Game mode discussion

[JSD]

Today I fired up KSP again after a long time! And after 30 minutes it suddenly hit me why I didn't played it for such a long time. I miss balance. Balance between the game modes.

I wanna build up a space agency from the ground up. I like it that way. I'm not good at almost everything. I struggle enough with the Reentry problems alone. But in my personal opion; career mode kills the fun. I hate the fact that I'm forced to do science, just for the sake of unlocking new parts. If you want progress; you HAVE to do science. Well, I need that bigger booster, so fine, I play along. But very soon you end up in a boring hunting game. Your rocket isn't flying higher, your science in the sky means nothing anymore, because you bin there multiple times and suddenly your exploring Kerbol. Hunting for more points. But all you wanted to do is making that orbit..

Sandbox on the other hand isn't much better. The thing that sandbox breaks is science. Sandbox is the playground! The huge playground. All the options are open! Only for those who learned everything! Well.. all the parts are open. Science in KSP is a whole different play area on it's on. Sandbox rips that part right out. That whole huge reason (read: goal) to play; gone! You suddenly be that sad "nerd". In your imagination you maybe launched a full space station, in reality it means nothing anymore. It has a orbit. Maybe Kerbals, but the whole reason for having that station is gone. I have a whole relays network! Nice! Sadly all you can do with it is transmitting science data. In career..

The one thing I always loved, and still love in/about Kerbal; The learning curve. You REALLY wanna make that orbit. And you really wanna get those little freaks back on the ground. Save and sound. It's amazing for beginners. So much to learn, do, feel, test, try and fail. But after that? What do you miss??

[Spacetraindriver]

You do realize that KSP for the most of its lifetime has BEEN Sandbox? There have been so many threads about lack of goals in not just Sandbox, but Carrer too, as well as Science mode! It seems some people buy for JUST carrer mode nowadays. KSP is all about exploration and building and flying, where YOU make the rules! Career was just an addon to it. Now I bought this before Carrer mode hit it huge, but I cant imagine how many threads poped up like this in "ye old days." Plus, why is Sandbox harder for newbies? It gives more space and flexability in expirementing and eventually refining techniques! You complain of lack of goals but KSP has had no goals for years! Now to remedy the carrer mode problem you seem encountering, Im sure a Custom difficulty could help adjust to your playstyle. Now sorry if this rambling was indecipherable but I can get quite defensive of this game... Just expirement and fly, make your own! Because that is what people have been doing for years. 

 

[ShotgunNinja]

The thing that hooked me to this game was the sense of accomplishment the first time I manage to land on the Mun. That is something you only feel once, however. It is a one-shot sensation.

It was possible in the first place because I played career. If I had no boundaries on the parts or vessel size, then it would have been way less epic. Creativity requires limits.

But as a space agency simulator, this game is so lacking is not worth fixing. You have a 'wheel after rocket engines' tech tree, 'stage this decoupler on suborbital flight on the sun' goals, a 'take crew report from the ladder to unlock battery' progression system and a 'giant dead rolling stones' environment.

Users themselves tried to improve this piece of software, out of human ingenuity. You have mods that rethink the tech tree, improve the contracts, spice up the science, add new mechanics, change the planets and more. That's something that could be worth your time to experience. But that first Mun landing is not going to come back, ever...

[Guest]

I stopped playing career mode, even RP-0, because it didn't agree with me. I prefer to set and meet my own goals rather than follow something the game doles out for reward. Science mode is better but, at the end of the day, I find myself playing sandbox because I can do the things I want, when I want.

As far as the learning curve, I feel I'm beyond that; nothing in stock is really above my skills if I put my mind to it. For a challenge I play RO/RSS with Principia installed.

[drhay53]

I myself would love some kind of game mode that rewards you for doing science in a way that's very different from all of the current possibilities. I don't know what it would look like, but I totally agree with the OP; I think he nailed the issues I have between career and sandbox. In career you're fighting through the science to unlock parts, and in sandbox there's no need to do science. All science mode gets rid of is funds, so it doesn't really help. 

My preferred way to play would be something that rewards me for going around the solar system doing fun stuff. Usually I stop before I get there because at some point I realize I'm not having fun anymore, and I wait for the next major update and start all over. 

Don't get me wrong, I love KSP. I just wish there was something revolving around science that made the game more fun for me.

edit: I should add that I also usually reach a point where my FPS is constantly 10 and then I also usually flame out on KSP for a while

Edited April 29, 2017 by drhay53

[LoSBoL]

Doesn't the difficulty settings help to somewhat balance the game you want to play?  If you feel forced to hunt for Science within a career, you could set the Science reward slider to 1000% and/or give yourself 5000 Science to start out with.
 

 

[JSD]

24 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Doesn't the difficulty settings help to somewhat balance the game you want to play?  If you feel forced to hunt for Science within a career, you could set the Science reward slider to 1000% and/or give yourself 5000 Science to start out with.

Isn't that basically rigging the system? Of course you can do that. Even as mods. But the point remains, the system itself isn't really working. It's designed as a "learning" mode for beginners. But I guess there is the problem. It's also the mode with all the "reasons" or systems/features that make it extra fun and or you expect from a Space Program. Where is the point of building a complete comm network, if science itself doesn't exists in a game mode like sandbox. Then you have a pointless comm system, what kinda pushes people to use mods to begin with.

Why else would you rig the system? You kinda want the sandbox (The unlimited experience) but also the reason/systems.

If feels like your forced to cheat or rig the system..

Edited April 29, 2017 by JSD

[LoSBoL]

"Isn't that basically rigging the system?"

Only if you choose to see it that way, you can draw your own lines. I don't think its 'rigging' if the settings give the opportunity to set your own borders. Why torment yourself with having to do the hated Science to progress, when you can alleviate exactly that part of a career game you might mislike.  Aren't you only fooling yourself a bit by depriving yourself from the career game you want when you can unfocus yourself from the Science bit.

As for the comm network, I personally use it mostly to control my unmanned vessels, and not really for transmitting science.

Edited April 29, 2017 by LoSBoL

[GoSlash27]

9 hours ago, JSD said:

I wanna build up a space agency from the ground up. I like it that way. I'm not good at almost everything. I struggle enough with the Reentry problems alone.

JSD,

 That's the real learning curve of KSP; becoming good at almost everything. Sandbox gives you all the parts you need, but no incentive. Career gives you the incentive, but not the parts.
 If you want to put the fun and sense of accomplishment back into the game, I recommend committing yourself to the goal of becoming good at it instead of merely getting by.

 If you're good at it, you can reach orbit on your second launch in career.

Best,
-Slashy

[The_Rocketeer]

9 hours ago, JSD said:

I have a whole relays network! Nice! Sadly all you can do with it is transmitting science data. In career..

This is a decent summary for a place where Career goes wrong. If the only reason for having a satellite relay is either collecting science (or operate remote missions to collect science), that's a pretty lame reason. It would be better if the game rewarded you with funding commeasurate with maintaining and completeing missions, not just putting them in situ.

[purpleivan]

10 hours ago, JSD said:

Sandbox on the other hand isn't much better. The thing that sandbox breaks is science. Sandbox is the playground! The huge playground. All the options are open! Only for those who learned everything! Well.. all the parts are open. Science in KSP is a whole different play area on it's on. Sandbox rips that part right out. That whole huge reason (read: goal) to play; gone! You suddenly be that sad "nerd". In your imagination you maybe launched a full space station, in reality it means nothing anymore. It has a orbit. Maybe Kerbals, but the whole reason for having that station is gone. I have a whole relays network! Nice! Sadly all you can do with it is transmitting science data. In career..

You say that Sandbox is only for these who learned everything, but that isn't really the case.

Yes a player can try to make an SSTO Eve lander or a 1000 kerbal colony on Eeloo, or alternatively just put a 1 kerbal capsule in Kerbin orbit or put together a small space station there. The point I'm making is that it's the player that chooses would they do. They set their own level of difficulty with the goals that they set themselves.

Some of what you've said suggests that what you would like is a game made that is essentially a very long tutorial, with lots of goals that the game gives you, but I'm not sure of that.

Instead of saying what each of the game's modes does wrong It might be better to give a full description of the game mode that you would really like.

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

3 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

If you want to put the fun and sense of accomplishment back into the game, I recommend committing yourself to the goal of becoming good at it instead of merely getting by.

Couldn't agree more. After playing for about a year, I felt that I might of had enough. I had a month-long fling with another game (to my shame), then came back home to see if we could work things out. Very glad I did.

I realized quickly why I'd gotten burned out (our trial separation really helped me see things clearer). I was doing the same thing over and over again. I had found something that worked, and just kept doing it. I would launch a huge rocket, that would be out of fuel already, then would have to spend hours refueling and getting ready to actually go somewhere. I was reaching the other planets, but it was tedious and quickly grew tiresome. Gravity-turns? Gravity-assists? These were foreign concepts other people talked about.

I got better because I decided to. I tried different things and found not just what works, but what works better. I found that a ship which could get me to Jool and back would barely get me to Duna just because of a bad launch. I learned the true power of a proper gravity-assist. And there's tons more to learn.

I've only played career so far. I like completing contracts and seeing how profitable I can make each ship (my inner greed, I guess).

If those things aren't enough, ask yourself if you've really done everything. Have you landed on Tylo, or even Laythe for that matter? Have you put Kerbals on Eve and brought them home? Come back from Moho? Done the Jool 5? Have you put Kerbals on every planet/moon? Flown an SSTO to Laythe? Or best of all, have you done the Grand Tour?

Nothing compares to your first Mun landing, no doubt (you never forget your first time ), but all of the above will fill you with a sense of accomplishment that I don't think any other game can match.

If all that doesn't do it for you, check out the Challenges on this forum. I just picked up the Goliath challenge (rescue a Kerbal from a retrograde solar orbit?; sounds like fun), and there are plenty more I might try.

And if that still isn't enough, there are always mods. I play vanilla myself (and it tastes great ), but if I ever feel like I've gone as far as the game can take me, I'll add one of the planet mods and go conquer them.

And don't even get me started on the expansion. I'll be buying the moment it's available.

P.S. 1600 hours and counting. Talk about bang for your buck.

[kball]

16 hours ago, JSD said:

I wanna build up a space agency from the ground up. I like it that way. I'm not good at almost everything. I struggle enough with the Reentry problems alone. But in my personal opion; career mode kills the fun. I hate the fact that I'm forced to do science, just for the sake of unlocking new parts. If you want progress; you HAVE to do science. Well, I need that bigger booster, so fine, I play along. But very soon you end up in a boring hunting game. Your rocket isn't flying higher, your science in the sky means nothing anymore, because you bin there multiple times and suddenly your exploring Kerbol. Hunting for more points. But all you wanted to do is making that orbit..

This is strange to me because I don't remember having that experience. I'm 600+ hours in, still on my first career, haven't even reached Jool yet and I feel like the career progression has been serving me really well, but perhaps it's because of the particular approach I've taken. I've got vast reserves of science points (over 6000) and haven't even unlocked the final couple of nodes simply because I haven't needed to yet. I don't remember ever being forced to mindlessly mine science, and only a few times did I launch missions specifically to collect some science and unlock a node. Is it possible that's because early on I made use of Mobile Science Labs before realizing how OP they are? Could be.

As many people have said, the various game modes provide a guide of sorts, but it's really up to you to define your own goals and challenges in a way that you find rewarding. It was apparent very early on that if I just blindly picked up contracts it was going to get tedious fast. And it was simultaneously clear that the Kerbol system was finite and it would be a sad day when there were no more planets and moons to conquer. So I decided: I would pick up every contract I was capable of but had never done before. Whether it was a new type of contract, or an old type in a new location, that's how I would define the progression of my space agency. And for each new contract I wouldn't just do the bare minimum, but I would plan it, design it, and execute it in a way my Kerbals would be proud of.

A base on Minmus with 5000 units of ore? I'm not just going to stick an ore can on a lander and cash in. It's going to be a full base, with living, power, mining modules; the capability to dock with surface-to-orbit shuttles; some rovers for exploring. Why? Because that's how I imagine the space agency would progress. And then the lessons I learn in building it will go into making the inevitable base on Ike even better.

600 hours in and I'm only now trying to figure out how I want to land base modules in Duna's thin atmosphere. (My assemble-in-orbit landers for the Ike base were a serious pain in the ass that scattered debris everywhere)

I can see how if someone is incredibly eager to just get to every corner of the Kerbol system as fast as possible the game might feel like it's either holding you back, or running out of achievements, depending on how much you're being throttled by the tech tree. But if you realize the whole game, no matter what mode, is really just a playground for your imagination then I think there are a lot more rewards to be had.

[Wallygator]

In my perception - (example) In the real world, an engineering team does not have to go to Jupiter first so to get science understanding and data so they can then design an efficient high impulse engine. They create that engine FIRST so that they CAN go to Jupiter.  For instance, NASA didn't go to the moon first so they could design the F1. 

New parts should cost money and time - and should benefit from previous parts.  Science should relate to reputation at a minimum but should likely be used to reveal new aspects of the universe and to unlock new missions.  Reputation should influence money but not be the core funds driver.  Planetary science is not the same as aerospace engineering in every respect. Etc Etc Etc...  Sadly, history has proven that no one with influence shares this perception.

Science in KSP is completely backwards, hence sandbox for me.

[Red Iron Crown]

On 4/29/2017 at 1:17 AM, regex said:

I prefer to set and meet my own goals 

This. I got so used to setting my own goals and challenges before we had science or career mode, now when I play those modes it feels like a bunch of grind just to do the things I really want to do. More satisfying to skip the grind and do those things directly in sandbox. 

I'm sure some players prefer the structure and direction of those modes but they're not for me. 

[MR L A]

20 hours ago, Wallygator said:

In my perception - (example) In the real world, an engineering team does not have to go to Jupiter first so to get science understanding and data so they can then design an efficient high impulse engine. They create that engine FIRST so that they CAN go to Jupiter.  For instance, NASA didn't go to the moon first so they could design the F1. 

New parts should cost money and time - and should benefit from previous parts.  Science should relate to reputation at a minimum but should likely be used to reveal new aspects of the universe and to unlock new missions.  Reputation should influence money but not be the core funds driver.  Planetary science is not the same as aerospace engineering in every respect. Etc Etc Etc...  Sadly, history has proven that no one with influence shares this perception.

Science in KSP is completely backwards, hence sandbox for me.

No. Of course scientists didn't go to the moon to build the F1, but they did, however, do a hell of a lot of other science things before the built the F1. You just have your example backwards. A proper refutation of your nonsensical argument is that scientists DID go sub-orbital (the German V-2), then orbital (Sputnik, Juno, Atlas) before they built moon capable rockets (Saturn). The reason for your confusion is the apparent lack of an even bigger and better engine/rocket as a result of going to the moon. 

[Freshmeat]

I have played career for most of my 1200-something hours of KSP, mainly because it forced me to do more with less. Now I still play the same save, but since everything is unlocked, I do not bother much about actual contracts. Just doing things I have not done before while I have the funds to do so, and afterwards I might just give myself more funds to keep playing.

Mods have changed the game tremendously for me, especially life support. No more sticking a kerbal in a 12000 dV craft and returning in a MK1 capsule. I find the challenge of building a full interplanetary infrastructure being enough of a challenge to keep me occupied without having to do contracts in addition, although they sometimes themselves offer interesting challenges.

[Wallygator]

2 hours ago, MR L A said:

No. Of course scientists didn't go to the moon to build the F1, but they did, however, do a hell of a lot of other science things before the built the F1. You just have your example backwards. A proper refutation of your nonsensical argument is that scientists DID go sub-orbital (the German V-2), then orbital (Sputnik, Juno, Atlas) before they built moon capable rockets (Saturn). The reason for your confusion is the apparent lack of an even bigger and better engine/rocket as a result of going to the moon. 

again... planetary science is not the same as aerospace engineering.

Incremental engineering advancements were made without the express need for planetary/extra-planetary science.  KSP science is expressly "Planetary science" in every context. Also, don't confuse sequencing with dependency.

Obviously our individual world views are different and that's OK.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Wallygator

[Alshain]

I do Funds mode.  Basically career mode but starting with all the insanity research out of the way.

 

Based on what I've seen here on the forums, I don't think there are a large number of people that like the science tech tree.  But I do enjoy needing to fund my projects.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Alshain

[NSEP]

I played the game before career mode even had funds, (even before career mode existed, but in that time i did not even bother playing the game properly, all i did was flying cookies to escape trajectories) It was a blast. I like all gamemodes, sandbox is usefull for spitting out creativity while having the freedom to do anything. Science mode is really fun for quick and easy entertainment, while not being too hard and frustrating. And Career mode is usefull for extensive entertainment, with a sprinkle of realism in it, achievements in career mode are also alot better in any other gamemodes, since it is harder to reach.

And Sandbox mode with a lack of goals? No man! You can make your won goals! Its not hard at all, in one sandbox savegame, i had a goal: to colonize Kerbin Orbit, and i pretty much did that.

[tater]

I long for a good career mode. This would require a few things...

1. Some sort of realistic (very coarse, mind you) funding scheme, as well as research. No more Mun dirt unlocking a larger engine. Funding, and perhaps directed testing of parts can make new parts available.

2. Time would need to be meaningful (building things takes time, as does research).

3. A foil to play against (all the "Firsts" you get rewarded for imply that it is possible to be "not first," which it simply is not.

4. Some chances of failure/setbacks that are not the fault of bad piloting, and tech choices to mitigate those failures, or even eliminate some failure modes --- say an engine fails to restart, but hypergolic engines don't fail to restart.

5. Some "fog of war" as to data about worlds, limited to what could be known from Kerbin from telescope observations. Planetary science would, where appropriate, unlock USEFUL data about the worlds (one might locate the exact top of the atmosphere on Duna, for example, while another type of probe might then open something like the "trajectories" mod to actually see flight paths on that world to plan more precise landings, etc. Science that does something useful, not points.

6. A randomized Kerbol system, so that exploration is a thing, and with #5, you get that sense of seeing things for the first time! Also, as @ShotgunNinja put it so well, your first landing off Kerbin at least gets a few % of the rush of your first KSP Mun landing. This would change the scale of worlds up to maybe 4X (stock parts still work at 4X), and the distance between them up to maybe 6X, along with changing all the worlds other than Kerbin (there would be a library of worlds created, and it would pull them from this curated list---so not randomly generated planets, hand-made, but randomly put into orbits). 

7. Autonomous kerbals. Kerbals need to be able to be given tasks (fly a resupply mission with craft X from the saved craft file, for example) that they can complete for things the player wants to not worry about (infrastructure).

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by tater

[natsirt721]

I think the DLC is going to be huge for people with problems about motivation in KSP. Having access to a vast range of player-made mission options will allow you to pick some that sound interesting and actually have meaningful constraints. In addition, the default missions will set some baseline for what's possible which should include random failures, part constraints, mass and volume and time constraints, etc. in addition to specific rewards.

For example, if I'm doing a series of flybys for the inner planets and the whole mission scheme only gives me n science, I'm going to have to budget that science very heavily - actually placing meaning on the oft-bashed points-tree system.  I'm not sure if missions would be standalone or integrated into a common save but if they were standalone saves it would place a lot of emphasis on managing funds and science in a meaningful way.

[MiffedStarfish]

I think the core problem with career mode is that science, and by extension part unlocking, is just not done right. When making career mode, the obvious thing to do with part progression was to have an unlocking system for all the parts in existance, while starting with bins full of dynamite. I think something that would work much better would be to, at the start give you a wide range of 2 or 3 parts of each type of part available, and through using them either significantly upgrade or unlock newer parts of the same type. For example, as opposed to unlocking the standard landing legs by recording your "observations about the situation" during orbital ascent looking out the window, you would instead upgrade or unlock the, by touching down with a cruder version on 2 bodies with significantly different gravity. (I.E. The Mun and Minmus) that way you still have to manage your space program and build it from the ground up, while having some freedom to do your own thing in the first part of the save, while not just giving you everything in sandbox. Another thing that needs to be redone to keep the game semi-believable would be reworked contracts. Why the hell would a company want to test a decoupler on a suborbital Eeloo trajectory? A much more realistic and vaguely sensible contract would be to do something like "put a comunication satellite in a orbit giving it a signal to the western continent," or when the game progresses something like "move 5000 units of ore from our Ike mining station to our Duna base." A lot more civilian company's would have to be added, but that wouldn't be to hard. Overall, this would allow you to progress your part catalogue with the parts you want and need in a relevant way that actually made sense.

This is all coming from someone who booted up the career uptdate for the first time, started a save and stopped playing after an hour as there was no variation in gameplay, so if there have been any major changes since then all of this could be completely irrelevant. 

Edited May 1, 2017 by MiffedStarfish

[Alshain]

6 hours ago, tater said:

I long for a good career mode. This would require a few things...

1. Some sort of realistic (very coarse, mind you) funding scheme, as well as research. No more Mun dirt unlocking a larger engine. Funding, and perhaps directed testing of parts can make new parts available.

2. Time would need to be meaningful (building things takes time, as does research).

3. A foil to play against (all the "Firsts" you get rewarded for imply that it is possible to be "not first," which it simply is not.

4. Some chances of failure/setbacks that are not the fault of bad piloting, and tech choices to mitigate those failures, or even eliminate some failure modes --- say an engine fails to restart, but hypergolic engines don't fail to restart.

5. Some "fog of war" as to data about worlds, limited to what could be known from Kerbin from telescope observations. Planetary science would, where appropriate, unlock USEFUL data about the worlds (one might locate the exact top of the atmosphere on Duna, for example, while another type of probe might then open something like the "trajectories" mod to actually see flight paths on that world to plan more precise landings, etc. Science that does something useful, not points.

6. A randomized Kerbol system, so that exploration is a thing, and with #5, you get that sense of seeing things for the first time! Also, as @ShotgunNinja put it so well, your first landing off Kerbin at least gets a few % of the rush of your first KSP Mun landing. This would change the scale of worlds up to maybe 4X (stock parts still work at 4X), and the distance between them up to maybe 6X, along with changing all the worlds other than Kerbin (there would be a library of worlds created, and it would pull them from this curated list---so not randomly generated planets, hand-made, but randomly put into orbits). 

7. Autonomous kerbals. Kerbals need to be able to be given tasks (fly a resupply mission with craft X from the saved craft file, for example) that they can complete for things the player wants to not worry about (infrastructure).

 

I feel like the research should have been more like Rollercoaster Tycoon.  Select something you want to research and over time it completes.  However in order for that to work in harmony, there has to be a serious concern for bankruptcy so the player can't just sit and wait on it or timewarp.  That means there would have to be recurring maintenance fees and such.  Of course all of that would have to be in place to make it work.  Maybe KSP 2, I doubt it will happen in this one.

[HebaruSan]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

I feel like the research should have been more like Rollercoaster Tycoon.  Select something you want to research and over time it completes.

Ooh, that could also provide better mechanics around upgrading the R&D facility. Rather than arbitrarily segmenting the tech tree so the upgrades become mandatory for certain techs and have no other effect, R&D upgrades could speed up unlocks, maybe by raising the max R&D budget. Then it would be OK to leave it un-upgraded if you were willing to wait, and likewise early upgrades would work well for a tech-rush strategy.