More challenging career mode is what we need.

[tater]

More challenging of course is entirely different than making career simply... not be awful (many of the other ideas in this thread).

Right now, the Squad paradigm is that ridiculous side quests (nod to @regex for that terminology) are the way to create "challenge." It's apparently challenging to haul "ore" from one world to another. For reasons. They are right, it IS challenging, it just makes no sense, so it doesn't crate narrative. Narrative is NOT one imposed by the devs, narrative is what a good career mode should do organically---the player feels like their program has a history---their own history, not something dictated. 

Part of this is meaningful time. The progression from inventing spaceflight to landing on Duna should be years. Instead, it's days. That means, shudder, time warp. Research? Should take months. Players can speed it with, and in some case it might require, testing parts. Good tests that make sense, and leave some room for creativity in design.

Challenging is far harder, though. Life support helps, as t requires bigger craft. It also might require placing stuff ahead of time. Mission profiles where you land an ascent vehicle ahead of time, perhaps with ISRU (appropriately slow), for example. That's actually challenging, because you need to land close to the ascent vehicle.

Edited May 6, 2017 by tater

[KerbolExplorer]

Install realistic progresion contract pack with rss is reely reely dificult

[regex]

1 minute ago, KerbolExplorer said:

Install realistic progresion contract pack with rss is reely reely dificult

It's not really, and it suffers a lot of the same problems as stock career mode; you still have to micromanage every flight, they're just longer now.

[KerbolExplorer]

1 minute ago, regex said:

It's not really, and it suffers a lot of the same problems as stock career mode; you still have to micromanage every flight, they're just longer now.

Yea but try to go to the moon WITH STOCK PARTS!

 

[regex]

15 minutes ago, KerbolExplorer said:

Yea but try to go to the moon WITH STOCK PARTS!

 

Not much different than going to Tylo.

 

 

Once you're in orbit.

[KerbolExplorer]

Just now, regex said:

Not much different than going to Tylo.

 

 

Once you're in orbit.

on carrer mode with no mod expept rss

[Noud]

On 2017-5-5 at 3:52 PM, Blaarkies said:

Thats very true...so if we can avoid the temptation of doing the same experiment on multiple binomes, then sure Normal difficulty would not unlock the entire tree in the Kerbin system, which is a complete solution, but you need very clear cut lines to stop yourself 

@Noud you might want to look into this 

It is quite fun, but the definition of fun is different for all of us. It really makes my progression and missions direction unpredictable...you could say this career is by the will of the Kraken 

this is a really good one but i think it is a bit frustrating to do this in early game. maybe use the monoliths to unlock the higher tech tree nodes and biomes to unlock lower tier nodes 

[Blaarkies]

3 hours ago, Noud said:

this is a really good one but i think it is a bit frustrating to do this in early game. maybe use the monoliths to unlock the higher tech tree nodes and biomes to unlock lower tier nodes 

Where do you draw the line between between "higher tech tree nodes" and "lower tier nodes"? Once this career starts, your conscious will eat you up if you do not have well defined rules 

I can vouch that this will definitely force you to do low-tech missions beyond Eve and Duna, so you do not want building upgrades, funds and rep being in the way...science is easy, just collect a little bit wherever you go, since you won't be clicking tech tree upgrades that often anyway). But yes, it will become frustrating if you are not ok with The Kraken dictating your space program's prosperity and mission path 

[tater]

The only "high tech" parts in KSP at all is the spaceplane glop.

An RTG flew a few weeks after Alan Shepard did (June 29 to his May 5th). NTRs were ground tested and certainly could have been flown in the mid 60s.

[Blaarkies]

14 hours ago, tater said:

The only "high tech" parts in KSP at all is the spaceplane glop.

An RTG flew a few weeks after Alan Shepard did (June 29 to his May 5th). NTRs were ground tested and certainly could have been flown in the mid 60s.

"EAS-1 External Command Seat" is definitely super high tech...we don't even have those yet 

[tater]

Or the high-tech kerbal ladders.

[Pthigrivi]

1)

The funny thing is career actually isn't that bad. It just treats the one thing that makes it work--milestones--like a closely guarded secret. Milestones should be (and are) the main quest of this game, but for some reason they are almost completely invisible to the player. When you open up mission control you should see them flashing at the top with big bright blinking lights around them. You should be able to see what the rewards are so you can gauge the risks and plan around them, and even get advances for them once you've gathered enough rep. Instead people are opening up mission control and saying "Ugh, I don't want to do any of these things, I just want to go to the mun!" without the UI giving any indication whatsoever that they can just go do that if they want to. The generative contracts should just be what they are--optional quests to do on the side or dovetail into your main missions to pick up extra cash and rep if you want. In other words Mission control should look a bit like this:

2)

Make time a thing! We talked about this a lot last year and its tricky, but there is a solution: World First bonuses on milestone contracts. When each game is created a series of hard dates are set in the milestone contracts (Land on the Mun by day 100, Flyby Moho by day 500, etc.) and completing those contracts before the pre-set date earns you a bonus in funds and rep. Its a foil, but its an abstract foil. You could think of it as a space race or whatever you wanted. The important thing is it applies pressure to do things quickly in game-time. Once you have that you can add in research time and construction time and they have real strategic meaning because investing in those tasks pushes you closer to missing your world firsts. After that you could use difficulty sliders to push things tighter or looser to make things more or less challenging without it just adding grind.

The point is to focus players back on exploration so other things like the tech tree and contracts become a means to an end rather than an end to themselves.

[tater]

Land on the Mun by day 100? More like land on the Mun by day 3 (how long does it take to get there, then add some number of minutes). First time would have to be a thing. making a rocket would take X weeks, alter it? More weeks, etc.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Once you have that you can add in research time and construction time and they have real strategic meaning because investing in those tasks pushes you closer to missing your world firsts.

I think with a little effort you could scale out research and construction durations that put real pressure on your first transfer windows. The main point is that your space program doesn't automatically collapse if you time warp forward or decide to do things differently. Like CommNet it could be an optional constraint.

[LoSBoL]

5 hours ago, tater said:

Land on the Mun by day 100? More like land on the Mun by day 3 (how long does it take to get there, then add some number of minutes). First time would have to be a thing. making a rocket would take X weeks, alter it? More weeks, etc.

3 days?   

I can imagine that with hundreds or even thousands of hours playing KSP you can shoot for the Mun with your eyes closed, but one of KSP's strenghts is not forcing a certain playstyle on you. I'm all for time constraints (building a craft inbetween a launch and circulizing is a bit weird), but lets keep it playable and challenging for newbies aswell without KSP raising the bar to unreachable proportions.

 

[Wjolcz]

8 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

3 days?   

I can imagine that with hundreds or even thousands of hours playing KSP you can shoot for the Mun with your eyes closed, but one of KSP's strenghts is not forcing a certain playstyle on you. I'm all for time constraints (building a craft inbetween a launch and circulizing is a bit weird), but lets keep it playable and challenging for newbies aswell without KSP raising the bar to unreachable proportions.

 

You can eyeball the Mun if you know how. It's actually surprisingly easy.

I am really annoyed by the fact that we compare "seasoned" players with "newbies" as if it was a thing. In fact there's no difference. It's all about the information available. You can use it and succeed or you can not use it and hope you've taken enough fuel.

Give a newbie a dV calculator and a mission planner and he will become a seasoned player in minutes. Since KSP doesn't have that everyone who doesn't use KER/MechJeb and KAC seems to be perceiving themselves as newbies. And that's just wrong.

[LoSBoL]

13 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

You can eyeball the Mun if you know how. It's actually surprisingly easy.

I am really annoyed by the fact that we compare "seasoned" players with "newbies" as if it was a thing. In fact there's no difference. It's all about the information available. You can use it and succeed or you can not use it and hope you've taken enough fuel.

Give a newbie a dV calculator and a mission planner and he will become a seasoned player in minutes. Since KSP doesn't have that everyone who doesn't use KER/MechJeb and KAC seems to be perceiving themselves as newbies. And that's just wrong.

Well it is a thing, maybe you were able to get your rocket into orbit on the first try, and maybe you were able to become a seasoned player within minutes, but that's no refference for others. Don't be annoyed if somebody points out that challenges for a new player are completely different from your own challenges.

[Wjolcz]

4 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Well it is a thing, maybe you were able to get your rocket into orbit on the first try, and maybe you were able to become a seasoned player within minutes, but that's no refference for others. Don't be annoyed if somebody points out that challenges for a new player are completely different from your own challenges.

Let's define a newbie and a seasoned player then. What can a seasoned one do that a newbie can't?

[Blaarkies]

25 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Let's define a newbie and a seasoned player then. What can a seasoned one do that a newbie can't?

Reach the Mun in 3 days 

You know it is true. Think back to the very first day you played KSP. How long did it take to get into orbit? (it doesn't matter how easy it seems now, how many IRL hours of gameplay did it take)

I agree that newbies can do the same thing...given that after they have played the same amount of hours/experiences that the "seasoned" players have had, but from a practical standpoint of:
- I give you one million dollars if you can land on the Mun in 20minutes!

Who is going to win that? The majority of newbies won't even get close...but ask the same thing again after they have 200 hours of play time?

Edited May 10, 2017 by Blaarkies

[LoSBoL]

29 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Let's define a newbie and a seasoned player then. What can a seasoned one do that a newbie can't?

A newbie is a new player of KSP to me, at least, that's what I ment without being prejudice.  So basicly, understanding orbital mechanics, how to navigate with a navball or even how to build or get a rocket into orbit. Transfer orbit's, rendevous or docking.

We all know that KSP has a pretty huge learning curve, goals have to be S.M.A.R.T.  so they are challenging, engaging and fun, getting to the Mun within 3 days for a new player is not realy (A)chievable and (R)ealistic for most.

Edited May 10, 2017 by LoSBoL

[tater]

2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

3 days?   

I can imagine that with hundreds or even thousands of hours playing KSP you can shoot for the Mun with your eyes closed, but one of KSP's strenghts is not forcing a certain playstyle on you. I'm all for time constraints (building a craft inbetween a launch and circulizing is a bit weird), but lets keep it playable and challenging for newbies aswell without KSP raising the bar to unreachable proportions.

 

The Mun is what, the 5th launch? Certainly under 10. How much time on Kerbin does 10 launches take up? It's longer for a brand new player, certainly, but as a first time I player (0.24) I did science mode, and landed on the Mun before I was finished with my second pint. Rendezvous, OTOH, was much more challenging for me as a noob. Admittedly, though, I had done orbital mechanics in the past on paper (and my HP 15c), so I had the basic concepts to begin with.

I agree that career should be designed with new players in mind, but it should also allow for replay, and most on this forum reading this have likely played a while. This is why the idea of things like part failure should not be off the table---not for noobs, but as a way to make it possible to "lose" career.

Edited May 10, 2017 by tater

[LoSBoL]

2 hours ago, tater said:

The Mun is what, the 5th launch? Certainly under 10. How much time on Kerbin does 10 launches take up? It's longer for a brand new player, certainly, but as a first time I player (0.24) I did science mode, and landed on the Mun before I was finished with my second pint. Rendezvous, OTOH, was much more challenging for me as a noob. Admittedly, though, I had done orbital mechanics in the past on paper (and my HP 15c), so I had the basic concepts to begin with.

I agree that career should be designed with new players in mind, but it should also allow for replay, and most on this forum reading this have likely played a while. This is why the idea of things like part failure should not be off the table---not for noobs, but as a way to make it possible to "lose" career.

How many launches before hitting Mun depends on playstyle and which goals you prefer to set for your self. Offcourse it's totally doable within 10 launches, if you choose to. I like the way you can play the game at your own pace, instead of setting out a fixed course of achievements.

But you are absolutely right, Career offers little challenges of it's own when you have basicly already 'been there, done that'...  Mun was a big challenge for me, and the next offered contract was 'build a base on Duna', I can imagine that even for a moderate player this could be fun, while it is a pretty big challenge for a new player (like me), but you could possibly be bored. The learning curve is extended throughout the game, which is part of the fun (at least for me), but there is an end to that one day. So for new players I think career has much to offer and Squad did it pretty good to attract new players and not alienating them to much by giving reasonable timeframes for achievements. I do however applaud (most) expansions of the game to make it more challenging for established players (one day I'll have a direct need for them too). The more sliders for difficulty settings, the better.

Edited May 10, 2017 by LoSBoL

[tater]

All my career comments over the years have really been designed with replay in mind, as I've already had the "first" experiences.

That's why, in addition to a true space race (since a space race is implicitly implied in every aspect of KSP career, anyway), I also favor a new career system that changes the solar system (including scale), and hides data from the player they would not have without space probes---so that a new replay career could have some of the same sense of discovery and accomplishment that everyone's first Mun landing had.

[Noud]

4 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

3 days?   

I can imagine that with hundreds or even thousands of hours playing KSP you can shoot for the Mun with your eyes closed, but one of KSP's strenghts is not forcing a certain playstyle on you. I'm all for time constraints (building a craft inbetween a launch and circulizing is a bit weird), but lets keep it playable and challenging for newbies aswell without KSP raising the bar to unreachable proportions.

 

i agree on this one, getting to the mun in 3 days is more than possible if you know how to play the game.. players who fist start the game and only have seen some trailers of the game can be considered 'new'. and i think 9 out of 10 players who fist start the game have no idea how to get in orbit let alone getting to the mun or minmus. that is why the early parts of the career mode are so much fun as they function as a sort of tutorial where you unlock better tech and gives you nice milestones.

i can get that you want to get it more challenging by adding a time limit to get to the mun in 3 days BUT: 3 days after accepting a contract. the current world first contracts have a time limit of something like 10 years... (not sure exactly)

[tater]

9 minutes ago, Noud said:

i agree on this one, getting to the mun in 3 days is more than possible if you know how to play the game.. players who fist start the game and only have seen some trailers of the game can be considered 'new'. and i think 9 out of 10 players who fist start the game have no idea how to get in orbit let alone getting to the mun or minmus. that is why the early parts of the career mode are so much fun as they function as a sort of tutorial where you unlock better tech and gives you nice milestones.

i can get that you want to get it more challenging by adding a time limit to get to the mun in 3 days BUT: 3 days after accepting a contract. the current world first contracts have a time limit of something like 10 years... (not sure exactly)

I would argue that No one should get to the Mun in 3 kerbin days, or 30. In fact, not 300.

Career is supposed to have some suspension of disbelief. The player is creating their own narrative about the growth of a space program. Everything happens ridiculously fast. Yes, making time meaningful means the player would "warp" though months at a time. I'm fine with that, it's single player, and time should matter.

Inventing rockets to orbit should not be measured in MINUTES, which it is in KSP.