Career mode: fixing what's broke

[Dimas152]

one thing i'd like to be added/rearranged
tech tree,
we started from making basic planes, then we get a probe core, making small rockets, then we make an unmanned orbital rocket, then a crew capsule, etc etc...

RnD
add other features so we can do science and upgrade parts in it

[Pthigrivi]

Been noodling on this a bit this week. After some fiddling I do think the initial Planes/Rockets/Probes split can work. I feel like the most important thing is to organize the parts in a way that allows multiple strategic branches. So for instance you could just climb vertically up the Planes route until you had the tools to cheaply put satellites in orbit with spaceplanes, or you could push forward sending deep space probes early and use those higher multipliers to unlock everything else. I also ended up moving a lot of the more basic quality of life parts (lights, ladders, structural doohickies) earlier in the tech tree. Next I guess is to see if I can plug this into Yongetech and set some sensible node unlock costs.



It does lead me to believe there could be better options in the Administration building to facilitate committed strategies. For instance there could be strategies for Terrestrial Science (higher rewards for data from Kerbin), Spectroscopy (Higher rewards for returned or processed samples), and Data Analysis, (higher rewards for transmitted data). Im liking the idea that samples can't be transmitted without processing and that they are all that can be processed more and more. Its a good check on the OP Science labs and presents clear strategic decisions to the player, to go manned and maximize field research or focus on lighter weight probes and the low risk/reward they offer. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[81ninja]

I play Career and only Career, and I play it on hard. And I'm 1300+ hours into it. So far, mostly stock game, with a few exceptions.
So here's my 2 .

• Tech Tree
  The tech tree's initial levels were hard to come, and that was good. Every new tech I could acquire was almost immediately chewn for hours on like bubblegum, to use it the best way I could to improve on my designs. This means a lot of time in the VAB, and testing models to varying degrees of success.
  The late tech tree, on the other hand, and besides the higher science cost, felt/feels very bland and easy. Sure new parts are used to improve designs all the same, but there's no challenge in unlocking them - just time. By this point I haven't really even unlocked the whole tech tree, but it's a matter of time as I have a lot of labs crunching science experiments. And the parts in later techs, with the exception of a few, are all but vital to my space program. At some point even reducing the part count was a good thing, now I almost don't even bother. 
  
  That's not to say the tech tree doesn't need changes, but it doesn't really need to be split by "playstyle". I do all playstyles, and I don't think it has to be made that easy to just follow you like most - sure as an experienced player you'll have preferences, but a new player might be on about to just explore all options, like I was.
   
• More surface features and exploring for science
  Definitely! Going around in rovers, even for survey contracts, is about the most boring thing to do in the game. Once I already a rover in Mun for example, I can just get anywhere in it. But I'm tempted to just hit Alt+F12 and complete the contracts, just to not spend 2 hours avoiding rocks.
   
• Spotting such features and biomes from orbit
  *cough* KerbNet *cough* SCANsat *cough*...
  SCANSat makes it too easy and KerbNet is rather incomplete, and not as cool, but I like the way I have to find anomalies in it, by actually looking for them. No automatic waypoints - I spot the ? in KerbNet, mark it using a waypoint, edit that waypoint in Waypoint Manager, and later try to spot the anomaly with Eyeballs Mk1 orbiting low over the place, before sending in a lander.
  All features already available somehow in KSP, which brings us to...
   

On 5/5/2018 at 5:21 PM, Pthigrivi said:

2) Include a stock alarm clock for setting reminders on manuvers, encounters, transfer windows, etc.

3) Include a transfer window finder. This needn't be a list of dates, in fact its probably better if players can play with optimization a bit. Something like Transfer Window Planner with an orrery so you can see how it works?

• Features that area already available in mods
  I definitely don't need washed down versions of great mods in KSP. KerbNet was almost one of those, compared to SCANSat, but I still use it because I think SCANSat's mapping of anomalies was too easy. Alarms for maneuver nodes might be another example - I don't need a bland version of this feature that I'd simply want to / have to replace with Kerbal Alarm Clock, specially if it conflicts with the mod I already love and use, instead of improving on it.
  I also toy around with FlightPlan and maneuver nodes, to find the best transfer. And transfer windows are available in AlexMun's transfer window planner, site and mod, with pork chop plot and everything.
   
• Science action group
  I use one of the Custom actions for that, and that's one benefit of unlocking Custom Action Groups. Maybe being able to rename the action groups? I'd definitely name one "Science".
   

On 5/5/2018 at 5:21 PM, Pthigrivi said:

• 5) Give the experiments themselves additional perks in flight and/or information valuable to the player later. For instance thermometers could enable visible heat bars, barometers could enable flight trajectory factoring drag, having a gravoli could increase the chance surface features are mapped, etc.

More functions/gameplay to science instruments, other than their only use being collect science, yeah that'd be nice.

On 5/5/2018 at 5:21 PM, Pthigrivi said:

1) Add Delta-V and TWR readouts in the VAB/SPH and in flight.

• NO!! I don't want instant dV readouts, part of the challenge for me is to make it just right... by calculating those values before and during the mission and every maneuver. TWR only needs to be calculated once, and can be read on the Navball while applying thrust (as acceleration / G forces).
  Maybe add those to the numbers while in the VAB, as in maximum delta V and min and max TWR, since it'll change as fuel is spent. 
   

On 5/5/2018 at 5:21 PM, Pthigrivi said:

Make Milestones the MainQuest:

• I like that sometimes Milestones are given as Contracts but you can also discover / complete them "by accident", and they're done forever. 
  I guess it wouldn't hurt to have them all listed from the beginning, but they'd better be available as a progression and not having the end goals available from the start, even if you know you can do them. For example I accidentally escaped Kerbin...and Kerbol while trying to complete the contract for exploring the Mun. But I only had the Mun Fly By as a goal at the time, not even landing on it yet.
   

  On 5/5/2018 at 5:21 PM, Pthigrivi said:

  Better Strategery:

• Strategies are really a thing you buy 3 of and forget about them forever, their usefulness is limited and there's not much gameplay involved. Really needs some more dynamics.
   

  On 5/5/2018 at 5:21 PM, Pthigrivi said:

  Make Time a thing:

  This is another huge factor that I know a lot of players are interested in. Its of course very tricky because of time warp--anything that comes with a benefit over time encourages players to just time-warp through it (see the Mobile Processing Lab). Worse, if you try to hinder that with factors that cost over time it punishes players for time-warping when they really need to,  something that's desperately difficult to calibrate when some players want to play around KSOI and others want to warp out to Jool. I think there are a couple of ways that this could all be managed, however:

  
  1) Give Milestone contracts calendar based bonuses--ie, if you get to the Mun or to Duna before X date you receive World First bonus rewards. 

  2) Give building and research upgrades a duration to completion on a toggle. Rocket construction could be based on cost, with construction speeds increased with VAB/SHP upgrades.

  3) Open the door for experiments that take time to complete.

  4) Add life-support with a toggle. With a simplified habitation mechanic I think USI-LS is basically ready for stock. 

• Contract Deadlines don't have to be tight, but having them 19 years in the future might be too much, at least for stuff that takes place around Kerbin.
  The way I play (no warping unless there's nothing else to do), in 1300 hours, I've completed 390 contracts and I'm only around Year 1 d 340.
  I might need all those years once I start getting contracts to recover stuff from places on the other side of Kerbol, but at first the deadlines have a lot of slack.
   
• Requiring some time for research / experiments would add... just a new timer. Tech already takes some effort (at least in the beginning, without labs) and requiring time for research, besides the points, would just delay gratification for the already boring work of collecting science points. 
  Time for construction might be interesting, since it'd make the player push to launch as soon as possible if there's an opportunity in check, like a launch window. But what I really would like is the next item.
   
• Make the clock keep ticking while in the VAB / SPH.
  I used to play my game in my own DarkMultiPlayer server, and the server keeps the clock ticking while you're still building rockets (it warps you to the current time when you leave the VAB). So it added a sense of urgency when the reason for building a rocket was, for example, rescuing a craft that's on a lithobraking course.
  But It also had the inconvenient of making me skip maneuver times, because as the time wouldn't tick while in the VAB, KAC wouldn't fire its alerts, so I had to keep my eye on the watch, and get out of the VAB now and then (loading).
   
• I still haven't toyed with life supports, no mods even, as I'm a bit scared of it because I already have a lot of stuff going (stations and vessels and kerbals all over the place). I don't want my Kerbals to die if I do nothing, or can't do it in time in my current save, specially after putting so much effort in them. But I will, someday. Will need to be toggleable though, so I can turn it on only when ready to start.
   
• Habitation mechanics (besides life support) would be cool. From small tweaks like lights going on / off when parts are occupied, or not allowing transferring Kerbals from parts without hatches over fuel tanks, to more complex systems...  Like what I think there is in Kerbalism, there's a lot that can be added there. Even more stock habitation parts, the current selection is somewhat limited in variety. But again, stuff that's provided by mods already.

 

In this long career of mine, I haven't even reached Duna yet. I have a few contracts for testing parts, placing satellites and even mining ore from it, but the missions have been going for quite a while in my "almost realtime" mode.

I've just accepted a contract to recover a part from a low Kerbol orbit, which is going to require me some breakthroughs, as all I have is a station and Sentinel going for solar orbit at the moment. But I still keep getting contracts for testing parts splashed on Kerbin, for example, even at around 53% reputation, 2 million credits and almost all science tree completed.

I think that's a bug related to updates, every time the game updates that progression is pushed a bit back. Or maybe that's just the way it is. and an opportunity to rack up on credits. But those easy, mostly boring survey contracts I keep getting don't add much to my current game, besides giving me -3 reputation if I decline one of them.

I don't know when the game is gonna start pushing me past Duna and to other bodies (it already started for asteroids and Kerbol), and what will happen once I start having to timewarp for serious to get to places. But the next 1,000 ingame hours will tell.

 

 

[AVaughan]

I mod I've played with before that adds some interesting ideas regarding stations, labs and science is 

.  It might be worth incorporating something similar into a science rework. 

[Pthigrivi]

@81ninja Damn, son, 1300 in one save? I've been at this 5 year and I've maybe logged that. 

On 5/11/2018 at 5:13 PM, 81ninja said:

In this long career of mine, I haven't even reached Duna yet. I have a few contracts for testing parts, placing satellites and even mining ore from it, but the missions have been going for quite a while in my "almost realtime" mode.

I don't know when the game is gonna start pushing me past Duna and to other bodies (it already started for asteroids and Kerbol), and what will happen once I start having to timewarp for serious to get to places. But the next 1,000 ingame hours will tell.

Okay, so, I begrudge no-one who's having fun playing kerbal, but you absolutely should have been given reasons to go to Duna within 100 hours into this game. One of the great things about KSP is that an intuitive understanding of orbital mechanics is just the beginning. This game is about the deeper challenge, going farther, and doing more. 
 

On 5/11/2018 at 5:13 PM, 81ninja said:

The tech tree's initial levels were hard to come, and that was good. Every new tech I could acquire was almost immediately chewn for hours on like bubblegum, to use it the best way I could to improve on my designs. This means a lot of time in the VAB, and testing models to varying degrees of success.
The late tech tree, on the other hand, and besides the higher science cost, felt/feels very bland and easy. Sure new parts are used to improve designs all the same, but there's no challenge in unlocking them - just time. By this point I haven't really even unlocked the whole tech tree, but it's a mattof time as I have a lot of labs crunching science experiments. And the parts in later techs, with the exception of a few, are all but vital to my space program. At some point even reducing the part count was a good thing, now I almost don't even bother. 

That's not to say the tech tree doesn't need changes, but it doesn't really need to be split by "playstyle". I do all playstyles, and I don't think it has to be made that easy to just follow you like most - sure as an experienced player you'll have preferences, but a new player might be on about to just explore all options, like I was.

Good to know about the early game, even in hard mode. Although the 'matter of time' reference is still a bit of an indictment of the stock game mechanics. And just so it's visible, those playstyles are already present within the existing tech-tree, they're just executed in a slightly clunky manner. The first two nodes really don't need to exist, at which point you might as well give the players who would like to start with planes and probes a straight shot at it.

 

On 5/11/2018 at 5:13 PM, 81ninja said:

No automatic waypoints - I spot the ? in KerbNet, mark it using a waypoint, edit that waypoint in Waypoint Manager, and later try to spot the anomaly with Eyeballs.
...

Features that area already available in mods.
...

I use one of the Custom actions for that, and that's one benefit of unlocking Custom Action Groups. Maybe being able to rename the action groups? I'd definitely name one "Science".

My central question through all of this has been how do we capitalize upon all of the centrally fun experiences of KSP while eliminating as much repetition and frustration as possible. "But mods though" comes up in this forum and a lot, and the obvious rejoinder is that console players cant use mods and new players may not even be aware of them. This isn't really about your play experience or mine individually, but the about the general game-flow experience of all players. And the results needn't be watered down. If data like this was integrated into the discovery system Squad could actually provide a game element no mod currently does. If we're adding surface features there should be a clear, non-frustrating way to find them, and I just don't think most players would find it fun sitting and watching the little kerbnet window for hours hoping for question marks. Ditto with a science action group--of course you can manually add all those parts to a control group, but why would you want to? would you want to manually add all your lights or your landing gear? Player time could be better spent on more rewarding tasks.
 

On 5/11/2018 at 5:13 PM, 81ninja said:

NO!! I don't want instant dV readouts, part of the challenge for me is to make it just right... by calculating those values before and during the mission and every maneuver. TWR only needs to be calculated once, and can be read on the Navball while applying thrust (as acceleration / G forces).
Maybe add those to the numbers while in the VAB, as in maximum delta V and min and max TWR, since it'll change as fuel is spent. 

At the same time though you've never been to Duna or spent many hours designing and orbitally constructing a Jool-5 mission. Like I said, getting around Kerbin SOI on intuition is no problem. Managing large, complex interplanetary missions requires a some more concrete planning. Many players do the math by hand, which is fine and not very difficult if you're building something simple, but having readouts saves a lot of time on complex long term missions. And any dV readout is going to be in a drop-down of some kind, so folks who are passionate about not knowing should have no problem mustering the will power not to look. 
 

On 5/11/2018 at 5:13 PM, 81ninja said:

I like that sometimes Milestones are given as Contracts but you can also discover / complete them "by accident", and they're done forever. 
I guess it wouldn't hurt to have them all listed from the beginning, but they'd better be available as a progression and not having the end goals available from the start, even if you know you can do them. For example I accidentally escaped Kerbin...and Kerbol while trying to complete the contract for exploring the Mun. But I only had the Mun Fly By as a goal at the time, not even landing on it yet.
 

This is kind of what I mean though, you've been playing a loonng time and only ever discovered these by accident. Those contracts are out there waiting whenever you feel like going to a place you've never been, its just that the UI hasn't informed you of that fact. 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[Kaa253]

I play only career with USI-LS, MKS and CTT.
So I feel that the tech tree and the life support challenge is well done by these mods (with the exception that rockets come before planes and, even more ridiculous, wheels). 
What I really want to see is improved missions contracts!
Your @Pthigrivi ideas for the milestones missions are really great; but if only the mission builder had been compatible with career mode ...
 

[OHara]

On 5/11/2018 at 9:27 AM, Pthigrivi said:

I feel like the most important thing is to organize the parts in a way that allows multiple strategic branches.

By 'multiple strategic branches' I understand you to mean multiple choices in what order to unlock the parts in a career.

Splitting into many branches early, like the Historical Progression Tech Tree, gives more choices of which branch to advance at any point in a career.  It happens that the author there used the word 'linear' to describe his tree, which does not at first sound like what you want, but the many parallel branches give a high-dimensional space of choice to the player.  It is also easier to find the technology you want next in its grid organization.

You might want to split your branches all the way down to the starting node, so that you have 12 parallel paths branch out immediately after the starting node, grouped by technology rather than intended application, with the early-node research costs reduced as there are fewer parts in each node.   Then we can choose, for example, to develop aerodynamic recovery of upper rocket-stages using wings, without air-breathing engines or landing gear, or liquid fuel tanks (or even cockpits if I had chosen to build this with capsules).

[81ninja]

On 5/12/2018 at 10:42 PM, Pthigrivi said:

@81ninja Damn, son, 1300 in one save? I've been at this 5 year and I've maybe logged that. 

I play career, on hard (limited rewards), disabled extra groundstations, avoid killing Kerbals, and don't revert (except when due to game bugs / kraken). At any given time I have 12-15 contracts accepted, I don't usually decline (except the silly survey contracts...), and right now there are around 60 flights going on about 40 missions, though some are idling / waiting for rescue, not counting the relays and left over stages that are being or to be returned.

And I learned all about the game while playing it, not by looking at the wiki or watching YouTube videos on how to do stuff.

You wonder why my game has been going for so many hours...:D

On 5/12/2018 at 10:42 PM, Pthigrivi said:

 I just don't think most players would find it fun sitting and watching the little kerbnet window for hours hoping for question marks. 

The way I work with it is this: once the craft enters the body's SOI, still far away from the surface, I open KerbNet so I can get a glance at the whole side I'm looking on. Probes and modules are limited in how many degrees they can look at, and in how many degrees in their focus they can detect anomalies on (a percentage).

So looking at the body from far away gives the most probability of spotting any anomalies on that side, but at a lower precision, due to the lower resolution. I mark the spots.

When a second flight, or the same one, happens to be flying over that point closer to the surface, I look at it using Kerbnet again, to try to see if I can get a more precise position and mark it.
Sometimes it just happens, sometimes I use SCANSat to predict when the point I first marked will be under a craft's orbit, and add a maneuver node at that time, or an alert in KAC.

Once I have marked the spot with enough precision, next I try to see the anomaly while in flight, when I have a craft orbiting or flying low enough over it. Or I send in a lander, which may have another primary mission, like exploring a biome or taking tourists to land, but I use the opportunity to explore.

So far, that way I found the Desert Pyramids, the dish on the other side of Kerbin, the Rock Arch, the Armstrong Memorial... All using Kerbnet.

And having no idea they were even there. I just opened Kerbnet, saw a question mark on the Mun, and marked it for future reference. Then I was orbiting over the KSC and saw the same question mark over the Monolith, and connected the dots. 2016, A Space Oddissey

I now have maybe a dozen other marks waiting to be pinpointed / explored on Mun, Minmus and even on Kerbin. Expecting to find more anomalies when my first sat reaches Duna, in a few months.

On 5/12/2018 at 10:42 PM, Pthigrivi said:

Those contracts are out there waiting whenever you feel like going to a place you've never been, its just that the UI hasn't informed you of that fact. 

You're right. That, and now I got a part recover contract in a Sun orbit that's lower than Moho's, which will require some previously unseen planning (and amount of dV). Yet I haven't even got missions for Moho and Eve fly-bys or sats, like there were for Mun, Minmus and now Duna, that would've been a tad easier - though I may "complete" them, in case I use Eve or Moho for a gravity assist.

 

[Pthigrivi]

18 hours ago, 81ninja said:

The way I work with it is this: once the craft enters the body's SOI, still far away from the surface, I open KerbNet so I can get a glance at the whole side I'm looking on. Probes and modules are limited in how many degrees they can look at, and in how many degrees in their focus they can detect anomalies on (a percentage).

Right, which is without scansat the way we have to do things now. Like I said Kerbnet is great for landings, but science collection and site selection should be at least as clear if not clearer than resource prospecting, and big component of that is being able to see the whole picture in map mode. I suggest automatic waypoints (on a toggle even) for the same reason I suggest a science control group--the game is fundamentally better when we automate tedious tasks so player time can be focused on more important (and fun) activities. 

 

18 hours ago, 81ninja said:

You're right. That, and now I got a part recover contract in a Sun orbit that's lower than Moho's, which will require some previously unseen planning (and amount of dV). Yet I haven't even got missions for Moho and Eve fly-bys or sats, like there were for Mun, Minmus and now Duna, that would've been a tad easier - though I may "complete" them, in case I use Eve or Moho for a gravity assist.

Which is part of the reason I think these contracts need more presence in Mission Control. The reason you aren't seeing local contracts for those planets is that you haven't been there yet, and you haven't been there yet because the game hasn't offered you a contract to go there. If instead you opened up a tab and could see advances and completion rewards for Duna or Moho Milestones those goals would be obvious and any other contracts dealing with those bodies would just be extra incentives. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[Delbrutis]

On 5/7/2018 at 12:30 PM, Pthigrivi said:

True, but many players would prefer to start out in a more historical feeling progression

I don't think it's just the fact that the tree is not historical. I think most people object to the random ridiculousness of the order that the parts are unlocked in. And the fact that You do seem to unlock the whole tree to quickly making many of the parts that should be used to build early rockets redundant and unused in carrier mode.

On 5/7/2018 at 5:04 PM, The Dunatian said:

I've never had any problems because of the tech tree order. 

I see you haven't played career mode much.

[Delbrutis]

On 5/8/2018 at 3:39 PM, 5thHorseman said:

Maybe I'm jaded, I don't know.

You and half the  KSP community that’s been around for any amount of time.

 

[Mr. Peabody]

2 hours ago, Delbrutis said:

I don't think it's just the fact that the tree is not historical. I think most people object to the random ridiculousness of the order that the parts are unlocked in. And the fact that You do seem to unlock the whole tree to quickly making many of the parts that should be used to build early rockets redundant and unused in carrier mode.

I see you haven't played career mode much.

Very droll. Says the man with 37 rep.

[Pthigrivi]

Well I think the waggly tongue implies it he/she was makin a wisecrack

[klgraham1013]

5 hours ago, The Dunatian said:

Very droll. Says the man with 37 rep.

Says the man with 505 rep. 

[mattinoz]

On 5/6/2018 at 5:41 PM, pandaman said:

I too would like to see a (simple and toggleable) stock implementation of Life Support.

I agree that 'Time' is a biggy too...  I think it needs some form of construction time, and long term experiments (such as temperature readings on a planet's surface) that give relatively small amounts of 'science' on activation, but when left running it accumulates more data (and science) which, could enable more accurate 'predictions' for other aspects (like working out how many radiators you need).

Time warp would be used exactly as it is now -  to fast forward to the next event you need to attend to, so an alarm clock is also essential.

The only problem I see with this is long missions without planning tools doesn’t work so well. I mean you either want plan them out in detail or play them out to conclusion. 

Still think part of the solution maybe let us play them out ahead Cannon timeline in effect pre recording them to play out in to the timeline as it progresses. Which sets up more opportunities for rewards over time. In effect we’ll plan by the seat of our pants.

[pandaman]

9 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

The only problem I see with this is long missions without planning tools doesn’t work so well. I mean you either want plan them out in detail or play them out to conclusion. 

Still think part of the solution maybe let us play them out ahead Cannon timeline in effect pre recording them to play out in to the timeline as it progresses. Which sets up more opportunities for rewards over time. In effect we’ll plan by the seat of our pants.

Agreed.  Planning tools should definitely be part of the package.

[The_Rocketeer]

I'm a little surprised that after so many years of demanding it, no modder or group of modders has got organised to produce a "total conversion mod" that combines standalone mod features and tools to -even partially- fix these things in a single package. I've seen this done with other games, often by modders working alone, on many occasions.

If a mod package existed that effectively demonstrated the demand for and scope of the changes you want, even if it couldn't deliver any of them entirely, it would probably attract more attention than dreamy, needy forum posts (I'm guilty of writing these too).

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I'm a little surprised that after so many years of demanding it, no modder or group of modders has got organised to produce a "total conversion mod" that combines standalone mod features and tools to -even partially- fix these things in a single package. I've seen this done with other games, often by modders working alone, on many occasions.

If a mod package existed that effectively demonstrated the demand for and scope of the changes you want, even if it couldn't deliver any of them entirely, it would probably attract more attention than dreamy, needy forum posts (I'm guilty of writing these too).

What can I say, I am a perpetual optimist  But hell yeah if there was a solid mod to streamline science and add surface features I'd be all over it.

[Darinth]

On 5/15/2018 at 10:29 AM, Pthigrivi said:

the game is fundamentally better when we automate tedious tasks so player time can be focused on more important (and fun) activities. 

I think this is really the fundamental problem with science. Building out a proper set of stock automation tools so you can tell your probes & kerbals to follow a set of actions would eliminate a lot of the drudgery. Unfortunately, this is mostly meaningless without the ability for these tasks to occur on the background which gets into questions of physics simulations. There are extreme limits that are just a part of the game engine, and while technically able to be bypassed I don't think it is realistically able to be bypassed. This means making estimations that are close but don't actually simulate the physics for a rover moving across the surface, for a craft doing a suborbital hop & reland, etc...

This is my pie-in-the-sky ideal for what I'd want to see. Instantiation of multiple krakensbanes/floating-point origins and improvements to the physics engine that are sufficient to allow several crafts to simultaneously be undergoing physics simulations regardless of distance. Unfortunately... it really is a dream. I don't think KSP will ever be able to support that level of automation.

[djr5899]

I spend most of my time playing in career....usually getting to X point where I get stuck for hours on a particular area (like docking), and after finally figuring it out, starting my career over again.  Hopefully, the career game I am on right now will be one that I use for quite awhile, and use Sandbox to figure out new things.  Anyways, right now I only use KER for dV readouts and other information, and Docking Port Alignment Indicator mods.  I know some of the things I'd like to see can be achieved by mods, however, I am still relatively new to the game, and have typically always installed the latest game version.  A lot of mods are so specific to a particular version, or don't get updated often, that I don't want to mess with them.

Anyways, a few things I want to see:

1. Stock ability to build/rebuild/repair items in space.  Perfect example from my relatively new career is, I want to start sending out some unmanned probes to Mun and Minmus.  I am still early in the game, and don't have a lot unlocked, especially for Probes.  I want to build satellites so I have control of my probes, but I only have some basic satellite parts available and not very strong antennas.  They will work for what I want to do now, but later on, I'd like to be able to upgrade the satellites.....take a cargo ship out to the satellite, and swap out a weaker antenna for a stronger one after I've unlocked it.  Or swap out smaller batteries with larger ones, etc.  I hate having to build a satellite that I need now, but know that in several hours of game play, after more parts are unlocked, the satellite will be obsolete and I need to replace it completely.
2. Make Kerbal roles more relevant.  Make Pilot/Scientist/Engineer have more meaning in the game.  I see so many people say that Pilots are useless.  Maybe make Pilots a little more essential to the game.  Upgrade ALL of the roles so that more specific tasks are added as you level up, especially into level 4 and 5 roles.
3. Enable real-time damage.  Having problems docking.....broke off a solar array.....slammed a ship into a station a bit too hard.  This kind of goes with #2, but make Engineers be able to repair more stuff, by enabling parts being damaged by ships, collisions, asteroids, etc.
4. Related to #1.....a robotic arm to help build.
5. Better sorting of science data, both on ships and in the Archives.  Unless I am missing the view, it's not easy to see all the science I collected for a specific planet, or for a specific biome, or for a specific instrument.  I believe you can do some of this today in the Archives......but, I still think it can be arranged better.  And, I would like to see science collection/storage be a little better.  Don't like that I can't take multiple crew reports or EVA reports and store them away for the science when I return, and it has you dump experiments.
6. Add a points/achievement/accomplishment score to sandbox.  Sandbox is great for building and testing with all parts available, but, the main reason I stick to career is for the progression/scoring type component.  For me, I love building some of the stations and things in Sanbox.  But when I build a huge Science space station, and then send scientist up there to work.....on collecting science.....when I don't need science because science isn't gathered in sandbox, sometimes the tasks seem moot.  A simple "score" in sandbox would be interesting.  Assign some values to different types of tasks.  Orbit Kerbin = score of 10......dock two ships = 100, gather X science in module lab in space =200, plant flag on Eve = 1000.....just some type of scoring to add some increased gameplay to sandbox.

[General Apocalypse]

This is an idea salad posted by OP so I have to profoundly disagree with it.

Plus the problem is kind of readily solved by the community.

[Kerbart]

23 minutes ago, General Apocalypse said:

This is an idea salad posted by OP so I have to profoundly disagree with it.
Plus the problem is kind of readily solved by the community.

If the forumwould actually work in a tablet I’d split the quote in half, but alas.

1) That seems to have come out way more rude than you intended it to be. Surely you mean you disagree with the “salad”of ideas, not with the OP him(her) self?

2) The game should be as exciting as it can right out of the box. With console versions and likely a much larger crowd out there than what’s here on the forum who probably don’t do mods, the “there’s a mod for that” approach is pointless.

In addition, the problem is with some fundamental game aspects that need a more holistic approach in fixing career, not just a single (eg tech tree) aspect approach

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Darinth said:

This is my pie-in-the-sky ideal for what I'd want to see. Instantiation of multiple krakensbanes/floating-point origins and improvements to the physics engine that are sufficient to allow several crafts to simultaneously be undergoing physics simulations regardless of distance. Unfortunately... it really is a dream. I don't think KSP will ever be able to support that level of automation.

I know there are performance reasons why this probably cant happen the way some folks wish, so yeah, its tough. The kind of automation Im most interested in isn't actually having the computer fly the ship, but in streamlining other parts of the UI to reduce repetitive clicking. There are some additional piloting skills that could could be nice though, like holding angle to horizon for long flights, holding position X,Y,Z to make for easier hovering, etc. I feel like its an important part of the game that players are still engaged and not just watching the computer do things entirely for them, but thats a personal preference. 
 

2 hours ago, djr5899 said:

1. Stock ability to build/rebuild/repair items in space.  Perfect example from my relatively new career is, I want to start sending out some unmanned probes to Mun and Minmus.  I am still early in the game, and don't have a lot unlocked, especially for Probes.  I want to build satellites so I have control of my probes, but I only have some basic satellite parts available and not very strong antennas.  They will work for what I want to do now, but later on, I'd like to be able to upgrade the satellites.....take a cargo ship out to the satellite, and swap out a weaker antenna for a stronger one after I've unlocked it.  Or swap out smaller batteries with larger ones, etc.  I hate having to build a satellite that I need now, but know that in several hours of game play, after more parts are unlocked, the satellite will be obsolete and I need to replace it completely.

2. Make Kerbal roles more relevant.  Make Pilot/Scientist/Engineer have more meaning in the game.  I see so many people say that Pilots are useless.  Maybe make Pilots a little more essential to the game.  Upgrade ALL of the roles so that more specific tasks are added as you level up, especially into level 4 and 5 roles.

I didn't delve too deeply into kerbal skills in the OP but yes, I would love to see them more fully fleshed out. A big part of that would be some kind of stock KIS/KAS, allowing engineers to swap out parts and make field modifications. Not only would it be a fun mechanic, but it would save a lot of missions that started with "oops I forgot to put a ladder on that". Just some thoughts off the bat on extending Kerbal skills past level 3:

Pilots:
- Hold angle to horizon
- Maintain velocity
- Hold position X, Y, Z
- Landing zone prediction
- Conics factoring drag (aerobrake prediction)
- Time to impact/intercept/reentry/exit atmo

Engineers:
- Link/unlink field struts/fuel hoses
- Attach/remove solar panels, antennae, struts, etc.
- Repair overheated/damaged engines/reactors
- Maintain COM via fuel redistribution
- Reassign action groups in flight
- Remaining dV readout in flight

Scientists:
- Perform resource value test in MPL
- Take surface feature core sample
- Level based bonuses to sample value
- Level based bonus to anomaly discovery chance
- Level based increases to greenhouse efficiency (if LS was ever implemented)
 

3 hours ago, djr5899 said:

5. Better sorting of science data, both on ships and in the Archives.  Unless I am missing the view, it's not easy to see all the science I collected for a specific planet, or for a specific biome, or for a specific instrument.  I believe you can do some of this today in the Archives......but, I still think it can be arranged better.  And, I would like to see science collection/storage be a little better.  Don't like that I can't take multiple crew reports or EVA reports and store them away for the science when I return, and it has you dump experiments.

This is a great point. You can see all of the things you've collected in the Archives but its pretty hard to make use of. Its listing the things we have, but what I really want is a list of what we don't have so I can see what I've missed and whats still out there to get.
 

56 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

1) That seems to have come out way more rude than you intended it to be. Surely you mean you disagree with the “salad”of ideas, not with the OP him(her) self?

Thanks, Kerb. Im not hurt though.

[Kesa]

On 6/4/2018 at 6:26 PM, djr5899 said:

  1. Stock ability to build/rebuild/repair items in space.

Done in KIS/KAS, which may be interesting inclusion to stock. But the truth is, for the example of application you cite, bringing a brand new satellite probably would be less of a hassle than setting up rendez vous with old ones, and might even be more efficient as well if said satellite is smaller than the manned craft doing the maintenance.

Quote

2. Make Kerbal roles more relevant.  Make Pilot/Scientist/Engineer have more meaning in the game.  I see so many people say that Pilots are useless.  Maybe make Pilots a little more essential to the game.  Upgrade ALL of the roles so that more specific tasks are added as you level up, especially into level 4 and 5 roles.

Roles were a bit poor when they came out but they feel alright IMO. Pilots are great early on for SAS, and later on to pilot drones (unmanned craft with no conection to KSC ; you can even roleplay or use a mod to simulate communication delay, forcing you to have pilot on site to do any complex task).

Engineer are the least useful early on, since your landing legs are not supposed to break and still work when they do (only the spring is locked), but they can repack chute. Later on, they are the most useful, running drills and ore refineries.

Scientist are very useful to recycle experiences, maybe too useful, and they can be used in a lab later on. I would not be against some tweaking to the science system, most of all, I think scientist, given they are most likely geologist (keologist?) and a bit biologist, could be able to detect biomes.

Quote

3. Enable real-time damage.

No. Routinely repairing stuff can be a chore for some, I would leave that for a mod (there's one if you're interested). The game could introduce finner degree of destruction than part exploding and joint breaking, but that would remain a very minor feature, since nobody would deliberately slam their vessel into their station (and if they do on accident, they would possibly make things worse by trying to perform an EVA, b etter to encourage newbees to reload here).

Quote

5. Better sorting of science data. 

You can do all what you describe in the archive. Archive does lack a way of visualizing science you don't have though, but in my opinion it's fair, since you don't have it. Having such a visual is not of the utmost importance for small ship since you should do all the science the ship can do as soon as you enter a new biome, but it could be an interesting feature for science labs. Also, any of the science mod that ease the tedium of science gathering could be implemented and attached to a skilled enough non piloting on board scientist.

Quote

6. Add a points/achievement/accomplishment score to sandbox.

It no longer would be sandbox. In my first career game, I spent a lot of time doing the same atmoshperic contracts over and over, not because I needed them, not because I liked them, but because I was proposed them. I could have used my time differetly, and now I know better than to accept every contract thrown at me. Sandbox mode, more than every other mode, should be void of any reward system pushed to the player, so that the player gets to define his goals himself. Some player use their sandbox to build trains and never leave the ground, let alone the atmosphere. They would not be rewarded by any sane point system you could imagine for a game called KSP, yet I'm sure they feel some sort of accomplishement.

If you're the kind of person who craves reward system, then sandbox is supposed to be just that, a place to test your craft. By the way, you can transfer crafts from one save to another if you're wondering.

To emulate what you are describing, start a new career mode at lowest difficulty settings and enough starting funds and science to unlock everything, and rejoice each time you receive a message telling you broke a new milestone (land and distance record, then for most bodies flyby, orbit, spacewalk, docking, suborbital, landing, walking).

Edited June 6, 2018 by Kesa

[Kesa]

My first career ever looked like what someone described a earlier in this thread, unlocking the whole tech tree in less than an ingame year without ever leaving Kerbin SOI.

I don't think it is necessarilly a bad thing. The game tends to work on the assumption most players will only land once on each body rather than scourge the Mun and Minmus out of their science points, or that they will want to have a lot of science to go interplanetary, namely Nerva, and possibly big command pods landing legs and ladders. And this assumption tend to be true from what I've witnessed other players doing.

For a completionist like me, custom settings do wonder. I'm currently working with science at 10%, funds at 20 and penalities (building upgrades) at 200. I have to scourge every bodies of their last point of science, and I get to utilize fully each and every part or building upgrade feature as I unlock them. Many complaints about career can be solved by carefully choosing a custom difficulty setting that suits you.

 

I also get to appreciate the variety of ealy game decision available.

Rocket-Plane-probe, but also

VAB or launchpad first? Or even science complex before upgrading them both.

Do I postponed patched conics to get that upgraded launchpad one mission earlier? or manouever nodes?

 

I see people complaining about landing legs and mobility echancer coming too late in the tree, but the truth is :

• you don't need them
• a beginner don't need to see them (he should focus on getting into orbit)
• you don't want them in a sub 30 part craft
• you can make them out of modular grider segments.

So you can think of landing legs and mobility enhancer as better lighter version of what you are given from the get go.

 

I think the Rocket-Plane-Probe part is quite well done in the current tech tree. Also, I like the interconnections. It may seems like the branches are less definite (compared to the OP's proposal), but it lets you jump from a branch to another more easily, and still allows you to beeline a particular branch.

 

The rocket part is a bit expensive science point wise, with three different branches for big engines, small engines and fuel tanks, but the payoff (being able to go to other bodies with ease) is huge, from the very beginning of the branch.

The plane part won't get you to space and won't get you many science points, but test contract will help compensate that in a unique way, and the funds gain from increased reusability will help getting building upgrades faster. The Juno and the wheel might come a bit earlier, but that's not a necessity, the rocket node you have to unlock for the Juno more than pays for itself and the Juno node, even in the hardest difficulty setting.

The probe part starts a bit late in my opinion. For a lot people the lack of SAS on stayputnick is a big nono. Good for them, but it also enables very unique kinds of mission, like piloting a craft without SAS, or dropping it from a manned vessel in a Mun assist toward an exit of KSOI while the manned craft accomplishes orbit around the Mun. The problems I have are the following :

1. You gain access to it too late.
2. You only really benefit from probe core once you got tiny engine
3. You gain access to okto only one tier later, in a tech which also contains the first solar panel, which might be considered staple.

To solve 1 and 2, I think stayputnik should be on level 2. I think it's good to keep tiny engines in their own level 4 node, they are too good to be cheap and enable a big number of design, manned and unmanned.

3 will be exacerbated if you implement a life support mod requiring electricity like USI-LS, making solar panels more of a necessity, and stayputnik even more transtory. An idea to solve it could be introducing low tier high storage non rechargeable batteries. It would considerably lower the need for solar panels, which are an expensive tech early on, and would open ideas for missions running on a limited amount of energy supply, like many RL missions are. In a way, fuel cell is a form of non rechargeable battery, but it comes late, and is not convenient for data transfer, where you want huge amount of EC available immediately.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Kesa