KSP needs more purpose.

[juanml82]

10 hours ago, Alshain said:

@KSK  What you describe is a tycoon game.  Not all of them have to be identical in nature, but the general idea it is a never ending sandbox-style game (not to be confused with a full sandbox mode) where you complete objectives for currency and build things.  Not all of those have to be there really.  RollerCoaster Tycoon is all of that, KSP is all of that, Transportation Tycoon is all of that.  I've recently been playing Game Dev Tycoon which is all of that. 

SimCity doesn't have objectives you complete for currency, which really means that is a city builder genre, not a tycoon, but they are so similar the lines get blurred. Tropico, for example, is a city builder with tycoon style objectives. 

In general, the common threads are that they generally either last forever, or have the ability to continue forever after completing the primary objective (as in RCT), and they are always player driven rather than story driven.  KSP is a match for this definition, so I don't know by which criteria you say it isn't a tycoon game, but it seems like one to me.

I think a tycoon game needs some sort of ledger. Something to see the big picture. That allows you to manage the entire city, instead of a single factory, the entire railroad network, or whatever you call it.

Stock KSP is about handling single missions and is ill suited for managing a full space program with multiple, simultaneous, complex missions. That makes it a lot more like a simulation game than a tycoon game.

 

As for sending missions to the rest of the planets being the same as sending missions to the Mun but with larger rockets, I disagree. Each celestial body has its own characteristics and require a different approach. Only Dres and Eeloo can be considered similar to the Mun. So, if someone wants a "win condition", I'd say planting the flag in all bodies (or harvesting them for science, so the landers have to be a little bit more complex) is a good goal.

However, I do agree the planets need something else to do there.

[Alshain]

Just now, juanml82 said:

I think a tycoon game needs some sort of ledger. Something to see the big picture. That allows you to manage the entire city, instead of a single factory, the entire railroad network, or whatever you call it.

Unfortunately that eliminates most of the games that actually have "Tycoon" in their name.  Sure it leaves the big names there, but go search for the word on Steam and you will find plenty of examples where that isn't true.

[KSK]

5 hours ago, Alshain said:

Unfortunately that eliminates most of the games that actually have "Tycoon" in their name.  Sure it leaves the big names there, but go search for the word on Steam and you will find plenty of examples where that isn't true.

Calling a fish a wombat does not necessarily make it so. I had a game on my ZX Spectrum called (I kid you not). Ninja Scooter Simulator. It had very very little to do with either ninjas or simulations.

Edit: Thought experiment for Alshain.

I've written a game. You, the player, start out on a plain which stretches out around you as far as the eye can see (or your graphics card can handle). In front of you are three things:

1.  A block vending machine. It has a slot for inserting coins and a huge array of blocks for vending. Red blocks, green blocks, wooden blocks, glass blocks, square blocks, even round blocks (in your face Minecraft).

2. A piece of paper and a pencil. The paper has three mazes drawn on it. One of them looks pretty easy, one of them looks hard, one of them looks something in between. At the top of the paper is written "Solve a Maze and Win a Prize."

The player can use the pencil to solve one of the mazes. If the player correctly solves a maze, a coin appears, the maze disappears and is replaced by a new one. The player can now use the coin to purchase a block. The player can purchase many blocks in fact, and use them to build things.

So. I've written a never-ending sandbox game. The player completes objectives for currency and is able to build things. The game has a primary objective (solve a maze and win a prize) and can continue forever once that objective is met. The game is player driven rather than story driven.

Have I written a tycoon game? If not, why not?

Edited October 4, 2016 by KSK

[septemberWaves]

I would like some more guaranteed contracts, ones that pose very large challenges for each planetary system (the sort of things that would require whole fleets of interplanetary transports, perhaps). Such contracts would only appear after rather extensive exploration of a celestial body, and would have enormous rewards.

That being said, I will always play this game no matter what, because the main purpose of space exploration, for me, has always simply been space exploration. Doing incredible things simply for the sake of having done them is the natural way of our species; it always has been.

Edited October 4, 2016 by eloquentJane

[Codraroll]

I agree that the game could use a long-term purpose, but I'm not sure if it would fix the "end-game problem". However, that's not important, actually. Mid-game is where I struggle the most.

Most KSP players never go interplanetary. Even those who do, usually spend the vast majority of their time inside Kerbin's SOI. In a sense, you spend 95 % of your play time in less than one-fifth of the game's areas (there are three bodies in Kerbin's SOI, and 14 outside it, the Sun included).

The game does very little to prepare you for interplanetary play. Nothing indicates transfer windows, or for that matter what they are. You have no way to know how much fuel you need for a round trip to a planet, or for matter one-way trips. If your craft has a deficiency that will cause problems at its destination, you will only know about it at the destination - after spending an hour or more getting there. And of course, the psychological effect: Kerbin is home, Kerbin is easy to return to, it's a very large leap to the next body, there is nothing there but the sense of achievement, and your return is all but certain.

A purpose or incentive would provide the little push required to go interplanetary. Going to Duna, Dres or Eve should put you at a new stage of the game, so to speak. In terms of the player's confidence, it actually does, but gameplay-wise, something should be rewarded to the player. It shouldn't be a thing you do for the bragging rights, or for the Science, but for the actual gameplay that comes after it. But as it currently stands, Duna will still be a remote, empty planet after you visit it. Eeloo will forever lurk, cold and desolate, in the dark outskirts of the system. You go there, you come back, nothing has changed. You could leave a satellite there, or even a surface base, but the distance to Kerbin would still be just as far as if you hadn't. No matter how advanced your space program is, every trip starts with a tenuous burn out of the Kerbin gravity well.

 

The solution I like to argue for is permanent planetary bases, functionally identical to the KSC. Multiple contracts asking you to first survey a planet, visit potential sites, plant flags/take ground samples, then ship some huge parts there, and your MSC/ESC/DuSC/DrSC/etc spawns, complete with a vehicle assembly building, astronaut complex and launch pad. A permanent colony mechanic would make the interplanetary distances so much smaller. Want to cruise the seas of Laythe on a jetski? Instead of spending half a dozen in-game years (and possibly an hour or so of real-time play) hauling it from Kerbin, you could build it at your Laythe base and take off within minutes. A rover in the canyons of Eeloo? Roll off the launch pad on your Eeloo base and into the icy yonder, instead of fiddling with 20-minute ion engine burns. Have you conquered Duna, but unsure on how to get to Dres? Then launch from your established Duna base! Want really challenging contracts after you've done everything? Take this rock sample from your Tylo base to your Moho base. Or bring this tourist from Eve to Pol, by way of Moho.

 

As-is, you can achieve much and do much, but not change much. You can build bigger and better craft after a while, but sailing the interplanetary seas remain the same experience with the same start and end point. If the game asked you to establish your presence in the solar system, and bring Kerbalkind to new heights, your space program would feel much more meaningful, and new players would have a clear-cut and concrete goal to aim for beyond the ends of the tech tree.

[Twreed87]

I like career mode a lot, but it could use some work. I think it's showing the right kind of change though. Part upgrades is a really good idea. I also like that contracts build on each other, encouraging you to build bigger bases and stations. Perhaps that could be a bit more structured, guiding you to build logical bases with purposes.

I also have an idea for an endgame. A single extra star system. Basically Proxima Centauri, with maybe 2 or 3 small planets. It would be at a fixed point relative to the Sun, and of a similar distance at Proxima Centauri, but Kerbal scale. Reaching this, in career mode, would either require tech located past the current limit, or just take a lot of timewarping. The advanced tech (EM drive maybe?) would be a hidden node only visible after reaching max reputation and require a ridiculous amount of science, and the part would be crazy expensive too. I think it'd be a cool reward for people who stick with a career for a long time.

[KSK]

2 hours ago, Codraroll said:

I agree that the game could use a long-term purpose, but I'm not sure if it would fix the "end-game problem". However, that's not important, actually. Mid-game is where I struggle the most.

*Codaroll also said lots of other good stuff*

I remember this discussion, or a very similar one, from years ago. If I remember correctly, my view at the time was that KSP is all about the journey. The flags and footprints if you will. In @eloquentJane's words doing incredible things for the sake of having done them.

I would love to see a game of the kind you suggest. The kerbals becoming a multi-planetary, space-faring civilization and you, the player, guiding them on their way to that. However, I'd like to see it done properly, as a paid for expansion or possibly even as KSP2, so that Squad get the funding and resources they need to do it justice.

In the meantime, I agree with the OP, that a little more depth to career mode would be good. That doesn't necessarily mean massive changes, or story-telling or anything like that, just taking the freeform, flags and footprints game that we have and expanding it. In particular, I have three things in mind, two of which are shamelessly borrowed from other forum-goers and one of which is a mod.

1.  Randomized solar systems. See almost anything that @tater has written on the topic for practical suggestions but the upshot of all of them is much the same. KSP is a game about discovery - so give us something to discover. Make it different for each game. And don't spoiler it in the Map Screen, so that we actually have to go see what's out there, where no kerbal has gone before.

2.  A planetarium, I forget who suggested this and I apologize for that because this idea is both golden and very simple. Have a planetarium (or mission planning) building. It's similar to the Map Screen but it lets you wind time back and forward without it having any effect on the outside world.  A visual transfer window finder if you like. I love this idea because it takes the Map Screen approach to plotting trajectories around Kerbin's SOI (which I still think is one of the stand-out features of KSP - turning orbital mechanics into an easily visualized thing), and extends it to interplanetary journeys.

3.  Kerbal Construction Time. Make it stock. Instant space program management. For added spice, make life support stock too.

1+2 play very well together, do very little to change current gameplay mechanics and turn KSP into a real space exploration game. I'm guessing 3 would be less popular. It turns the game into much more of a management sim / tycoon game which (last time I tried it) I really enjoyed and I think adds a lot of depth to career mode. Others may beg to differ of course.

Edited October 4, 2016 by KSK

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

See, I think having things like an overarching story and environmental dangers (asteroid impacts that you must prevent), etc., takes away from what KSP is. It is what you make it to be. To me, KSP is a blank slate. You make your own story. I've seen mission reports and people roleplaying inside their game. They create their own storylines, create their own fun, playing the same game that we do.

Personally, I agree the contracts are dumb. But I do the best I can. I rarely make missions specifically for a "test part" mission, unless it's early career. Instead, I'll incorporate the contract into a normal mission I want to do. One example I can think of is testing the Small Hardpoint on an escape trajectory. So, instead I slapped two on an interplanetary probe and sent it off to get the contract. It wasn't much hassle, I got a decent reward, and a hefty amount of science just from interplanetary space.

[septemberWaves]

50 minutes ago, KSK said:

1.  Randomized solar systems. See almost anything that @tater has written on the topic for practical suggestions but the upshot of all of them is much the same. KSP is a game about discovery - so give us something to discover. Make it different for each game. And don't spoiler it in the Map Screen, so that we actually have to go see what's out there, where no kerbal has gone before.

I think there might be another way this sort of thing could be done. Rather than random solar systems, perhaps it could be a good idea for the game to have a built-in planet editing tool and solar system creation and submission method. Then, a player could choose to start a game in either the stock system, a system of their own design, or a system that someone else has created (or a modified version of the stock system that they or another player has added features to). I think this might be better than random, procedurally generated solar systems, because it keeps the option to use the system that we already have, and it allows for planets to have complex, interesting designs that have had thought put into them - and also allows for them to have names and descriptions the way the stock system has them.

[tater]

To the player, solar systems should appear random. That doesn't mean that the planets cannot be curated by Squad. All that is needed is a library of acceptable planets (and they can each have a range of rescales available to them, say 1x to 4x), and rules for creating solar systems (no gas giants in the innermost orbits, whatever).

[Codraroll]

The problem with randomly generated systems is that community challenges or tutorials fly out of the window. When we all share the same solar system, we share the same design constraints, face the same problems during travel, and can fly to the same places in craft we share with each other. If every solar system was different, we'd get a lot more unique experiences and challenges, but we'd lose the collective understanding of what those challenges actually mean.

[tater]

57 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

The problem with randomly generated systems is that community challenges or tutorials fly out of the window. When we all share the same solar system, we share the same design constraints, face the same problems during travel, and can fly to the same places in craft we share with each other. If every solar system was different, we'd get a lot more unique experiences and challenges, but we'd lose the collective understanding of what those challenges actually mean.

This is not important at all, frankly. The default solar system would stay the same, randomized systems would be for replay. They'd also be a choice, and besides they could have a seed so you could share the system for challenges, etc. 

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

The problem with randomly generated systems is that community challenges or tutorials fly out of the window. When we all share the same solar system, we share the same design constraints, face the same problems during travel, and can fly to the same places in craft we share with each other. If every solar system was different, we'd get a lot more unique experiences and challenges, but we'd lose the collective understanding of what those challenges actually mean.

Not really. You could keep Kerbin and Duna constant (and their moons). That'll cover orbit, travel to Mun/Minmus and interplanetary travel to Duna. I'm not sure what more tutorials (in regards to astronavigation) one would need after that.

[pandaman]

KSP, by its very nature is open ended, whatever mode you play.

Many players are fine with creating their own mission scenarios, other prefer a more directed or guided approach as to what to do next, and some feel the need for an 'End game/Victory condition'.

Even the FPS single player story modes tend not to have a 'win', you just reach the end eventually, which is considered 'winning' by many.

The contract system in career does give some guidance and choices as to what to do next.  But maybe there is also scope for other options, either within the current career system or as additional modes...

Objectives...  Targets are set as to how much science, funds and reputation to raise, reach that target and you 'win', with the option to quit and feel satisfied or continue with an option for higher targets to meet.  A time limit would also add an extra element of competition without needing actual rivals.

Directives...  The 'powers that be' want you achieve a certain task, or set of tasks, before a set date (equivalent to Kennedy stating that he wanted men on the moon by the end of the decade), which you have to do perhaps also with budget limitations.

Challenges...  Essentially taking inspiration from the 'challenges' thread to give a selection of more fun or wacky things to do for less serious play, similar to the above directives but with a more light hearted 'i just want something a bit different to do tonight' feel, but still as part of your current game save.

[manaiaK]

I'm with @5thHorseman. It's a hobby, not a game.

As such, the best enhancement to late game for me would be to make kOS stock. Learn PID control theory and the elements of programming, if you don't already have them. However, making kOS stock is not needed since there's a mod for that.

This "winning" thing... I have heard that Americans hate playing Trivial Pursuit with Brits, Aussies and Kiwis. The American wants to win while the others just want some nostalgia and a few laughs. Ease up.  If you don't want to play any more after 500+ hours, then consider your $30 well spent at 6 cents an hour for 500 hours of entertainment and education, and move on.

Edit: It would be nice to be able to review your progress in-game. I have suggested adding a mission museum to the game for that reason.

Edited October 4, 2016 by manaiaK

[DoctorDavinci]

@Pixel Kola - In a world where there is so much to be done, it's just a matter of choosing what you would like to do ... Purpose in life as well as KSP comes from within yourself, young padawan

Don't let life nor the game tell you what to do nor tell you what you can or can't do

Edited October 4, 2016 by DoctorDavinci

[Tyko]

Building on what @Codraroll said, I think the Contract system could be used to provide direction and create a bit of a story. Here's a RL example. JFK set a goal of going to the moon. That goal required a bunch of intermediate steps and also came with a lot of funding from the government. After that was completed, we spent decades working in LEO. Now NASA has a new goal - Manned travel to Mars - which will also require a lot of intermediate steps and a lot of funding.

I'd love to see the contract system work like that. Maybe there's a new Meta-Contract called a "Program" (like the Moon program) when you've achieved a certain level of tech, the game offers a new Program. Each Program would actually consist of a whole series of contracts that would build on each other to achieve the final Program goal.

The Tier 1 Program would be "land a Kerbal on a moon (Mun/Minmus) and safely return home" - Orbit a Kerbal, rendezvous and docking in LKO, orbit moon with a probe, orbit moon with a Kerbal, moon landing.

After the player completes the Moon Program, tier 2 mid-game Programs are offered . Here are some possible Tier 2 programs: Manned Mission to Duna, Set up ISRU and refueling station, Unmanned Exploration of Jool system...etc.

Later on Tier 3 programs are offered - manned exploration of outer (or inner) planets, Stations/bases on other planets, etc

[Wjolcz]

I don't think more resources are really needed to add to the "depth" of the game. It's just... more resources.

What needs to happen is a contract/mission creator. It would fix soooo many problems with the current career. You wouldn't have to rely on the dumb random mission slot machine (also known as Mission Control), but create your own story. Want to focus on building and expanding colonies on Duna, or any other body? Just go into the MC and create a contract that asks you to do so! Set your own objectives and landing spots and go on a space adventure!

Another (imo) problem and a real tragedy of the career mode is the tech tree. People consider the career to be done once they finish the tree. The fact that this opinion is so popular only proves tha career wasn't thought out very well. They just decided "add this, this and this" and then thought "ok but how do we connect all that together, oh wait let's make a new building and let people exchange the resources!".

Except that's not even close to make everything gear nicely together. By adding the so called "strategies" they wasted their dev time because most of them are useless/not worth using anyway.

Another good way of dealing with all that is to give the players the ultimate "Tweak'em All Game Mode Creator" in which people would be able to pick which resources (rep, funds and sci) they want to have in the game, what kind of rewards they want to get for gathering science and which resource they want to use to upgrade the buildings, unlock the tree or even pay for rocket launches. There's that thread by @Vanamonde somewhere on this subforum and I think it's something even better than what I have in my sig.

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Veeltch

[DaElite101]

What I feel that doesn't press me to haul myself out of Kerbin's SOI is the tech tree. It needs to have more parts after the RAPIERs, the Vectors and Mammoth engines, the ore tanks, etc. I don't approve of putting existing parts in a higher tech level just to extend the tech tree, oh no. I would rather have new parts and have them unlocked higher in the tree. Come on Squad, give me a reason to go to Eve or Duna or Dres.

[Wjolcz]

12 hours ago, DaElite101 said:

What I feel that doesn't press me to haul myself out of Kerbin's SOI is the tech tree. It needs to have more parts after the RAPIERs, the Vectors and Mammoth engines, the ore tanks, etc. I don't approve of putting existing parts in a higher tech level just to extend the tech tree, oh no. I would rather have new parts and have them unlocked higher in the tree. Come on Squad, give me a reason to go to Eve or Duna or Dres.

The reason to go there should be missions. The sense of accomplishing them and the rewards for doing so. Not the tech tree. The tree is a poorly composed bunch of nodes that don't even make sense. And it gets "tweaked" (parts get moved, but that doesn't help it in any way) every update because of how convoluted it is. The career has to change from "Unlock The Tree Mode" to "Actual Space Program Mode". Simply adding more parts after the RAPIER won't fix it, because you can just set the highest science rewards and you'll unlock the whole thing without even leaving the atmosphere.

But the tree is only a part of this problem. The other part is how science points are distributed around the solar system. Real life jet engines weren't discovered after men went to the Moon. It's not like regolith helped keeping those turbines intact, or whatever. The real life jet engines were created because there's a thing called atmosphere, here on planet Earth. You don't have to leave it to build an SR-71. You actually need to perform atmospheric research in order to build yourself one. In KSP it's not possible (unless you crank up the science rewards or are really patient). It's because science rewards are lowest on Kerbin and higher the further you go. That thing alone kills the whole career mode for me. Science points SHOULD NOT be the main thing driving your exploration forward. The missions should. Sadly, that is not the case because of the way how the "tech tree" is unlocked.

So to sum up: the tree and science points are the real evil here. Not the lack of more resources or parts in the stock game.

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Veeltch

[Jimbodiah]

1.) The science aspect has to be overhauled, starting with nerfing the MPL which basically gives a 6x return on science (5x lab, 1x extra collection/return). Right now you go from the 3rd node to the last one with just 2-3 launches to minmus and some biome hopping.

2.) Contracts are too monotonous and repetitive after you have gotten through the kerbin system. No idea how to fix this. Right now I unlock a lot of tech with item 1 and just send out a bunch of xenon filters outside of KSC and basically turn it into a science career or sandbox.

 

One idea might be to have squad make a new part every 3 months and need you to fulfill a special mission to unlock that new part, i.e. send 12 kerbals to eeloo and find+visit a certain anomaly.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[Wjolcz]

6 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

One idea might be to have squad make a new part every 3 months and need you to fulfill a special mission to unlock that new part, i.e. send 12 kerbals to eeloo and find+visit a certain anomaly.

Oh, no. Nononononono. Everything but this. SQUAD should focus on overhauling the missions given by the Mission Control. They should be the core of career mode that drives the exploration aspect further and further.

I wouldn't actually mind special missions or mission packs released by SQUAD every now and then. But not parts. It would just become singleplayer War Thunder-like grindfest events.

[78stonewobble]

It's hard to please everyone... I get where the op is coming from, but I also understand the counter arguments...

My personal oppinion slash suggestions is this:

A: I don't think an overarching story would fit in the game beyond possibly scenarios. Elsewhere it would be better with "hints" at a story. Anomalies and eastereggs and so on.

B: We need interesting places to go... In addition to the in A mentioned things, it could be interesting terrain and natural features.

C: To a certain degree spacestations, but specifically bases on moons and planets need some love, through parts.

D: Life support... It just seems to be such an integral thing to any real life space program, that I think it belongs in the game in some form... Specifically it can be allmost ignored in the beginning, but becomes necessary beyond the moons of kerbin.

E: Production times... It also seems to be a bit silly to be able to fire rocket after rocket of any and all sort of designs and have spaceplanes be ready for launch again instantly. I do think you need to limit production in the beginning til at some point you can ramp up production.

F: Techtree needs to be expanded, not so much to make existing things that much harder to get, but to lets expand to some feasible future technologies and technologies facilitating bases and lifesupport.

G: Tools to run multiple concurrent missions, that are reliable and not subject to eg. rounding errors.

H: Possibly linked to kerbonaut experience or possibly by outsourcing missions to the other space agencies... Some degree of automation in regards to resupply missions, refueling missions, docking and possibly even your 10th plus mun landings and so on... You will still be able to do everything hands on if you wish.

...

This might not completely address or set an overarching goal or give a story... but:

It would expand and delay the "endgame".

It would bring new challenges that are relevant to real world space agencies (but it needs the kerbal touch offcourse).

It would give us more and specific places to go and explore.

Better tools for multiple concurrent missions and automation would let us concentrate on eg. the interplanetary mothership, the giant spacestation or building a base, rather than having to do the same basic things, we've done hundreds of times before. Enable a bigger "endgame" and let more people get there (those who get bogged down in the massive infrastructure and launchschedule necessary). To let us make kerbals truely a spacefaring species.