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

[Probus]

I've got my first real question for the CCF.  Today I was working heavily in @Nils277's Kerbal Planetary Base Systems part pack.  I have the CTT nodes for long & short term habitation, hydroponics, etc... and was placing the parts around those nodes when I ran into a problem: (Hmm... how to put this)

  Should parts for progression specific nodes that are for specialized functions be placed late in the specialized function branch or just placed in the progression specific node.  

Here are some examples from the base systems part pack:

• A mono-propellant tank specific to a base module.  Should it be in long term habitation or at the end of the mono-propellant branch.
• An advanced landing probe/computer specific to the base.  Should it be in the habitation branch or at the end of the probe branch.
• Lastly, a landing engine again specific to the base module.  Engine branch or habitation branch.

Does anyone have any ideas?

[legoclone09]

4 minutes ago, Probus said:

I've got my first real question for the CCF.  Today I was working heavily in @Nils277's Kerbal Planetary Base Systems part pack.  I have the CTT nodes for long & short term habitation, hydroponics, etc... and was placing the parts around those nodes when I ran into a problem: (Hmm... how to put this)

  Should parts for progression specific nodes that are for specialized functions be placed late in the specialized function branch or just placed in the progression specific node.  

Here are some examples from the base systems part pack:

• A mono-propellant tank specific to a base module.  Should it be in long term habitation or at the end of the mono-propellant branch.
• An advanced landing probe/computer specific to the base.  Should it be in the habitation branch or at the end of the probe branch.
• Lastly, a landing engine again specific to the base module.  Engine branch or habitation branch.

Does anyone have any ideas?

I'd say the early base parts, there wouldn't be a use for it without the KPBS parts.

[Probus]

21 minutes ago, legoclone09 said:

I'd say the early base parts, there wouldn't be a use for it without the KPBS parts.

That's true @legoclone09 but lets say a base part has a nuclear generator in it but the player hasn't even unlocked the first node in the nuclear branch.  What then?

[legoclone09]

17 minutes ago, Probus said:

That's true @legoclone09 but lets say a base part has a nuclear generator in it but the player hasn't even unlocked the first node in the nuclear branch.  What then?

Maybe have it need both nodes?

[severedsolo]

 

One thing I would like to pin down is standard rewards for contract packs. Personally I just throw up a rocket that will do the job, and Base rewards off of that, but I do think a consensus would be good

[inigma]

On 1/18/2016 at 3:53 AM, severedsolo said:

 

One thing I would like to pin down is standard rewards for contract packs. Personally I just throw up a rocket that will do the job, and Base rewards off of that, but I do think a consensus would be good

10,000 funds for most basic contract completions seem to the be the base norm. Do you agree?

[inigma]

Somehow I've become obsessed with thinking about early career starts. 

The current state of the stock game has you doing rocket contracts. Great, but they feel rushed. 

You could make a science car, but really? A science car?

There must be a better way to get the game rolling on the first day.

Essentially the game boils down to the three fundamental expendenable rewards:

funds, science, and crew experience. I'm not so sure reputation can be looked at as a resource but more of a liquid trophy case.
 

I think there needs to be a repeatable, predictable way to earn these three things in the early career game. The easiest way to implement such would be contracts.

But to know what contracts to build, I've asked this question:

 

[legoclone09]

I think it should start at the equivalent of 1950, that's when space took off (no pun intended). KSP_Jack's contractpack seems to work well.

[Yemo]

Updated the fuel tank procedural parts recommendation for monoprop from 1600 units per ton to 2000 units per ton to achieve mass symmetry. Thus 2 tanks with the same volume now have the same dry mass and the same wet mass, which makes fuel switching a lot easier, espcially considering plane balancing. Stock monoprop tanks are all over the place, the previous value was more on the low end of stock, the new value is on the high end of stock.

Also @smjjames mentioned in the Strategia thread a fixed hiring rate for kerbals. SETI uses 40000 fixed rate at the moment when custom barn kit is installed, but that is as arbitrary as any value.

[inigma]

I hyperlinked the mods listed in the OP. If you have a tech tree, or contract pack that you'd like listed in the OP as CCF certified, post in this thread to let me know!

23 hours ago, Yemo said:

Updated the fuel tank procedural parts recommendation for monoprop from 1600 units per ton to 2000 units per ton to achieve mass symmetry. Thus 2 tanks with the same volume now have the same dry mass and the same wet mass, which makes fuel switching a lot easier, espcially considering plane balancing. Stock monoprop tanks are all over the place, the previous value was more on the low end of stock, the new value is on the high end of stock.

Also @smjjames mentioned in the Strategia thread a fixed hiring rate for kerbals. SETI uses 40000 fixed rate at the moment when custom barn kit is installed, but that is as arbitrary as any value.

Thanks for updating!

[legoclone09]

I hope this isn't dying, maybe we can start work on compiling mods? I can write a MM script with some changes I would like.

[inigma]

@Probus is working hard on ETT feedback. @Yemo just released a SETI update. I've hyper linked mods in the CCF OP.

I'm working on seriously decoupling GAP contracts into separate contract packs since I've got so many ideas that they all don't fit into a one-size-fits-all GAP model, and at this point I can't really say its CCF compatible.  I've got mining contracts, sounding rocket contract ideas, a bdarmory contract, and seacraft contracts, which really don't make sense to put them all into GAP.  It's going to take a while to decouple.

In the meantime, @Yemo continues to update the part balance recommendation sheet.

@nightingale is working hard on getting Strategia ready

and I really want to open this thread to Contract Pack modders to consider helping to co-develop a total replacement of stock contracts. We could call it CCF Stock Contracts - perhaps use SETI's contracts as a starting point? Calling @linuxgurugamer @severedsolo @tjsnh @CosmoBro @Volwen @AlphaAsh @klefenz @Whyren 

Edited February 5, 2016 by inigma

[inigma]

I also had this really weird gameplay imbalance on Normal career: starting with 25k funds, virgin game. 

I launch a single USi sounding rocket, nothing but fins, rocket motor, computer, and a parachute, with no contract... and I manage to net 10 science and make over 50k funds all in world firsts? And all I did was launch a solid rocket to 3200m? I wish that kind of success existed even in scale, in the real world...

Edited February 5, 2016 by inigma

[tjsnh]

3 hours ago, inigma said:

@Probus is working hard on ETT feedback. @Yemo just released a SETI update. I've hyper linked mods in the CCF OP.

I'm working on seriously decoupling GAP contracts into separate contract packs since I've got so many ideas that they all don't fit into a one-size-fits-all GAP model, and at this point I can't really say its CCF compatible.  I've got mining contracts, sounding rocket contract ideas, a bdarmory contract, and seacraft contracts, which really don't make sense to put them all into GAP.  It's going to take a while to decouple.

In the meantime, @Yemo continues to update the part balance recommendation sheet.

@nightingale is working hard on getting Strategia ready

and I really want to open this thread to Contract Pack modders to consider helping to co-develop a total replacement of stock contracts. We could call it CCF Stock Contracts - perhaps use SETI's contracts as a starting point? Calling @linuxgurugamer @severedsolo @tjsnh @CosmoBro @Volwen @AlphaAsh @klefenz @Whyren 

I'd be happy to contribute anything in, or mostly similar to, the work in my Advanced progression pack.

[inigma]

3 minutes ago, tjsnh said:

I'd be happy to contribute anything in, or mostly similar to, the work in my Advanced progression pack.

Awesome!

Anyone know of a good shared whiteboard we can use for assembling our ideas collaboratively? Preferably one that works over mobile, is free, and allows us to create and edit tree diagrams easily?  I've been using bubble.us but its not mobile friendly per se - at least not on my mobile. 

Edited February 5, 2016 by inigma

[Yemo]

4 hours ago, inigma said:

I also had this really weird gameplay imbalance on Normal career: starting with 25k funds, virgin game. 

I launch a single USi sounding rocket, nothing but fins, rocket motor, computer, and a parachute, with no contract... and I manage to net 10 science and make over 50k funds all in world firsts? And all I did was launch a solid rocket to 3200m? I wish that kind of success existed even in scale, in the real world...

Yeah, I set those world first rewards to 1/4 in the last SETIcontracts version. Thus Strategia from @nightingale still has a significant impact, but they are not as overpowered as in stock. I consider it some kind of government finance boost to help with the transition from one rocket group out of many towards the kerbal space program.

21 minutes ago, tjsnh said:

I'd be happy to contribute anything in, or mostly similar to, the work in my Advanced progression pack.

@Nori had a great concept for a basic progression framework which would also work with other solar systems beside the stock kerbin one, but he went on hiatus until 1.1. I would recommend such a core progression pack for basic exploration and then another more detailed expansion which could modify the basic pack and extend it. It would be more modular and thus probably easier adaptable to possible future solar systems (basic pack) and biome extensions (expansion pack).

Maybe the procedural concept by @Nori as the base pack and then adapt the Advanced Progression Pack by @tjsnh to be the detailed expansion?

I planned to retire SETIcontracts when the procedural concept is implemented, since I do not have the time to really work on it. Also ContractConfigurator developed a great deal since SETIcontracts were first made and it would take more effort to make them adaptable to different kerbin systems than writing a procedural one from scratch.

19 minutes ago, inigma said:

Awesome!

Anyone know of a good shared whiteboard we can use for assembling our ideas collaboratively? Preferably one that works over mobile, is free, and allows us to create and edit tree diagrams easily?  I've been using bubble.us but its not mobile friendly per se - at least not on my mobile. 

Unfortunately not, I liked google documents (tables) so far, but I have little experience with others to compare.

[theonegalen]

I'm interested in replacing the stock rescue contracts to make them more robust and interesting, but I don't have much time and know absolutely nothing about Contract Configurator. So I'm pretty useless, really.

[severedsolo]

5 hours ago, theonegalen said:

I'm interested in replacing the stock rescue contracts to make them more robust and interesting, but I don't have much time and know absolutely nothing about Contract Configurator. So I'm pretty useless, really.

I'm working on something for rescue contracts (because I hate them so much). My problem is I don't know what to do with them. A mission to rescue your own stranded kerbals will not generate often enough (because contract generation is random) - so if you are using LS mods, you may not get the mission in time.

My alternative was: People use rescue mission as recruitment. I might try and ressurect that old astronaut training contract pack (I don't think it was ever finished) and use that instead.

@inigma - regarding the shared contract pack idea. I think realistically, the current replacement packs would need to be rolled into a "super pack" for CCF purposes. They are all balanced differently.

[theonegalen]

On 2/6/2016 at 1:46 AM, severedsolo said:

I'm working on something for rescue contracts (because I hate them so much). My problem is I don't know what to do with them. A mission to rescue your own stranded kerbals will not generate often enough (because contract generation is random) - so if you are using LS mods, you may not get the mission in time.

My alternative was: People use rescue mission as recruitment. I might try and ressurect that old astronaut training contract pack (I don't think it was ever finished) and use that instead.

Well, one of the ideas I had was to spawn the rescue contracts only near bases / ships you already have nearby. For example, if you have a Kerbaled exploration vehicle in the Joolian system, it could spawn a Kerbal from [insert contract-giver's company here] in orbit around Tylo, in a wrecked ship if possible, sometimes with debris around them (if possible). Rescue contracts then become about diverting resources from a current mission or putting a current mission in jeopardy in order to save another Kerbal's life. Or maybe the drive system on the stranded Kerbal's ship has exploded on the way to Jool, so it spawns them in a hyperbolic or parabolic trajectory - sure, they have plenty of life support to last them a year or so, but if you don't intercept them, they'll grab a gravity assist from Jool and get kicked out into some crazy orbit around Kerbol, making the rescue much harder. Another similar mission I was thinking of was something along the lines of "Uh-oh, the retrorockets on [Kerbodyne's] new pod failed to engage, or they've detected a crack in a heat shield and are now stranded in orbit, go get them." Finally, missions along the lines of "[Probodobodyne] has lost contact with their outpost or probe on/around Minmus, go see what's up." And it could be anything from needing a new transmitter dish to full evacuation. But that's mostly just dreams.

I actually got the idea from @inigma's GAP Coast Guard rescue contracts, but the general concept was to expand the rescue system from just being another way to recruit Kerbals without having to pay in the Astronaut Complex to what rescues are like in (good) science-fiction movies and novels - The Martian, Apollo 13, the UAC mission to Hadley's Hope, Star Trek episodes, that sort of thing. Mostly they turn out to be horror stories, but not so in our game. :-P

Edited February 8, 2016 by theonegalen

[inigma]

15 minutes ago, theonegalen said:

Well, one of the ideas I had was to spawn the rescue contracts only near bases / ships you already have nearby. For example, if you have a Kerbaled exploration vehicle in the Joolian system, it could spawn a Kerbal from [insert contract-giver's company here] in orbit around Tylo, in a wrecked ship if possible, sometimes with debris around them (if possible). Rescue contracts then become about diverting resources from a current mission or putting a current mission in jeopardy in order to save another Kerbal's life. Or maybe the drive system on the stranded Kerbal's ship has exploded on the way to Jool, so it spawns them in a hyperbolic or parabolic trajectory - sure, they have plenty of life support to last them a year or so, but if you don't intercept them, they'll grab a gravity assist from Jool and get kicked out into some crazy orbit around Kerbol, making the rescue much harder. Another similar mission I was thinking of was something along the lines of "Uh-oh, the retrorockets on [Kerbodyne's] new pod failed to engage, or they've detected a crack in a heat shield and are now stranded in orbit, go get them." Finally, missions along the lines of "[Probodobodyne] has lost contact with their outpost or probe on/around Minmus, go see what's up." And it could be anything from needing a new transmitter dish to full evacuation. But that's mostly just dreams.

I actually got the idea from @inigma's GAP Coast Guard rescue contracts, but the general concept was to expand the rescue system from just being another way to recruit Kerbals without having to pay in the Astronaut Complex to what rescues are like in (good) science-fiction movies and novels - The Martian, Apollo 13, the UAC mission to Hadley's Hope, Star Trek episodes, that sort of thing. Mostly they turn out to be horror stories, but not so in our game. :-P

yes! That is why I initially requested @nightingale to work on the SpawnKerbal and SpawnCrew behaviors, so we could have some more awesome rescue contracts... in space...!

[Nori]

Is this still being worked on? I just logged in and saw I was tagged in this. 

I'm planning on updating and releasing my progression contracts when 1.1 drops. The core of it is to add variety and to be very flexible with mods (specifically ones that add/remove planets).

Always happy to work with others and get ideas for new contracts.

Here is my rough overview that Yemo is basing his comments off of: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uxb9tlvnlt1nmi4/Refined%20Progression.pdf?dl=0

[Yemo]

@Nori:

Great to see you back at ksp, looking forward to your contract pack!

[mcirish3]

Is would sure be nice if there was a list of CCF compatible mods out there or in the OP   Great work guys can't wait to see what you come up with for 1.1.

Edited April 7, 2016 by mcirish3

[legoclone09]

Just asking if this is continuing or if it died, hope it didn't!

[inigma]

1 hour ago, legoclone09 said:

Just asking if this is continuing or if it died, hope it didn't!

GAP is CCF certified. 

Not sure if other modders want to certify as well though.