only list tech trees, strategy mods, and contract packs.

I do not see why this will ever be an issue.

1 hour ago, mcirish3 said:

 If approval is give please state who/whom should be sighted as the author(s) of the list (not the mod authors).

I will need to know who/whom to credit as per above.

[Probus]

Did we ever decide on an IRC?

[inigma]

If so it should be #CCF on same server as other ksp channels.

[Joshwoo70]

Why not have a slack channel?

https://slack.com

[legoclone09]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

Did we ever decide on an IRC?

I made one, #CCBF. It's on Espernet and the join command is /j CCBF inigma
inigma is the password.

@Joshwoo69 Sure, I'll look into it. I made one, it's really easy to use. Here is the link! https://kspccf.slack.com/messages/general/

Edited January 13, 2016 by legoclone09

[theonegalen]

Where is the KSP IRC?

[Joshwoo70]

5 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

I made one, #CCBF. It's on Espernet and the join command is /j CCBF inigma
inigma is the password.

@Joshwoo69 Sure, I'll look into it. I made one, it's really easy to use. Here is the link! https://kspccf.slack.com/messages/general/

Uhhh for slack you need to kinda like register / add everyone. I rember there is a extension to auto add people into slack.

EDIT: its name is SlackIn.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Joshwoo69
Added stuff

[severedsolo]

12 hours ago, inigma said:

Re-inviting consensus makers: 

@RoverDude @linuxgurugamer @kcs123 @Randazzo @DMagic @legoclone09 @Nertea @Nereid @severedsolo @Valerian @CobaltWolf @theonegalen @Vesparco @tjsnh

I have a bit more time than I thought I would - what do you need me to do to get Bases and Stations up to code?

[Randazzo]

Assuming the discussion is still open, I imagine we should focus on getting those standards decided before putting any recommendations out. Since what I do is engines, I may be able to provide something useful there, though I admittedly don't know where to begin. If we use stock as a baseline, what sort of standards would we be looking for?

One thing (in terms of any mod parts) that is going to be sorely lacking is specialized water vehicle parts, aside from Roverdude's otter, I'm not aware of any active mods on that front.

[kcs123]

7 hours ago, severedsolo said:

I have a bit more time than I thought I would - what do you need me to do to get Bases and Stations up to code?

I wrote quite a wall of text in previous thread and another one to provide some context, why we even started to work on CFF.

It will be nice if we can have contract that can serve as some kind of tutorial, what kind of parts were needed for self sufficient base that have all, workshop, power source, green house, etc. like i described in that second post. Don't even need to be self sufficient, it might be the bases that need some supplies to be delivered after some time etc.

Does not have to be in space or other celestial bodies, contract for those might be even to create bases on Kerbin, polar caps are possible choices, but there could be other places on Kerbin too as well.  Main purpose for such contract is ability to learn from it, what kind of parts are needed for such base and player can figure out how to transport those parts and assembly them on desired spot.

All that just trough playing game, with trial and error, without need to check out forums, wikipedia or other sources of information. Although searching trough documentation is one big part of gameplay experience when comes to KSP .

 

[inigma]

13 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

I made one, #CCBF. It's on Espernet and the join command is /j CCBF inigma
inigma is the password.

@Joshwoo69 Sure, I'll look into it. I made one, it's really easy to use. Here is the link! https://kspccf.slack.com/messages/general/

We don't really need a channel as i think documenting our ideas in this thread would encourage more universal participation, but if you create one please use #CCF per consensus on the project name.

15 hours ago, mcirish3 said:

Great!

I do not see why this will ever be an issue.

I will need to know who/whom to credit as per above.

The CCF project is community based. Please list CCF as the author as its not any particular individual. 

[Probus]

10 minutes ago, kcs123 said:

It will be nice if we can have contract that can serve as some kind of tutorial, what kind of parts were needed for self sufficient base that have all, workshop, power source, green house, etc. like i described in that second post. Don't even need to be self sufficient, it might be the bases that need some supplies to be delivered after some time etc.

@kcs123 That is a good idea.  Contract pack that is a tutorial. Nice one!

[inigma]

Just now, Probus said:

@kcs123 That is a good idea.  Contract pack that is a tutorial. Nice one!

I think such will be redundant with 1.1's tutorial. Squad already has two team members dedicated full time to tutorial development per the devnotes. Not wanting to discourage, but to at least point out this may be a case of reinventing the wheel, in case someone wants to invest their time somewhere else.

7 hours ago, severedsolo said:

I have a bit more time than I thought I would - what do you need me to do to get Bases and Stations up to code?

Well, what we really need is for someone to take the CCF Standard Career Progression and map out on the nodes what contract packs current fill in where. That way we can see what the gaps are and encourage new modders or existing contract authors to fill them in.

I did have a crazy thought though: what if CCF got all of us contract pack authors together to add our individual contracts into a grand unified contract scheme, perhaps call it CCF Contracts or some such, where the goal would be to totally replace the stock contracts and expand the contract opportunities to fill all nodes with our contributions?

[inigma]

2 hours ago, Randazzo said:

Assuming the discussion is still open, I imagine we should focus on getting those standards decided before putting any recommendations out. Since what I do is engines, I may be able to provide something useful there, though I admittedly don't know where to begin. If we use stock as a baseline, what sort of standards would we be looking for?

One thing (in terms of any mod parts) that is going to be sorely lacking is specialized water vehicle parts, aside from Roverdude's otter, I'm not aware of any active mods on that front.

Please submit pull requests here for the balance project:

• CCF Standards for Parts - Costs and Outputs

[kcs123]

21 minutes ago, inigma said:

I think such will be redundant with 1.1's tutorial. Squad already has two team members dedicated full time to tutorial development per the devnotes. Not wanting to discourage, but to at least point out this may be a case of reinventing the wheel, in case someone wants to invest their time somewhere else.

 

Somehow, I doubt that SQUAD will cover base building in tutorial as it require a lot more knowlage with, well in almoste every other basic stuff that tutorial covers.
Also, no need for exact "hold by hand" contract like it was in tutorials, you miss one simple step or does not execute in exact order and tutorial no longer work properly.

Even if base building tutorial is covered from SQUAD side, they will only deal with most basic parts that comes with stock game. I  was thinking more for contracts that covers MKS/OKS mod, station science and similar mods. For such contract you need to deliver one power reactor, 2 habitation modules, factory module, mine drill, storage tanks, fuel tanks, green house, and so on. I'm not even sure what exactly is needed for such base, haven't reached that point of progress in latest career.

Problem that I have with this and probably many others is that MKS/OKS mod and USI life support, for example were changed a lot in latest releases, so when i come to this point in career that I need to build a base, i will most probably need to search trough numeruos pages on forum to find latest important changes in that area. For new players in KSP that also might be overhelming and discourage them to even try this mod.

That is area where mentioned contract pack can help a lot. You will learn what you need to know trough contract without "hold by hand" feeling, learning on your own mistakes. Because it not only require certain parts to be nearby, you also need to invent your own way of transportation. Both, aircraft/rocket and/or ground vehicle/lifter that is needed to assembly such parts in one big base.

That is just a suggestion, since I'm not familiar with contract pack configurator and such, to do it for myself, it is suggestion for those who have skills in that area and enough willpower to create it.

[DMagic]

I've started putting together a list of contract packs and loosely sorting them: Google Docs

My criteria right now are (there might be too much overlap for such broad categories):

• Progression: Early (those that focus on Kerbin-based missions, or that are explicitly labeled as early progression) and Late (those that encourage you to go to other planets)
• Random: Unmanned or Manned (these are missions that I consider to be somewhat similar to stock; ie based on contract difficulty they ask you to do something at a planet you have already been to or that KSP thinks is "next")
• Story Mode: These are guided (non-random) missions that have some type of story element to them
• Mod-Specific: These are things like the RemoteTech or SCANsat contracts that require another mod

My thinking is that the progression-type and some random-type contracts are best suited to CCF. Mod-specific contracts don't seem like a good fit (unless they are paired with a mod that specifically addresses career mode progression), and story mode contracts might not fit well either (thoughts on this?).

Right now there are several packs that seem to fit in nicely for CCF:

• GAP for early airplanes
• Maritime Missions for boats (not sure about the status of this after KSP 1.0.5)
• Whyren's Rover pack for rovers (with possibly another set for early rover construction; also Whyren doesn't seem to have been around for a while)
• severedsolo's Space Station packs (maybe Kerbin Space Station rather than Useful Space Stations, which seems to have been discontinued)
• CosmoBro's Base pack (which seems to have been merged with KSS)

I'll need to look into the specific contracts offered to make sure they fit well and are up-to-date, but this seems like a good enough starting point.

Also, does anyone know of any other non-Contract Configurator packs? So far all I have are Orbital Science, Tarsier Space Tech (these two offer more in-depth, or experiment-specific versions of the stock science contracts, mostly), and Mission Controller 2 (not sure where this one fits in).

 

Edit:

New Google Docs Spreadsheet with CCF progression categories (with a bit more fine-grained groups) and any matching contract packs.

Edited January 13, 2016 by DMagic

[mcirish3]

6 hours ago, inigma said:

The CCF project is community based. Please list CCF as the author as its not any particular individual. 

Will do! I will add this thread to the MOD docket tonight!

Edit:  This thread is now listed as a Mod list in "The MOD Docket"

Edited January 13, 2016 by mcirish3