More challenging career mode is what we need.

[tater]

8 minutes ago, Daveroski said:

Oh my goodness no... not my kind of game at all.
Far too much micromanagement.
I want to pilot the missions. (I can too from IVA)
I want to build the ships, stations and bases.. No Problem there.

That is not micromanagement, that is management. Micromanagement is the player having to do every single job, serially.

I like flying the missions, and I really like docking and landing, for example. But when I have a program with a station that needs resupply, I'd prefer that aspect to be managed via me setting a schedule, and it just happening. I can pick the pilots based upon their skill so they become more skilled, too (one good pilot, one noob in training).

I need not "micromanage" anything, that's just a function of good UI, frankly. The point is to have management problems that need to be addressed:

A good Jool window is approaching, but I have 3 other things I need to do, and that changes my Jool craft budget.

8 minutes ago, Daveroski said:

All that management of funds etc. but to what end? Eventually I'll still have unlocked all the tree and still be feeling like something is lacking in the game when I am landing my Tylo Miner. There's a kind of 'So What!?' feeling.

No end in sight.. no objectives... no End-Game.
It doesn't matter how much micromanagement is added to the game, it will still end up being an endless sandbox game.

Having an actual 'Game Over' situation would give me something to aim for and make me feel more like starting a new game to try things differently.

It seems we and many others want different things from our game.

I think for a "career" there need to be a chance of failure. Failure in KSP career is impossible, except maybe in "grind" mode.

Hence my suggestion of a foil to play against---a space race. That would be the goal, to stay ahead of the competition. There could be multiple versions of this, it could be nationalistic, like the real one, or it could be commercial. In either case, the "race" aspect (with time, life support, failures, etc actually being a thing) provides a nice incentive to do things you might not otherwise do. You need to wait for the research you started on a higher Isp upper stage engine for maximum likelihood of success, but your opponent program just orbited the Mun, and their next mission is likely a landing, so you need to go NOW with what you have, or lose the race.

[regex]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

That is not micromanagement, that is management. Micromanagement is the player having to do every single job, serially.

Which is what KSP already has the player doing. KSP is the embodiment of micromanagement, which is why it makes for very poor progression-based gameplay.

Edited May 5, 2017 by regex

[Daveroski]

6 hours ago, Noud said:

Fist of all the game is great but one thing is bugging me: the career mode is not really pushing you.

the reason i came to this conclusion is that is has no real goals other than doing contracts. i personally never or almost never leave the kerbin system in career mode. this is because you actually dont need to because with the help of the mun, minmus and a orbital research station you can unlock the entire tech tree in stock and every usefull tech node in Communitytechtree mod.

 

so my question for you is: how do you keep your career mode fun all the way to the end?

I mentioned my Tylo Miner earlier.

Tylo is a challenge.

The transfer window. Miss that and you could be waiting a couple of years for another.
The launch vehicle. Launching something heavy and with an unforgiving COM and still keep it as realistic as possible is fun too.
I like to try to orbit jool without having to use Jool's atmosphere and without having to burn any fuel at all to get the orbit.

Tylo. Tylo is big fat and sassy. It may let you land but It isn't keen on letting go of you once it has you.

I'm actually quite looking forward to my next window as I have a new toy to play with once there. I have thousands of hours in-game and can still look forward to things. That's pretty nice don't you think?

This is the kind of challenge I like.

[regex]

12 minutes ago, Daveroski said:

Tylo is a challenge.

The transfer window. Miss that and you could be waiting a couple of years for another.
The launch vehicle. Launching something heavy and with an unforgiving COM and still keep it as realistic as possible is fun too.
I like to try to orbit jool without having to use Jool's atmosphere and without having to burn any fuel at all to get the orbit.

Tylo. Tylo is big fat and sassy. It may let you land but It isn't keen on letting go of you once it has you.

I'm actually quite looking forward to my next window as I have a new toy to play with once there. I have thousands of hours in-game and can still look forward to things. That's pretty nice don't you think?

You face the exact same challenges in sandbox or science mode though, how does this relate to career mode?

[Daveroski]

10 minutes ago, regex said:

You face the exact same challenges in sandbox or science mode though, how does this relate to career mode?

@Noud asked how I keep it fun all the way to 'the end' (that's a laugh - it NEVER ends.)

Playing career mode doesn't mean only doing career missions. Except for maybe some rescue-from-the-surface-of missions most of them are banal.

You never had to rescue a kerbal from Tylo? Me neither yet. But when that one comes up, I'll Be ready for that one too.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Daveroski
Seems I answered the wrong person.

[regex]

17 minutes ago, Daveroski said:

@Noud asked how I keep it fun all the way to 'the end' (that's a laugh - it NEVER ends.)

Playing career mode doesn't mean only doing career missions. Except for maybe some rescue-from-the-surface-of missions most of them are banal.

You never had to rescue a kerbal from Tylo? Me neither yet. But when that one comes up, I'll Be ready for that one too.

So the way to keep things fun in career mode is to ... not do career mode things?

[tater]

I skip rescues since they make no sense (unless they have a name that I find so comical I feel compelled to rescue them).

I expect career to result in a narrative that makes sense. This does NOT mean that career should be scripted by the devs in the least. The narrative is one where my choices tell a story, just as if you read a history of NASA during the Space Race. Rescues imply a competing program---but there is no competing program, so the rescue missions are a complete non sequitur. 

There are ore hauling missions. Why would I need to haul ore from Duna to Ike? I could go on. It's incredibly unsatisfying.

[Daveroski]

1 minute ago, regex said:

So the way to keep things fun in career mode is to ... not do career mode things?

So when you used to play...

Did you only do career mode missions?

Surely you are aware that career mode is a tool to give you options for missions in the unlikely event that you are unable to think for yourself.

While most of the stock missions are stupid beyond belief, a few of them can be quite entertaining but at the end of the day, I'm in charge.. my program. My missions.

4 minutes ago, tater said:

I skip rescues since they make no sense (unless they have a name that I find so comical I feel compelled to rescue them).

I expect career to result in a narrative that makes sense. This does NOT mean that career should be scripted by the devs in the least. The narrative is one where my choices tell a story, just as if you read a history of NASA during the Space Race. Rescues imply a competing program---but there is no competing program, so the rescue missions are a complete non sequitur. 

There are ore hauling missions. Why would I need to haul ore from Duna to Ike? I could go on. It's incredibly unsatisfying.

Oh I agree that most of the missions are ridiculous.

I had just arrived at Ike and had to rescue someone.. and those ore missions.. and test this and that in a stupid way missions. Most are indeed clearly filler.

 

[regex]

1 minute ago, Daveroski said:

Surely you are aware that career mode is a tool to give you options for missions in the unlikely event that you are unable to think for yourself.

Is that what it's for? No wonder I don't find it compelling or even playable.

[tater]

8 minutes ago, Daveroski said:

Surely you are aware that career mode is a tool to give you options for missions in the unlikely event that you are unable to think for yourself.

This is perhaps the single worst trope about career mode.

It has nothing at all do do with an inability to think for yourself. There are only a few possible missions in KSP. Flyby, orbital, and landing. Within that, crewed or uncrewed, one way or return, temporary, or longer term (bases/stations). That's it, times the number of worlds. How is left as an exercise to the player. No imagination is required for missions, frankly.

The point of a proper career mode is to provide a context/framework in which those events occur. The entire "contract" paradigm is dumb, contracts would be tourism or sat launches in the real world. Everything else would be missions/programs/projects of the your space program, internally designed. The point of the framework should be to make novel challenges to those finite mission possibilities. You might lack the technology do do what you want, but the career would give a framework such that you need to do it anyway. A space race, for example. You fly your Mun mission not because you are ready to, but because the other guy is launching his mission soon, and you need to beat him.

Edited May 5, 2017 by tater

[Yemo]

Well, I would love to hear some feedback on an my career challenge:

 

[fourfa]

8 hours ago, Blaarkies said:

Try increasing your difficulty. No not to "Hard", because even with no reverts/quickload that is still way too easy. You sound like you would enjoy setting the difficulty rewards down to 30%(funds, science, rep). Then take off the training wheels(the MPL science lab, don't press that "transmit science" button)

That happens to be my current career mode exactly!  Though I'm also in GPP, so even fewer home planet biomes.  Oh, and never hitting the 'Recover' button outside the KSC grounds.  It's a fun challenge!

[galactictaco]

1 hour ago, tater said:

This is perhaps the single worst trope about career mode.

It has nothing at all do do with an inability to think for yourself. There are only a few possible missions in KSP. Flyby, orbital, and landing. Within that, crewed or uncrewed, one way or return, temporary, or longer term (bases/stations). That's it, times the number of worlds. How is left as an exercise to the player. No imagination is required for missions, frankly.

The point of a proper career mode is to provide a context/framework in which those events occur. The entire "contract" paradigm is dumb, contracts would be tourism or sat launches in the real world. Everything else would be missions/programs/projects of the your space program, internally designed. The point of the framework should be to make novel challenges to those finite mission possibilities. You might lack the technology do do what you want, but the career would give a framework such that you need to do it anyway. A space race, for example. You fly your Mun mission not because you are ready to, but because the other guy is launching his mission soon, and you need to beat him.

what good is the race either tho? you can still get to the mun in your first 24 hours, far less realistically. so that race is either too fast to be doable or too slow to be a challenge. maybe a Duna race, but again, the transfer window is so far in the future its a joke to race for it, maybe if you had to over engineer and leave early, but thats not really a challenge if you regularly build outsized vessels (and most players begin that way, following youtube tutorials and the such.)

 

IRL space races are based on an inability to design certain things, and the need to test them. in KSP however the engines are pre built, guaranteed to work, life support mods are either too easy or too full of micromanagement to be enjoyable, and even without patched conics you can still land and return with relative ease. so you aren't really building up to a mun landing at any point, because the only risk of failure s you not bringing along enough fuel, which with KER becomes a non issue as well.

[HebaruSan]

8 hours ago, Noud said:

with the help of the mun, minmus and a orbital research station you can unlock the entire tech tree in stock and every usefull tech node in Communitytechtree mod. this makes that you dont leave the system for other reasons then just fun.

now i have given some thought on how to fix this and i looked in the forum and mod list for a solution but i could not find it. if there are but i just didnt find it please tell me.

the biggest problem for me is that the tech tree is to easy to unlock with the current science system. i do like the system but if the tech tree had obstacles like: before you can unlock the tech tree node for the nuclear engine with normal science, you need to return a surface sample from a specific biome of duna.
now you can also use this earlier in the tech tree with just science date from minmus, mun or even kerbin.

if i where a modder i would make a mod like this because this makes you go places you otherwise wont go with the tech that has a low chance of success at best.

6 hours ago, Noud said:

im just thinking quick fixes for current version, im hoping the new expansion has a better career mode 

The below was my simplistic suggestion for fixing this: link the goals and rewards directly with tiered Science points and tiered planets. It leaves the core gameplay loop unchanged, except the tech tree unfolds more in proportion to your exploration of the solar system. I'm not aware of a mod for this, and I'm not sure whether one could be made.

I'm mildly surprised we're still seeing the "foil and agents" spiel here. Discovering and dealing with the dynamic quirks of orbits is one of the most rewarding aspects of the current gameplay. They can present different challenges each time you fly (at least until you git gud enough at planning). Transfer windows are just one example; gravity-assists and gravity-captures are others, and of course relative inclination is always there to potentially confound previously proven mission profiles. If you can haphazardly overengineer-and-blunder your way to Laythe or Moho and click "Auto resupply", all that goes out the window.

The problems with foils are similar; you'd have to write an AI capable of doing everything the player does, including design ships and navigate the solar system efficiently, and strike a balance between it being too good and not good enough, for players at all points along the learning cliff. It should obey real delta V requirements rather than cheating according to a pre-baked spreadsheet, because of the aforementioned dynamic orbit challenges. The closest thing we have to an AI currently is probably MechJeb, which needs to be told what maneuvers to perform at each point in a flight. It could probably be upgraded to do a fully automated Mun launch/landing/return, but beyond that?

Or maybe kOS; has anyone written a script to do a Laythe mission?

[tater]

30 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

what good is the race either tho? you can still get to the mun in your first 24 hours, far less realistically. so that race is either too fast to be doable or too slow to be a challenge. maybe a Duna race, but again, the transfer window is so far in the future its a joke to race for it, maybe if you had to over engineer and leave early, but thats not really a challenge if you regularly build outsized vessels (and most players begin that way, following youtube tutorials and the such.)

I said that time needs to matter, that things need to take time. Building rockets, for example. Design a new rocket, hit launch, and it warps 6 months in time or something.

30 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

 

IRL space races are based on an inability to design certain things, and the need to test them. in KSP however the engines are pre built, guaranteed to work, life support mods are either too easy or too full of micromanagement to be enjoyable, and even without patched conics you can still land and return with relative ease. so you aren't really building up to a mun landing at any point, because the only risk of failure s you not bringing along enough fuel, which with KER becomes a non issue as well.

DLC is adding part failures. Add LS, and time (KCT) and you've got something to start with.

[galactictaco]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

I said that time needs to matter, that things need to take time. Building rockets, for example. Design a new rocket, hit launch, and it warps 6 months in time or something.

DLC is adding part failures. Add LS, and time (KCT) and you've got something to start with.

your solution doesn't solve the time problem, because the AI is similarly delayed ( i would hope) making it pretty much a lateral change. i still get to the mun in my opening salvo of missions, and the AI would need to have cheated to have beat me, because by doing this you would've basically made it a turn based game. and I'm still making the same moves.

 

and life support is a excrementsty addition. either you turn it off and ignore it, or you turn it on, put all the recyclers you need on your vessel and ignore it. or you use the Kolonization mod to build self sustaining colonies, and then ignore it. or you purposely hamstring yourself and devote your entire existence to supplying your orbital station a million times while you wait for your supply missions to make it to your Duna station, and so on. have you ever done an interplanetary mission with TAC and just decided to let your crew perish back in LKO because you couldn't be bothered to resupply them the god-knows-how-many times it would need it while your probe flew to Jool? not an exhilarating addition to the game. it sounds like an obvious addition, but the reality is it adds nothing and would just be ignored regardless of if it was on or off. 

 

compelling story lines are the only actual solution, this is after all, just a flight simulator. perhaps the new update to the missions will be enough to fix it, with players submitting compelling mission progressions for each other.

[John FX]

21 minutes ago, tater said:

Design a new rocket, hit launch, and it warps 6 months in time or something.

Kerbal Construction Time already manages this very well. You press launch and it goes into a build queue. Only the first item in the queue is worked on (unless you upgrade your VAB). Depending on the settings and the craft it can take a year to build a rocket.

Very good at making time matter, especially if you have a failed mission that needs rescue and you also have a life support mod.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

My 2 cents this time around:

I would love to see stations and bases have an actual point to existing. You build them and then there they are, oh boy. Yep, there's my station, just hanging out there. OK they can serve as fuel depots or OP science crunchers but that isn't too exciting, they really need purpose. In career mode they are just contract fluff.

I'd like to see Rep have more meaning and be harder to gain. It should give something tangible, like a star rating to your program, each star adding benefits like better gear, cheaper hires, more , etc. Looking to my previous point, having bases and stations could earn rep to the player every X unit of time depending on where they are and how active they are, swapping crew, adding modules, creating fuel, etc. Rep would also be easy to lose, think of a Simcity type of thing where doing nothing would decrease rep.

From a past post, I'd really love to see challenge contracts, land on Mun and return for less than 3000 funds, get a 2t rocket to orbit, etc. Just some fun challenges sprinkled in the regular game to push the player's engineering and flight skills.

Anyhow, I usually set funds to around 80% and science to 60% to add some challenge without too much grind, but lately I've been playing science mode because the contract system tries too hard and ends up being boring, but mostly because I get neurotic about rescuing every G#$%@&M Kerbal and just end up quitting.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Waxing_Kibbous

[tater]

Which is why I'm the first post about it I specifically mentioned KCT.

Warping would warp the progress of the competitors, too.

Edited May 5, 2017 by tater

[Wjolcz]

31 minutes ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

I'd like to see Rep have more meaning and be harder to gain. It should give something tangible, like a star rating to your program, each star adding benefits like better gear, cheaper hires, more , etc. Looking to my previous point, having bases and stations could earn rep to the player every X unit of time depending on where they are and how active they are, swapping crew, adding modules, creating fuel, etc. Rep would also be easy to lose, think of a Simcity type of thing where doing nothing would decrease rep.

This is very close to how my modded career worked. It also had daily funding and waiting for money to accumulate added the passing time element.

Wasn't very well balanced because I never had time to do it but most of the elements were there and worked fairly well.

43 minutes ago, galactictaco said:

compelling story lines are the only actual solution, this is after all, just a flight simulator. perhaps the new update to the missions will be enough to fix it, with players submitting compelling mission progressions for each other.

No, no, no. A scripted story would be one of the worst things that could happen to this game. Maybe for a sequel, in which you have one kerbal pilot/astronaut and you play as him only. Maybe that could work well. It did in IL-2: 1946.

[galactictaco]

29 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

 

No, no, no. A scripted story would be one of the worst things that could happen to this game. Maybe for a sequel, in which you have one kerbal pilot/astronaut and you play as him only. Maybe that could work well. It did in IL-2: 1946.

if it worked like the Portal steam system, where players build campaigns for other players, i don't see how that is different from a lot of the mod work being done. i think you misunderstood me. because I'm not talking about an official story line. 

[XLjedi]

There is a shortcoming in the gameplay...   my serious thought on it is...

Not an issue with difficulty; it's suitably hard enough.  Storyline, meh...  I can pick up a book.

To me, the game is all about the role play that I create, and where it falls apart for me is when I get to the point that I realize I can't develop my own story beyond a factory that exists solely on Kerbin.  What I'm wanting is the ability to manage a solar system empire; and what I'm stuck with is trying to figure out how much delta-v it's gonna take to get my next amazing creation beyond the Kerbin atmosphere.

Launching an orbital version of an SPH... with only parts available that I transport there...  would take this game to a whole new level for me.  As it is now, I fear the clock is ticking on my interest level.  I am enjoying myself though, for now.

 

[tater]

I was also thinking about the actual subject of the thread---challenging. KSP gets easier as you go, but in a "race" scenario (KCT-like, so making a new rocket, even a revision takes time, how many launches did NASA make per year during the space race? As many as 20?), you might have to go without as much planning as you would like. That can make it more challenging (particularly with life support).

[Cunjo Carl]

On 5/5/2017 at 3:56 AM, Noud said:

so my question for you is: how do you keep your career mode fun all the way to the end?

Everyone's got good suggestions, and I'll add mine to the heap!

While what folk say about high difficulty (specifically low science/contract returns) being grindy is true, it also forces you to make some very well-honed craft and exquisitely tricky mission planning. A current example is @xendelaar's ongoing All Reward Sliders at 10% Challenge, a variant of which was also run in the past by @astroheiko. While it's not for everyone, it drives you to make fantastically challenging decisions on priorities, and absolutely demands for you to think outside the normal career box. Which is kinda the point

My way of extending the career mode is to speedrun it- Start up a new career and put a flag on every body as fast as you can in real time! By also imposing a limit on the number of parts you can use per ship, lag is largely ameliorated, and it's all about how quick and clean your piloting is, and how simple and robust you can make your craft. It's a very different challenge, and for me a very fun one. It also forces you to "get out of the house" of Kerbin/Mun/Minmus/Duna and go visit places you may not otherwise have thought to have gone! *cough* Dres *cough* (being silly) Anyways, as an example, here's my run from 1.05, and I'm presently remaking a new one for v1.2. If you're looking for something that feels really novel and exciting while still being career, I can highly recommend it. Again, not for everyone, but also very fun!

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by Cunjo Carl
verbaige

[MrWalrus123]

Yeah, I never understood why testing the temperature in 'x' situation could help unlock technologies ranging from wheels to advanced nuclear engines. 

 

Perhaps it could be like instead of getting general science points, you get points in certain groups, (such as temperature, atmospheric, etc) and these readings could upgrade parts.

For example, temperature science points could be used on certain points to help prevent overheating, until you get to the default max temp.

 

For now, i would just recommend getting mods that add "advanced" parts, so that the tech tree is bigger, or getting life support mods (you can adjust the difficulties of those too i think).