Better Career Mode

[ZooNamedGames]

After some other discussions and a long duration of thought, I have conceived a better concept for a "new" career mode. Before explaining, the comments against the current one is that it's either too grindy, too boring or far too easy. I find myself with the second issue personally. So this career mode should change things up and allow players to pursue more options, more creativity and more logical challenges.

The first aspect I have thought on is having players work to design crafts for others. A big aspect of aerospace engineering in real life is designing spacecraft but those engineers don't allows get to design the lifter for it, or vice versa. So players should have to build lifters to carry pre-built payloads or build payloads to other's lifters. The latter option is a greater and far more realistic challenge, as companies who want to get things launched by SpaceX or the ULA, have to make sure they're payload fits within the payload base and the fairing. This concept could also be stepped up so that players can use lifters from others for cheaper than the regular price tag if made by themselves. This could be a cheaper alternative and force the above payload figuring.

The above idea could also be spread to aircraft. Contracts can be given to take pre-made aircraft to select areas, and possibly return carrying crew, cargo, or anything else. There could be many potential configurations when fully thought out. This would give a greater purpose to aircraft parts as I see them as useless once you've collected all the science from Kerbin which likely, by the time you do unlock the mk3 aircraft parts you've already gained all the science from Kerbin and the only other place you can use the mk3 aircraft parts is Laythe and seeing as more weight is costly your more likely to use something smaller which could likely do the same job if not better. Note by mk3 aircraft parts I'm referring to the fuel tanks, the Goliath, and the larger landing gear.

The second aspect is that players should be forced to complete select missions before unlocking new and superior contracts. This would be for contracts like the first Kerbal to orbit, or first Munar landing and so on. The rewards for completing these contracts will be valuable and will work with the third aspect mentioned below. This is so that players feel that contracts have a bigger more substantial impact on their career rather than being tedious tasks. One thing I would add though is a major success "tune" after completing these major milestones. It should be about 6 seconds long, just something that puts the success of their actions into them. Lots of games do this and it wouldn't hurt the game much. This portion of this idea is debatable.

The third aspect is that the tech tree should be slightly modified so that some parts are locked until select activities are taken. So that players are forced to pace themselves and science spamming will not complete everything. Players also should be able to unlock select tiers or part of tiers by completing certain missions. The missions will be similar to the aspect they are for (so that these missions aren't something weird like diving under the ocean to unlock new solar panels or flying a craft to the north pole to unlock a new fuel tank).

The fourth is a reworked administration building and larger scale and duration mission projects. Now these can be anything from missions to launch a constellation of satellites into orbit, landings on the moon, or aircraft flights to select locations. Now I disagree with others on that I like the Administration Building and what it offers, but maybe this aspect can be given to the Mission Control building as a secondary feature. The point being that contracts should be longer and slower to do without the aspects of the contract becoming too tedious. I will note that being forced to do the same style of thing repeatedly for any reason can get monotonous (We landed on the MOON, the biggest achievement of all time and by the third landing it was "like a trip to Petersburg", so ANYTHING can get tedious no matter what we do) is a sad side effect but hopefully doing the missions themselves can yield some benefits.

Maybe to add to the above aspect, there can be missions to go to X location and await further instructions. Sometimes astronauts have to follow commands from Mission Control before they can do them. This is a debatable portions so maybe it should be added maybe not.

The last aspect is simply more contracts and variations upon them. A few ideas I have are contracts to find lost Kerbals or crafts. Now this is unlike the "recover" or "rescue" contracts as unlike those these are not in the map mode and have to be located by looking and searching. This contract can also call for the selected Kerbal and or craft to be returned to the KSC before recovery. There should also be missions to complete tasks when the crafts are already in space. Maybe it's to drive a spawned rover to X destination, or move modules on a space station around. There are many many many contract possibilities still to be made and I feel some of them might give more enjoyment than the current set. I suggest that Squad possibly look to movies and or history for more inspiration.

Squad could considering opening a new subsection for this section called Contract Suggestions? So players could submit their ideas for contracts. It would be a great way to get outside minds to at least shine some new light on ideas no single person may be able to think of. Just another one of many ideas.

Before I finish, I would also suggest that Squad add more to the base game once the basic game becomes stable again from this transition to Unity 5. I suggest things specifically to add to EVA. If you look at real life, astronauts can perform many hours of EVA work and they did. Whether it be Skylab, Mir, or the ISS, astronauts can spend long periods of time completing tasks in space. Apollo 17 was the last mission to the moon and it spent the longest duration on the surface. The crew spent longer performing scientific studies than any other previous mission, and yet NASA utilized every second they could as to not waste resources and therefore money. Now in KSP we don't have all the hold-ups such as preparations for activities, performing the activities and so on, so as such, it won't take us as long. However even if you did absolutely everything you could possibly do in EVA, it would only take you ten minutes. So I suggest looking into mods such as KAS/KIS and adding them since many EVAs have astronauts assemble or modify vessels in space. For example, the Apollo Lunar Rover was deployed from inside the Apollo Lunar Module but had to be unfolded by the crew.

Just some of my thoughts.

[Jovus]

I pretty much completely disagree with your vision for a career mode revamp. However, I'll comment constructively on one part that might be cool.

I like the idea of designing payloads for pre-built launchers. However, I want some payoff for doing so. My probable workflow and incentive looks like this:

 

I want to get a satellite up and into a specific orbit. However, I'm bloody tired of launching satellites around this body, because I've done it fifteen million times. (Looking at you, Kerbin.) Instead of doing it myself, I look through my subcontracting options. There are a few other companies that are offering lifters with these given capabilities (X tons to LKO, Y tons to KSO, Z tons to TMI, capable of inclinations between alpha and theta). I choose one that meets my needs. It also has payload restrictions because of the fairings and launch facilities. I have to build my payload to fit n meters in diameter and g meters tall.

I do this. I specify a desired orbit within the parameters. I pay the monies. Voilà, my satellite is now in the requested orbit. No muss, no fuss, and I pay a premium for not having to launch it myself.

[ZooNamedGames]

7 minutes ago, Jovus said:

I pretty much completely disagree with your vision for a career mode revamp. However, I'll comment constructively on one part that might be cool.

I like the idea of designing payloads for pre-built launchers. However, I want some payoff for doing so. My probable workflow and incentive looks like this:

 

I want to get a satellite up and into a specific orbit. However, I'm bloody tired of launching satellites around this body, because I've done it fifteen million times. (Looking at you, Kerbin.) Instead of doing it myself, I look through my subcontracting options. There are a few other companies that are offering lifters with these given capabilities (X tons to LKO, Y tons to KSO, Z tons to TMI, capable of inclinations between alpha and theta). I choose one that meets my needs. It also has payload restrictions because of the fairings and launch facilities. I have to build my payload to fit n meters in diameter and g meters tall.

I do this. I specify a desired orbit within the parameters. I pay the monies. Voilà, my satellite is now in the requested orbit. No muss, no fuss, and I pay a premium for not having to launch it myself.

Issue is KSP is a building game. If you hand off contracts completely then your better off playing Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager. So you have to do them regardless of how monotonous they become.

[Jovus]

3 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Issue is KSP is a building game. If you hand off contracts completely then your better off playing Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager. So you have to do them regardless of how monotonous they become.

You do now. I'm proposing a system where I only build the things I want to build, and I only fly the things I want to fly, and KSP doesn't tell me I have to do something I'm bored with in order to do something fun.

If you don't want to use such a thing, don't. There's plenty of incentive not to built into the idea; it costs more, you don't have full control, there could be other mild negatives, whatever.

[ZooNamedGames]

2 hours ago, Jovus said:

You do now. I'm proposing a system where I only build the things I want to build, and I only fly the things I want to fly, and KSP doesn't tell me I have to do something I'm bored with in order to do something fun.

If you don't want to use such a thing, don't. There's plenty of incentive not to built into the idea; it costs more, you don't have full control, there could be other mild negatives, whatever.

Then if you don't want to, your in the wrong game. Boredom comes from hours and hours of the same missions, not 5-6.

I seriously think Buzz Aldrin's Space Race would be better for you. Less engineering and more hour speed. KSP isn't a game where you plan your large scale moves in detail. Having a general scope is one thing but letting the game autopilot isn't the spirit of the game.

Your better off hoping for aliens to be added before this.

[Jovus]

Okay, sure, whatever.

[ZooNamedGames]

11 minutes ago, Jovus said:

Okay, sure, whatever.

I would say what would you suggest instead but you've already voiced your opinions.

Fact is that isn't in squad's plans.

[Wjolcz]

Don't get me wrong, but that sounds like another tweak. More contracts won't cut it anymore. It also should be as simple as possible.

I propose: per body programs in Admin Building, Mission/Contract designer and a better tree with multiple starting points and themed branches (jets with jets, pods with pods, electronics with electronics, etc.).

Or: a career overhaul where reputation, science experiments (not the points) and annual funding is connected with each other.

[ZooNamedGames]

47 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Don't get me wrong, but that sounds like another tweak. More contracts won't cut it anymore. It also should be as simple as possible.

I propose: per body programs in Admin Building, Mission/Contract designer and a better tree with multiple starting points and themed branches (jets with jets, pods with pods, electronics with electronics, etc.).

Or: a career overhaul where reputation, science experiments (not the points) and annual funding is connected with each other.

I also mentioned more than just more contracts. 

Issue is, not everybody wants an overhaul of that size. My solution is attempting to fix the current issues while resolving yours.

 

[Wjolcz]

3 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Issue is, not everybody wants an overhaul of that size. My solution is attempting to fix the current issues while resolving yours.

I think the current career can't be saved. It has to die and be reborn. That is if we want a fix, not just more tweaks.

[Signo]

Even if the game is pretty lame, Buzz Aldrin Space Program Manager has a nice way to handle "per body programs".

That could be of some sort of inspiration.

[ZooNamedGames]

So far I'm in disagreement with everyone else. Well if that's the case then nothing will be done and this thread will be forgetten. If not, we may see some people agree later on. We'll see.

[Alshain]

5 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

So far I'm in disagreement with everyone else. Well if that's the case then nothing will be done and this thread will be forgetten. If not, we may see some people agree later on. We'll see.

You are not in disagreement with everyone.  I have yet to see one of the massive overhauls that have been posted that sound like they could make the career better.

The biggest problem there is, is that some of us want the game to hold our hand and tell us what to do, and others of us want to choose what we do.  I am in the latter camp, but neither are wrong... just different.  I choose not to do surface base building and ISRU because that doesn't interest me.  I don't want the game to punish me for not enjoying that sort of thing. 

The problem is the two ideas collide and cannot exist at the same time.  The current method more or less supports my preference, while those who want the hand holding through programs can't be satisfied with it.  The contract system we have now could use some tweaking but it's perfectly fine... if you are of the same mindset as I am.  If you are not, you probably won't enjoy it.  Unfortunately there is no way to please everyone, and I seriously doubt Squad is going to significantly alter the way it functions now.

Now, as to your changes, some of them sound interesting.  As mentioned I would not like to see anyone forced to complete a mission before doing something else, so your second suggestion I would not like.  However, the third could theoretically be done without it.  The game keeps track of world firsts already, some parts could be limited to certain experiences... but it wouldn't be required to be done if you didn't want the part.  Most importantly, it would be basic things most people do (like getting to orbit or landing on the Mun as you said).  My fear is that Squad might take it too far and require you to mine x amount of ore to unlock y part.  Unless you were unlocking ore mining parts, that would be unacceptable.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Alshain

[Wjolcz]

3 hours ago, Alshain said:

My fear is that Squad might take it too far and require you to mine x amount of ore to unlock y part.  Unless you were unlocking ore mining parts, that would be unacceptable.

That would be pretty ridiculous. I don't want that either, but if you think about it this is almost exactly how it works now. You take some experiments, go somewhere and unlock a part that is completely unrelated to what you just did.

IMO if time and money would be used to unlock the parts and we had a tree that branches out early on and splits the branches by themes, we could have one or two branches separate for people who like to treat the early career mode as a tutorial and we would have the 'advanced' branches for people who like to go their own way and still prpgress.

[ZooNamedGames]

Regardless, I don't want an overhaul of your size and I know this is a biased comment but my suggestions would make my gameplay experience more enjoyable.

So if it came between overhauling the game like you suggest or leave the game as is, I'd pick the latter as it wouldn't require relearning the game and also feels more Kerbal. 

I tried to make a series of suggestions you would like but apparently I can't satisfy anyone.

[Wjolcz]

35 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Regardless, I don't want an overhaul of your size and I know this is a biased comment but my suggestions would make my gameplay experience more enjoyable.

Which one are you talking about? I consider the thread in my sig to be the extreme one. Wouldn't mind seeing that as a separate mode, but I'm also inclined to keeping the current science-to-tech system (though it's horrible and can't be easily fixed, nor keep being tweaked forever).

The case is KSP is a sandbox game. What that suggests is the the fact that players should be able to pick their own playstyles and paths of progression in the stock game. The career mode doesn't allow for that. You can tell yourself it does, but the fact is you are still forced to pick randomly generated missions (instead of creating your own) and follow the tech progression that SQUAD considers "good".

"More of this and less of that" won't fixed the problem.

36 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

So if it came between overhauling the game like you suggest or leave the game as is, I'd pick the latter as it wouldn't require relearning the game and also feels more Kerbal. 

What do you mean by "relearning the game"? What would there be to relearn? Not like I'm proposing a change to the physics of the game. Also what do you mean by saying "more Kerbal"?

49 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I tried to make a series of suggestions you would like but apparently I can't satisfy anyone.

I didn't say I don't like your suggestion. The more of them the better. But something important is to be remembered: it's not about liking, or not liking the idea. It's more of a case if it would fix the problem. Would I like to see more contracts? It depends. Would I like to create my own AND be offered the objectives you propose while doing so? Hell yeah!

So the questions really are: Would you rather spend more time in the Mission Control declining, warping and searching for the contracts that interest you or create your own with objectives set by yourself? Would you rather go through the tech tree offered by SQUAD every time you play a new career save, or pick your own progression?

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

Which one are you talking about? I consider the thread in my sig to be the extreme one. Wouldn't mind seeing that as a separate mode, but I'm also inclined to keeping the current science-to-tech system (though it's horrible and can't be easily fixed, nor keep being tweaked forever).

The case is KSP is a sandbox game. What that suggests is the the fact that players should be able to pick their own playstyles and paths of progression in the stock game. The career mode doesn't allow for that. You can tell yourself it does, but the fact is you are still forced to pick randomly generated missions (instead of creating your own) and follow the tech progression that SQUAD considers "good".

"More of this and less of that" won't fixed the problem.

What do you mean by "relearning the game"? What would there be to relearn? Not like I'm proposing a change to the physics of the game. Also what do you mean by saying "more Kerbal"?

I didn't say I don't like your suggestion. The more of them the better. But something important is to be remembered: it's not about liking, or not liking the idea. It's more of a case if it would fix the problem. Would I like to see more contracts? It depends. Would I like to create my own AND be offered the objectives you propose while doing so? Hell yeah!

So the questions really are: Would you rather spend more time in the Mission Control declining, warping and searching for the contracts that interest you or create your own with objectives set by yourself? Would you rather go through the tech tree offered by SQUAD every time you play a new career save, or pick your own progression?

Referring to your suggestions posted above.

KSP was a sandbox game. It was always intended to be a career mode game. The sandbox was just a pitstop on the way during its development. 

Relearning the career mode. By "more Kerbal" I mean silly, and in its own right, balanced. Not realistic, not historical, just its own.

Well I don't warp in MC, I accept, do, return, repeat. So I guess I'm more passive of the desired changes.

Sorry for the early post- on mobile and hit the button.

As to creating contracts it's interesting but like KerbNet, I doubt I'd use it. 

But im certain others will.

Edited August 22, 2016 by ZooNamedGames

[tater]

Per body could actually be entirely controlled by the player. There are very few bodies, and limited possible interactions. The game could scale rewards to what you decide the budget is. Anyone can land on the mun for 1,000,000 funds, but for 10,000? Serious rep.

Id like to write more, but hard on phone in airport  

[Wjolcz]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Per body could actually be entirely controlled by the player. There are very few bodies, and limited possible interactions. The game could scale rewards to what you decide the budget is. Anyone can land on the mun for 1,000,000 funds, but for 10,000? Serious rep.

Id like to write more, but hard on phone in airport  

Sliders!