Rethinking KSP's career mode

[tater]

@Pthigrivi's  post above hits all the major points that have been discussed in so many of these threads. I'd add that while I think it should be scrapped and redone entirely, I agree completely that that's not even on the table, we need to have improvements that at least use the hooks that now exist. I don't disagree with anything on that post.

Making science meaningful is the critical take away. I'm a huge proponent of a randomized solar system and fog of war, but with that off the table, there are other things that can be done.

There is a mod that predicts flight path through atmosphere... what if specific science turned that capability on, planet by planet? Do some science at Duna, gain the ability to more accurately land organically. Same for Kerbin. It turns on, but only for the worlds you have visited and done the right science for. 

Scansat-like capability. All ready sort of added, we need cameras, etc, and the ability to map. The current map needs to have fog of war. The map has a default camera position, and allows moving the camera to a certain altitude, and no lower. One, move the default camera view out to what you'd see from Kerbin through a telescope. Two, set the minimum map camera altitude to correspond with the best data over that part of the world in question you have. If you sent a direct-impact camera to the Mun on the Kerbin side of it, you'd be able to zoom in to the whole mun at the lowest alt the entire disk was available to your probe's camera, then in the region of impact, all the way down to 1:1 (in a smaller and smaller region, obviously). This makes mapping useful. It also makes repeat science actually useful as long as you do it in a different location. Throw a probe in low munar polar orbit, and let it map away.

@Veeltch makes a good point regarding specific science requirements for parts. One of my early posts on this forum suggested breaking science up into 3 types of science, spaceflight (astronautics?), planetary science, and medical/biological. The first are things like parts testing, or even contracts to do specific things (landing softly would count, or putting something in a specific orbit). Planetary science is most of what we have now. Medical would be for crew in space for certain time periods, science labs in space. Different parts could require different types of science (some might take all 3 ) to unlock, some might require specific parts testing contracts.

@regex points out that rejection works better now, but I'd add that the current, misnamed strategies office should allow the player to control the relative abundance of some missions. Also, most contracts are so stupid that they need a global rewrite, IMO. Rescues imply a competing program, and the current paradigm means they are the best way to get crew. You get paid to get crew instead of paying, that's a terrible incentive. Rescues need a major rethinking, IMO, I'd rather they were rare, but possibly much more complex. My short comment is that the solution to awful, random contracts should not be to use the reject functionality, they should be made less random, and less awful---then we can use the reject functionality. Note also that the stock settings have a rep hit for rejection, and no hit for warping a couple days ahead, so the game disincentivizes using reject.

Edited May 14, 2016 by tater

[tater]

There's a thread in the general section that suggests that a majority of players never leave Kerbin SoI. Wow.

I suppose that changes the dynamics of career rather a lot, actually. Most of my goals for improvement, aside from wanting it to feel like there are actually trade offs, are predicated on wanting a better replay experience.

It might be interesting to consider different career modes with different player bases and goals, and not try to envision a catch-all career mode.

[Panel]

I think that the biggest difficulty for me is just after beginning career. That point where all the easy science and contracts are taken care of, but you still need the money and science to explore further. Out of the dozen or so career mode saves I've started, I've only made it past this 3 times. I haven't yet done it in 1.1

An idea I've heard around that would be great in this case would be modifying strategies into contracts. I rarely, if ever, use strategies; but if they would instead give a goal and funds to work towards it, I would use the administration building a lot more. 

The other problem I have is how few parts are available until early mid-game, around the nodes worth 90 science. Before that, you don't even have solar panels or probe cores with SAS. At the same time, you are getting 2.5 meter parts. The tech tree needs to have a major overhaul. 

[Pthigrivi]

15 hours ago, tater said:

There's a thread in the general section that suggests that a majority of players never leaves e Kerbin SoI. Wow.

Yeah this seems like a pretty important bit of data. I agree there are probably cleverer ways of increasing difficulty, but what this really signals to me is how important clear mission planning tools would be. It should just be much easier for new players to learn how to go interplanetary. Simplicity matters here. If Mission control was organized as a top down map of the system and clicking on a planet brought up its main exploration contracts there could also be an information page as HebaruSan suggested containing dV information as well listing the next transfer window and giving the option to set an alarm. If this was accompanied by an overlay on the map showing this transfer I think even new players could understand what was involved. 

This is also suggests to me that in general the game suffers from no lack of complexity. If anything things could be streamlined. Many necessary elements of the game are hugely time consuming, so player-time is really precious if you want players to get farther. To me career needs to deliver part and budget constraints, but ideally we would spend as little time as possible mucking about at KSC. dV and TWR readouts would also help a great deal cutting down on reverts. 

Edited May 20, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[tater]

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.

[Pthigrivi]

In terms of difficulty settings I think the way to go is reentry heat step-ups, removing reverts and adding more costly simulations, adding time-bases mechanics and eventually life-support. These are the kinds of constraints that would challenge veteran players but could really bog down novices. The current grind isn't really doing that. 

[tater]

Yeah, I tried HARD when it first appeared, but it was pure grind to me, and went back towards "Normal," but with LS, a modded tech tree, and scaled up Kerbol system, etc. LS alone adds a lot of difficulty/complexity.

 

[Mr. Scruffy]

How about:

Organizing missions into programs in a tree-like form, or simply as a collection of achievements. You´d activate a program and the game would give you missions associated with it, following some sort of tier-system. Like, say, you pick ´mun-program´ and there are, say, 2 tier1 missions scripted to it: 1. Manned fly-by, 2. Probe in orbit. Once completed, each has follow up missions. For example: 1a) Manned Orbit and 2a) Probe in polar orbit below x. And so forth. You can complete higher tier missions, that are not yet presented to you, in advance and thus skip ahead, but the game wont tell you about these, before you havent ´unlocked´ the ´node´ below (so experienced players can rush through a mission-tree, if they know what will be asked of them). You only get rewards for completing goals of active programs, and each mission´s reward would shrink by a well balanced amount down to a well balanced cap as time passes. So once you´d activate a program, the ´race´ would be on - not a race against some competing agency, but the race against the clock. It wouldn´t be a hard deadline like ´before this decade is out´ or an expiration date, as we have in the game now, but more like a soft-cap, where you simply get more rewards, the sooner you complete each goal.

This way, we dont need REP decay and it´d be more forgiving than hard deadlines (no frustration from completing a mission just one hour ´too late´, f.e.). Programs themselves could be tiered and certain, more advanced programs require you to collect some REP from lower tiered programs first, before they appear and can be activated. There could also be programs that become avaiable after a certain mission within another program is completed, as sort of a spin-off.

Once you have scripted programs like that, you can add in-game walkthroughs for them, which are presented piece by piece in a tutorial like fashion to any player with the according option in his/her game-setting activated. It would be a bit like having the option in modern 3D-RPGs to turn on/off these markers that tell you exactly where to go next in order to complete your active quest. For each mission there could be text-popups or hints from advisors, on what the player has to do and how.

Since every program´s rewards could be tailored towards the missions it contains, there wouldnt be an issue arising from the great difference of time needed to reach different bodies: The mun-program´s rewards could decay say by 1% per day (pulling numbers from my rear for now, obviously), while the Jool-program´s rewards decay by 1% per month. Each to a cap of say 50%, so no matter how much time it takes you, you will at least get half the reward in the end - but it pays off to do it quicker, which is the point. Since the clock would start to tick on all missions within a program once it is activated, higher tier missions should either feature a disproportionally higher base reward or tick down slower than the lower tier ones.

Programs should be suspendable for a REP-cost, pausing its tick-down but also barring any rewards for it, until re-activated. To avoid exploits, some time needs to pass between suspension and re-activation of a program, which probably should also be program-specific (longer for inter-planetary programs than for kerbin-SOI programs).    

EDIT: Since this would replace the 0/1-consequence of time-related failure to complete a mission with a soft continuum, more akin to the ´land close to KSC´-mechanic, balancing it would probably not be so crucial after all. The amount of frustration that can arise from it this way is inherently limited, while still giving sufficient incentive to care. Like landing on the other side of Kerbin, an unplanned delay in completing a mission would be something you´d try to avoid, sure, but if it does happen it´s nothing to ragequit or even reload for, as it would only make you miss out on some percentage of the reward, not all of it. Assuming you are not playing on some really hard difficulty level, any reward you get on top of the capped minimum, due to completing a mission quickly, could be regarded as an extra ´nice-to-have´. Crank up the difficulty, and you will either have to pick up these extras more or less regulary or occassionally complete one-shot commercial missions outside of programs to keep you in funds.

EDIT2: Once all the programs are layed out and scripted, we´d also have a rough (!) idea, how long a game should take (in game-time). Say (for sake of example) these would be the programs (time to capped reward minimum in days):

Kerbin (50); Mun (100); Minmus (200); Kerbol, Eve+Gilly, Moho (1000 each); Duna+Ike (2000); Dres (3500); Jool + moons except Laythe (5000), Laythe (spining off Jool-program, 5000), Elloo (8000). 8000+5000+5000+3500+2000+3000+350 = 26850 days ~ 63 kerbal years. Seems a bit long maybe... Anyways, point is, this would (assuming more thought out numbers) give us a ballpark of how fast tech should progress. Certainly, the tree should be completable well before you complete your final program (which would be pretty much ´game won´). Assuming an expected playtime of 50 years (you will run some programs in parallel at times, i guess) the techtree should IMHO be completely unlockable, depending on effort put into it, between year 20 and 40. R&D-times, if implemented, be balanced accordingly (it seems their current SCI-point costs might fit quite nicely for a direct 1:1 transfer to kerbal days, incidentally)  

EDIT3: Then i´d like to have the kerbal ressources (personel) reworked:

- flatten the initial lump sum to hire a kerbal

- have ground personel assigned to facilities. For now, only R&D, but could be expanded on later for other facilities. These cost wages and their number is limited by the tier of the R&D-building (expansion of which would be less costly). Obviously, these guys modify research-speed. The R&D-building works pretty much like a big science lab (that part) and all SCI collected would feed into it as data. Tech is picked in advance and science generated directly allocated to it. Say, each scientist generates 0.2 Sci/d and tier 1 holds upto 5, so you can research at 1 Sci/d. Tier 2 can hold 10 and Tier 3 20. Or somesuch. To avoid exploits, these guys get paid daily. Maybe you can overfund them in order to squeeze some extra out of them for disproportional cost (e.g. +10% research speed for 20% more cost).

- kerbals in space get a salary depending on the duration of their current deployment. Something like 5000 per month started and an additional 1000 for each month passed upto a cap of 25,000 per month.

- a training facility where paid kerbals can hone their skills on the ground. XP cap and training speed depending on building tier.

And that´s all what i´d change in career mechanically that i can think of right now. Anything beyond that, like construction time or life support, i´d leave upto further consideration after the above is implemented first. Which, i think, is not too revolutionary to have a chance for it to happen. It´s more like a reform and additions (one major: scripted programs, and several minor) than a complete revamp.

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[Wjolcz]

Sounds a bit overcomplicated to me, @Mr. Scruffy, but I like the whole mission scaling and steps idea. Instead of the mission tree there could be Program tabs in the Mission Control with a few missions at once. If you chose a mission and completed it a new one would appear in its place and the rest would still be available.

I would especially love to see ore hauling missions with Kerbin being the center of the whole business. You would pick sth like Ore Hauling Business/Program and in the tab there would be a mission available for each body in the system. They would be always available. They would specify how much 1 unit of (let's say from Laythe) ore is worth. You would get money depending on how much ore you brought back to Kerbin (only!). Once you landed a tank full of precious ore you would get paid, the mission would be completed and you could accept another one.

The logic here is based on this: You have two vessels coming from Laythe back to Kerbin. Each has tanks full of Laythe ore. You land one and get paid (the mission deactivates). The second one is still coming but not yet there. You can do two things: Activate the mission again and land it as soon as it's back, or leave the vessel in orbit and wait till the price is better. Once you decide you need money you go into MC, accept the mission and land said vessel. M-m-m-money!

[Mr. Scruffy]

Hmmm, for ore, why not simply have a fluctuating price and no missions at all for it? At each day, the current price gets modified more or less randomly (with the change being capped to be marginal on a daily basis) - you decide if and when it´s worth the hazzle.

Problem with this approach to mining would be, that it wouldnt matter where the ore came from - hauled from Elloo or the Mun - it wouldnt make a difference. But should it? It´s the same ´ore´, right? Or is ore from A something different than ore from B? Well, anyways, if it is the same stuff, it could vary in its ´purity´ or ´saturation´ and incidenteally *cough*, the purer ore would be found in hard to reach and take-off from places. So 1t of ore from the mun could contain, say, only 50kg of the stuff (5% purity), while ore from, i dunno, say, Tylo contains 500kg/t (50% purity).

I must admit, i never did much mining in KSP (i find it sort of unrealistic in and of itself - i dont think something like that will ever be economically worthwhile - but alas). You can turn the ore into fuel, right? Well, that´s a problem: How can the unrefined stuff be more valueable than the refined stuff it takes to haul it? The amount hauled should be like an order of magnitude above the mass of fuel expended to mine and transport it, in order to make it all make sense (unless there was no fuel avaiable on Kerbin otherwise), right? Maybe it would be a good idea to have 2 kinds of ore - one for fuel-generation (which is not profitable to sell) and some sort of ´gold-ore´ which can not be turned into fuel, but can be sold at Kerbin. The former would only play a role in your mission-planning (e.g. refueling plans for your ships), while the later would only be for money.

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

Problem with this approach to mining would be, that it wouldnt matter where the ore came from - hauled from Elloo or the Mun - it wouldnt make a difference. But should it? It´s the same ´ore´, right? Or is ore from A something different than ore from B? Well, anyways, if it is the same stuff, it could vary in its ´purity´ or ´saturation´ and incidenteally *cough*, the purer ore would be found in hard to reach and take-off from places. So 1t of ore from the mun could contain, say, only 50kg of the stuff (5% purity), while ore from, i dunno, say, Tylo contains 500kg/t (50% purity).

That's why I propose those missions. The game already has some sort of way to check where the ore was mined ('Haul ore from X to Y' contracts in the stock game), so having missions instead of a stock market would be easier to implement (at least I hope it would since you only change the final destination which is Kerbin in this case).

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

I must admit, i never did much mining in KSP (i find it sort of unrealistic in and of itself - i dont think something like that will ever be economically worthwhile - but alas). You can turn the ore into fuel, right? Well, that´s a problem: How can the unrefined stuff be more valueable than the refined stuff it takes to haul it? The amount hauled should be like an order of magnitude above the mass of fuel expended to mine and transport it, in order to make it all make sense (unless there was no fuel avaiable on Kerbin otherwise), right? Maybe it would be a good idea to have 2 kinds of ore - one for fuel-generation (which is not profitable to sell) and some sort of ´gold-ore´ which can not be turned into fuel, but can be sold at Kerbin. The former would only play a role in your mission-planning (e.g. refueling plans for your ships), while the later would only be for money.

Ore can contain all sorts of things IRL, if we assume it's the soil. So what the company we are seeling the ore to wants to extract from it is up to them. Kind like how it works in the mining companies: there's one company that provides big trucks meant for soil hauling. They bring it to the refinery and the refinery extracts precious things from it. Except in this case the player would be the truck manufacturer and the driver, and 'the refinery' would be the ones who pay for it (some sort of company, i dunno).

And about the gold ore: Xenon could fill that gap really well since it's already in the game and is not cheap. Assuming the only way of obtaining it is an atmospheric body (though it could cause unwanted exploits on Kerbin).

Edited May 23, 2016 by Veeltch

[Mr. Scruffy]

Well, if it´s just one or two prices we have to track, the ´stock market´ (that sounds way too complicated for a mechnaic that is just based on die role, basically) would be preferable. Finding worlds with high purity of ´unobtainium´ (="gold") would give an added incentive go strive outward, IF that independent kind of ´ore´ can be distributed seperately with a focus on hard to ´trade with´ worlds. The ´fuel-ore´ could than be distributed at will, as suits campaign-play, to encourage ISRU-application. I dont even think, it should have a market-price. Maybe even ´gold-ore´ doesnt need it fluctuating - it could have a fixed price - it was your idea to have the price rise and fall... i just tried to pick up on it.

 

So, yeah, as for mining:

- No mining programs

- Only occassional commercial mission, requiring you to just set up a drill for someone else - maybe with mantainance run follow up transport contracts attached.

- Split fuel-ore from cash-ore, the former for ´personal use´ the later for selling.

 

" Instead of the mission tree there could be Program tabs in the Mission Control with a few missions at once. If you chose a mission and completed it a new one would appear in its place and the rest would still be available. "

Yes, that´s how i see it, actually. But behind the curtain, each program would be a tree.

Well, actually, i wouldnt even have to choose a mission - you choose programs. You could, however, assign a mission to a vessel at the launch-pad, to give it a scripted name. Also, you can complete mission, that you dont even see yet. The ´mission control´ only show you your current tier missions, but you can skip ahead, if you are more ambitious and able to pull it off. Every condition towards a program gets saved - every record and achievement - and then appiled to each tier´s missions as they come up. You hit tier 3 of manned mun and have already landed two kerbals and returned them home? Great, skip to tier 4 of manned mun.

 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[Mr. Scruffy]

If that´s what it takes, make me slam down another 10 bucks and call the whole thing KSPs (Kerbal Space ProgramS).

[Pthigrivi]

So this is a quick mock up of the contract map idea. At tier 1 this might include only Kerbin SOI, tier 2 the inner Kerbol system (shown), and tier 3 would include Dres, Jool, and Eeloo as well. Ignore most of the numbers, I cobbled it together from screenshots. The idea would be when you click on a planet on the left its respective missions come up on the right with Intercept, Orbit, Land and Plant Flag always on top and optional, generative contracts appearing below. If this was the case you wouldn't need user-defined missions because, in effect, all of those missions are available to you from the outset. The generative contracts we have now would be additional constraints you could follow to bring in extra rewards. I think its really important that the advances be greyed out at first, and that they tell you at what reputation they will be unlocked so you know what you're shooting for and why reputation is important. If you clicked the information tab you could be supplied with basic information about atmosphere, dV and transfer windows, or perhaps some of this information might say "Unknown" until you conducted specific experiments there.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Sereneti]

some ideas from my side:
1) contract based storys -> a contract based storyline, that uses parts from previus contract from this storyline... (maybe never exired)
2) Planed-based contracts: Like: there are 5 kerbals on the polar. They want to go to the dessert. Your part -> more usefull airplanes...

 

[Tw1]

On 29/04/2016 at 7:55 AM, Rombrecht said:

On the reason for a career mode

Let us go back to the basics: why does KSP have a career mode? The focus of the game is building spacecraft and getting out there to the planets. The management part of that process should not be a goal in itself, but a mechanic to limit the player's abilities early on in the game 

To me, career mode should be there to bring to life all the non- piloting, non engineering parts of the game. 

Not a fan anything which sets the player on any pre-defined path, or set list of goals. We need things to inspire us out there, and ways to earn money, but I'd rather the only explicit goal was to keep your space program afloat. 

For me, KSP has never been about the competition, or completion, scoring points. It's about the dream of space exploration, and what could happen if we we're able to fund, willing to do a lot more than we currently do.

One key thing a seriously reformed career mode should have as its goals is the old authentic feeling. Paying for a Kerbal once, insta scans, nonsensical tourist trips, clicky science, random request to ship stuff between planets, all this doesn't make me feel like I'm really managing a space program. 

Setting up a space hotel stations or base, or a spacious tourist vessel, then having requests to visit those places would. Happening across an area of high scientific interest, then realising based on the instrument readings, that this would be a site where a research base could run for years, would. Getting a schedule of launch windows, planning ahead, and pacing out launches to fit a monthly budget, and that schedule would.

It'd be more about Identifying opportunities as you and choosing to take them, rather than just choosing tasks from a list. The role of planning would be a big part, tied in closely to all the other parts.

One thing I like best about KSP, is the way you play so many different roles. You're in command of every stage, from mission concept to vessel engineering, then pilot, right down to the astronaut on the ground. Planning and management should be yours too.

The other main thing which doesn't seem to have been raised here so far- a lot of the current career is finite -  you unlock the stuff, collect the science, then it's over.

An overhauled version should make sure that they game keeps going - and doesn't reach a point where most things are over. Kerbal salary, a need to ship life support, new areas of science value popping up, slow changes in what tourists want, etc, could help keep the game fresh. KSP could be about the long game, like real space programs. 

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by Tw1

[John FX]

Myself I`d like to see a career that explored a tree where you got basic plane parts first, a basic jet engine, fuselage, intakes wings and wheels, then sounding rockets too small to carry a kerbal, then slightly bigger rockets that could exit the atmosphere and higher altitude jet parts for manned flight, then some steering for rockets that were slightly larger, still too small to carry a kerbal to space just enough for sputnik sized things, and then as the engines, tanks, pods and the other parts required were unlocked by passing milestones (speed of sound, altitudes, time outside the atmosphere etc) you could orbit the planet with a kerbal and then the tree would carry on the way it does now. A simple starting tech level option when starting a career game could bypass this for those who have already done it but for new players it would ease them into making bigger and more capable rockets better than `here are some parts, get into orbit`

I like the idea of giving the player transfer information on a map in the mission centre too.

[tater]

@Tw1 makes some good points above.

Take tourism as an example. Right now, they are random contracts (as all are), and if you accept them, the game decides you like them and throws more. That has exactly nothing to do with how tourism would really work. In career, tourism should have to really work, so let's show how it should work...

1. Tourists don't randomly appear, you need to seek them out.

2. The player should set the price, and the game should have some (entirely hidden) economic related to how likely it is to find takers at a given price, for a given type of trip. Set your prices too high, and you reach a threshold of tourists, set it too low, and you don't make enough. Your launch/return success rate might play into how many apply (they want to live, after all). Tourists might be more attracted to landing where they started, too, so the % of tourists landed within X km of KSC might improve the number of takers.

3. Have a new base/station paradigm that allows it to be set as "hotel." There would be recurring costs, plus an astronaut to tourist ratio. Building these then allows you to set prices for stays. A hidden model generates passengers/guests. You have launch and guest prices, same drill, you can make it attractive or not by price, and even amenities (more empty seats would be nicer for guests). To use USILS as a model, the more habitable it is, the more desirable).

So instead of side-quests to deliver a random collection of kerbals to random places, you'd build a destination or craft, then offer flights and see if there are takers. The economics would be hidden under the hood.

[Panel]

2 hours ago, John FX said:

Myself I`d like to see a career that explored a tree where you got basic plane parts first, a basic jet engine, fuselage, intakes wings and wheels, then sounding rockets too small to carry a kerbal, then slightly bigger rockets that could exit the atmosphere and higher altitude jet parts for manned flight, then some steering for rockets that were slightly larger, still too small to carry a kerbal to space just enough for sputnik sized things, and then as the engines, tanks, pods and the other parts required were unlocked by passing milestones (speed of sound, altitudes, time outside the atmosphere etc) you could orbit the planet with a kerbal and then the tree would carry on the way it does now. A simple starting tech level option when starting a career game could bypass this for those who have already done it but for new players it would ease them into making bigger and more capable rockets better than `here are some parts, get into orbit`

I like the idea of giving the player transfer information on a map in the mission centre too.

I think that the biggest problem is that not everyone wants to play this way. With more parts concentrated towards the beginning, you could choose how to start. 

[John FX]

9 minutes ago, Panel said:

I think that the biggest problem is that not everyone wants to play this way. With more parts concentrated towards the beginning, you could choose how to start. 

If the biggest problem is people wishing to play different ways then the solution to my mind would be to provide a stock framework to enable people to play the different ways they would like.

Some would like more parts at the start, some want a progression closer to the one we had on earth, some want a cartoony experience, some want realistic physics, some want a more forgiving set of rules. Some want a fresh system to explore each time, some want a fixed system they can check up about in the Wiki.

None are more correct than the others and all of them sound fun depending on the player.

The very limited `career` we have now does not seem to be the solution for many people at all though.

[kBob]

I just came back to the game after a long hiatus.  So career had just been introduced when I had to stop playing so it seemed logical to try it out again.  I just played for 10 hours and my takes.

1.  Like the adjustments you can make before starting, very nice.

2. Agree, the science thing is little off and gets pretty repetitive fast.

3. To me a career mode is picking one person/kerbal and advancing them through a career.  So you get hired and then get assigned jobs/missions you need to complete and get rewards/achievements.  You advance in rank or job description and so on.  I once played a game that had a good career mode for the time, it was a WWII flight sim, pretty sure it was Aces Over Europe.  I think something like this could be added to the current career mode maybe as an additional option.  Some of the fundamentals do seem there like being able select who you want to be.

4. The current career mode seems to lack any direction, after playing 10 hours I still hadn't even been offered a single contract or really have the slightest clue how I am progressing other then the tech tree.

[Wjolcz]

Yeah, the tree is a poor solution IMO. I struggle to understand people who say 'Nah, I don't want linear progression with missions but the tree could use some tweaking'.

Except that means you actually want linear progression and accept it, because that's the only thing the tree offers you. That and random contracts. It would be better to have independent research on every part (or a group of very similar parts) instead of silly nodes. That way we could progress however we want to without going through the whole science grind and parts we don't need.

[JayCheetah]

I understand that there are quite a large number of people that don't like career mode and I am one of them.
However I still love to play this game and having familiarize myself with "messing" with save files, I am able to set up my own career mode.

A stock game will never work for me, as it lacks a ton of features that are only available with mods.
For me it is not so much about getting into an orbit or landing somewhere, that's all "been there, done that"
I like to for the most part build new vessel, whether manned or probe and make them as well as functional, but also efficient.

Squad had created an amazing framework with sandbox game play, it's just that gathering science and doing questionable missions in order to progress is where they did not improve the game, in my opinion.

[drhay53]

For my 0.02, as a scientist myself, the 'end-game' for me revolves around setting up stations and bases to do science. So personally I love the science aspect of KSP and wish is was the entire POINT of progression, rather than the method of progression.

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Yeah, the tree is a poor solution IMO. I struggle to understand people who say 'Nah, I don't want linear progression with missions but the tree could use some tweaking'.

Im one of those people, so I'll address this. There's a balance here I think. If the game is entirely linear you've basically replaced a system of semi-random missions with a proscribed list of spelled out missions that each player must do in the same order. This actually makes the play experience even smaller, and reduces player freedom and the open sense of exploration. If the missions themselves are completely user defined scope and all then there's no real challenge and no real game. Its just sandbox with a paint job. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. You need to have some constraints on budget, parts, and mission availability in order to have structure and progression. Parts right now are partially linear in that some are more 'expensive' than others and you have to work your way through the tree, but that's so you can't just research a nuke or rapier as your second or fourth node. Parts are the main reward of the game, so they need to be somewhat linearized to produce any meaningful progression. I get why we don't have the option to start with probes or planes; the fun of KSP is going to space and Squad wants to really hook new players with "put a guy in a rocket and launch it!". I think that's great. At the same time though a few things, probe cores, plane parts, and solar panels specifically, could be moved up and 2.5m parts pushed back to get more on balance and allow for a play-style choice earlier on.

I tend to think the best way to straddle that balance is to add a basic structure to contracts without limiting players ability to go where they want to go. Thats why I like making basic exploration contracts available but locking out advances until players build enough rep. Starting with Kerbin SOI and unlocking the inner and outer planets also gives some structure without pigeon-holing players to any particular mission. This isn't because this is the way I personally like to play, its because it gives a basic over-arching set of goals that most any player can work with. Whatever system you go with it needs to be SIMPLE. New players should be able to look at the screen in any given building and have a clear idea of what's happening there. Part of this is UI, but a big part of it is just creating clear, easily understandable rules of the road. Players shouldn't be staring at the screen trying to understand what they're expected to do, they should look and in a moment say "okay I get it, now how do I deal with this?"

Stock is by no means perfect in this respect. I pointed out earlier how making world firsts invisible in Mission control actually obfuscates what could be a central component of the game. Reputation too is pretty opaque. Those of us who have played a while know getting more of it makes loftier missions more likely to pop up, but because those missions are randomized the question of "How much rep do I need before x mission shows up?" is a total mystery. The lack of biome mapping similarly hides from the player one of the most basic mechanics of the game.

All Im saying is we shouldn't be adding more layers of complication for complication's sake. Those changes need to be understandable and produce clear advantages to gameplay. Realism in this case doesn't actually matter much. Its not as if we're testing alloys and filling out congressional budget requests. Chess doesn't suck because there are no supply chains, it's actually more fun because it leaves them out. This is a game and everything happening on the screen is an abstraction. What matters, ultimately, isn't that its satisfying one player or another's sense of role play, but that its producing fun, challenging gameplay. Im all for adding things like time-based upgrades and life support and all kinds of cool things to make it a richer, more believable play experience. It would actually be really cool if players were thinking to themselves, "okay I could launch this probe now on LFO and get rep for it in a few months, or I could wait for ion drives to finish researching and launch a smaller, more affordable rocket." But new players probably shouldn't need to worry about this kind of thing. Adding new layers of complication like this should really be a part of increasing difficulty for long-time players and not the basis for restructuring the underlying game. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Pthigrivi