Is Squad planning to change campaign gameplay?

[Corw]

In current KSP I find the campaign gameplay the weakest part of the game. Building crafts and flight model have matured, parts are more beautiful than ever, game is great in sandbox.

But the science, experiments, tech tree progress and buildings upgrade and limitations leave me deeply dissapointed and frustrated. They have no rhyme or reason and feel deeply unfinished. If I'm not mistaken, career is the part of the game that has seen the least changes over the time. I know the contracts have seen a lot of changes and have became good over time, but the core not so much. I keep coming back after each patch to check out new stuff, I start a new career and I keep dropping it with a loud "meh", each time faster then the last.

 

So my question is, do I have something to looks forward to, even if it is far in the future? Is Squad working or career revamp or has plans to do so?

[Gargamel]

9 hours ago, Corw said:

So my question is, do I have something to looks forward to, even if it is far in the future? Is Squad working or career revamp or has plans to do so?

We can speculate all we want till the cows come home, as Squad is pretty tight lipped about planned improvements.   Unless somebody can find an official statement from Squad stating, well, anything really on any given topic, then it's all guesswork and speculation. 

[Xavven]

My best guess is no. There have been so many topics over the years about how to improve the tech tree and career progression but I don't believe much has changed since 1.0. Squad left career mode more or less "random missions mode" instead of "space tycoon".

[klgraham1013]

9 hours ago, Xavven said:

Squad left career mode more or less "random missions mode" instead of "space tycoon".

Oh, what could have been.

[klesh]

Just use the mission builder to make enhanced career missio.... oh, wait, nevermind.  

[Xavven]

In light of the Breaking Ground DLC announcement today, it looks like career mode may be incrementally improved. We'll see once we get a chance to play on May 30th, but from what I'm reading, having more interesting places to visit and long term science experiments sound fun. The robotics addition will make building ground bases easier, as well as transporter-erector-launchers.

What it doesn't fix, however, is the tech tree making little sense, and the buildings having some arbitrary limitations. The tech tree's problem is that parts that have to work together, like engines and bigger tanks of the correct diameter for those engines, and adapters that transition between tank sizes, are sometimes scattered across different nodes. This means that to make a rocket that doesn't look stupid, you have to get ALL of those nodes to effectively build the next rocket size. This removes the sense of making strategic choices. The buildings have some good limitations, but also some silly ones. For example, I like that the launch pad has a weight limit. That makes sense. The VAB should have a height limit too since, y'know, it has to have a ceiling. But I've always taken issue with the VAB having a part limit, especially that 30 part limit at the start of career. Like what, your *building* isn't advanced enough for your workers to weld on another communication antenna? C'mon...

Now I've also thought that KSP career would be more fun if you had monthly expenditures based on how many craft you had operating, and higher cost for manned missions especially. In addition, my thought is that you would have monthly income as well, much like a government funds their space programs, and that funding would be based on reputation, and reputation would suffer if you don't make new discoveries over time. You would have to strike a balance between contracts that pay one-time money, contracts that put you in a position to get more science (to progress the tech tree), and missions that are high on reputation (like getting cool photographs of distant planets, and astronaut selfies against alien backgrounds).  The point of this would be to make time warping have consequences, so you can't just load experiments into the Mobile Processing Lab and time warp for infinite science points at no cost. And you can't just time warp whenever to get a new set of contracts in the mission control building if you don't see anything you like. Add in some basic life support akin to the Snacks mod and time warping *really* has consequences.

But again back to Breaking Ground, it's another in a long line of incremental improvements. I have to admit, I like career mode today much, much more than I liked it in 1.0. Its biggest problems aren't completely fixed, but when you add up all those incremental improvements, you look back and see KSP has actually come a long way.

[Fraktal]

16 minutes ago, Xavven said:

What it doesn't fix, however, is the tech tree making little sense, and the buildings having some arbitrary limitations. The tech tree's problem is that parts that have to work together, like engines and bigger tanks of the correct diameter for those engines, and adapters that transition between tank sizes, are sometimes scattered across different nodes. This means that to make a rocket that doesn't look stupid, you have to get ALL of those nodes to effectively build the next rocket size.

Don't forget the mismatch between the tech level of fuel tank sizes and corresponding structural parts. Like, why do we get FLT-to-Rockomax adaptors a full tier before the first Rockomax tanks/engines? You don't have anything to attach to it, short of using radially attached girder parts to turn it into a budget engine plate for FL-T engines. Which is a waste of part count because, again, you don't actually have sufficiently large fuel tanks to keep that engine cluster going for long and you're hitting diminishing returns for the FL-T series by this point.

Quote

This removes the sense of making strategic choices. The buildings have some good limitations, but also some silly ones. For example, I like that the launch pad has a weight limit. That makes sense. The VAB should have a height limit too since, y'know, it has to have a ceiling. But I've always taken issue with the VAB having a part limit, especially that 30 part limit at the start of career. Like what, your *building* isn't advanced enough for your workers to weld on another communication antenna? C'mon...

Actually, I found that the level 1 limitations of 30 parts @ 18 tons max is enough for any orbital flight in Kerbin's SOI that does not involve landing or returning from a high-inclination orbit anywhere other than Kerbin, as long as you don't overengineer things.

At the same time, I feel the level 2 limitations are set waaay too high. Especially the part count.

[Corw]

8 hours ago, Fraktal said:

Actually, I found that the level 1 limitations of 30 parts @ 18 tons max is enough for any orbital flight in Kerbin's SOI that does not involve landing or returning from a high-inclination orbit anywhere other than Kerbin, as long as you don't overengineer things.

At the same time, I feel the level 2 limitations are set waaay too high. Especially the part count.

The part count limitation is not the obvious one, but it can really break immersion. Like when you have to trade nosecone on the side booster for solar panel or something and you end up with broken/stupid looking rocket to have it actually perform. Engine and a nosecone having same vale in part count? Really? Batteries, nosecones, antennas, fins, struts and alike and science equipment should just be excluded from part count.

[Superfluous J]

20 minutes ago, Corw said:

The part count limitation is not the obvious one, but it can really break immersion. Like when you have to trade nosecone on the side booster for solar panel or something and you end up with broken/stupid looking rocket to have it actually perform. Engine and a nosecone having same vale in part count? Really? Batteries, nosecones, antennas, fins, struts and alike and science equipment should just be excluded from part count.

Yeah why can you add a massive fuel tank but not 2 thermometers?

I always thought VAB should affect craft size and Launchpad should affect mass. Period.

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

I always thought VAB should affect craft size and Launchpad should affect mass. Period.

Well, at least there's a mod for that, in the absence of stock changes

[Corw]

2 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Well, at least there's a mod for that, in the absence of stock changes

Oh? Link please.

[Superfluous J]

6 minutes ago, Corw said:

Oh? Link please.

 

[Kerbart]

13 hours ago, Xavven said:

In light of the Breaking Ground DLC announcement today, it looks like career mode may be incrementally improved. We'll see once we get a chance to play on May 30th, but from what I'm reading, having more interesting places to visit and long term science experiments sound fun. The robotics addition will make building ground bases easier, as well as transporter-erector-launchers.

But unless I'm mistaken, the new science instruments, experiments and planetary features are only offered by the DLC. Which means basic career mode cannot fundamentally change.

13 hours ago, Xavven said:

(...)

But again back to Breaking Ground, it's another in a long line of incremental improvements. I have to admit, I like career mode today much, much more than I liked it in 1.0. Its biggest problems aren't completely fixed, but when you add up all those incremental improvements, you look back and see KSP has actually come a long way.

Something a lot of us forget! The game has indeed come a long way and it's great to see that, after all these years, it's still improving.

[Pthigrivi]

I'm out of likes today but lots of good thoughts all around. Its true things have gotten a lot better and I hope we keep getting improvements small and large over time. Removing the part count restriction in the VAB seems like low-hanging fruit. Another big improvement I'd love to see would be putting the milestone missions up front and center in Mission Control so players could see they exist and understand that the generative missions are optional. Time based mechanics have been bandied about quite a bit over the years. They're tricky, but certainly doable. The tech tree could use a good pass too. There are some real headscratchers there. I do also think it's worth putting in an earlier branch to planes and probes. I took a crack at it last year which you can see here if you're the squinting type:

[Aeroboi]

@Pthigrivi I know you optimized the tech tree for early aircraft, but as I was pondering the first node something reminded me I always wanted to say.

Why is it that the "Girder segment" is one of the first parts unlocked?

I know creativity sparks wonders and I'll be rightfully corrected for it's uses. But how does a girder segment function on a early mk1 LF/O rocket, anyone?
Maybe also place the girder segment on another node.

Furthermore, I always wondered why there isn't a stock tech tree plugin whereby Squad makes their own and incorporates a variety of known tech trees that is suited for most players.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Aeroboi

[Pthigrivi]

10 minutes ago, Aeroboi said:

@Pthigrivi I know you optimized the tech tree for early aircraft, but as I was pondering the first node something reminded me I always wanted to say.

Why is it that the "Girder segment" is one of the first parts unlocked?

I know creativity sparks wonders and I'll be rightfully corrected for it's uses. But how does a girder segment function on a early mk1 LF/O rocket, anyone?

Thats a good point! I think at the time it seemed like a way to give first-time players some more creative initial options, but we can already radially attach boosters and most folks are pushing past that node after the first flight anyway. It should probably get moved to that first "Stability" node.

Does anyone know if Yonge tech is still working? I should dig back in and do some tweaking. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Pthigrivi

[Xavven]

2 hours ago, Aeroboi said:

Why is it that the "Girder segment" is one of the first parts unlocked? 

On the one hand it is not a good choice for brand new players. It's a part that I think confuses a newbie and they should have a very limited selection that guides them down the path of building their first rocket that easily works.

 

On the other hand, for advanced players, I really like having that girder segment early on, because my first rocket launch in career mode is always a hover test, and I build "landing gear" out of the girders so I can pick up off the ground, hover a few seconds, then set her down (and not on her engine bell!).

[Fraktal]

And for your very first solid-fuel rocket, it can be used as a crude decoupler. Firing an RT-5 directly into it overheats and destroys the girder in less than a second even at 20% power, allowing multistage rockets even before you unlock the actual decoupler part. One such design I whipped up consists of six RT-5s on the first stage, then a girder, then a single RT-5 on the second stage set to 20% power. It can reach nearly 40 km altitude, but of course is very hard to control on the way down and cannot slow down to parachute release speed merely by flying retrograde.

Of course, you won't be able to decouple the last booster this way, unless you waste weight on mounting an RT-5 upside down.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Fraktal

[Aeroboi]

11 hours ago, Fraktal said:

And for your very first solid-fuel rocket, it can be used as a crude decoupler. Firing an RT-5 directly into it overheats and destroys the girder in less than a second even at 20% power, allowing multistage rockets even before you unlock the actual decoupler part. One such design I whipped up consists of six RT-5s on the first stage, then a girder, then a single RT-5 on the second stage set to 20% power. It can reach nearly 40 km altitude, but of course is very hard to control on the way down and cannot slow down to parachute release speed merely by flying retrograde.

Of course, you won't be able to decouple the last booster this way, unless you waste weight on mounting an RT-5 upside down.

AFAIK the RT-5 booster get's destroyed on impact and the command pod usually survives because the first part took all the impact so the 2nd part survives. Using a 2nd RT-5 to knock of the last stage then seems kind of pointless.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Aeroboi

[Fraktal]

The problem is that the configuration I described above hits the ground at supersonic speed regardless of whether it falls prograde or retrograde. Only if I struggle against aero forces to make it fall sideways will it slow down to the point where the parachute releases, but even then not always - and even doing this is damn hard, as a Mk1 pod with an RT-5 attached to it has no attitude control whatsoever once it picks up speed.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Fraktal

[Vakarian]

It would be nice if we got added plantbased experiments like China is planning on the moon (a small 50x50cm greenhouse with small plants in it) or foldable and deployable builings which can fit in a service bay the size of the largest tuel tank. Or a 3d printer as experimental tech.

 

All with the idea of colonizing other planets with kerbals. Isnt that far of a stretch is it? 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Vakarian

[Fraktal]

On 5/7/2019 at 12:23 AM, Fraktal said:

I found that the level 1 limitations of 30 parts @ 18 tons max is enough [...] as long as you don't overengineer things.

I wanted to amend this statement with one situation where 30 parts as starter limitation feels too restrictive: plane design. I've ran into situations when designing early-game planes where I was forced to compromise between payload part count and control surface count in order to stay within 30 parts.

The absolute minimalist starter plane design, without payload:

• Mk1 Cockpit - 1 part
• 2x any wing - 2 parts
• Vertical tailfin - 1 part
• 2x horizontal tailfin or canard - 2 parts
• 2x Juno - 2 parts
• 2x Mk0 LF tank - 2 parts
• 2x Small Circular Intake - 2 parts
• 3x any landing gear - 3 parts
• 2x parachute because the starter landing gear is pretty much useless at actually landing - 2 parts
• 1x Structural Fuselage OR Mk1 LF tank to mount the wings and engines onto - 1 part
• 1x nosecone to close off the main body's rear attachment node for aerodynamic purposes - 1 part
• 4x Elevon 1, if I'm not using the FAT wing - 4 parts

That's 23 parts, leaving 7 parts for the payload. If said payload is just a Crew Cabin, there's no problem. But if I'm building a plane for gathering science from the polar biomes and would prefer not having to make repeat trips due to how long it takes even at 4x physical time warp, 7 parts is a bit short:

• Service bay - 1 part
• Thermometer - 1 part
• Barometer - 1 part
• 3x goo canisters - 3 parts
• 3x materials bays - 3 parts

That's 9 parts, 2 parts too many for the level 1 SPH limit of 30, forcing me to ditch the Elevons and rely entirely on the tailfins for attitude control.

[AngrybobH]

2 hours ago, Fraktal said:

• 3x goo canisters - 3 parts
• 3x materials bays - 3 parts

I wrote a MM script for this (and other) purpose. It gives all crewed parts the science container ability, which I feel they should all have, and saves a part or 2. With that I can just bring 1x goo and 1x mat bay. The only tricky thing is landing to let Bob out to reset them.

My biggest problem with the 30 parts is getting to orbit but once I get the first VAB upgrade I never notice a part restriction. I'd love to see an entire revamp of career mode. It could be my favorite mode because restrictions inspire innovation and feelings of accomplishment.

[Kryten 2X4B 523P]

4 hours ago, Fraktal said:

I wanted to amend this statement with one situation where 30 parts as starter limitation feels too restrictive: plane design. I've ran into situations when designing early-game planes where I was forced to compromise between payload part count and control surface count in order to stay within 30 parts.

The absolute minimalist starter plane design, without payload:

• Mk1 Cockpit - 1 part
• 2x any wing - 2 parts
• Vertical tailfin - 1 part
• 2x horizontal tailfin or canard - 2 parts
• 2x Juno - 2 parts
• 2x Mk0 LF tank - 2 parts
• 2x Small Circular Intake - 2 parts
• 3x any landing gear - 3 parts
• 2x parachute because the starter landing gear is pretty much useless at actually landing - 2 parts
• 1x Structural Fuselage OR Mk1 LF tank to mount the wings and engines onto - 1 part
• 1x nosecone to close off the main body's rear attachment node for aerodynamic purposes - 1 part
• 4x Elevon 1, if I'm not using the FAT wing - 4 parts

That's 23 parts, leaving 7 parts for the payload. If said payload is just a Crew Cabin, there's no problem. But if I'm building a plane for gathering science from the polar biomes and would prefer not having to make repeat trips due to how long it takes even at 4x physical time warp, 7 parts is a bit short:

• Service bay - 1 part
• Thermometer - 1 part
• Barometer - 1 part
• 3x goo canisters - 3 parts
• 3x materials bays - 3 parts

That's 9 parts, 2 parts too many for the level 1 SPH limit of 30, forcing me to ditch the Elevons and rely entirely on the tailfins for attitude control.

Going disagree somewhat on this - perfectly feasible to do the kind of plane you describe with 27 parts (no chutes) and a little creativity, as per screenshot. No part clipping, service bay, structural fuselage or LFO Mk 1 needed.

Barometer and Thermometer are mounted on the nose. Twin Juno (one intake) , 3x LF Mk 0 tanks, 3x mat bays and 3x mystery goo, uses the LF tanks as the tail boom, no elevons (tail plane at rear does pitch, tail planes mounted on wingtips give roll and extra lift)  Weighs in at 4.9T, ugly as sin though.

The only real limiting factor is the starter landing gear, 4.9T is really pushing it for these, and landing has to be gentle (ideally sub 60m/s) and on gentle terrain. Doable though as long as you have a decent lift / mass ratio (I aim for 1.5 lift per ton minimum for small planes), took a quick flight and landed this on the other side of the mountains by KSC. Other things to make sure of are making sure control surfaces are set to single authority and between 15 - 25 value (pitch / yaw / roll), and wheels are set dead straight and level.

Imho, the LF Mk 1 tank needs to be moved to a later node, its way too heavy for the starter plane stuff unless you add multiple landing gear over the usual 3, increasing part count. 

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Kryten 2X4B 523P

[Fraktal]

1 hour ago, Kryten 2X4B 523P said:

ideally sub 60m/s

There's the problem. I'm incapable of landing with anything less than ~160 m/s if I don't have airbrakes (and you don't get those until tech level 6). Wheel brakes are nowhere near enough and make me veer to the side and tip over, braking chutes are just plain insufficient.