Career Mode

[jjansen]

Forced restrictions drive innovation.

This is why most of us who play Career (half the player base, by the way. I ran polls.) preferred it: in science and sandbox, you can build without regard to part count, mass or size.

Career, especially with low-level facilities, forced you to do more with less, to find innovative solutions to difficult problems, without the ability to "just add more boosters."

 

The roadmap we've all seen by now does not include an entry for Career or any of its components. Nor does the faq on the website, or any media have any hint of part cost.

 

KSP2 deserves Career mode.

Edited November 7, 2022 by jjansen
typo

[Guest]

I think a lot of that is going to be taken up by the tech tree progression and, as has already been stated, orbital construction will be required for truly massive interstellar craft. It would be cool if the space center upgrades were folded into the tech tree, that might even allow a more complex series of requirements on unlocks rather than simply spending cash willy-nilly.

IMO KSP2 doesn't need a procedural mission generator with cash rewards for dumb stuff like doing a tour or rescuing stranded kerbals (and getting a free kerbal + cash). Instead it should have more organic goals implied by what's available in-universe and in the build screen, like science mode only with more depth.

[The Aziz]

The only (pretty eh to begin with) limitation in career mode is money, which, after a bunch of repeated rescue, testing, worlds first etc missions, stops being a problem. And after you're done with the tech tree, which can take very little time, science isn't a problem either - you effectively end up in sandbox with contracts and R&D building open.

KSP2 will have adventure mode, and while not much detail is known about it, you can be sure there will be one interesting restriction: resources. Can't build your off world colony without materials you have to either bring or extract. And you won't be able to launch new rockets from new colony until you build a new VAB. And your parts have to be made of something, including the fuel. How's that for a limitation?

Also

16 minutes ago, jjansen said:

half the player base, by the way. I ran polls.

most of the player base never reached further than the Mun. What was your statistical population?

[Domonian]

Given the whole thing about resources, money would really only apply to Kerbin-side outposts, so career mode isn't really suitable for KSP2. And as Aziz said, most of the playerbase has never gone further than the Mun (or Minmus, in my case). While I like career mode, it's no longer necessary thanks to the new resource and colony system. Money would be a resource used for the first 1% of any playthrough, and then never again. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Domonian

[jjansen]

39 minutes ago, Domonian said:

Given the whole thing about resources, money would really only apply to Kerbin-side outposts, so career mode isn't really suitable for KSP2. And as Aziz said, most of the playerbase has never gone further than the Mun (or Minmus, in my case). While I like career mode, it's no longer necessary thanks to the new resource and colony system. Money would be a resource used for the first 1% of any playthrough, and then never again. 

It's sad to see how many people only see "Career" as "Funds".

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, jjansen said:

It's sad to see how many people only see "Career" as "Funds".

Aside from the dumb procedural missions and space center upgrades, that's all it was.

We can get space center upgrades (and thus, limits) by leveraging the tech tree. Resource gathering and supply lines can replace other goals in your quest to go interstellar. Missions can be replaced by natural goals like scanning sats, colony building, orbital infrastructure, supply issues, and going interstellar.

"Career" mode isn't needed, we just need a more robust science mode.

[jjansen]

32 minutes ago, regex said:

Aside from the dumb procedural missions and space center upgrades, that's all it was.

We can get space center upgrades (and thus, limits) by leveraging the tech tree. Resource gathering and supply lines can replace other goals in your quest to go interstellar. Missions can be replaced by natural goals like scanning sats, colony building, orbital infrastructure, supply issues, and going interstellar.

"Career" mode isn't needed, we just need a more robust science mode.

Sad indeed.

[Dragorans]

Saying KSP2 shouldn't have a career mode is like being dumb (I'm out of ideas)

 

 

An unlikely but interesting addition would be something like a concurrent program.  Something like another space program, which competes with yours to reach another star, for example. It probably wouldn't be easy to make this work in a good way, but if it did, imagine?

Something like NASA vs Roscosmos in the cold war, with cooperative missions being possible between the programs

Or in multiplayer mode, your space program Vs your friend's one.

 

Especially the last option, imagine how amazing it would be?

 

 

[Vl3d]

15 hours ago, jjansen said:

Forced restrictions drive innovation.

100% agree. Career Mode is flawed because of the grind, but at least it gives you progression beyond the science points system, design incentives and reasons to be creative. I just don't like strapping X boosters to a rocket with no regard for resources to have it be as just powerful as more advanced propulsion tech.

That being said, I think replacing funds with material resources is a good idea, it forces us to design efficiently using what we can gather. I think we should also gather resources on Kerbin, but that should be play tested.

As for the contracts, these are useless as long as we have clear exploration milestones, as long as we have to find and exploit resources, as long as there are interesting anomalies to discover, as long as the tech tree nodes are linked to the knowledge gained from different types of experiments instead of abstract science points.

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Vl3d

[Pthigrivi]

14 hours ago, jjansen said:

It's sad to see how many people only see "Career" as "Funds".

I think thats because it's the main thing separating it from the other modes. Im not fundamentally against money in KSP2 but  it does tend to create the potential for failure states. There are other solutions though. Early on Nate mentioned that they're eyeing tighter size and mass limits early on in progression which would encourage players to be more economical. If building upgrades cost science instead of money then you might prefer to invest in researching new parts so you could make a better rocket rather than increasing the size of your VAB to make a bigger rocket, or vice versa. You could also have parts on Kerbin cost resources rather than money to keep things consistent throughout the game. All it would require is a built-in resource factory at KSC that loads up fuel and raw materials over time and could be upgraded with science to produce new fuels or increase production rate and capacity. This would eliminate failure states and could create some interesting dynamics related to time and the cost/benefit of off-world production. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Caerfinon]

As a writer of contract mods I have no issue if there isn't a "career mode" in KSP2 per say, but I would like there to be a game play element that allowed the design of a mission framework to accomplish player written goals that could be distributed to other player's games or be integrated into multiplayer.

A way to codify challenges. A way to tell stories. A way to embark on actions not considered in the stock game.    

[Vl3d]

2 hours ago, Caerfinon said:

I would like there to be a game play element that allowed the design of a mission framework to accomplish player written goals that could be distributed to other player's games or be integrated into multiplayer.

A way to codify challenges. A way to tell stories. A way to embark on actions not considered in the stock game.

Quote

...with inter-agency contracts and trade

• Each agency can have 1-4 co-op players, you can build / fly / do missions together.
• Space agencies can also do contracts for other space agencies.
• Space agencies can collaborate with each other on huge projects.

Intercept has a MMO economy expert in the software engineering team that worked on Rift, UpperDeckU (card trading game), casino-type multiplayer games.

"Computer game designer and developer specializing in online games. Extensive background in MMOG development, including AAA titles..."

 

[darthgently]

19 hours ago, The Aziz said:

most of the player base never reached further than the Mun. What was your statistical population?

I imagine that at minimum the poll self selected to some degree by people who tend to do polls and further by whether the person found an option that matches their preference.  I view a lot of polls online but typically don't bother voting if none of the options makes sense to me

[jjansen]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

I imagine that at minimum the poll self selected to some degree by people who tend to do polls and further by whether the person found an option that matches their preference.  I view a lot of polls online but typically don't bother voting if none of the options makes sense to me

Yeah, I'm not going to interact with that guy; he clearly wouldn't accept any sample base or size at all because he already has a very clear opinion on the lack of Career Mode.

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, jjansen said:

Yeah, I'm not going to interact with that guy; he clearly wouldn't accept any sample base or size at all because he already has a very clear opinion on the lack of Career Mode.

It is actually true that most KSP game owners never get past the Mun.  I was pointing out why your poll may have been skewed, not disagreeing with Aziz

[jjansen]

On 11/8/2022 at 5:14 PM, darthgently said:

It is actually true that most KSP game owners never get past the Mun.  I was pointing out why your poll may have been skewed, not disagreeing with Aziz

You know what I don't get: why you think something half the game owners do or don't do matters.

You know what else most game owners never do? Come back from a launch. Use the runway. Literally anything else in the game except use the launch pad.

I'm talking about a feature that most of the people who know the game, play it for more than a few hours, and are interested in the sequel, would also want.

 

You know, the people who are KSP2's actual audience.

 

You and Aziz would run KSP like Elon runs Twitter if they gave you the chance.

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by jjansen
specified game owners

[darthgently]

8 minutes ago, jjansen said:

You know what I don't get: why you think something half the game owners do or don't do matters.

You know what else most game owners never do? Come back from a launch. Use the runway. Literally anything else in the game except use the launch pad.

I'm talking about a feature that most of the people who know the game, play it for more than a few hours, and are interested in the sequel, would also want.

 

You know, the people who are KSP2's actual audience.

 

You and Aziz would run KSP like Elon runs Twitter if they gave you the chance.

 

Yep. I got that.  I was just pointing out why your poll was likely skewed, nothing more nor less.  Certainly didn't come here for an argument

[The Aziz]

37 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

This is roughly how it works in Surviving Mars.

You need funds to receive things from Earth. You make the funds by digging up a vaguely named "rare metals" and sending them home. And that's it. I don't need money for operations on Mars. Every single type of resource aside from money is available on the map.

Once I'm on Debdeb or further out, I'm independent from Kerbin, because I'm not waiting years to receive some methalox.

And if some resources are unavailable in one location, I can just set up a base in a place where they are present and just send them where they're needed.

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

KSP was good at simulating spaceflight realistically but the game isn't entirely that, it's a "space program" simulator. So there is potential to simulate space programs more realistically and in a fun way that teaches people about the industry. Maybe I would like to design a Mun lander and get someone else to make the launcher that puts it into orbit, this is similar to how the aerospace industry works. One player can be like NASA, another like SpaceX, another like Roscosmos, etc.

This might actually be a strong reason why you would not want an in-game currency like money that can be transferred from player to player, because purchasing in game items and other players' time could create a series of ethical issues like gold farming, unbalanced power dynamics, contract disputes, etc. It's much better if interplayer trade is purely informal and between friends who already know and trust each other. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[RKunze]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

This might actually be a strong reason why you would not want an in-game currency like money that can be transferred from player to player, because purchasing in game items and other players' time could create a series of ethical issues like gold farming, unbalanced power dynamics, contract disputes, etc. It's much better if interplayer trade is purely informal and between friends who already know and trust each other. 

I can see that for a game where in-game currency can be easily converted to real money, or where there are (artificially) rare items that can either be purchased with in-game currency or have to be farmed (usually involving horrendous grind). Basically, the kind of game that is designed to get players to spend real money to purchase in-game stuff.

But for KSP? Not really. The in-game currency only buys the same, standard in-game parts for everyone, it buys absolutely nothing in real life, and you can't easily buy it with real money. And you can always get enough in-game currency for your own in-game needs by simply accepting the contracts offered to by the system.

So, the only incentive for any player to accept a contract from another player is that this contract is better (read: more fun) than a contract offered by the system. And I don't see any ethical problems with that...

Edited November 11, 2022 by RKunze

[Pthigrivi]

5 minutes ago, RKunze said:

But for KSP? Not really.

Maybe, but Laikanaut is talking about purchasing other players' time, which is a stickier wicket than folks might realize on the surface, especially if it spawns a black market and gold farming the in-game currency. You've in some ways turned other players into your employees... which is... kinda gross? I just think making KSP a transactional environment in that way is a bit dangerous, and probably makes the game much less enjoyable. If players are contributing to a mutual project it should be out of a sense of shared goals and mutual involvement, not because they are being paid, whether in a real or imaginary currency. 

[RKunze]

6 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Maybe, but Laikanaut is talking about purchasing other players' time

No. Because there is absolutely nothing that incentivices this other player to spend that time in-game except that they want to spend the time.

9 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

especially if it spawns a black market and gold farming the in-game currency.

And how exactly should that work?  How would you use an in-game currency that is absolutely worthless in real life to force another player to do things for you that they don't want to do anyway?

Especially when they can always simply accept contracts from the system to get in game currency. Or - if those are also too boring and grindy - simply quit playing.

[Ember12]

40 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Maybe, but Laikanaut is talking about purchasing other players' time, which is a stickier wicket than folks might realize on the surface, especially if it spawns a black market and gold farming the in-game currency. You've in some ways turned other players into your employees... which is... kinda gross? I just think making KSP a transactional environment in that way is a bit dangerous, and probably makes the game much less enjoyable.

In practice this might be hard to prevent.  There's nothing stopping someone from saying "If you launch my probe to Jool then I'll land 10 units of uranium at your Mun base."  I totally agree that this sort of exchange has the potential to turn foul, but I don't see a good way to police or prevent it: no computer program can tell if things are getting ethically murky, and preventing this outright would make any joint mission much harder.

[t_v]

2 hours ago, RKunze said:

And how exactly should that work?  How would you use an in-game currency that is absolutely worthless in real life to force another player to do things for you that they don't want to do anyway?

In-game rewards have a pretty similar effect to real life rewards. People get heavily invested in their games and will treat in-game success the same way as real-life success, to varying extents. The idea is that a system that relies on contracts between players cuts out the verbal communication part and only includes the actual work/reward part causes people to be more competitive and less collaborative. No matter what interaction that has to do with resources, one or both people are giving up time and resources, and people benefit from the arrangement. Usually, when I’m collaborating with someone, I have resources, they have time, and we agree to share those resources if they utilize them in a useful way, or vice versa. But despite the interaction being functionally the same, the added element of conversation and the spirit in which the interaction was made really changed the experience. 

[Pthigrivi]

15 minutes ago, RKunze said:

No. Because there is absolutely nothing that incentivices this other player to spend that time in-game except that they want to spend the time.

And how exactly should that work?  How would you use an in-game currency that is absolutely worthless in real life to force another player to do things for you that they don't want to do anyway?

Especially when they can always simply accept contracts from the system to get in game currency. Or - if those are also too boring and grindy - simply quit playing.

There are a LOT of games that have fostered exchanges for selling in-game currency for real currency. I wouldn’t underestimate the creative ways folks find to abuse systems. 
 

19 minutes ago, Ember12 said:

In practice this might be hard to prevent.  There's nothing stopping someone from saying "If you launch my probe to Jool then I'll land 10 units of uranium at your Mun base."  I totally agree that this sort of exchange has the potential to turn foul, but I don't see a good way to police or prevent it: no computer program can tell if things are getting ethically murky, and preventing this outright would make any joint mission much harder.

Exactly, I think this kind of simple bartering is probably fine and much harder to abuse and much less problematic. I think that kind of thing is great. Its the fungibility of a central currency that takes it out of simple 1 to 1 barter-like trades and makes hoarding and easy conversion to real-world money possible.