Rethinking KSP's career mode

[Wjolcz]

I've already stated that I agree with you on the matter of more involving experiments, but I still don't agree about the points.

I get your point about collecting gems, but there's one problem: KSP is not a platformer. It makes perfect sense to include some sort of experience points or currency in a platformer or an RPG game, but KSP is none of these. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I feel like people just got used to the current system and are scared of changes for some reason. Same with the Dev team. "Let's play it safe and do a bunch of tweaks instead of creating a proper overhaul".

And I'm not satysfied with the "tweaks" anymore, because I hoped for the career to work differently.

Science system in KSP is a grind (and the main reason why I hate RPG games so much). If instead we had funds and time required to unlock the tech it would give a sense of progression. Science should be the main reason and goal of the programs. We go places to understand the universe better and sometimes to unlock a better tech (growing super-conductive crystals in space is science too, right?).

So let's have another thought experiment, shall we?

You start a new career game. Launch a bunch of sounding rockets and fly a simple jet plane. After some time you decide that the Mun is worth visiting and pick The Munar Exploration Program. After you've activated it the program gives you a bunch of missions. For example: Fly a pilot to the edge of space so he can experience zero gee and collect his report, make a VTOL and do a bunch of hops around the KSC to prepare the crew for the landing on the Silver Globe, test an engine you've just research (that will be used on the Mun), go into orbit, perform a docking and go back, and all that jazz.

Now that you have enough knowledge and the tech you decide if you want to go there, or do some more testing/experiments/whatever you want to do. If you decide to go to the Mun you are obliged to take a bunch of experiments with you, because science is the main goal of the program you've picked.

There would be, of course, other programs that don't require science (commercial), but that's not the point here. The point is: The only change we would feel is that we are actually achieving something in our career games. Many people don't leave the Kerbin's SOI and I feel it's not only because the lack of information. The game simply doesn't reward your courage, because you can grind the heck out of Mun and Minmus with the generic science points.

And don't you even start with "But if the science rewards were tweaked in Kerbin's SOI the player would run out of it quick and go interplanetary!" NO! The players should have clear goals and objectives stated in the programs they would be able to pick themselves. Science should be the reason why you get those annual funds and cash boosts for accepting the programs. Right now it's just another currency that can be exchanged for something else.

KSP is a game but not a platformer, nor an RPG. Let's draw the line somewhere. 

Edited June 4, 2016 by Veeltch

[Pthigrivi]

I don't think it matters what type of game KSP is, KSP is a game, and if you want people to care about something in a game it needs to feed back into the rewards system. In a FPS people are collecting bullets and health powerups because they feed back into the gameplay, in chess you're taking out your opponent's units because it makes winning easier. In Mario people collect coins because they give you extra lives. No one gives a s*** about points. Thats the principle at work.

If you remove that then instead of giving players the ability to go out there and collect you have to specifically spell out each task for them. The trouble is players have a lot of different types of missions they do and don't like doing. Tater hates rescues, but now you've made it a requirement that he rescue a Samgus Kerman from Minmus to unlock the Hitchhiker. Most people hate the part tests, but now we have to do them in all sorts of places to unlock engines and such. Even if you group them you're still talking about dozens of missions people may or may not want to do. They don't care that Squad or Veeltch thinks those missions make sense, they just want to do their own thing. People are already annoyed that contracts are requiring too many "side quests", and now you've turned the entire tech tree into a really involved series of them. Im sure it varies but for me between mucking about in the VAB to testing and reverting to actually flying I probably put 1-4 hours into a mission, sometimes much longer for complicated ones. Now all of a sudden Im looking at hundreds of hours of playtime just to unlock the tech tree, not including any of the missions I actually want to do. That seems probably wrong.

Then we're saying besides these tech-tree missions we also need to bring experiments along on our missions, but the thing is we're not using them. If we aren't doing anything with them and they aren't generating a central reward then they're just required decoration. Players shouldn't be asked to lug around KSP's experiments, they should be conducting their own experiments. Say I've just scanned Minmus and found a region with some high ore concentrations, but I want to find the very best spot for my mining operation. Now there's a impactor experiment that both generates science points and produces high-res ore scans based on how big the impact is. I can set up my sensor and smash a small probe into the surface to scan a small area and unlock one node, or I can snag an asteroid, harvest its science, and smash it into the surface to scan a huge area and unlock 3 nodes. You could have a barometer that pays out for the column of atmosphere it passes through and lets pilots predict trajectory with drag. Maybe you're not ready for a manned mission to the surface of Eve, but you can get a small probe to survive re-entry down to the surface. Not only has this helped unlock parts for your manned mission but its let you plan your aerobrake for it. Because these are actual gameplay dynamics and not just "do this" missions you can do them anywhere and easily dovetail them into the types of missions you're already doing. The fact that they require skill and not "stick a part on and click on it" is where the real gamesmanship arises, and where the sense of fun and accomplishment comes from.

 

Edited June 4, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Wjolcz]

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

The trouble is players have a lot of different types of missions they do and don't like doing

That's why each program would have a few different missions at each step. You would be able to choose what you want to do and once it's done a new continuation mission would pop in it's place (Mr. Scruffy's mission tree idea).

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Tater hates rescues, but now you've made it a requirement that he rescue a Samgus Kerman from Minmus to unlock the Hitchhiker.

I didn't say that. I too think rescue missions are ridiculous.

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Im sure it varies but for me between mucking about in the VAB to testing and reverting to actually flying I probably put 1-4 hours into a mission, sometimes much longer for complicated ones. Now all of a sudden Im looking at hundreds of hours of playtime just to unlock the tech tree, not including any of the missions I actually want to do. That seems probably wrong.

It does seem wrong. Only some parts would be unlocked through testIng missions. And most of them could probably be unlocked even without the need of leaving Kerbin's SOI (I can't really think of any stock part that doesn't have a real life counterpart which has been developed here on Earth or its vicinity).

Quote

Then we're saying besides these tech-tree missions we also need to bring experiments along on our missions, but the thing is we're not using them. If we aren't doing anything with them and they aren't generating a central reward then they're just required decoration.

The players would HAVE to use them. The experiments would be the main goal of the program chosen by the player. If they are not performed then the program is not marked as finished. Each program's end mission would probably have to be split into several objectives. Each objective for each experiment (just to make it more forgiving in case when the player forgets to bring one of them, or it simply isn't available yet).

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Say I've just scanned Minmus and found a region with some high ore concentrations, but I want to find the very best spot for my mining operation. Now there's a impactor experiment that both generates science points and produces high-res ore scans based on how big the impact is. I can set up my sensor and smash a small probe into the surface to scan a small area and unlock one node, or I can snag an asteroid, harvest its science, and smash it into the surface to scan a huge area and unlock 3 nodes.

That's a great idea and I'm (almost) all for it.

Quote

 You could have a barometer that pays out for the column of atmosphere it passes through and lets pilots predict trajectory with drag. Maybe you're not ready for a manned mission to the surface of Eve, but you can get a small probe to survive re-entry down to the surface. Not only has this helped unlock parts for your manned mission but its let you plan your aerobrake for it. Because these are actual gameplay dynamics and not just "do this" missions you can do them anywhere and easily dovetail them into the types of missions you're already doing. The fact that they require skill and not "stick a part on and click on it" is where the real gamesmanship arises, and where the sense of fun and accomplishment comes from.

I agree. That's one of the reasons why experiments could be used to unlock certain parts (the Thermometer + Barometer (at supersonic speeds) = Whiplash example).

 

This one was a real pain to edit, for some reason.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Veeltch

[Wjolcz]

On 2.06.2016 at 0:22 AM, inigma said:

My two cents, and I hope most agree:

1. Tech tree nodes should be automatically unlocked, based on game time, with the rate of accrual modified by strategies, reputation, and relevant contract completion. Funds can be used to rush tech acquisition. Relevant KSC building upgrades should be required to open additional nodes to research. Nodes should be able to be pre-selected by the player for research in a research queue.

2. Science gathering should fulfill contract goals, and earn reputation and/or funds, modified by strategies. No more science points.

3. Contracts should not be the only means to make funds. There should be a market on Kerbin for ore and other resources a player makes or discovers in the game.

4. Starting technologies should be offered to players as one of three selectable starts: planes first, unmanned rockets first, manned rockets first.

These four changes would totally revolutionize career mode, and make it enjoyable for anyone.

OhmygodhowdidIevenmissthispost? I agree.

[Pthigrivi]

42 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

That's why each program would have a few different missions at each step. You would be able to choose what you want to do and once it's done a new continuation mission would pop out in it's place (Mr. Scruffy's mission tree idea).

Don't you see though? If you're being required to do a specific thing in a specific place then all of these missions are still being specifically defined by you, not the player. It doesn't matter if there are three choices at any given time, right now players are chaffing with a dozen choices. You're imagining this whole thing is scripted to match the way you like to play the game, but in the process you rob everyone else of the way they like to play the game. This is in contrast to providing a field of opportunity and simple ground rules to harvest it that lend themselves not to 3 or 12 or 20 options but to a near infinite set of possibilities a for the player to explore and navigate. 

[Wjolcz]

1 minute ago, Pthigrivi said:

Don't you see though? If you're being required to do a specific thing in a specific place then all of these missions are still being specifically defined by you, not the player. It doesn't matter if there are three choices at any given time, right now players are chaffing with a dozen choices. You're imagining this whole thing is scripted to match the way you like to play the game, but in the process you rob everyone else of the way they like to play the game. This is in contrast to providing a field of opportunity and simple ground rules to harvest it that lend themselves not to 3 or 12 or 20 options but to a near infinite set of possibilities a for the player to explore and navigate. 

Do you do the "Test the X engine on Kerbin's escape trajectory" missions?

[Pthigrivi]

27 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Do you do the "Test the X engine on Kerbin's escape trajectory" missions?

I only do part tests if I happen to be using that part in that place anyway. I know when they first appeared the board was swamped with "ugh enough with the part tests" threads so I'm sure I'm not alone. 

[Wjolcz]

16 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I only do part tests if I happen to be using that part in that place anyway. I know when they first appeared the board was swamped with "ugh enough with the part tests" threads so I'm sure I'm not alone. 

Then why not narrow the part testing missions to only one static test (or two if they are air-breathing jet engines - one static, one in atmosphere)? The problem with the current testing contracts is that you don't know if you will be using the engine in the place the contract asks you to because of the lack of information. When for example you are told to test the Vector in space, but you dropped it because it was in the first stage of the rocket <- this actually happened to me too often and was very frustrating.

Heck, I wouldn't mind if they got completely removed from the game because I feel like the R&D should do all that work for me.

Anyway, my point is to narrow the test missions to as much as possible.

Also: I didn't say there would be max 3 missions at each step. I said there should be as many options as possible (unlike it is now in stock) to provide the variety and give the player free will to choose what path he/she wants to go, so please, don't put words into my mouth.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Veeltch

[inigma]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

Then why not narrow the part testing missions to only one static test (or two if they are air-breathing jet engines - one static, one in atmosphere)? The problem with the current testing contracts is that you don't know if you will be using the engine in the place the contract asks you to because of the lack of information. When for example you are told to test the Vector in space, but you dropped it because it was in the first stage of the rocket <- this actually happened to me too often and was very frustrating.

Heck, I wouldn't mind if they got completely removed from the game because I feel like the R&D should do all that work for me.

Anyway, my point is to narrow the test missions to as much as possible.

Also: I didn't say there would be max 3 missions at each step. I said there should be as many options as possible (unlike it is now in stock) to provide the variety and give the player free will to choose what path he/she wants to go, so please, don't put words into my mouth.

I'm in the process of developing a player guide on how to bend the KSP gameplay experience to what you and I and others seem to propose. Check it out and feel free to give feedback! The idea is  Funds-Only Career, using currently available setup options, and mods. Science can still be ground, but with a science to funds convertor, it essentially makes science gathering an extra means to make funds (which can then be spent on tech or more missions), or to fulfill contract goals. Any input on this type of gameplay would be appreciated:

 

 

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Also: I didn't say there would be max 3 missions at each step. I said there should be as many options as possible (unlike it is now in stock) to provide the variety and give the player free will to choose what path he/she wants to go, so please, don't put words into my mouth.

Yeah Im just trying to imagine how your scheme would work. You said "a few at each step" so I assumed there wouldn't be very many. Right now in stock you can get science separate from contracts. There are millions of ways to get science points because you can get them anywhere you haven't been, which is good! This is the trick of great games, to set up simple rules that produce infinite gameplay permutations. Pretend we were talking about chess. Right now all of the experiments are pawns. A lot of the ideas Ive seen so far suggest requiring players to move specific pawns to specific spaces, all dictated by the game itself. Im suggesting making some experiments bishops and some experiments knights and letting players have at it as they wish.

Its not just about limiting part tests because I don't like part tests or limiting rescues because you don't like rescues. Its about creating an open playing field with infinite ways to play. If the experiments themselves were more interesting thats exactly what generic science points would do.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Panel]

I think that keeping science points as a way to unlock parts is fine. It keeps the game pretty balanced, and I don't like the idea of only doing science to fulfill contracts. Personally, I enjoy finding out what the readings on the thermometer are on the Greater Flats of Minmus, and want to have the choice to go there without waiting for a contract to come up. Programs who's goal is to gather science, on the other hand, are perfectly fine by me. However, the science gathered should still unlock parts. I don't care about the realism of it, if I need new solar panels, I want to just be able to gather some science relatively nearby and get it.

On another note, I think we should get funds proportional to reputation over time, while reputation slowly goes down with few milestones being reached. For example, if you have the Mun program active, the longer between flybys or landings, the fewer funds you get. This keeps people from just timewarping for more funds, and could be scaled for how long a mission might take.

[Wjolcz]

8 hours ago, Panel said:

However, the science gathered should still unlock parts. I don't care about the realism of it, if I need new solar panels, I want to just be able to gather some science relatively nearby and get it.

The problem with science points is that if you don't want to do any more grind in Kerbin's SOI you go out to Duna (if you really want a lot of points) and wait until the probe arrives there. Until then you are stuck with what you have in the tech tree. So to me it's really a "timewarp or Mun grind" situation. And I really don't like that.

In the proposed version of R&D you would be able to research parts using money any time you want (but you would have to wait for a few days before the part becomes available).

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I foolishly assumed that science grind is a bad thing. Maybe it's actually fun biome hopping on Mun and Minmus to fullfil the whole tree and then deal with random contracts only.

[Panel]

7 hours ago, Veeltch said:

The problem with science points is that if you don't want to do any more grind in Kerbin's SOI you go out to Duna (if you really want a lot of points) and wait until the probe arrives there. Until then you are stuck with what you have in the tech tree. So to me it's really a "timewarp or Mun grind" situation. And I really don't like that.

In the proposed version of R&D you would be able to research parts using money any time you want (but you would have to wait for a few days before the part becomes available).

That's still more of a timewarp for parts system. The difference is that it costs funds upfront, rather than science, and doesn't require you to put together a rocket. If time is made more meaningful, that won't be part of the problem, but it is now.

[Wjolcz]

30 minutes ago, Panel said:

That's still more of a timewarp for parts system. The difference is that it costs funds upfront, rather than science, and doesn't require you to put together a rocket. If time is made more meaningful, that won't be part of the problem, but it is now.

True. But you don't have to wait for the mission to arrive to unlock a new node. If you pay funds and wait only, let's say, five days for an engine to be unlocked then you get the engine ready to use. The you put the rocket together to fullfil the mission by performing science experiments.

The current system works backwards: You build a rocket, send a probe/capsule to [insert celestial body here] to build a better rocket. That's not how it works IRL! The Voyagers weren't sent to Jupiter and other planets to build the Space Shuttle! Tech needs time and money, not pictures of Galilean moons. Am I wrong?

[Panel]

Ah. I see. I didn't quite understand what you were saying, this makes sense. The things I would most like out of career mode would be:

1. Exploration programs, configurable in the admin building. These would give certain missions to do, which would get more involved as you complete previous ones. For example, the Mun program would give you missions to take crew to the Mun, starting in flybys, later orbital missions, then landings, and then eventually a base. Programs could be terminated at any time by the player.

2. A monthly budget, based on reputation. Reputation would be increased by doing missions related to the active program(s), and decrease slowly over time. The time it takes for reputation to decrease between missions depends on the time it takes to get to the body involved.

3. A part unlock system based on funds and time. This would basically work as @Veeltch suggested. The tech tree has different starting nodes to research, giving a bit of choice as to how to start the game.

4. Some sort of a construction time mechanic.

These are the four changes want from career mode. It would really make stock more playable to me.