Rethinking KSP's career mode

[Mr. Scruffy]

47 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

There is in this case a problem with the 'soft cap': time warp. There are many times, waiting for transfer windows for example, when you need to time warp. If rewards decay linearly players pay for every moment of that. It is still a penalty, and its one the player has no ability to avoid. If instead you use deadlines the player has a broad grace period in which to operate before bad things happen. It may not appear so, but this is actually a softer consequence, and one thats much easier for players to predict and negotiate.

[...]

I have and its true windows in general open up all the time, but ideal windows for specific planets can take quite a while. Like say a player has just started doing interplanetary missions. They may have the tech development for probes but can't really afford to mount a full manned Eve or Laythe mission. So they send 3 probes to Moho, three probes to Eve, Jool, etc, do an asteroid mission, but that stupid Duna window, the one they really want to do, is still more than a year away. I still feel like maybe the most important thing in all this is to give payers choice over where to go and how to go there, and if a player just wants to do a damned Duna mission but instead is being required by the penalties and incentives of the game to do lots and lots of other things while they wait we might end up back where we started.

1) Okay, a grace-period. How about this: tickdown starts at basic intervall (1 day for Kerbin-program, 1 month for Jool-program, f.e.) times tier of mission. As in: Tier 5 kerbin missions only have their rewards start to decay 5 days after you have initiated the program (numbers, of course, as always, subject to balancing). The point of the tickdown is to have time matter in a granular fashion. That time-warp costs something, is exactly the point. But if it´s spelled out the right way, this doesnt have to come off as a penalty, but as a bonus, for quick completion - it´s a matter of phrasing it, to a high degree.

Hard limits´ consequences are not softer - they are all or nothing. They are either completely inconsequential (if you succeed) or punishing (if you dont).

Players would, btw, also pay for the duration of the transfer. There are various instances where the player is paying for time elapsing. This is, again, exactly the point and facilitates time being meaningfull all the time. The player should always have a reason to advance the game as quickly (in gametime) and efficient as possible, the moreso, the higher the difficulty, while at the same time being forced to utilize time and make it elapse (hence R&D-times).

For completion of a mission you´d get:    x + x  * (tickdown-modifier ; between 0 and 1)

With a hard cap you´d get:                       y,  or nothing at all.

And no matter where you set this timelimit for getting y, it´s either too forgiving (like now), or restricting ("slingshot-problem", expecting the player to solve the problem in one particular way), or even outright frustrating (if you experience a minor f-up during a mission with a very tight limit, causing you to not make the limit).

2) You simply do not initiate the Duna-Program before the window comes up, silly. ;P Or maybe, you dont even want to wait for that window, cause, yeah, it´s the most energy-effecient, but it´s not the fastest. Use your advanced engeeniering skills as a player to get some extra cash, cause you are capable of building a Duna-vessel, that does not rely on a Hohmann-transfer to get there.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[tater]

Given that I think a total overhaul is not going to happen, I'd like to agree with @Mr. Scruffy above regarding soft time limits... I do agree with the bulk of the rest of the posts, however. I wonder if the game could have a more intelligent way to set time horizons. As has been said before, attaching them to transfer windows is an option if the players are actually given that information. My concern is that such time limits just might not work as planned given that KSP doesn't have the real reason a "time limit" mattered in RL---we have no explicit space race (only the implicit one due to rescue contracts and milestones).

I would probably go with making time meaningful via R&D taking time, and time-release "budgets" instead of 25% before, and 75% upon completion for missions (or whatever it is). 

So your Duna program, instead of a hard 10 year limit doses out the budget (the total reward) over some other time period, say 3 years given Duna mission timelines. You'd intentionally warp at times to pile up some budget (which might include points to spend on R&D). You apply the soft-limit idea such that after a certain point the reward (rep?) declines over time.

It would require adding a new thing to the game, but what if in addition to assigning a craft a type (probe, capsule, station, etc), you could assign a craft to a "contract/mission?" Then the game could use that hook to mark progress after a fashion. Once assigned to a mission, the craft doesn't earn points for other missions. So you can launch a test of your Duna craft so that the soft limit sees progress, but when you send it to the Mun on a test, the science/whatever it does doesn't apply to your Munar program that is also live, because it's a Duna test mission. I just thought of this, so it's not fleshed out, but I think you get the idea.

Edited May 30, 2016 by tater

[Mr. Scruffy]

Tater, that race-aspect is important, because it provides difficulty beyond grind.

Having to assign missions to launches is restricting and prohibits cross-program launches, aka clever mission-planing.

Say, you have the mun and minmus programs avaiable. As a new player, you´d probably want to initiate one of the two and get at it seperately from the other. As a more experienced player, you might see the benefits of (and have the confidence to) initiating both at once and have launches that first complete one or more minmus mission, first, and then head off to the mun to do some stuff there.

EDIT: OR you might, as an experienced player, use the mun for slingshoting to minmus, only do a the fly-by for mun, but get to minmus a day or two faster, getting some additional rewards for that. There are a lot of possibilities to play around with this and clever solutions will be rewarded. The rules are simple, the possibilities vast. Mission planing would become a lot more like building the rockets, in that sense.

EDIT2: Now, how far you, as a player, want to be pressured into having to do this kind of sophisticated mission planing (or having to do independent contracts, to compensate for not doing it), would be upto you, by virtue of the difficulty setting. On the easier settings, you could just take your merry time and not care about the ´extras´ at all and still have sufficient funds at all times, as long as you are not super-wastefull with your ressources. On the hardest ones, though, you´d try to squeze as much out of each launch and complete them as fast as you can (or engage in a lot of independent contracts as is now). There is challenge to be had here: "How many launches and how much time (and this is directly linked to tech, as well, once a program has been initiated) do i need for completing each program? What would it take me to squeeze this one mission into the next launch as well?"

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[tater]

You could perhaps assign craft to as many missions as you like, but then their particular rewards are tied to completion of all those missions in some fashion.

So a Voyager-like mission would assign a craft to multiple explore missions. Again, it's not fleshed out, I'm spitballing ideas.

I agree with the race aspect, that's why I often ask for a new mode with an AI opposing program to actually race with, as I think it was the Space Race in RL that made things really interesting, and created trade-offs that currently don't exist. Now we would worry about that last 0.5% risk on a Mars mission, whereas during the Cold War's Space Race we might have sent it with a much higher risk to "win."

We have rescue contracts, which imply a competing program. Here's a thought experiment.

You create some new time mechanics (R&D time, etc). You playtest it. This gives some benchmarks as to how long it takes to do X, Y, and Z.

Say the first manned Mun landing should take place (in new time mechanics) in a year (pulling a number out of my head). Then we have the game abstract a Space Race and at 426 days, +-100 days it gives that milestone to the opposing program. It might first "roll a die" to determine if the opposing program does Mun or Minmus first, BTW. All other progress is appropriately scaled to these first determinations, and randomized within some range. At some period before they actually are given the milestone instead of you, the game can provide news reports that the opposing program has just completed some mission that puts them on track for the important milestone "soon." If you see one of those, consider rushing your luanch with what you have.

It's a space race without really having to have sophisticated AI, they are really just prompts to push the player towards perhaps taking risks.

Edited May 30, 2016 by tater

[Mr. Scruffy]

That´d be quite interesting, too, Tater. I could totally see this as an additional difficulty option (a slider going from ´no competition´ to ´strong competition´) which would get at the first x of your rewards in the equation on top of this page, as well, if it beats you to it. So: If you are playing with competition, you might end up simply being too late, to get anything at all. Cranking the other difficulty up and adding a strong competition on top of it, would be the ultimate challange for hardcore über-kerbals. You´d run the actual risk of losing the game.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[tater]

Yeah, the idea is that the "news" aspect is critical, as you need a push to launch unprepared

At the time many people (including astronauts) thought that Apollo 8 was sent because of intelligence about an upcoming Soviet manned cislunar flight (because of Zond, presumably). Current thinking is that this is not the case, it just worked out tempo wise, and they did not have a LEM ready for LEO testing. Still, the idea that you get some news/intelligence that the opposing program/company/nation has just completed a munar impact might get you to launch a lander probe or something is intriguing.

The most gain is really in the later game, since right now things get easier and easier.

The rescue missions would then be predicated on the opposing side's milestones. Perhaps any given attempt by the opposing side rolls a die with a chance of failure...

So the opposing side will send kerbals to the Mun on day 326.  Day 326 dawns, and the game checks for opposing success. They fail this day, and the game has a choice of it failing in Kerbin orbit, Munar orbit, or Munar surface, this time it picks LMO. Every fail means that a new attempt for them comes in 1-2 months (or whatever). You get a news flash AND a rescue mission. Kerbal stranded around the Mun. Now, you have an incentive to go NOW and land, because they will likely not fail, and you can get huge rep by rescuing their astronaut at the same time. If the game had LS, this would be even more challenging.

[Mr. Scruffy]

Yes, i agree. Just leave LS out of it for now. Baby-steps, you know... ;P In that sense, i´d also like to have the other stuff implemented first and then you can still add ´compition timers´ to each mission, along with ´notification timers´ and all that. It´d provide the basis on which this could be build on. But it´d add a lot of extra-awesomeness - i do agree with that. It would also not be all that hard to implement, it seems. So yeah, if the suggestions above were career mode 2.0, i´d make this 2.1.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[tater]

Yeah, an "ultimate" "Space Race" mode (note that the race can be between nations, or something more akin to BO vs SpaceX) would have a full AI economy/politics (totally abstracted, the player need never see any of it, it's just to decide the pace of the opponent). A simple mode would just look at what achievements it has unlocked itself, and what you, the player have done, and that might adjust what it does. If you just achieved munar orbit, maybe it tries now for a landing, but with a much larger % chance of a failure (giving you a rescue mission).

[Wjolcz]

I'm not really sold on the whole AI idea. Probably because I like to play at my own pace, but perhaps it could add a nice progression aspect just as well as rep decay or programs unlocking.

[Pthigrivi]

Just for reference life support is much, much easier than making an AI that can play Kerbal. I don't even know if the latter is possible.

3 hours ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

For completion of a mission you´d get:    x + x  * (tickdown-modifier ; between 0 and 1)

With a hard cap you´d get:                       y,  or nothing at all.

This is kind of the crux of it though right? We're going to have multiple missions going, each with sub-missions and progress checks. Aren't deadlines easier than expecting players to keep track of an algebra equation for each mission component? The balance problem with multiple-planet missions remains the same with both because the difference in mission length is so vast. It doesn't much matter if you miss a single deadline or the reward dwindled away to zero because you did a gravity assist. The penalty is either relevant to a direct mission and precludes a longer one or allows for a longer mission and doesn't put pressure on a shorter one.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

2) You simply do not initiate the Duna-Program before the window comes up, silly. ;P Or maybe, you dont even want to wait for that window, cause, yeah, it´s the most energy-effecient, but it´s not the fastest. Use your advanced engeeniering skills as a player to get some extra cash, cause you are capable of building a Duna-vessel, that does not rely on a Hohmann-transfer to get there.

Right, but is the game going to arbitrarily force you to do an inefifcient mission by denying you a reward if you don't?

[Mr. Scruffy]

@Pthigrivi

Uh and: uh?

Okay:

1. Tater stated explicitely there would be no AI playing at all. The game would just pretend there was. Well at least upto his most recent post, which is, as stated, some sort of far-away ideal, nothing to aim for right now, and even then, the player would not get to see any of it, so short-cuts may be taken at will, concerning its implementation.

2. Well, not really, as you´d go by the easy rule-of-thumb: "the more the sooner the merrier", unless you are planing way ahead and need to know what you´ll make in the end beforehand. That´s only for playing at the edge of your personal abilities though - and yeah, that would be hard (as it should be). Remember that the difference between completing a mission one intervall sooner or later would be 1% (or thereabouts), so that modifier would change by 0.02 on each intervall. You really dont have to do any math beforehand at all, with this, unless you are planing with incredible tight margins and rely on these margins being met.

6 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Right, but is the game going to arbitrarily force you to do an inefifcient mission by denying you a reward if you don't?

The difference in reward is not that big and will be partially canceled out by the added cost an ineffecient transfer will entail. In fact, it makes sub-optimal transfers vaiable and NOT force you to do them every single time.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[tater]

I was thinking a simple "competition" flowchart. Not that it actually plays the game at all. So a certain milestone would nominally occur at a time stamp, DayX. The game would have DayX=(a random number in some range)+Y, where Y (which can be positive or negative) is adjusted based upon if the player has done some related milestone. If player has achieved reaching mun SoI, then make Y more negative for the Mun milestone for the competing program (they react to your achievement by rushing things). The chance of failure of the competing program would go up as the Y value goes negative---the more they rush, the larger the chance of a failure. Totally abstracted. You get a news report that Nickered's Rocket Program attempted to send a kerbal to the mun, but the rocket exploded on the pad, or that it made orbit, stranding the astronaut, or whatever.

[Pthigrivi]

36 minutes ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

@Pthigrivi

1. Tater stated explicitely there would be no AI playing at all. The game would just pretend there was. Well at least upto his most recent post, which is, as stated, some sort of far-away ideal, nothing to aim for right now, and even then, the player would not get to see any of it, so short-cuts may be taken at will, concerning its implementation.

I see. That was confusing. There actually is no AI, just crowd-sourced dates with some randomized fudge factors. Im still a bit lost on how that actually effects payouts. Wouldn't it be really frustrating for players to put a lot of time and energy into a mission only to have their reward stolen away by an unseen semi-random opponent?

 

36 minutes ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

@Pthigrivi

 

2. Well, not really, as you´d go by the easy rule-of-thumb: "the more the sooner the merrier", unless you are planing way ahead and need to know what you´ll make in the end beforehand. That´s only for playing at the edge of your personal abilities though - and yeah, that would be hard (as it should be). Remember that the difference between completing a mission one intervall sooner or later would be 1% (or thereabouts), so that modifier would change by 0.02 on each intervall. You really dont have to do any math beforehand at all, with this, unless you are planing with incredible tight margins and rely on these margins being met.

I think we're glossing over just how difficult this is to balance though. A multi-world mission isn't a few percent longer than a direct one, its multiple times longer. This means whatever you set as your grace period and decay period is either calibrated for a direct mission and deeply punishes a multi-world mission, or its flexible enough to allow multi-world missions and barely effects direct missions at all. 

 

We've been wrestling with this time problem for a while and this thread has gotten really complicated. Like at some point if time-mechanics are to be a viable suggestion we need something that even new players could intuitively understand. Any chance someone wants to simplify and consolidate this into a cohesive scheme? Some important questions to address:

 

1) What would discourage players from just time-warping through research upgrades?

2) How could such a penalty be balanced between short and long missions, factor for transfer windows, and allow for complex playstyles?

3) How could such a system be presented from a UI standpoint that anyone could understand and predict?

Edited May 30, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Mr. Scruffy]

I really like how this would shake up your plans. You are doing your thing, planing some modest missions, grinding science on and around kerbin, and then *BAM* "compitors are perparing mun-mission" - "holy s***", you think "time to pick up some speed, i guess", cause this time around the game rolled the dice for this happen sooner than usual, f.e. Then you check what you got and think "okay, i can construct a make-do rocket, i guess, but this one piece of equipment would be really nice to have... 2 weeks to research it... hmmmm... will they give me enough time for that, i wonder...."

It´s really exciting and could be had for a couple of KBs.

But as i said earlier, it should be an option with a gradient. Veeltch already stated, he likes to play on his own pace. I guess, he´s not the only one and for newbies it could get frustrating, if it was mandatory. "So, i was finally ready for my first mun-landing and then this pop-up appears (i had another one before, but i didnt really pay attention to it), telling me it was all for naught. What the...?!"

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[Mr. Scruffy]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

[...]

1) What would discourage players from just time-warping through research upgrades?

2) How could such a penalty be balanced between short and long missions, factor for transfer windows, and allow for complex playstyles?

3) How could such a system be presented from a UI standpoint that anyone could understand and predict?

1) a) Wages for scienists as well as data (SCI) required for them to work on; b) if programs are active, decaying rewards for their missions ; c) if crew is deployed, increasing salaries for it. If you have enough data for your labs, cash for paying your scientists processing it, and no program active or crew deployed and are, say, waiting for a Duna-transfer window to activate your Duna-program, there is nothing stopping you from warping to that point. That warp will be broken up, to pick new tech-projects as they complete. [That is, as long as the compition idea doesnt come into play - then slacking off will hurt you hard, by having a chance of getting you completely bereft of rewards for missions, the compitor completes before you]

2) a) By having the programs body themed and their decay intervalls be tuned towards the duration it takes to get to said body ; b) the ability to choose when to activate, suspend (at REP cost) and reactivate programs ; c) making cross-program launches possible (the ability to complete missions in different programs with one launch)

3) I am horrible at mock-ups and wont try - but frankly i dont see a problem with this. Programs start to get listed with their properties (basic intervall) as you get close to reaching the REP-requirement for activating them, click on a program to see its mission tree in a panel next to that list, hover over a mission to get a tooltip on what it requires you to do and what its current payout is, along with its current ´bonus´-percentage behind that in brackets (e.g.: 180,000 [+80%], for a tier 4 mission of some program with an intervall of 1 day, a basic reward of 100,000, 24 days after the activation of that program). Missions further down the line (two tiers beyond where you are, in any branch of the tree) are greyed out and dont give tooltips. The branches are colour-coded according to ´purpose´ (e.g. manned, probe or whatnot) - think of "Rome Total War II"´s buildings. Add extensive tutoring for a ´noob´-game-setting for each mission, via a button somewhere.

I´ll leave the compition-part to tater, but that would run mostly on pop-ups i assume, which preferably should be stored somewhere under one of these side-icons, so that you can review them at any time, imho.

To answer a bit of the other text: Cross-program launches would mostly only be viable in a "picking-something-up-along-the-way" manner. It would make little sense to activate your Moho program only because you plan to use Moho as a slingshot to Jool (if that even makes sense) on a launch that is primarily planed to advance your Jool-program. But, if you already do have the Moho-program active anyways - why not pick up something along the way?

EDIT: Think of all program trees combined as of two nations´ trees combined in "World of Tanks", if you ever played that.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[MircoMars]

coming back to this thread after a few days, I didn't read all your posts. so in case this was already suggested please see my post as a thumbs up to whoever mentioned it first.

regarding the science and techtree dilemma, imagine this:

to develop new tech kerbals need to be assigned to the R&D facility. scientists are used to progress through the tech tree. their work is dependent on their skills and experience levels and accumulated over time to unlock the nodes. engineers are used to "design and prototype" the resulting parts, also based on their skill and xp. so we'd have the downside of needing to unlock single parts, but the benefit of just unlocking what we need/want (don't need the ant-engine? don't waste your engie's time on it!) I don't really know what to do with the pilots, yet. if there's part reliability, they could be responsible for testing. or if the amount of active flights would be limited, they could be mission controllers, allowing you to have more ships in space or so.

science points could either be used as the only way to level scientist or as joker currency or that other good idea that just slipped my mind...

to quote a great philosopher of our time: I'll be back.

Edited May 30, 2016 by MircoMars
clean up, typos

[Mr. Scruffy]

Sorry, MircoMars, i might come back to you later - nice idea, though. Something to keep in the back of the head, imho. But by now, the discussion has become quite specific for me. Please read up on it, if you find the time.

@Pthigrivi: Do you get where this could be engaging? You need time to research new equipment and need to run mission to get the data in order to do so, all the while, if you want to progress in the game, you want to do it with the least time possible, as you can not infinitely suspend and re-activate programs. My guess is, in practice, you´d break up the programs, according to your skill, going for streaks between activation and suspension. Like try to hit tier x within the first launch-window, possibly suspend after that and reactivate to hit tier x+y within the next one, or just suspend and take a break from one program, because you want to focus on another for now and dont really feel like building a big LKO base, say.

The ´penalties´ involved in any of this needn´t be big. They should be just enough to matter (on default difficulty). The Kerbin program could get away with just one measily point of REP-cost for suspension (so as to allow suspension and focusing on mun and/or minmus, in the example i gave, yesterday, i believe?). Duna and Eve become avaiable at, say, 50 REP (if each of the 3 programs avaiable before would just have one branch each - which they should not - they would yield a combined 165 REP when completed - [10+9+8+7+6+5+.... ]*3). So i´d say suspending mun or minmus costs 10 REP - as would a dead kerbal, say. One branch from t1 to t10 is 55 REP. Since each program would branch out to various branches, Duna and Eve would open up way before you get to complete mun and minmus, as long as you dont screw up royally. In fact, you could skip mun and minmus entirely if you are not losing any kerbals on kerbin and advance far enough on that progam´s tree. But of course, this is all subject to balancing. Yet, i´d like a lax regime on this, on default difficulty - the objective is just that you do not suspend and reactivate willy-nilly.

When you have all the programs completed - which would be sort of epic in and of itself - you can choose to end the game officially, and get scored along the lines of: REP + cash / 100,000 (maybe with a modifier from date).   

EDIT: Other thresholds maybe: Dres - 100, Moho 150, Jool 200, Eeloo 250, Laythe (extra-tree with extra challanges for this special moon) 300.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[tater]

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

1) What would discourage players from just time-warping through research upgrades?

I want them to time warp through research upgrades. That's the point of making research take time. If research happened in units of 2 weeks, I'd add a button to quickly warp 2 weeks at a time, if it was months... then I'd have that button be months.

 

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

2) How could such a penalty be balanced between short and long missions, factor for transfer windows, and allow for complex playstyles?

KAC. Warp is killed when it needs to be killed. Aside from that, I don't see anything to balance.

 

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

3) How could such a system be presented from a UI standpoint that anyone could understand and predict?

I'd add a few labeled warp buttons. Warp to next fiscal month, or next research milestone or something. It would automatically stop X minutes before any maneuver node that is set. Otherwise you're just in real time. I'd tend to have any time in the VAB/SPH automatically warp till dawn. That's not much, but but noodling around in the VAB should kill time.

[Stoney3K]

On 02/05/2016 at 4:58 PM, XrayLima said:

I think there is something to this thread generally, but I just dont get the vibe that Squad are in the mood to embrace this.  That said, a mod that could change the focus of the tech/career interface would be pretty special.  Blank sheet of paper, what would I love to see?  This:

1. Research missions.  These missions improve reliabilty of each part then unlock better versions.  For example 1st launch, 60% chance of failure, 2nd, 10%, 3rd new tech viewable but locked and tech 100% reliable, 4th, new tech 50% unlocked, 5th new tech 100% unlocked.  The cycle would then start over.  This would make it valuble to do ground tests.  You could skip them but that puts your launch at risk.  Or you test each at ground level, costing less in cash terms than a failed launch but this takes time.  This would apply to the parts meaing new ship design swith old parts keep reliabilty.
2. Time to build dependent on number of parts and tech level.  This means you need to balance time taken to test equipment, take on side missions and complete your overarching goals.

One thing I'm missing a lot in the KSP gameplay, which would really warrant research missions and more science-y behavior: Part failures and reliability, which introduces randomness and thinking on your feet mid-mission. For example: When you have an engine that you have never used before and you use it on a critical mission like a first flight towards the Mun, there's a considerable chance (e.g. 55% dependent on engine type) that the engine will either go kapoof on your landing burn, its gimbal locks up so you have only limited control, it starts leaking fuel when running, or its thrust suddenly drops dramatically.

This is completely in style with Kerbals duct-taping their rockets together, which increases the chance of stuff randomly breaking because it was built in a dodgy manner, and it means the player would either need to install sensible back-up systems to catch any failures, have more run-time on the parts he wants to use (which increases their field use and therefore their reliability), use research points to buff the reliability of existing parts, or purchase more reliable, and heavier, more expensive parts from a different supplier.

The most prominent moments we know in history of our own space program is when Something Went Wrong(tm). There are hardly any reports from the mundane launches of IntelliComSat 9242 which are launched almost every day. So why should these be interesting to a player?

Edited May 31, 2016 by Stoney3K

[Stoney3K]

On 20/05/2016 at 4:47 PM, tater said:

Perhaps Werner could pop up now and again (and/or Linus) and let people know when a good transfer is, and sort of walk them through the first one of each type.

The two types generally speaking being inner bodies (Moho/Eve) and outer bodies (all the others). A little graphic could teach players what to look for in terms of geometry.  It could show the desired exit direction from Kerbin SoI, too (your escape aimed retrograde to Kerbin orbit, for example). All this could be a "hints" sort of thing that could be turned off for advanced players. The Mission (contract) system could be tuned to this, and perhaps suggest probes, etc.

I really like that idea. Especially when you combine it with a storyline-like "strategy" system so the game knows what you're aiming for, e.g. your first flight to the Mun or your first interplanetary mission to Duna.

Once one of those strategies is active and you zoom out to the map view, you get a Werner popping up to say "Ah, I see you're trying your first hop out of Kerbin orbit. Let me tell you all about the Hohmann Transfer maneuver".

From there you can get onto KSPedia to read about it, maybe watch a tutorial video, or let Werner give you a few tips and some help to set up the maneuver node for the first time.

The same would be possible with all other "first achievements" like docking two ships together, aerobraking or trying to land somewhere.

[Panel]

This week's devnotes mention changes to the exploration contracts for 1.2! I'm glad that this is getting somewhere. 

[Wjolcz]

34 minutes ago, Panel said:

This week's devnotes mention changes to the exploration contracts for 1.2! I'm glad that this is getting somewhere. 

Eh. Don't have much hope for another contracts 'tweak'.

Seriously. The game NEEDS those programs. That and a proper R&D.

[Mr. Scruffy]

Thx for the heads-up, Panel.

Well, let´s not be too pessimistic. A lead designer change (a) and an ´overhaul´ (iirc) for the exploration contracts (b)...

A) For all good that´s been achieved (and really KSP is THE example, that great games can still come out of ´nowhere´, which has been an awesome, epic achievement so far - allmost facebook-ian, if you know what i mean - you do know facebook, right? ;P), i think that´s what was needed and i did get as far in the past as to suggest renting out the entire game to another dev-team, as i can understand, one may grow really tired of one´s own project as the years go by, especially when further developement moves out of the focus of your personal interest. Fresh ´blood´ is heightening my hopes for fundamental changes to the career-mode and re-newed enthusiasm for it. This statement is not meant to ´dizz´ anything that Felipe has done - i´d still be more at awe getting to meet him, than i would be meeting the pope or some Hollywood-celeb.

B) They are not going to announce for patch 1.2 ´implement the ideas from this one thread in the suggestions-sub-forum´, nor can they be expected to actually do so, 1:1*. But it means, that the probability of this thread being relevant for 1.2 to some extent is >0. We, who are just typing out of our a****, pretty much, instead of coding or even modding, can not really hope for more. And we should be aware, that hoping is all we can, ligitely, in the first place - let´s not be dismissive or feel entitled. I certainly got my 17(?) bucks worth many times over, already. 

*This may sound like braging, and maybe it´s not even true, but i´d like to believe, for those who know these games (both paradox interactive), that devs took my suggestions on (at least) two occasions so far: The newspapers in Victoria II and the little colored triangles on the counters in Hearts of Iron III. The former was just a waste of dev-time, at least to me, as i realized, later - i ended up always ignoring them after playing the game the 2nd time, once they were actually implemented. The later was a good idea. I *think*, Tater,  you are a compulsive suggestion-forumite, too, arent you (unless someone else used that name on that subsim-forum)? And look at what they ended up doing to the SH franchise! Bah! We were on the same page back then, also. ;P  Anyways, point of all this ramble is: We are not the devs, we dont get to decide, we can only ask kindly, hope and stay in good faith, that what we suggest gets considered and actually ends up being good, in practice if does get implemented. We cant gurantee that, i cant at least, all of what i said here may turn out rubbish if it does get implemented - i dont have to take the risk for it, though. Despite walls of text and hours spent on them, my -our- commitment is minimal, just one increment above 0 - and so are the chances of what we ask for getting done. 

Okay, now back OT, please.

EDIT: That´s how it´s phrased in the devnote: "[...]planetary weighting of contracts, an overhaul of the exploration contracts [...]". From my experience, devs saying that they see the merit of your ideas, doesnt get much better than this. As said: No dev would say ´implentation of programs as suggested in this thread [link]´ - even just to use the term ´program´ in this brief, naturally vague, first dev-note for 1.2 would be confusing. This is pretty much bullseye, in my interpretaion, as far as programs are concerned. Now, R&D-times and wages...? Well, baby-steps... one thing at a time... (they dont seem to go for a cross-program launch on this one ;P )

EDIT2: Cause when you look at it closely: We have pretty much worked out in this thread, that ´planetary weighting of contracts´ seems to be the pre-requisite for the implementation of mechanics that make time relevant. They are tackling the problem from the right direction, laying a foundation for making relevant time vaiable - or so one may hope.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[tater]

Yeah, I'm that tater. I also was a campaign modder, and worked with lurker on RSRDC (and Real Fleet Boat, and a small contribution to TMO) as well.

SH4 had decent bones, but the campaign game (career, here) was abysmal. So I fixed it up to the limits of what was possible. I had a pseudo-realistic campaign (rough numbers of the rough types of ships in the right sorts of places, without scripting the RL movement of every IJN ship and convoy). Lurker and I worked together on making zig-zagging work as well, and I modded a large number of small warships to get the proper balance of escorts. Lurker took the "real" route, and used the Tabular Records of Movement for the IJN (and a convoy doc we found) and made every real group of ships leave the right port at the right time. Both systems work, but in the fantasy world where the player is the skipper, I liked the replay value of it being random, vs knowing that on a certain date the Tokyo Express will be barreling down the Slot. That's a gameplay choice, though.